HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-10-29Clar*wn
Electronic Council Communications Information
Package
Date: October 29, 2021
Time: 12:00 PM
Alternate Format: If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the
Accessibility Coordinator, at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Members of Council: In accordance with the Procedural By-law, please advise the Municipal Clerk
at clerks@clarington.net, if you would like to include one of these items on the next regular agenda
of the appropriate Standing Committee, along with the proposed resolution for disposition of the
matter. Items will be added to the agenda if the Municipal Clerk is advised by Wednesday at noon
the week prior to the appropriate meeting, otherwise the item will be included on the agenda for the
next regularly scheduled meeting of the applicable Committee.
Electronic Council Communication Information Package (ECCIP)
October 29, 2021
Pages
1. Region of Durham Correspondence
1.1. Special Minutes of the Energy from Waste - Waste Management 3
Advisory Committee dated October 14, 2021
1.2. Report #2021 -INFO-1 09, Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee, 2021 7
Virtual Farm Tour, October 22, 2021
1.3. Free Menstrual Products at Region Facilities, October 27, 2021 12
1.4. Proposed Study of the Current Policy/Practice for Streetlighting on 14
Regional Roads (2021-W-36), October 27, 2021
1.5. Public Notice, Street Lighting and Temporary Traffic Signals, October 27, 56
2021
1.6. Notice of Adoption with Respect to Amendment #184 to the Durham 57
Regional Official Plan Section 17(23) of the Planning Act, October 29,
2021
2. Durham Municipalities Correspondence
3. Other Municipalities Correspondence
4. Provincial / Federal Government and their Agency Correspondence
4.1. Linda J. Laliberte, CAO/Secretary-Treasurer, Ganaraska Region 60
Conservation Authority, Regarding 2022 Preliminary Budget, October 22,
2021
5. Miscellaneous Correspondence
Page 2
If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2097.
The Regional Municipality of Durham
Minutes
Energy From Waste — Waste Management Advisory Committee
Thursday, October 14, 2021
A special meeting of the Energy From Waste — Waste Management Advisory
Committee was held on Thursday, October 14, 2021 in Council Chambers, Regional
Headquarters, 605 Rossland Road East, Whitby, at 7:02 PM. In accordance with
Provincial legislation, electronic participation was permitted for this meeting.
1. Roll Call
Present: G. Gordon, Whitby, Chair
W. Basztyk, Brock
V. Daram, Ajax
R. Fleming, Pickering
P. Haylock, Clarington, Vice -Chair attended the meeting at 7:10 PM
K. Meydam, Clarington
G. Rocoski, Oshawa attended the meeting at 7:10 PM
Absent: S. Elhajjeh, Clarington
J. Vinson, Clarington
Non -Voting Members
Present: Councillor Janice Jones, Local Councillor, Municipality of Clarington
L. Kwan, Environmental Specialist, Covanta
B. Marsden, Facility Manager, Covanta
Staff
Present: G. Anello, Director of Waste Management Services
R. Inacio, Systems Support Specialist — Information Technology
A. Porteous, Supervisor of Waste Services
S. Glover, Committee Clerk, Corporate Services — Legislative
Services
2. Declarations of Interest
There were no declarations of interest.
3. Administrative Matters
A) EFW-WMAC Comments on Durham Region's Long -Term Waste
Manaaement Plan (LTWMP) (2021-2040) Draft Taraets and Actions
Page 3
Special Energy from Waste — Waste Management Advisory Committee Minutes
October 14, 2021 Page 2 of 4
Detailed discussion ensued regarding adjustments to the Region's
battery and electronics collection programs, and potential issues if
recycling bins are changed to carts similar to those used in the City of
Toronto.
Further discussion ensued regarding waste collection at new multi -
residential developments. Staff advised that there is guidance in
regard to the road widths within new developments. If the road width
is not large enough for regional collection vehicles, that would mean
they would not receive service from the Region but would still be
obliged to obtain private services for the waste collection. Staff also
responded to questions regarding organics collection at multi -
residential buildings, and whether or not developers can be
encouraged or mandated to install under the sink garburators as a
possible solution to organics management. Comments were received
and retained by staff for consideration.
Moved by R. Fleming, Seconded by B. Bastzyk,
That the following EFW-WMAC comments on the Durham
Region's Long -Term Waste Management Plan (LTWMP)
(2020-2040) be approved and forwarded to staff for
consideration:
Battery Collection Containers:
Provision of a rectangular box resembling a 9-volt battery,
constructed of heavy cardboard or plastic instead of a bag to
potentially increase the quantity of batteries collected and
keep more batteries out of the regular garbage.
Electronic Item Collection:
• Inclusion of an annual electronic waste collection drive
whereby electronic waste would be set out by the resident on
a specific day for pick up from the curb for recycling, to
potentially reduce the amount of electronics that are placed in
the regular garbage.
Oraanics Manaaement in New Develoaments:
Under the collection mandate, encourage or mandate
developers to install under the sink garburators in new multi -
residential developments.
CARRIED
Page 4
Special Energy from Waste — Waste Management Advisory Committee Minutes
October 14, 2021 Page 3 of 4
B) EFW-WMAC Work Plan (2021-2022
Detailed discussion ensued regarding the proposed EFW-WMAC
Work Plan including partnering with local libraries to offer information
regarding backyard composting or indoor composting; conducting
individual research on various waste topics; optimization of the
Brock/Scugog Waste Transfer station; and how the EFW-WMAC
could assist with the long-term waste management plan.
G. Anello advised that staff will be hiring a consultant to look at
opportunities for the optimization of the Brock/Scugog Waste Transfer
Stations and will be bringing that forward to the EFW-WMAC for their
input.
In response to a question regarding Industrial, Commercial, and
Institutional (ICI) sector waste as it relates to organics, G. Anello
advised that organic waste from the ICI sector is not within the
Region's mandate, but that staff will be looking at organics
management in multi -residential units and single dwelling homes.
In response to a question from V. Daram regarding the volume of
propane bottles and ink cartridges that the Region collects in a year
and how those items can be recycled, G. Anello advised that staff are
looking to find an agency that will recycle those items, but that staff
would have to get back to V. Daram directly regarding the volume
collected.
Moved by R. Fleming, Seconded by K. Meydam,
That we recommend to the Works Committee for approval
and subsequent recommendation to Regional Council:
That the proposed 2021-2022 EFW-WMAC Work Plan be amended
as follows, and as amended, be approved:
Under the heading of Section 4. strike out "2021-2022 EFW-WMAC
Members and" so that Section 4 will now be titled "Workplan
Elements";
Delete all of Section 4.1 up to and including the heading "Workplan
Goals";
Under Section 5. Workplan Tasks, rename Item #2 from "Green Bin
Usage" to "Increased Organics Diversion";
Under Section 5 Workplan Tasks, add a new part ii. to Item #4 Waste
Pre -Sorting that reads, "Communication outreach for home -based
pre-sorting"; and
Page 5
Special Energy from Waste — Waste Management Advisory Committee Minutes
October 14, 2021 Page 4 of 4
Under Section 7. Community Outreach and Stewardship (potential
actions), add an additional bullet that reads, "For example -
composting, organics diversion, with a requirement to notify Works
staff beforehand".
CARRIED
4. Adjournment
Moved by K. Meydam, Seconded by R. Fleming,
That the meeting be adjourned.
CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 8:04 PM.
G. Gordon, Chair, Energy from Waste —
Waste Management Advisory Committee
S. Glover, Committee Clerk
Page 6
If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2564
The Regional Municipality of Durham
Information Report
From: Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development
Report: #2021-INFO-109
Date: October 22, 2021
Subject:
Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee, 2021 Virtual Farm Tour, File: A01-38-02
Recommendation:
Receive for Information
Report:
1. Purpose
1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the 19th annual Durham
Agricultural Advisory Committee (DAAC) farm tour event which was held virtually on
September 28, 2021.
2. Background
2.1 Since its inaugural tour in 2003, DAAC has showcased more than 40 farms and
other agricultural facilities across Durham Region to more than 1,500 participants.
2.2 Due to COVID-19, DAAC was again not able to offer an in -person farm tour
experience this year. However, this year's event presented a unique opportunity to
virtually experience the full growing season of a potato farm.
3. Previous Reports and Decisions
3.1 On September 25, 2020 Report #2020-INFO-85, provided an overview of the 2020
Virtual Farm Tour.
Page 7
Paae 2 of 5
3.2 #2021-P-2 Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee 2020 Annual Report and 2021
Workplan.
4. Event Overview
4.1 Over 126 participants representing municipal and provincial governments; public
agencies including conservation authorities, school boards, post -secondary
institutions; municipal advisory and economic development committees; the financial
and insurance industry; the agricultural community; and media attended the event
that premiered a video. The tour highlighted the importance of Durham's agricultural
sector, Durham's agricultural heritage, as well as some of the issues and challenges
faced by the industry.
4.2 The theme for this year's tour was "Cut, Grow, Harvest and Enjoy". A variety of
topics were covered including: growing, storing & selling potatoes, farm technology
and equipment, family farming, food security and the vertical integration of farming
operations.
4.3 The video for the tour this year has been made available online at
httDS://www.durham.ca/en/daac-farm-tour.aSDx This resource will continue to be
made available for public viewing. As of October 18, 2021, the video has been
viewed 114 times.
4.4 Regional Chair and CEO, John Henry welcomed attendees to the virtual event,
while a photo montage from previous tours was displayed. Chair Henry spoke
about:
• The important contributions of the agricultural industry in Durham;
• The many family farms that have been operational for over 100 years that
continue to be a part of the Region's identity and culture;
• How family farms have evolved over time and are leaders in providing high
quality food to the Region and province; and
• The hard work farmers have done to ensure access to fresh local products
during the COVID-19 pandemic.
4.5 DAAC Chair, Zac Cahoon presented history on the Committee and introduced the
farm being toured for this event. Mr. Cahoon spoke about:
• The importance of family farms and their long history in the Region;
• How DAAC again had to adapt this year's farm tour to a virtual video
format;
Page 8
Paae 3 of 5
• Vertical integration of farms in the Region;
• Progressive and forward -thinking farms in the Region which contribute to
their local communities, and economy;
• How farms are very innovative, self sufficient and take a variety of
approaches to use incorporate sustainable food production practices, while
mitigating the impacts to the environment; and
• The importance of the agri-food sector.
4.6 The virtual farm tour portion included an inside look into Smalley Produce Ltd which
owns and operates fields in both York and Durham Regions. Michael Smalley gave
participants a tour of his potato farming operation and provided the history of the
farm and his family's involvement in the agricultural business. Mr. Smalley also
provided information on: the vertical integration of his business; where his products
are sold; his warehouse operation including washing, storage and sorting; which
varieties of potatoes they grow and why; the science behind successful potato
growing; labour on the farm; automation of warehouse operations; farm equipment
for harvesting and planting; planning for the growing season; purchasing and
planting seed; preparing and maintaining the soil; the fertilizer and herbicides used
in the fields; testing on plants to ensure proper growing; and how and when the
potatoes are harvested.
5. Event Feedback
5.1 Each year, participants are asked to complete a survey that is used by DAAC to
evaluate the success of the tour and to help plan for future events. This year, an
electronic survey was distributed following the virtual farm tour. From the responses
received, almost all agreed that the tour met or exceeded their expectations. In
addition, almost half of the respondents had not attended an in -person farm tour
prior to this event. This suggests the virtual format is helping to reach a new
audience for the event. Some general comments were:
• It was an interesting session and I learned a lot about this particular type of
farming practice and the dedication farmers need to have to work in this
industry;
• This is an excellent initiative to educate people about the realities of
agriculture and re -introduce them to Ontario's food system;
• Great job in mediating the event and creating visuals to see how they
operate the farm;
• I'm glad that I attended the event and I'm going to keep my eyes open in
future to see if I'm eating Ontario potatoes;
Page 9
Paae 4 of 5
• Farmland should be protected from development;
• Very well done! Thank you for running the program this year;
• Great video and live Q & A component. Well done! thank you to Smalley's
and all others in the planning and execution to the final result; and
• It was a great tour. Thoroughly interesting and enjoyable.
5.2 Participants were asked what the "Take Home" message was for them. Responses
included:
• Farming is a large and important industry that needs to be supported;
• Ongoing challenges for farmers - automation, investment required,
resource challenges and work hours;
• Innovation in this sector is incredible;
• Vertical integration has allowed this family farm to thrive and maintain
quality;
• Farming is hard and vital to our survival. We need to support employment
on the farm;
• Farmers are educated risk takers with significant investments, a concern
for the environment and a care for their people;
• Just how delicate a potato is and how challenging of a crop it is;
• We have a first class food production system here in Durham (and the
GTA) but that it is heavily reliant on the supply chain. The ability to do
business locally (buy and sell) is paramount in navigating around
widespread supply chain problems and challenges;
• Agriculture/ farm businesses are complex and require dedicated,
knowledgeable entrepreneurs with the right tools and technology to be
successful; and
• There's a lot involved in farming and it's important to learn about the
process to sustain food availability, especially with climate change.
6. Relationship to Strategic Plan
6.1 This report aligns with/addresses the following strategic goals and priorities in the
Durham Region Strategic Plan:
a. Goal 3: Economic Prosperity: to build a strong and resilient economy that
maximizes opportunities for business and employment growth, innovation and
partnership:
• 3.1 Position Durham Region as the location of choice for business;
Page 10
Paae 5 of 5
• 3.2 Leverage Durham's prime geography, social infrastructure, and
strong partnerships to foster economic growth; and
• 3.5 Provide a supportive environment for agriculture and agri-food
industries.
7. Conclusion
7.1 DAAC is to be commended for its continued efforts in advancing the knowledge of
the agricultural industry in Durham, especially during COVID-19. The annual farm
tour continues to be an important part of the Council approved work plan for the
Committee.
7.2 A copy of this report will be forwarded to the Area Municipalities, the Durham
Federation of Agriculture, the Golden Horseshoe Food and Farming Alliance, and
DAAC.
Respectfully submitted,
Original signed by
Brian Bridgeman, MCIP, RPP
Commissioner of Planning and
Economic Development
Page 11
0
DURHAM
REGION_
The Regional
Municipality
of Durham
Corporate Services
Department
Legislative Services
605 Rossland Rd. E.
Level 1
PO Box 623
Whitby, ON L1 N 6A3
Canada
THIS LETTER HAS BEEN FORWARDED
TO THE EIGHT AREA CLERKS AND DURHAM MPPS
October 27, 2021
June Gallagher
Clerk
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, ON 11C 3A6
Dear Ms. Gallagher:
RE: Free Menstrual Products at Region Facilities, Our File: A00
Council of the Region of Durham, at its meeting held on October 27, 2021,
adopted the following resolution:
"Whereas according to the most recent Canada census data 51 % of
the population of Durham Region are women;
905-668-7711
1-800-372-1102
And Whereas the government of Ontario has taken a leadership
Fax: 905-668-9963
position and recently announced a province -wide initiative to
durham.ca
provide free menstrual products to every secondary school in
Ontario;
Don Beaton, BCom, M.P.A.
Commissioner of Corporate
Services
And Whereas "Period Poverty" where girls do not have access or
the resources for menstrual products exists in our community, and
this can interfere with their ability to take part in sports and or
activities;
And Whereas menstrual products are a necessity, not a luxury;
And Whereas access to free high -quality products is fundamentally
a human rights issue and crucial to the health, well being and
success of women who don't have access to these products;
And Whereas women's menstrual products are not currently freely
available in all public Region run facilities,
And Whereas the lack of feminine hygiene products has been
identified as a barrier to access for some women and girls;
Now therefore be it resolved:
That staff investigate the possibility and cost of adding
free menstrual products to all public Region facilities and add
this as a decision item for the 2022 Regional budget; and
If you require this information in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 extension 2097.
Page 12
Page 2 of 2
2. That a copy of this motion be shared with all Durham area
Municipalities, and Durham area MPPs."
2 cc.tPYv W a lt&vw
Ralph Walton,
Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative Services
RW/ks
Page 13
77EDD))
DURHAM
REGION_
The Regional
Municipality
of Durham
Corporate Services
Department
Legislative Services
605 Rossland Rd. E.
Level 1
PO Box 623
Whitby, ON L1 N 6A3
Canada
905-668-7711
1-800-372-1102
Fax:905-668-9963
durham.ca
Don Beaton, BCom, M.P.A.
Commissioner of Corporate
Services
THIS LETTER HAS BEEN FORWARDED
TO THE EIGHT AREA CLERKS
October 27, 2021
J. Gallagher
Clerk
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville ON L1 C 3A6
Dear June Gallagher:
RE: Proposed Study of the Current Policy/Practice for
Streetlighting on Regional Roads (2021-W-36), Our File:
T02
Council of the Region of Durham, at its meeting held on October 27, 2021,
adopted the following recommendations of the Works Committee:
"A) That the Draft Terms of Reference outlined in Report #2021-W-36
of the Commissioner of Works 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 to Report #2021-W-36) continue
to prevail until the proposed Consultant Study is completed and
any changes on a consensus basis are approved and
implemented".
Please find enclosed a copy of Report #2021-W-36 for your information.
As noted in the resolution please endorse the Draft Terms of Reference
outlined in Report #2021-W-36 no later than December 10, 2021.
1zatphl Watty-w
Ralph Walton,
Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative Services
RW/sg
c: S. Siopis, Commissioner of Works
If you require this information in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 extension 2097.
Page 14
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.
Page 15
Report #2021-W-36
2. Background
Paae2of8
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.
Page 16
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.
Page 17
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.
Page 18
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;
Page 19
Report #2021-W-36
Paae 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,
Page 20
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.
Page 21
Report #2021-W-36
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
Page 22
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.
Page 23
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.
Page 24
If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 3540.
The Regional Municipality of Durham
Information Report
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
Page 25
Paae 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
Westney
Harwood
Bayly
Transfer
31
Road
Avenue
Street
2.7
9.5
Urban
Candidate
Pickering/
Lake
Transfer
Local to
Rossland
Ajax
Ridge
Candidate
Regional
Road
Boundary
Road
7.2
14.3
Urban
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).
Page 26
Paae 3 of 8
Table 2: Brock — Road Transfer Candidates
Regional
Length
Lane
Urban/Rural
Preliminary
Road
Roads
From
To
km
km
Area
Recommendation
Shoreline
Simcoe/Durham
Transfer
47
Road
Mara Road
Boundary
2.1
4.3
Rural
Candidate
Portage
Highway
Regional
Transfer
50
Road
#12
Highway #48
4.3
8.8
Rural
Candidate
Talbot
Reg. Rd.
Simcoe/Durham
Transfer
51
Road
#50
Boundary
0.1
0.2
Rural
Candidate
Brock
Local to
Simcoe
Concession
Regional
Transfer
Regional
Street
#14
Highway #48
15.5
31
Rural
Candidate
Thorah
Local to
Concession
Highway
Transfer
Regional
Road 1
#12/48
Simcoe St.
6.8
13.7
Rural
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
Length
Lane
Urban/Rural
Preliminary
Road
Road
From
To
km
km
Area
Recommendation
Winter
Taunton
Transfer
17
Main Street
Road
Road
3
6.6
Urban
Candidate
Local to
Highway
Regional
Transfer
Regional
Holt Road
#401
Highway #2
3.2
6.3
Rural
Candidate
Page 27
Paae 4 of 8
Regional
Length
Lane
Urban/Rural
Preliminary
Road
Road
From
To
km
km
Area
Recommendation
Local to
Boundary
Highway
Highway
Transfer
Regional
Road
#35
#115
1.8
3.6
Rural
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).
Page 28
Paae 5 of 8
Table 4: Oshawa — Road Transfer Candidates
Regional
Road
From
To
Length
Lane
Urban/Rural
Preliminary
Road
(km)
km
Area
Recommendation
2
Simcoe St.
Harbour
Wentworth
1.0
3.6
Urban
Transfer
Road
Street
Candidate
Winchester
Road East/
Harmony
Columbus
Transfer
3
Grandview
Road
Road
2.6
5.7
Urban
Candidate
Street
North
35
Wilson
Bloor
Taunton
6.2
17.7
Urban
Transfer
Road.
Street
Road
Candidate
Boundary
Wentworth
Philip
Transfer
52
Road
Street W
Murray
0.9
2.5
Urban
Candidate
Avenue
54
Park Road
Bloor
Rossland
4.3
15.8
Urban
Transfer
Street
Road
Candidate
Harmony /
Local to
Columbus
Winchester
Grandview
2.6
5.2
Urban
Transfer
Regional
Road
Street
Candidate
Road
Local to
King Street
Oshawa/Whitby
Centre
Transfer
Regional
(West)
Street
2 7
.
113
Urban
Candidate
Boundary
Local to
Bond
Centre
Transfer
Regional
Street
King Street
Street
1.8
6.1
Urban
Candidate
West
Local to
King Street
RitsonRoad
Townline
Transfer
Regional
(East)
Road
3.4
.
143
Urban
Candidate
North
Local to
Bond
Ritson
King Street
Transfer
Regional
St.(East)
Road
East
1.7
4.8
Urban
Candidate
North
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.
Page 29
Paae 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
th
Ik
Lane
Urban/Rur
Preliminary
Road #
Road
From
To
km
al Area
Recommendation
Previously
y
North limit of
Brock
Reg. Rd. 1
Street
Street
Highway
Road
1.3
3.5
Urban
Transfer Candidate
#407
Regional
Lake
Previously
9th
Road 5 /
Ridge
0.1
0.2
Urban
Transfer Candidate
Reg. Rd. 5
Concession
Concession
Road
Road #9
Pickering/
24
Church
gayly Street
Ajax
0.9
2
Urban
Transfer Candidate
Street
Boundary
0.6 km South
38
Whites Road
of Oklahoma
Street
0.9
2.6
Urban
Transfer Candidate
Drive
Pickering/
West of
Local to
Third
Ajax
Valley
Regional
Concession
Boundary
Farm
1.7
3.4
Urban
Transfer Candidate
Road
Road
200m West
Local to
Whitevale
of Future
Brock
Regional
Road
Rossland
Road
1.7
3.4
Urban
Transfer Candidate
Road
Extension
Local to
Sideline 26
Taunton
Whitevale
2.1
4.1
Urban
Transfer Candidate
Regional
South
Road
Road
Local to
Sideline 26
Whitevale
Highway
-
-
Urban
Transfer Candidate
Regional
Middle
Road
#7
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.
Page 30
Paae 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
Length
Lane
Urban/Rural
Preliminary
Road #
Road
From
To
(km)
(km)
Area
Recommendation
Victoria
Street (old
0.7 km West of
0.4 km West of
Transfer
22
ali nment)
Thickson
Thickson Road
0.3
0.6
Urban
Candidate
Cochrane
Transfer
43
Street
Dundas Street
Rossland Road
2.1
6.1
Urban
Candidate'
Henry
Transfer
45
Street
Victoria Street
Burns Street W
1.2
3.3
Urban
Candidate'
Henry
Transfer
45
Street
Burns Street W
Dundas Street
0.9
2.6
Urban
Candidate'
Brock
Transfer
46
Street
Water Street
Victoria Street
1.0
2.7
Urban
Candidate'
Brock
South Limit of
Transfer
46
Street
Victoria Street
Highway #401
0.3
1.5
Urban
Candidate'
Lake
Ridge
Former
Road
Cresser
Transfer
23
North
Almond Avenue
Avenue
0.3
0.6
Urban
Candidate
Lake
Ridge
Former
Road
0.65 km N of
0.88 km N of
Transfer
23
South
Victoria Street
Victoria Street
0.2
0.6
Urban
Candidate3
Local to
Rossland
Lake Ridge
Cochrane
Transfer
Regional
Road
Road
Street
2.9
8.9
Urban
Candidate'
Local to
Dundas
Cochrane
Transfer
Regional
Street
Fother ill Court
Street
5.8
23.2
Urban
Candidate'
Whitby/
Local to
Dundas
Oshawa
Transfer
Regional
Street
Garden Street
Boundary
2.9
14.4
Urban
Candidate
' 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
Page 31
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
Page 32
If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 3540.
The Regional Municipality of Durham
Information Report
From:
Commissioner of Works
Report:
#2018-INFO-31
Date:
March 2. 2018
Subject:
Road Rationalization — Interim Report
Recommendation:
Receive for information.
Report:
1. Purpose
1.1 In January 2016, Regional Council authorized staff to retain a consultant to work
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
2.1 The Regional Municipality of Durham (Region) has been involved in road
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.
2.2 Since the WDW initiative a limited number of transfers have been successfully
completed.
Page 33
Paae 2 of 23
2.3 The 2016 Transportation Servicing and Financing Study (S&F) identified a
preliminary list of Regional and local roads as potential transfer candidates and
recommended the Study.
2.4 This report details the objectives, methodology and findings of the Study to date.
3. Study Methodology
3.1 The scope of the Study is outlined below:
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.
3.2 Guiding principles for the Study were established to define the limitations and
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.
3.3 Collaboration between the Region and LAMs provided regular opportunities for
discussion on the Study process, evaluation criteria, potential candidate roads for
transfer and draft Study findings.
Page 34
Paae 3 of 23
3.4 Table 1 summarizes the meetings with LAMs. Meetings were supplemented with
ongoing email and telephone communications.
Table 1: Consultation Overview
Local Area Municipality
Date
Purpose
Town of Ajax
21-Apr-16
Initial discussions
Discussion of preliminary
Town of Ajax
09-May-16
results
Township of Brock
05-May-16
Initial discussions
Discussion of preliminary
Township of Brock
17-May-16
results
Municipality of Clarington
27-Apr-16
Initial discussions
Municipality of Clarington
Discussion of preliminary
20-May-16
results
City of Oshawa
21-Apr-16
Initial discussions
City of Oshawa
Discussion of preliminary
10-May-1 6
results
City of Pickering
18-Apr-16
Initial discussions
City of Pickering
Discussion of preliminary
11-May-16
results
Township of Scugog
20-Apr-16
Initial discussions
Township of Scugog
Discussion of preliminary
17-Ma -16
results
Initial discussions.
Township of Uxbridge
20-Apr-16
Subsequently indicated no
further interest in transfers
Town of Whitby
26-Apr-16
Initial discussions
Town of Whitby
Discussion of preliminary
06-May-16
results
Page 35
Paae 4 of 23
3.5 An initial list of candidate roads for transfer from local to Regional jurisdiction and
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
3.7 The Region's Transportation Model was used to forecast future traffic volumes
and determine trip type attributed to the proposed road transfer candidates.
4. Criteria
4.1 The road rationalization process is supported by a set of criteria that describe the
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).
4.2 Draft evaluation criteria were shared with the LAMs to obtain comments and
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.
Page 36
Paae 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
Page 37
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
5.1 The product of the criteria evaluations resulted in a final overall score between 0
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.
Page 38
Page 7 of 23
5.2 The consultations with LAMs confirmed the need to distinguish road transfer
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).
5.3 The above criteria and thresholds capture the technical aspects of a road's
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
From
To
Length
Lane
Urban/Rural
Preliminary
Road #
(km)
(km)
Area
Recommendation
Westney
Harwood
Bayly
Transfer
31
Road
Avenue
Street
2.7
9.5
Urban
Candidate
Ajax/
Ajax/
Transfer
Local to
Rossland
Pickering
Whitby
Candidate
Regional
Road
Boundary
Boundary
7.2
14.3
Urban
Ajax/
No transfer,
Local to
Salem
Taunton
Pickering
reconsider in the
Regional
Road
Rd
Boundary
2.1
4.2
Urban
future
Page 39
Page 8 of 23
6.2 Region to Local Transfer
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.
6.3 Local To Region Transfer
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
7.1 Table 3 details the road transfer candidates and preliminary recommendations in
the Township of Brock based on the evaluation.
Table 3: Brock Township — Evaluation of Road Transfer Candidates
Regional
Length
Lane
Urban/Rural
Preliminary
Road
Roads
From
To
(km)
(km)
Area
Recommendation
Simcoe/
Shoreline
23-Mara
Durham
Transfer
47
Road
Road
Boundary
2.1
4.3
Rural
Candidate
76-
Portage
Highway
Highway
Transfer
50
Road
#12
#48
4.3
8.8
Rural
Candidate
Simcoe/
Old
50-Portage
Durham
Transfer
51
Highway 12
Road
Boundary
0.1
0.2
Rural
Candidate
Transfer
Brock
Regional
Candidate
Local to
Simcoe
Concession
Highway
Regional
Street
14
48
15.5
31
Rural
Local to
Thorah
Highway
Simcoe
Transfer
Regional
Concession
12/48
St.
6.8
13.7
Rural
Candidate
Page 40
Page 9 of 23
Regional
Length
Lane
Urban/Rural
Preliminary
Road
Roads
From
To
(km)
(km)
Area
Recommendation
1
Local to
River Road
Regional
I (extension)
I Highway 12
1 Highway 2
7.1
14.2
Rural
No transfer
7.2 Region To Local Transfer
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.
7.3 Local To Region Transfer
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.
Page 41
Paae 10 of 23
8. Municipality of Clarington — Road Transfer Candidates
8.1 Table 4 details the road transfer candidates and preliminary recommendations in
the Municipality of Clarington based on the evaluation.
Table 4: Clarington — Evaluation of Road Transfer Candidates
Regional
Length
Lane
Urban/Rural
Preliminary
Road
Road
From
To
(km)
(km)
Area
Recommendation
Main Street/
Manvers
Winter
04-Taunton
Transfer
17
Street
Road
Road
3
6.6
Urban
Candidate
No transfer,
Local to
Pebblestone
Townline
Courtice
reconsider in the
Regional
Road
Road
Road
2.9
5.7
Urban
future
Local to
Highway
Regional
Transfer
Regional
Holt Road
401
Highway 2
3.2
6.3
Rural
Candidate
No transfer,
Local to
King Street
Regional
reconsider in the
Regional
(Bowmanville)
Road 57
Haines St.
3.1
12.4
Urban
future
Local to
King Street
Baldwin
Regional
(Newcastle)
Street
Arthur St.
0.8
3.2
Urban
No transfer
Future
Darlington
Highway
No transfer,
Local to
Clarke
Taunton
407
reconsider in the
Regional
Townline (#2)
Road
Interchange
2.0
4.0
Rural
future
Local to
Boundary
Highway
Highway
Transfer
Regional
Road
35
115
1.8
3.6
Rural
Candidate
Local to
Taunton
Regional
Trulls Road
Road
Bloor St
6.4
12.8
Urban
No transfer
8.2 Region To Local Transfer
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.
Page 42
Page 11 of 23
8.3 Local To Region Transfer
• 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.
Page 43
Paae 12 of 23
9. City of Oshawa — Road Transfer Candidates
9.1 Table 5 details the road transfer candidates and preliminary recommendations in
the City of Oshawa based on the evaluation.
Table 5: Oshawa — Evaluation of Road Transfer Candidates
Regional
Road
From
To
Length
Lane
Urban/Rural
Preliminary
Road
(km)
(km)
Area
Recommendation
Harbour
60
2
Simcoe St.
Road
Wentworth
1.0
3.6
Urban
Transfer
Street
Candidate
Winchester
Road East/
33-
Columbus
Transfer
3
Grandview
Harmony
Road
2.6
5.7
Urban
Candidate
Street
Road
North
Road
60-
2Street r
No transfer,
16
Road
Wentworth
Street
0.8
3.6
Urban
reconsider in the
Street
future
35
Wilson
22-Bloor
Taunton
6.2
17.7
Urban
Transfer
Road.
Street
Road
Candidate
2Street r
28-
Transfer
54
Park Road
Street
Ros land
4.3
15.8
Urban
Candidate
Road
Champlain
Oshawa/
Stevenson
No transfer,
25
Avenue
Whitby
Road
1.3
2.6
Urban
reconsider in the
Boundary
future
Boundary
Wentworth
Philip
Transfer
52
Road
Street W
Murray
0.9
2.5
Urban
Candidate
Avenue
Townline
Gord
Transfer
55
Road
Vinson
Bloor Street
0.25
0.5
Urban
Candidate
South
Avenue
Local to
Harmony /
Winchester
Grandview
Transfer
Regional
Columbus
Road
Street
2.6
5.2
Urban
Candidate
Road
Local to
Adelaide
Oshawa/
Thornton
No transfer,
Regional
Avenue
Whitby
Road
0.01
0.1
Urban
reconsider in the
Boundary
future
Local to
Rossland
Harmony
300m East
03
09
Urban
No transfer,
Regional
Road
Road
of Harmon
..
reconsider in the
Page 44
Paae 13 of 23
Regional
Road
From
To
Length
Lane
Urban/Rural
Preliminary
Road
(km)
(km)
Area
Recommendation
Road
future
Local to
King Street
Oshawa/Whitby
Centre
Transfer
Regional
(West)
Street
2 7
.
113
Urban
Candidate
Boundary
Local to
Bond
Centre
Transfer
Regional
Street
King Street
Street
1.8
6.1
Urban
Candidate
West
Local to
King Street
Centre
Ritson
No transfer,
Regional
(Middle)
Street
Road North
1
4
Urban
reconsider in the
future
Local to
Bond
Centre
Ritson
No transfer,
Regional
Street
Street
Road North
1.1
4.1
Urban
reconsider in the
(Middle)
future
Local to
King Street
RitsonRoad
Townline
Transfer
Regional
(East)
Road
3.4
.
143
Urban
Candidate
North
Local to
Bond
Ritson
King Street
Transfer
Regional
St.(East)
Road
East
1.7
4.8
Urban
Candidate
North
Local to
Thornton
Taunton
Winchester
No transfer,
Regional
Road (new
Road
Road
4.2
8.4
Urban
reconsider in the
alignment)
future
9.2 Region To Local Transfers
• 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.
Page 45
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.
9.3 Local To Region Transfers
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.
Page 46
Paae 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
10.1 Table 6 details the road transfer candidates and preliminary recommendations in
the City of Pickering based on the evaluation.
Table 6: Pickering — Evaluation of Road Transfer Candidates
Regional
Length
Lane
Urban/Rur
Preliminary
Road #
Road
From
To
(km)
(km)
al Area
Recommendation
Previously
Mowbray
North Limit of
Brock
1.3
3.5
Urban
Transfer Candidate
RR1
Street
Highway 407
Road
9th
Concession
Lake
5
Concession
Road 9
Ridge
0.1
0.2
Urban
Transfer Candidate
Road
Ajax/
24
Church
22-Bayly
Pickering
0.9
2
Urban
Transfer Candidate
Street
Street
Boundary
Whites Road
0.6 km South
22-Bayly
38
(South)
of Oklahoma
Street
0.9
2.6
Urban
Transfer Candidate
Drive
300 m North
No transfer,
38
Whites Road
of Third
Taunton
1.3
4.4
Urban
reconsider in the
(North)
Concession
Road
future
Road
29
Liverpool Rd
Highway 2
Finch
Avenue
1.2
3.9
Urban
No transfer
Page 47
Page 16 of 23
Regional
Length
Lane
Urban/Rur
Preliminary
Road #
Road
From
To
(km)
(km)
al Area
Recommendation
Ajax/
West of
Local to
Third
Pickering
Valley
Regional
Concession
Boundary
Farm
1.7
3.4
Urban
Transfer Candidate
Road
Road
200m West
Local to
Whitevale
of Future
BrockBrock
Regional
Road
Road
1.7
3.4
Urban
Transfer Candidate
Road
Extension
Local to
Sideline 26
Taunton
Whitevale
2.1
4.1
Urban
Transfer Candidate
Regional
(South)
Road
Road
Local to
Sideline 26
Whitevale
Highway 7
-
-
Urban
Transfer Candidate
Regional
(Middle)
Road
Local to
Sideline 26
Highway 7
Concessio
2.2
4.4
Urban
No transfer
Regional
(North)
n Road 7
Local to
Seventh
Westney
Lake
No transfer,
Regional
Concession
Road
Ridge
4
8
Urban
reconsider in the
Rd. (East)
Road
future
Local to
Seventh
Brock
Regional
Concession
Sideline 26
Road
3.3
6.6
Urban
No transfer
Rd. (West)
Local to
Fifth
Seventh
No transfer,
Regional
Salem Road
Concession
Concessio
5.2
10.4
Urban
reconsider in the
Road
n Road
future
10.2 Region To Local Transfer
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.
9t" Concession (from 9t" Concession to Lake Ridge Road) —
Recommended for transfer to the City of Pickering. This short section is no
longer part of Regional Road 5.
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.
10.3 Local To Region Transfer
• 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.
Page 49
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
11.1 Table 7 details the road transfer candidates and preliminary recommendations in
the Township of Scugog based on the evaluation.
11.2 Table 7: Scuaoa — Evaluation of Road Transfer Candidates
Regional
Length
Lane
Urban/Rural
Preliminary
Road
Road
From
To
(km)
(km)
Area
Recommendation
Carnegie
Island
Highway
Beach
Transfer
7
Road
#7A
Road
11.6
24.1
Rural
Candidate
23-Lake
Local to
Scugog
Ridge
Simcoe
Regional
Line 12
Road
Street
13.4
26.8
Rural
No transfer
23-Lake
Local to
Scugog
Ridge
Highway
Regional
Line 14
1 Road
7/12
6.7
13.4
Rural
No transfer
Local to
Ashburn
Townline
Scugog
Regional
Road
Road
Line 4
5
10.1
Rural
No transfer
21-
LOcal to
Marsh
Scugog
Goodwood
Regional
Hill Road
Line 4
Road
1.1
2.3
Rural
No transfer
23-Lake
Local to
Scugog
Highway
Ridge
Regional
Line 6
1 7A
Road
9.6
19.2
Rural
No transfer
No transfer,
Local t0
Scugog
Highway
Simcoe
reconsider in the
Regional
Line 2
7/12
Street
3.6
7.2
Rural
future
11.3 Region To Local Transfers
• 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.
Page 50
Paae 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.
11.4 Local To Region Transfers
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
12.1 Table 8 details the road transfer candidates and preliminary recommendations in
the Town of Whitby based on the evaluation.
Table 8: Whitby — Evaluation of Road Transfer Candidates
Regional
Length
Lane
Urban/Rural
Preliminary
Road #
Road
From
To
(km)
(km)
Area
Recommendation
Victoria
0.4 km West of
Street (old
0.7 km West of
26-Thickson
Transfer
22
alignment)
26-Thickson
Road
0.3
0.6
Urban
Candidate
Cochrane
28-Rossland
Transfer
43
Street
Dundas Street
Road
2.1
6.1
Urban
Candidate
Henry
Street
22-Victoria
Transfer
45
South
Street
Burns Street W
1.2
3.3
Urban
Candidate
Henry
Street
Transfer
45
North
Burns Street W
Dundas Street
0.9
2.6
Urban
Candidate
Brock
Street
Transfer
46
South
Water Street
Victoria Street
1
2.7
Urban
Candidate
Brock
Street
South Limit of
Transfer
46
(North)
Victoria Street
Highway 401
0.3
1.5
Urban
Candidate
Lake Ridge
Road
Cresser
Transfer
Former 23
North
Almond Avenue
Avenue
0.3
0.6
Urban
Candidate
Page 51
20 of 23
Regional
Length
Lane
Urban/Rural
Preliminary
Road #
Road
From
To
(km)
(km)
Area
Recommendation
Lake Ridge
Road
0.65 km N of
0.880 km N of
Transfer
Former 23
(South)
Victoria Street
Victoria Street
0.2
0.6
Urban
Candidate
Anderson/
Hopkins
Consumers
36
Street
Rossland Road
Drive
3.7
13.7
Urban
No transfer
Thickson
26
Road
Victoria Street
Wentworth St
0.9
3.3
Urban
No transfer
Whitby/
Wentworth
Oshawa
60
Street
Thickson Road
Boundary
1.3
6
Urban
No transfer
Champlain
Future
Whitby/Oshawa
25
Avenue
Champlain Ave.
Boundary
1.3
3.1
Urban
No transfer
No transfer,
Manning
reconsider in the
58
Road
Brock Street
Garrard Road
3.5
16
Urban
future
Local to
Rossland
Ajax/Whitby
Cochrane
Transfer
Regional
Road
Boundary
Street
2.9
8.9
Urban
Candidate
Dundas
Local to
Street
Cochrane
Transfer
Re ional
West
Fother ill Court
Street
5.8
23.2
Urban
Candidate
Dundas
No transfer,
Local to
Street
reconsider in the
Regional
Middle
Cochrane Street
Garden Street
1.7
6.7
Urban
future
Dundas
Whitby/
Local to
Street
Oshawa
Transfer
Regional
East
Garden Street
Boundary
2.9
14.4
Urban
Candidate
Whitby/
No transfer,
Local to
Columbus
Whitby/Pickering
Oshawa
reconsider in the
Regional
Road
Boundary
Boundary
7.4
14.7
Urban
future
Hopkins
Street
(2031 road
No transfer,
Local to
extension
Consumers
North limit of
reconsider in the
Regional
scenario)
Drive
Highway 401
1 1.8
4
Urban
future
Page 52
Page 21 of 23
12.2 Region To Local Transfers
• 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 Whitby 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.
12.3 Local To Region Transfers
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:
Page 53
Paae 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
13.1 As noted earlier in this report, there were two rounds of meetings and ongoing
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.
13.2 Technical evaluations of road segments identified through discussions with the
LAMs using the criteria described earlier in this report have resulted in the list of
roads for potential transfer.
13.3 Several LAMs have expressed an interest in pursuing transfer opportunities for
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.
13.4 It is recognized that the timing of potential transfers could be influenced by
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.
13.5 It is anticipated that each LAM will review and respond with comments, specific to
the preliminary recommendations for each of the road segments identified in the
report to allow for focus on early transfer opportunities for transfers.
13.6 Upon receipt of comments regarding the road transfer candidates from the LAMs,
staff will report back on progress made for potential near term transfers and next
steps for a phased approach on future transfers.
Page 54
Page 23 of 23
13.7 As a longer term principle, the list of potential road transfers will be reviewed on a
regular basis (i.e. every five years) recognizing that there will be changing
conditions and circumstances such as future planning applications.
14. Conclusion
14.1 To date, open dialogue with the LAMs has resulted in the sharing of detailed
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
Page 55
Bowmanville Avenue (Regional Road 57), in the
Municipality of Clarington
Street Lighting & Temporary Traffic Signals
Works Department
October 27, 2021
Public Notice #1
The Regional Municipality of Durham will begin construction for advanced street lighting and
temporary traffic signals in the Municipality of Clarington. Construction includes street lighting from
south of Regional Highway 2 to north of Stevens Road and temporary traffic signals at the
intersections of Bowmanville Avenue at Regional Highway 2 and Bowmanville Avenue at Stevens
Road. The advanced work is required to prepare for the proposed widening and reconstruction of
Bowmanville Avenue currently planned for 2022.
Construction Schedule
The Region's contractor, Guild Electric Ltd., has started the work, which is expected to be
completed by December 2021. Unfavourable weather
conditions may influence the work schedule.
Lane Restrictions
The roadway will remain open to traffic for the duration of
the contract. Lane restrictions down to one lane may occur
during construction and delays should be anticipated.
Municipal construction projects include the use of equipment
which may cause noticeable noise and vibration for nearby
residents and businesses. The Region realizes that the
construction work will be disruptive and will make every
effort to complete the work as quickly and efficiently as
possible.
§
Ell
Construction
Limits
rem porary Traf(a
-Signals
1F
r
D2029-Sfl ""°I@°°"°""
o* Municipality of CRdringtOn ,
aring
Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact one of the following staff members listed
below from the Regional Municipality of Durham, Works Department:
Ron Morissette
Project Supervisor
905-431-5938
ron.morissette@durham.ca
Francis Samonte
Project Inspector
905-718-2690
francis.samonte@durham.ca
If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 3824.
facebook.com/RegionOfDurham twitter.com/RegionOfDurham
The Regional Municipality of Durham Works Department
605 Rossland Road East, Whitby Ontario UN 6A3
Telephone: 905-668-7711 or 1-800-372-1102
Website: durham.ca/WorksProjects
Page 56
File #: OPA 2021-001
Date of Decision: October 27, 2021
Related File(s): COPA 2021-02 & ZBA
2021-003
Subject Lands: 40 Station Street, Orono,
Clarington
Date of Notice: October 29, 2021
Last Date of Appeal: November 18, 2021
The Regional Municipality of Durham
Notice of Adoption
With Respect to Amendment #184 to the Durham Regional Official Plan
Section 17(23) of the Planning Act
Purpose and Effect of the Requested Official Plan Amendment
The purpose and effect of this Amendment is to permit the severance of a dwelling rendered
surplus to a farming operation as a result of the consolidation of non -abutting farm parcels on
lands designated "Prime Agricultural Areas," and "Major Open Space Areas" in the
Municipality of Clarington.
The Amendment and background materials are available for inspection at the Regional
Planning and Economic Development Department, Regional Municipality of Durham, 605
Rossland Road East, Fourth Floor, P.O. Box 623, Whitby, Ontario, Monday to Friday
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Related Planning Act Files
COPA 2021-02 & ZBA 2021-003
Written and Oral Submissions
Public consultation on the application was undertaken in accordance with the requirements of
the Planning Act. The Region received no inquiries from the public regarding the proposed
amendment. There were no concerns with the application. Further details regarding how
public input was considered is available in Commissioner's Report #2021-P-10 and the
Planning and Economic Development Committee Meeting minutes, dated June 1, 2021, and
Commissioner's Report #2021-P-23 dated October 5, 2021.
Decision of Regional Council
The Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham adopted Amendment #184 to the
Durham Regional Official Plan by By-law #29-2021, on October 27, 2021.
When and How to File a Notice of Appeal
The last day for filing a notice of appeal is November 18, 2021. Notice to appeal the decision
to the Ontario Land Tribunal must:
1) be filed with the Regional Clerk at the following address:
Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk
The Regional Municipality of Durham
Corporate Services Department - Legislative Services Division
605 Rossland Road East, Level 1
P.O. Box 623
Whitby, ON L1 N 6A3
2) set out the reasons for the appeal, and the specific part of the proposed official plan or
plan amendment to which the appeal applies; and
3) be accompanied by the fee of $1,100 in the form of a certified cheque or money order
payable to the Minister of Finance, as required by the Ontario Land Tribunal.
This proposed Official Plan Amendment is exempt from approval by the Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Housing. The decision of the Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham is
final if a notice of appeal is not received on or before the last day for filing a notice of appeal.
Only individuals, corporations or public bodies may appeal a decision of the municipality to
the Ontario Land Tribunal. A notice of appeal may not be filed by an unincorporated
association or group. However, a notice of appeal may be filed in the name of an individual
who is a member of the association or the group on its behalf.
No person or public body shall be added as a party to the hearing of the appeal unless,
before the plan was adopted, the person or public body made oral submissions at a public
meeting or written submissions to Council or, in the opinion of the Ontario Land Tribunal,
there are reasonable grounds to add the person or public body as a party.
2aph, W aLto-w
Regional Clerk
If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2097
Amendment #184 to the Regional Official Plan
Purpose and Effect: The purpose and effect of this Amendment is to permit the
severance of a dwelling rendered surplus to a farming operation as
a result of the consolidation of non -abutting farm parcels on lands
designated "Prime Agricultural Areas," and "Major Open Space
Areas" in the Municipality of Clarington.
Location: The subject site is located at 40 Station Street, in the Municipality of
Clarington. The property is legally described as Part Lot 27,
Concession 5 (former Township of Clarke) in the Municipality of
Clarington.
Basis: The subject site has been consolidated with other non -abutting
farm parcels owned by the applicant. The residential dwelling on
the subject site is not required by, and is surplus to, the farm
operation. This amendment conforms to the Durham Regional
Official Plan, the Greenbelt Plan, and the Growth Plan for the
Greater Golden Horseshoe and is consistent with the Provincial
Policy Statement.
Amendment: The Durham Regional Official Plan is hereby amended by adding
the following policy exception to Section 9A.3.2:
"9A.3.2 aaa) A surplus dwelling is severed from the parcel
identified as Assessment No. 18-17-030-050-12401
located in Part of Lot 27 Concession 5 (Former
Township of Clarke), in the Municipality of Clarington
subject to the inclusion of provisions in the zoning by-
law to prohibit further severances and the
construction of any dwelling on the retained parcel."
Implementation: The provisions set forth in the Durham Regional Official Plan
regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regards to
the Amendment.
Interpretation: The provisions set forth in the Durham Regional Official Plan
regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regards to this
Amendment.
Page 59
Ganaraska-
CONSERVATION
October 22, 2021
Ms. June Gallagher
Deputy Clerk
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6
Dear Ms. Gallagher:
Ganaraska Region
Conservation Authority
2216 County Road 28
Port Hope, ON L I A 3V8
Phone:905-885-8173
Fax:905-885-9824
www.grca.on.ca
MEMBER OF
CONSERVATION ONTARIO
At the October 21, 2021 Board of Directors meeting of the Ganaraska Region Conservation
Authority (GRCA), the members received the 2022 Preliminary Budget for information. The
members requested that the budget be forwarded to the watershed municipalities for their
consideration of the 2022 levy included in the budget.
The proposed 2022 general levy for your municipality is $617,833.23 which includes an
adjustment in the 2022 current value assessment for the municipality by the Ministry of
Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH).
The Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority with the four other conservation authorities
within the Region of Durham will continue budget discussions as we move through this process.
The Clarington levy will be set based on the guidelines set forth by the Region of Durham for the
five Durham Region conservation authorities.
A copy of the 2022 Preliminary Budget has been enclosed for review by your council over the
next month. It is important that your municipality's comments be received prior to the November
Board of Directors meeting which is scheduled for November 25, 2021, as the decision is
binding once the vote is taken and the levy is proposed.
The Board trusts the enclosed information will be acceptable to your council and looks forward
to a continued partnership with your municipality. Should you have any questions please contact
the undersigned.
Yours truly,
n" aq QA4-
Linda J. Laliberte, CPA, CGA
CAO/Secretary-Treasurer
Encl.
Page 60
2022 Preliminary Budget
anarasl<a
CONSERV,
October 2021
Page 61
GANARASKA REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2022 Preliminary Budget
Presented to the Board of Directors October 21, 2021
Introduction
Membership Structure
Mission Statement
2022 Preliminary Budget
2022 Budget Presentation Format
Budget Summary
Watershed Management
Watershed Studies
Resource Inventory and
Environmental Monitoring
Flood Protection Services
GIS Services & Remote Sensing
Environmental Advisory Services
Municipal/Public Plan Input & Review
Development Plan Input
Watershed Ecology
Page
Watershed Stewardship
1 Fisheries Services
2 Clean Water -Healthy Land
Partner Projects
3 Conservation Land Management
4 Passive Recreation
Ganaraska Forest Centre
Ganaraska Forest
6
Corporate Services
6 Corporate/Finance Management
7 Office Services
8 Corporate Communications
11 Levy
11
11 Reserves and Operating Surplus/Deficit
Page
13
13
13
15
15
16
18
18
18
WIIIIIIIII
20
Page 62
INTRODUCTION
Page 63
The objects of an Authority are to establish and undertake,
in the area over which it has jurisdiction, a program designed to further
the conservation, restoration, development and management
of natural resources other than gas, oil, coal and minerals.
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority
Established 1946
Watershed Municipalities
Municipality of Clarington Town of Cobourg Municipality of Port Hope
Township of Hamilton Township of Alnwick/Haldimand City of Kawartha Lakes
Township of Cavan Monaghan
The watershed covers an area of 361 square miles and has a population of 75,523.
2021/2022 Board of Directors
Municipality of Port Hope — Jeff Lees*
Township of Hamilton — Mark Lovshin**
Township of Alnwick/Haldimand — Greg Booth
Township of Cavan Monaghan — Tim Belch
Municipality of Clarington — Joe Neal
Municipality of Clarington — Margaret Zwart
Town of Cobourg — Nicole Beatty
Town of Cobourg — Brian Darling
Municipality of Port Hope — Vicki Mink
City of Kawartha Lakes — Tracy Richardson
* denotes Chair ** denotes Vice Chair
The Full Authority usually meets the 3rd Thursday of every month or at the call of the Chair.
Page 64
The Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority's Shared Vision:
"Clean water healthy land for
healthy communities."
Our Shared Values:
To Explore is to Value Knowledge
To Learn is to Value Collaboration
To Lead is to Value Excellence
To Evolve is to Value Innovation
The Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority's mission is to
enhance and conserve across the Ganaraska Region Watershed
by serving, educating, informing and engaging.
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority
202112022 Committees
Ganaraska Forest Recreational Users Committee
Mark Gardiner (Chair), Dave Grant, Cam Lowe, Mark Cousins, Randy Cunningham, Anne Vavra, Jennifer Jackman, Marven
Whidden, Amber Panchyshyn, Garry Niece, Carolyn Richards, Jim Crosscombe, Larry Melynchuk, Lauren Tonelli and
Tracy Richardson (Board Member Representative)
2.
Page 65
2022
PRELIMINARY
BUDGET
Page 66
2022 PRELIMINARY BUDGET PRESENTATION FORMAT
All columns in the budget are the budgeted figures with the exception of the column headed as the 2021 Projected Total,
which are the estimated totals to the end of the year. The 2021 Other Funds shown are budget figures and may have been
adjusted and as a result may be reflected by decreases/increases in the 2021 Projected Totals. For example, if "Other
Funds" budgeted are not expected to be realized then the spending in those areas will probably be decreased where
possible to compensate for lack of revenue. In cases where the funding received for a capital project was not spent, it has
been carried forward as deferred revenue.
PROGRAM AREAS
Watershed Management and Health Monitoring
Costs are those required to develop the framework and
systems protection, restoration and use
Environmental Advisory Services
• Costs associated with providing environmental review
public and developers
Watershed Stewardship
management strategy to provide a rational approach to natural
of development proposals submitted by municipalities, general
Costs associated with providing service and/or assistance to watershed residents and municipalities on sound
environmental practices that will enhance, restore or protect properties
Conservation Land Management
• Costs associated with land or buildings either owned or managed by the Authority and may have active programming on
conservation lands
Corporate Services
• Costs associated with the management and program delivery
SOURCES OF FUNDING
Provincial Grant - The Ministry allocates funding to flood forecasting and warning.
Municipal - General Levy - shared by member municipalities for all program areas for which all municipalities
equally. The general levy includes a base levy of $15,545.34 and a capital Asset Management levy of $156,917.00.
Other Funds - includes water management fees, forest centre revenues, winter trails and forest memberships,
management, as well as capital levies for completion of projects in the watershed municipalities.
benefit
timber
[<1
Page 67
2021-10-13
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority
2022 Preliminary Budget
2021
2021
2021
2021
2021 Other
2022
2022
2022
2022 Other
Budget
Projected
Grant
Levy
Funds
Preliminary
Grant
Levy
Funds
Total
Budget
PROGRAM AREAS:
Watershed Management &
Health Monitoring
1.244,704
1,096,311
51,863
184.536
1,008,305
1,141,610
51,863
200,885
888,862
Environmental Advisory Services
250.867
211,243
0
106,867
144,000
267,976
0
135,976
132,000
Watershed Stewardship
414.447
347,395
0
10,410
404,037
422.003
0
10,418
411,585
Conservation Land Management
1,353,992
1,248,004
0
421,888
932,104
1,495.062
0
359,462
1,135,600
Corporate Services
580,518
550,853
0
461,348
119,170
579,009
0
502,009
77,000
TOTAL BUDGET
3,844,628
=,453,8066
51,863
1185,009
2,607,616
3,905.660
51,863
1,208,750
2,645,047
4.
WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT
Page 69
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AND HEALTH MONITORING
vvaiersnea management and health monitoring program costs are those required to develop the framework and
management strategy to provide a rational approach to natural systems protection, restoration and use. Flood protection
services fall within this department, which include costs associated with providing watershed residents with an effective and
efficient system that will reduce their exposure to the threat of flood damage and loss of life.
Watershed Plans & Strategies — Projects undertaken by the Conservation Authority to provide a broad understanding of
ecosystem function and status and to make recommendations for appropriate environmental resource management, land
use change, land management change, or redevelopment and restoration, on a watershed basis.
Resource Inventory and Environmental Monitoring — The groundwater program, funded by the Region of Durham,
Municipality of Port Hope and the Township of Hamilton is also reflected under this area. The Municipality of Clarington,
with Port Hope, Cobourg and Hamilton are funding watershed monitoring.
Flood Protection Services
Flood Forecasting and Warning — Procedures, undertaken by the Conservation Authority, required to reduce the risk of loss
and property damage due to flooding through the forecasting of flood events and issuing of flood warnings, alerts and
advisories to prepare those who must respond to the flood event. This is currently funded about 35% by the province and
65% by general levy.
Flood/Erosion Control Structures — Preventative maintenance to the flood and erosion control structures throughout the
watershed.
Floodplain Regulations — Includes costs associated with implementing the fill and floodplain regulations required ensuring
the integrity of the watershed floodplain management system.
Natural Heritage Mapping - A natural heritage mapping for the watershed is continuing using funds from the Municipality
of Clarington.
GIS Services & Remote Sensing - GRCA staff continue with these partnerships.
5.
Page 70
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AND
HEALTH MONITORING:
WATERSHED PLANS & STRATEGIES
Climate Change Strategy
Wages & Benefits
Expenses
TOTAL
Watershed Report Card Update
Wages & Benefits
Expenses
TOTAL
RESOURCE INVENTORY &
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
Resource Management
Wages & Benefits
Expenses
TOTAL
Groundwater
Wages & Benefits
Materials, Expenses, Training
Motor Pool
Capital Asset Replacement
TOTAL
Watershed Monitoring
Wages & Benefits
Expenses, Training, Consulting
Equipment (Auto System, Meters)
Equipment Repairs
Motor Pool
Capital Asset Replacement
TOTAL
Water Quality Sampling (PWQMN)
Wages & Benefits
Expenses
TOTAL
Low Water Response
Wages & Benefits
Expenses
TOTAL
Ciarington Storm Sewer
Wages & Benefits
Expenses
Total
2022 Preliminary Budget
2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 Other 2022
Budget Projected Grant Levy Funds Preliminary
Total Budget
38,700
6,000
32,700
6,000
44,700
38,700
15,450
9,500
4,550
3,500
20,000
13,000
2022 2022 2022 Other
Grant Levy Funds
40,000
_ 6,000
0 0 44,700 46,000 0
17,450
4,550
0 0 20,000 22,000 0
2021-10-13
_ Deferred 6,000
0 46,000 Durham 30,000; Port Hope 10,000
_ Deferred 7,000
0 22,000 Durham 15,000
2,800
1,427
0
0
2,800
1,427
0
2,800
0
61,000
51,000
61,984
21,002
21,000
21,000
Durham 37,925
0
923
0
923
0
Deferred 10,000
82,925
72,923
0
0
82,925
941
83,925
Port Hope 18,000; Hamilton 18,000
0 0
83,925
51,287
23,200
50,660
22,700
8,800
39,851
8,800
Employment Program
500
0
79,500
23,000
73,000
Hamilton 12,000; Port Hope 15,000
soo
o
5,0oo
Cobourg 5,000: Durham 41,000
1,000
1,400
soo
1,400
14,813
10,041
0
3,000
46,149
34,100
Pygmy meters, digital readouts, truck
91,300
84,801
0
91,300
115.900
0 0
115,900
3,600
4,200
5,500
50
20
50
3,650
4,220
0
3,650
0
5,550
0 5,550
0
3,600
3,200
3,600
0
0
0
3,600
3,200
0
3,600
0
3,600
0 3,600
0
18,000
20,000
2,500
2,500
20,500
22,500
0
0
20,500
Page 71
l-9
2021-10-13
2021 2021 2021
Budget Projected Grant
Total
FLOOD PROTECTION SERVICES
Flood Forecasting & Warning
Wages & Benefits
105,320
95,000
Training and Development
1,000
400
Motor Pool
6,000
6,000
Gauge and Station Maintenance
1,700
1,400
Computer services
400
100
Equipment, manual, model, network
5,000
3.700
Office services
9,000
8,600
Capital Asset Replacement
49.071
49,071
TOTAL
177,491
164,271
40,000
Flood Control Structures
Wages & Benefits
9,200
9,100
Taxes
12,000
8,400
Insurance, Expenses
1,200
1,000
Capital Asset Replacement
33,588
33,588
TOTAL
55,988
52,088
11,863
Erosion Control Structures
Wages & Benefits
1,000
800
Materials, Expenses
0
0
Capital Asset Replacement
2,050
2,050
TOTAL
3,050
2,850
0
Floodplain Regulations
Wages & Benefits
80,000
76,342
Training and Development
200
0
Motor Pool
1,100
735
Materials and Supplies
200
33
Legal expenses
2.500
0
Capital Asset Replacement
1,145
1,145
TOTAL
85,145
78,255
0
Dam Safety
Wages & Benefits
0
0
Expenses
0
0
Capital Asset Replacement
7,675
7,675
TOTAL
7,675
7,675
0
Natural Heritage Mapping
Wages & Benefits
31,320
29,422
Materials, Expenses
1,680
1,400
TOTAL
33.000
30,822
0
Natural Hazard Mapping
- Clarington Floodline Update
Wages & Benefits
12,682
10,124
Expenses
7,250
7,250
TOTAL
19,932
17,374
0
2021 2021 Other 2022 2022 2022 2022 Other
Levy Funds Preliminary Grant Levy Funds
Budget
117,500
1,000
6,000
1,700
400
5,000
9,000
33,753 24,500 Laptop, truck
97,491 40,000 174,353 40,000 109,853 24,500
9,800
12,000
1,200
3.659
14,125
30.000
26,659
11,863
1,000
0
2,091
3,050
0
3,091
0
84,000
200
1.100
33,000
200
2,500
1.167
52,145
33,000
89,167
0
0
0
7,828
7,675
0
7,828
0
31,320
1,680
0
33,000
33,000
0
10,412
_ 5,900
0 19,932 16,312
14,796 0
3,091 0
33,000 Permit fees
56,167 33,000
7,828 0
_ Deferred 1,000
0 33,000 Durham 33,000
0 0 16,312 Durham 16,312
Page 72
7
2021-10-13
2021
2021
2021
2021
2021 Other
2022
2022
2022
2022 Other
Budget
Projected
Grant
Levy
Funds
Preliminary
Grant
Levy
Funds
Total
Budget
Flood Mapping - ORCA - Thompson Ck
Wages & Benefits
10.676
10,676
Expenses
TOTAL
10,676
10,676
0
0
10,676
Haliburton Fioodplain Mapping
Wages & Benefits
181,000
105,677
186,000
Expenses
48,000
37,775
43,000
5,000
Survey Equipment KRCA
Motor Pool
500
0
500
Consulting
TOTAL
500
0
500
225.000
Deferred 26,000
230,000
143,452
0
0
230,000
330,000
0
0
230,000
Cty of Halibuton 200,000
Clarington NDMP Flood Plain Mapping Update
- Graham Creek
Wages & Benefits
47,723
47,723
11,700
Expenses
7,063
7,063
1,300
TOTAL
54,786
54,786
0
0
54,786
13,000
0
0
13,000
Clarington
- Wilmot Creek
Wages & Benefits
49,073
49,000
12,150
Expenses
7,213
7,200
1,350
TOTAL
56,286
56,200
0
0
56,286
13,500
0
0
13,500
Clarington
Durham Risk Assessement
Wages & Benefits
30,000
18,000
Expenses
6,000
2,000
TOTAL
0
36,000
0
0
0
20,000
0
0
20,000
Durham NDMP
GIS SERVICES & REMOTE SENSING
Port Hope GIS/Asset Mgmt Storm Sewer
Wages & Benefits
Expenses
23,477
23,400
23,459
4,400
Employment Program
5,000
5,000
5,000
Capital Asset Replacement
923
923
941
TOTAL
29,400
29,323
0
0
29,400
29,400
0
0
29,400
Port Hope 25,000
GIS SERVICES - Other CA's & Partners
Wages & Benefits
26,000
2,600
26,000
Expenses
1,500
1,500
1,500
TOTAL
27,500
4,100
0
0
27,500
27,500
0
0
27,500
ORCA
Peterborough OEM
Wages & Benefits
7,600
7,600
4,600
Expenses
4,400
4,400
0
4,400
TOTAL
12,000
12,000
0
0
12,000
9,000
0
0
9,000
Peterborough County 9,000
8
Page 73
2021 2021 2021
Budget Projected Grant
Total
Peterborough City DEM
Wages & Benefts
15,000
2,754
Expenses
0
0
TOTAL
15,000
2,754 0
Soil Vulnerability Project
Wages & Benefits
23,000
29,792
Expenses
15,500
33,658
Contractor Quinte
24,000
0
TOTAL
62,500
63,450 0
SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING
Source Protection Planning - TCC
Wages & Benefits
91,800
86,514
Materials, Expenses & Training
1,000
1,000
TOTAL
92,800
87,514 0
Source Protection Municipal Implementation
Hamilton Township RMO
Wages & Beneftts
2,000
1,950
TOTAL
2,000
1,950 0
2021 2021 Other 2022 2022 2022 2022 Other 2021-10-13
Levy Funds Preliminary Grant Levy Funds
Budget
9,000
_ 0
0 15,000 9,000 0 0
8,000
19,125
_ 30,900
0 62,500 58,025 0 0
101,800
_ 1,000
0 92,800 102,800 0
_ 2,000 2,000
0 2,000 2,000 0
9,000 Peterborough 9,000
58,025 OMAFRA
0 102,800 Deferred 22,800; TCC 80,000
_ 2,000
0 2,000 Hamilton
TOTAL WATER MANAGEMENT
& HEALTH MONITORING 1� 2®,704 1,096,3111 51,863 184.536 1,008,305 1,141,610 51,863 200,885 888,862
®®� �®
9
Page 74
ENVIRONMENTAL
ADVISORY SERVICES
Page 75
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY SERVICES
The environmental advisory services program costs are those associated with providing environmental review of
development proposals submitted by municipalities, general public and developers. General levy and plan review fees for
stormwater management fund this service area.
Municipal/Public Plan Input & Review — Includes municipal/public official plan review, comprehensive zoning bylaws,
secondary plan review and general planning studies.
Development Plan Input & Review — Includes development driven review of plans of subdivision and condos, official plan
amendments, land division review, site plans and zoning bylaws and variances. Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority
also provides engineering services to neighbouring conservation authorities on a fee for service basis.
Watershed Ecology — Includes the ecological program of the Authority.
W)
Page 76
2021-10-13
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY SERVICES:
MUNICIPALIPUBLIC PLAN INPUT & REVIEW
Wages & Benefits
Training and Development
Motor Pool
Materials & Supplies
Consulting
Legal Expenses
Capital Asset Replacement
TOTAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW
Wages & Benefits
Training and Development
Motor Pool
Materials & Supplies
ORCA Shared Planning
KRCA Peer Review
Legal Expenses
Liability Insurance
Capital Asset Replacement
TOTAL
WATERSHED ECOLOGY
Wages & Benefits
Expenses, Training
Motor Pool
Capital Asset Replacement
TOTAL
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL
ADVISORY SERVICE
2021 2021 2021
Budget Projected Grant
Total
72,600
65,000
300
300
700
400
400
0
100
0
1,000
0
1,606
1,606
76,706
67,306 0
106,980
85,129
300
380
1,100
500
1,000
400
0
0
0
0
1,000
0
9,175
9,950
3,606
3,606
123.161
99,965 0
2021 2021 Other 2022 2022
Levy Funds Preliminary Grant
Budget
82,000
300
700
400
100
1,000
1,638
76,706 0 86,138
66,000
115,800
26,000
300
1,100
1,000
0
0
1,000
10,000
2,000
1,638
30,161 93,000
130,838
2022 2022 Other
Levy Funds
0 86,138 0
66,000 Fees
15,000 Deferred 15,000
0 49,838 81,000
29,670 27,000 29,560
20,307 16,000 20,399
100 49 100
923 923 941 Deferred 5,000
51,000 43,972 O 0 51,000 51,000 0 O 51,000 Durham 46,000
250,867 211,243 0 106,867 144,000 267,976 �0 135,976 132,000
11.
Page 77
WATERSHED
STEWARDSHIP
Page 78
WATERSHED STEWARDSHIP
The watershed stewardship program costs are those associated with providing and/or assistance to watershed residents on
sound environmental practices that will enhance, restore or protect their properties.
Land Stewardship
Clean Water -Healthy Land - The Clean Water -Healthy Land program is a stewardship program funded by Durham Region,
Trees Ontario, Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation and landowners. For Durham Region landowners, this program is
subsidized by the Region of Durham. This program is also offered by the Municipality of Port Hope and the Township of
Hamilton for the landowners, within the municipalities in partnership with the Conservation Authority.
Partner Projects includes the partnership with the Greater Golden Horseshoe Conservation Authorities Coalition (GGH
CAC).
12.
Page 79
2021-10-13
WATERSHED STEWARDSHIP:
LAND STEWARDSHIP
Fisheries Review
Fish Trap
Expenses
Motor Pool
Capital Asset Replacement
TOTAL
Clean Water - Healthy Land
Tree Plant
Wages & Benefits
Contractor
Motor Pool
Materials & Supplies (incl Forest Ontario)
Capital Asset Replacement
Financial Assistance Program
Landowner Program Projects
Kawartha Farm Stewardship Collaborative
Program Admin/Expenses
TOTAL
OPG Projects
Wages & Benefits
Expenses & Consulting
TOTAL
Durham Collaborative Tree Program
Wages & Benefits
Expenses
Marketing
Other CA funds (transferred)
TOTAL
Partner Projects
OPG Projects
Enbridge
MNR Partner Project
GGH CAC
TOTAL
TOTAL WATERSHED STEWARDSHIP
2021 2021
Budget Projected
Total
2021 2021 2021 Other 2022 2022
Grant Levy Funds Preliminary Grant
Budget
2022 2022 Other
Levy Funds
5,200
5,200
5,200
18,100
13,789
16,200
18,100
16,200
DFO
100
1,561
100
300
0
300
410
410
418
24,110
20,960
0
7,910
16,200
24,118
0
7,918
16,200
18,600
23,461
20,500
41,520
43,415
41,520
500
552
500
61,865
87,230
61,865
2,512
512
523
124,997
155,170
0
0
124,997
124.908
0
0
124,908
Tree plant
133,363
40,703
88,000
0
0
0
Deferred 40,000
12,000
11,568
12,000
Durham 20,000; Port Hope 20,000
145,363
52,270
0
0
145,363
100,000
0
0
100,000
Hamilton 20,000
270,360
207,440
0
0
270,360
224.908
0
0
224,908
0
9,939
0
19,700
88,760
19,700
19,700
98,699
0
0
19,700
19,700
0
0
19,700
Deferred 19,700
28,500
29,000
1,000
0
10,000
23,000
40,500
81,000
80,000
0
0
0
80,000
133.000
0
0
133,000
Durham 133,000
11,277
6,692
11,277
11,277
11,277
OPG Wesleyville
4,000
8,604
4,000
4,000
4,000
Deferred Enbridge
0
5,000
5,000
2,500
5,000
2,500
Durham
20,277
20,296
0
2,500
17,777
20,277
0
2,500
17,777
414,447
5
10,410
4040337
4222,0033 �
0
�10®18
411,585
-0
13.
M:1
CONSERVATION LAND
MANAGEMENT
Page 81
CONSERVATION LAND MANAGEMENT
This program area includes all expenses associated with land or buildings either owned or managed by the Authority. This
area is divided into passive recreation and programmed recreation.
Passive Recreation — The costs associated with lands and buildings that do not have active programming. The expenses
included are the costs for owning or managing the land.
Programmed Recreation — The direct costs associated with delivering active programming on Conservation Authority lands.
This includes the Ganaraska Forest Centre and the Ganaraska Forest.
Ganaraska Forest Centre - For over thirty-nine years, the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority has provided a unique
outdoor education experience to elementary and secondary students at the Ganaraska Forest Centre. The outdoor
education facility offers both day and overnight education programming. Such programs offered are: map reading,
orienteering, forest studies and stream and pond study. As well, the facility is rented out to Scouts and Girl Guides for
weekend use. As a result of COVID-19, Forest Centre revenues have been significantly decreased in all areas including but
not limited to outdoor education programming as well as wedding venue rentals. It is anticipated that over the next few
years as restrictions continue to be lifted, booking at the Forest Centre will increase.
Ganaraska Forest — On April 1st, 1997, the Conservation Authority took back management of the Ganaraska Forest from the
Ministry of Natural Resources. Revenue from the forest comes from the sale of timber and membership fees. For 2022, the
revenue from timber contracts are estimated at $250,000.00. The membership revenue expected is $320,000.00. The
partnership with Treetop Trekking continues and revenues are estimated at $36,000.00.
14.
Page 82
2021-10-13
2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 Other 2022 2022 2022 2022 Other
Preliminary Projected Grant Levy Funds Preliminary Grant Levy Funds
Budget Total Budget
CONSERVATION LAND MANAGEMENT:
PASSIVE RECREATION
Wages & Benefits
127,000
119.795
4,400 168.000 4,400 Employment Program
Staff Expenses, Training
500
250
500
Maintenance of G.A.'s
9,500
13,000
12,000
Equipment Fuel & Repairs
2,000
3,500
5,000
Motor Pool
6,000
5,023
6,000
Taxes
8,000
5,800
8,000
Insurance
9,650
11,500
12,000
Signage
2,000
1.500
20,000
Capital Asset Replacement
28,239
15,238
13,000 25,523 10,000 Stairs to Millenum bldg
TOTAL
192,889
17.5,606
0 176,489 17,400 257,023 0 242,623 14,400
PROGRAMMED RECREATION:
Ganaraska Forest Centre
Wages & Benefits
Training and Development
124,420
143,000
10,000
227,828
193,000
GFC Bookings
500
400
10,000
400
Books, Equipment (inc.donations)
3,200
1,700
3,200
Office Services (Stationary, Copier)
1,400
1,100
4,400
1,400
Building Maintenance
12,900
40,000
12,000
36,900
5,000
Employment Program
Hydro
15,000
9,000
20,000
15,000
12,000
Cabin Rental
Propane
8,000
5,000
45,000
Nature Nuts Cams
p
Postage
300
50
3,500
8,000
300
Telephone
Internet Charges
1,800
1,500
985
1,300
1,000
1,800
5,000
TTT
Motor Pool
1,100
1,800
2,000
1,500
2,000
Solar Generation
Credit Card Services
3,000
2,413
30,000
1,800
1,100
130,000
Wedding
9
Advertising & Publications
800
400
2,000
2,800
800
1,800
Internet charge Out
Staff Expense
100
45
200
100
2,000
Donations
Waste Disposal
1,400
900
1,500
7,000
Production, Other
Security
1.000
1,000
3,000
Kitchen Equipment
1,000
1,300
1,200
Food/Catering
5.000
9,000
35,183
Public Programs
0
0
200
Insurance
9,800
13,331
14,000
Nature Camp Supplies & Expenses
1,500
1,730
Taxes
2,600
4,900
2.500
5,000
Capital Asset Replacement
55.623
41,654
17,300
39,089
TOTAL
251,943
281,008
0 137.743 114,200
402,800 0
0 402,800
15.
Page 83
2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 Other 2022 2022 2022 2022 Other 2021-10-13
Preliminary Projected Grant Levy Funds Preliminary Grant Levy Funds
Budget Total Budget
Ganaraska Forest & Trail Head Centre
Wages & Benefits
Training and Development
546,940
537,406
280,000
485,000
320,000
Memberships
Equipment Purchase
1,600
4,000
500
2,600
4,400
4,400
Employmentp
Prog ram
Equipment Maintenance
9,000
15,000
30,000
4,000
9,000
36,000
Treetop Trekking
Motor Pool
6,800
6,780
6.900
Road Maintenance & Tree Maintenance
12,000
12,000
13,000
Pay DutyNolunteer Program
11,000
8,000
11,000
Advertising
400
400
400
Invasive Species Control
9,000
8,600
7,000
Tree Marking/Paint
Telephone
1,000
600
356,104
1,000
250,000
Forest Contracts
2,900
2,786
2,900
Hydro & Propane
28,600
28,000
29,600
Supplies & General Expenses & Postage
7,500
7,200
7,955
Building Repairs & Maintenance
20,000
13,867
20,000
Taxes
35,000
38,456
35,000
Insurance
20,000
18,096
20,000
Signage/Maps/Brochures
3,000
2,000
10,000
Special Events/Pubfic Programs
200
0
Garbage Disposal
2,100
1,600
200
2,100
Office Services
1,800
1,410
1,800
Credit Card Services
10,000
12,000
12,000
Membership, Remote Site & Kiosk
23,131
21,000
23,131
Capital Asset Replacement
153.189
53,190
130,000
131,653
TOTAL
909,160
791,391
0 108,656 800,504
835,239
108,000
0 116,839 718,400
Gym, signage
TOTAL PROGRAMMED RECREATION
1,161,103
1,072,398
0 246,399 914.704
1,238,039
0 116,839 1.121,200
TOTAL CONSERVATION LAND MGMT
1,353,992
1,248,004
0 421,888 932,104
1,495,062
0 3$9,462 1,135,600
16.
CORPORATE SERVICES
Page 85
CORPORATE SERVICES
This budget area is composed of the wages and benefits of staff of the Conservation Authority, whose main function is to
provide coordination, support and services to all programs rather than specific programs. All expenses associated with the
Board of Directors are directed to this area. As well, expenses associated with the operations of the administration building.
Specific items include:
Corporate/Finance Management - includes all administrative and financial staff wages, benefits and expenses, general
membership expenses as well as corporate expenses for the Conservation Authority, which includes the levy to
Conservation Ontario.
Office Services — includes all wages and benefits for IT staff as well as expenses, supplies, equipment, computer services,
maintenance and utilities for the main administrative building for the various program areas.
Corporate Communications — includes wages and benefits for staff working on communication projects as well as
community and public relations expenses, website maintenance as well as any information costs. All publications,
advertising and Authority staff uniforms are included in this program area.
17.
2021-10-13
CORPORATE SERVICES:
CORPORATE/FINANCE MANAGEMENT
Salaries, Wages & Benefits
Workers Compensation (incl consultant)
Staff Expenses, training
Members Allowance & Expenses
Chair/Vice Chair Honorarium & Expenses
CAO's Expenses
Conservation Ontario Levy
Compensation Plan
Legal Fees
Audit Fees
Insurance
General Expenses
TOTAL
OFFICE SERVICES
Wages & benefits - IT & temp support
Office & computer equipment & support
Xerox & P/B Leasing,lntemet
Payroll/Credit Card Services
IMSystem
IMSystem - Wages
Postage
Stationary & Supplies
Telephone
Light, Heat & Hydro
Taxes
Office Maintenance
Health & Safety
General-courier,meetings, subscriptions
Capital Asset Replacement
TOTAL
CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS
Wages & Benefits
Publications & Advertising
Special Events & Marketing
Uniforms
Capital Asset Replacement
TOTAL
TOTAL CORPORATE SERVICES
TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET
2021
2021
2021
2021
2021 Other
2022
2022
2022
2022 Other
Preliminary
Projected
Grant
Levy
Funds
Preliminary
Grant
Levy
Funds
Budget
Total
Budget
230,500
228,805
243,110
57,680
49,210
57,680
3,000
3,692
3,000
4,000
3,495
4,000
3,200
2,193
3,200
5,500
3,600
5,500
25,000
25,314
25,354
0
0
20,000
3,000
0
3,000
5,400
5,440
5,400
11,923
10,537
11,923
900
45
2,000
900
2,000 Donations
350,103
332.330
0
348,103
2,000
383,0 7
-0
881,067
2,000
6,000
6,000
70,000
6,000
70,000 Program Administration
20,200
20,494
20,200
6,700
7,524
6,700
4,500
3,402
4,500
10,000
10,000
10,000
12,000
12,000
0
12,000
2,500
2,223
2,500
5,000
3,039
5,000
4,000
3,700
4,000
24,000
22,000
24,000
4,000
1,000
4,000
50,000
49,800
35,000
25,000
5,000 Siding
2,300
1,700
2,300
3,500
2,529
3,500
46,605
46,600
12,170
35,124
201,305
192,013
0
84,135
117,170
164,824
0
89,824
75,000
25,200
22,000
27,200
1,900
2,200
1,900
600
900
600
1,000
1,000
1,000
410
410
418
29,110
26,510
0
29,110
0
31,118
0
31,118
0
580,518
550,853
0
461,348
5�79,009
�® 0
502 009
77,000
�119,1700
3,844,528
3,453,806
51,863
1,185,049
2,607,616
3,905,660
51,863
1,208,750
2,645,047
18.
Page 87
LEVY
GANARASKA REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2022 GENERAL LEVY
2021 2022
Levy Proposed
Levy
(with CVA adj)
Municipality of Clarington
601,334.40
617,833.23
Town of Cobourg
242,848.90
244,671.37
Municipality of Port Hope
192,596.90
195,856.40
Township of Alnwick/Haldimand
13,233.08
13,459.55
Township of Hamilton
127,469.56
129,203.99
Township of Cavan Monaghan
4,457.18
4,559.44
City of Kawartha Lakes
3,107.38
3,166.02
19.
RESERVES and
OPERATING SURPLUS
Page 90
RESERVES and OPERATING SURPLUS
The Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority has two reserves.
Capital Asset Replacement Reserve
The Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority developed a Capital Asset Replacement plan in 2016. The goal of every
capital asset management plan is to define the use of assets in order to streamline productivity and delivery with minimal
loss of capital. This reserve will replace the equipment reserve that had been previously established in 1992 and does not
include any grant dollars. This reserve is allocated to major maintenance and replacement of the Ganaraska Region
Conservation Authority's capital assets. This reserve is an essential part of GRCA's ongoing fiscal responsibility
framework, as it guides the purchase, maintenance, and disposal of every asset GRCA needs in order to conduct
business.
Forest Purchase Reserve
This reserve was established in 2001 with a $10,000.00 donation by the Township of Cavan Monaghan to be used for costs
associated with a land purchase within the Peterborough County jurisdiction.
Operating Surplus/Deficit
The GanarasKa Region Conservation Authority's operating surplus is attributable to the change in recording tangible capital
assets at cost in accordance with the recent change in Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) rules.
20.
Page 91