HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-05-06
General Government Committee
Revised Agenda
Date:May 6, 2024
Time:9:30 a.m.
Location:Council Chambers or Microsoft Teams
Municipal Administrative Centre
40 Temperance Street, 2nd Floor
Bowmanville, Ontario
Inquiries and Accommodations: For inquiries about this agenda, or to make arrangements for
accessibility accommodations for persons attending, please contact: Lindsey Patenaude,
Committee Coordinator, at 905-623-3379, ext. 2106 or by email at lpatenaude@clarington.net.
Alternate Format: If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the
Accessibility Coordinator, at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Audio/Video Record: The Municipality of Clarington makes an audio and/or video record of
General Government Committee meetings. If you make a delegation or presentation at a General
Government Committee meeting, the Municipality will be recording you and will make the recording
public on the Municipality’s website, www.clarington.net/calendar
Noon Recess: Please be advised that, as per the Municipality of Clarington’s Procedural By-law,
this meeting will recess at 12:00 noon, for a one hour lunch break, unless otherwise determined by
the Committee.
Cell Phones: Please ensure all cell phones, mobile and other electronic devices are turned off or
placed on non-audible mode during the meeting.
Copies of Reports are available at www.clarington.net/archive
The Revised Agenda will be published on Friday after 3:30 p.m. Late items added or a change to
an item will appear with a * beside them.
Pages
1.Call to Order
2.Land Acknowledgement Statement
3.Declaration of Interest
4.Announcements
5.Presentations/Delegations (10 Minute Time Limit)
5.1 Laura Burch, Executive Director, Bethesda House, regarding the Intimate
Partner Violence Epidemic
4
6.Consent Agenda
6.1 LGS-018-24 - Procedural By-law Changes – Delegations and Strong
Mayors Act
6
*6.1.1 Procedural By-law Proposed Amendment (Mayor Foster Intends
to Introduce the Attached Amendment)
30
6.2 LGS-020-24 - Equity and Inclusion Lens Guideline 31
6.3 FSD-020-24 - Concrete Curb and Sidewalk Repairs 46
6.4 FSD-021-24 - 2024 User Fee By-law Update 50
6.5 FSD-022-24 - Engineering Services for Multiple Bridge and Culvert
Replacements
124
6.6 FSD-023-24 - High Street and O’Dell Street Reconstruction 130
6.7 FSD-024-24 - Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act 2024 (Bill 185)
Comments
134
*6.8 FSD-025-24 - Diane Hamre Recreation Complex Dehumidification
Equipment
150
May 6, 2024
General Government Committee
Page 2
7.Items for Separate Discussion
7.1 LGS-017-24 - Appointments to the Accessibility Advisory Committee,
Newcastle Hall Board, Orono Business Improvement Area, and Samuel
Wilmot Nature Area Management Advisory Committee
154
8.Unfinished Business
9.New Business
9.1 Homelessness Crisis (Councillor Rang)160
9.2 Open Air Burning By-law Review (Councillor Zwart)162
10.Confidential Items
10.1 LGS-019-24 - Mental Health Benefits
(The matter deals with Section 239(2)(d) of the Municipal Act)
10.2 FSD-019-24 - Elexicon Update May 2024
(The matter deals with Sections 239(2) (i) (j) and (k) of the Municipal
Act)
11.Adjournment
May 6, 2024
General Government Committee
Page 3
From:no-reply@clarington.net
To:ClerksExternalEmail
Subject:New Delegation Request from Burch
Date:March 13, 2024 10:10:40 AM
EXTERNAL
A new delegation request has been submitted online. Below are the
responses provided:
Subject
Presentation: IPV Epidemic
Action requested of Council
Support for IPV Epidemic
Date of meeting
5/6/2024
Brief summary of the issue or purpose of your delegation.
IPV Epidemic
Have you been in contact with staff or a member of Council
regarding your matter of interest?
Yes
Name of the staff member or Councillor.
Pinder Da Silver
Will you be attending this meeting in person or online?
In person
First name:
Laura
Single/Last name
Burch
How to pronounce your name:
Laura Burch
Firm/Organization (if applicable)
Bethesda House
Page 4
Job title (if applicable)
Executive Director
Address
Town/Hamlet
Bowmanville
Postal code
Email address:
executivedirector@bethesdahouse.ca
Phone number
Alternate phone number
Do you plan to submit correspondence related to this matter?
No
Do you plan to submit an electronic presentation (i.e.
PowerPoint)? If yes, the file must be submitted to theMunicipal Clerk’s Department by 2 p.m. on the Friday prior tothe meeting date.
No
I acknowledge that the Procedural By-law Permits 10 minutes
for delegations.
Yes
[This is an automated email notification -- please do not respond]
Page 5
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: General Government Committee
Date of Meeting: May 6, 2024 Report Number: LGS-018-24
Submitted By: Rob Maciver, Deputy CAO/Solicitor, Legislative Services
Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO Resolution#:
Authored by: June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk
File Number: By-law Number:
Report Subject: Procedural By-law Changes – Delegations and Strong Mayors Act
Recommendations:
1. That Report LGS-018-24, and any related delegations or communication items, be
received;
2. That the By-law attached to Report LGS-018-24, as Attachment 2, to amend
sections of the Procedural By-law 2023-033 related to delegations and the Strong
Mayors Act, be approved; and
3. That all interested parties listed in Report LGS-018-24, and any delegations, be
advised of Council’s decision.
Page 6
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report LGS-018-24
Report Overview
This report responds to the Council direction to amend the Procedural By-law, specifically as
it relates to delegations. In addition, it addresses changes arising from the Strong Mayors
Act.
1. Background
1.1 Arising out of the Strong Mayors Act, Staff brought Report LGS-024-23 to the General
Government Committee of September 11, 2023. The Committee passed the following
Resolution #GG-145-23 (excerpted):
“That Staff bring forward the Procedural By-law amendments noted in Section 14 of
this report, directly to a future Council meeting.”
1.2 At the March 25, 2024, Council meeting, Council passed the following Resolution # C-
029-24:
That the Municipal Clerk be directed to prepare a report for possible wording
changes to the Procedural By-law, as follows:
1. Require all requests for delegations to be accompanied by a written
summary, to be included in the Agenda, outlining their subject, their address,
their reason for delegating, their desired action requested of Council, and any
supporting documentation.
2. For matters which are more properly within the responsibility of staff, the
Clerk shall notify the proposed delegate that the delegation shall not be listed
on the agenda and shall direct the proposed delegate to the appropriate
department. The delegation shall not be listed on an agenda until staff has
had the opportunity to address the matter.
3. Not allow delegations who are there for the sole purpose of generating
publicity for an event.
4. Not allow candidates, or nominees, for a political party.
5. Regarding decorum, add the following clause as follows:
a. “No person shall make detrimental comments, or speak ill of, or malign
the integrity of staff, the public or Council and Committee.”
b. Members of the public shall be respectful of Council, staff, delegations,
and all attendees at the meeting by refraining from public outbursts,
heckling, shouting, making comments, or behaviour intended to disrupt
the debate, discussion and/or general proceedings.
Page 7
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report LGS-018-24
c. Attendees shall not engage in conversations, display placards or
props.
6. Change the time limit for delegations from ten minutes to seven minutes, with
a single extension of up to three minutes by majority vote. Should there be
more than one individual that registers to speak as a group, the group shall
be allotted up to ten minutes to delegate.
7. That the time limit for Members of the Public to speak at Public Meetings be
changed from ten minutes to five minutes.
8. That the time limit for Staff and Consultant presentations at Public Meetings
be added to the Procedural By-law as 20 minutes.
That all interested parties be advised of Council's decision.
2. Review of the Council Resolution’s
Other Municipalities
2.1 Staff have surveyed the Durham Area municipalities regarding various aspects of
delegations and their procedural by-laws. Attachment 1 shows the results of the survey.
Written Submission/Summary
2.2 Clarington’s current Procedural By-law 2023-033 does not include a requirement for a
written submission/summary, other than the following subsections:
7.5.6 Where a Delegation wishes to provide Members with written
communication supporting the Delegation’s comments, the communication
shall be provided to the Municipal Clerk prior to the meeting. The written
communication may be distributed to the Members at the discretion of the
Municipal Clerk or designate.
7.5.11 Where a delegation request is received after the Agenda Deadline and the
matter is included on an agenda for a meeting, the request will be added to
the addendum for the applicable meeting if written notice to the Clerk is
received, including the subject of their address and their desired
action requested by Council, by the Agenda Update Deadline for the
meeting.
Page 8
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report LGS-018-24
2.3 To address Council’s direction, Staff recommend a new section be added to the
beginning of the delegation section, and the subsequent sections be renumbered:
7.5.1 All requests for delegations shall be accompanied by a written summary, to
be included in the Agenda, outlining their subject, their name and address,
their reason for delegating, their desired action requested of Council, and
any supporting documentation. Delegations will not be allowed if the
Municipal Clerk, in consultation with the CAO, deems that the written
summary is not sufficient to convey the topic and position of the delegation.
2.4 As a matter of housekeeping, Staff are also recommending that subsection 7.5.11 be
changed to remove content details as they are addressed in the new section. Therefore,
change from:
“if written notice to the Clerk is received, including the subject of their address
and their desired action requested by Council, by the Agenda Update Deadline
for the meeting.”
TO:
“if written notice to the Clerk is received, by the Agenda Update Deadline for the
meeting.”
2.5 To facilitate the above, Staff will be changing their process and will be adding the
“Delegation Request” to the delegation on the agenda (minus personal details – but
leaving the person’s municipality). This will include the above information that Council is
requesting.
Matters Under Staff Responsibility
2.6 Subsection 7.6.2. touches on the matter of items that are the subject of a staff report:
7.6.2 Notwithstanding Sub-section 7.6.1, Delegations shall not be permitted to
speak to a matter that was considered at a Standing Committee, or is the
subject of a Staff report or matter included under Unfinished Business
included on the Council agenda, where the Delegation spoke to the item at
a Standing Committee meeting, including a Public Meeting, which is being
reported to Council, unless a majority of the Members present vote in
favour to hear the delegation.
Page 9
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report LGS-018-24
2.7 As a housekeeping matter, Staff are seeking to clarify the wording, within subsection
7.6.2: “unless a majority of the Members present vote in favour to hear the delegation”.
Although Council can always suspend the rules to hear a delegation, it puts Staff in a
difficult position where we tell them that they are not permitted to speak “unless Council
lets you” – then we have the difficulty of “do we add them to the agenda?” “do we tell
them to show up and hope for the best?” “do we send them the link to appear
electronically?” Therefore, Staff are recommending the removal of this wording in
subsection 7.6.2.
2.8 In addition to Council’s concern above, Staff are also concerned about delegations
which may come to Committee prematurely (i.e. the matter has been referred to Staff for
a report which is not yet published). To address both concerns, Staff recommend a new
section be added:
7.5.2(f) Speak to matters which have been referred to Staff for a report which is
not yet on a published agenda or matters which are within the
responsibility of Staff. For these inquires, the Clerk shall notify the
proposed delegate that the delegation shall not be listed on the agenda
and shall direct the proposed delegate to the appropriate Department. The
delegation shall not be listed on an agenda until Staff has had the
opportunity to address the matter.
2.9 Similarly, Staff recommend the following new section be added related to
Communications, and subsequent sections be renumbered:
7.14.2 Communications which relate to a matter which has been referred to Staff
for a report which is not yet on a published agenda or matters which are
within the responsibility of Staff, shall not be placed on an agenda or the
ECCIP and will be forwarded to the appropriate staff member for
response to the author.
Agenda Restrictions
2.10 Subsection 2.6 of the Procedural By-law outlines Agenda Restrictions, which is directly
referred to from the Delegation section, but does not currently include a restriction
regarding publicity.
2.11 To address Council’s direction, Staff recommend a new section be added, and the
remainder (existing (j)) of subsection 2.6.1 be renumbered accordingly:
2.6.1 (j) is solely for the purpose of generating publicity for an event;
Page 10
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report LGS-018-24
2.12 Additionally, Staff have identified that the following agenda restriction also be added:
2.6.1 (k) Involves an active by-law investigation or prosecution.
2.6.1 (l) Involves other administrative, or operational matters, including but not
limited to: contract awards and billing discrepancies/issues.
Candidates and Nominees
2.13 Subsection 2.6 of the Procedural By-law includes a restriction “where the subject matter
involves political parties”. This does not speak particularly to nominees or candidates, or
addressing candidates in a municipal election which would not be affiliated with a
political party.
2.14 To address Council’s direction, Staff recommend that “candidate” and “political party” be
defined and that the above section be replaced with the following wording:
2.6.1 (i) Involves candidates, political parties, or nominees for a political party.
Conduct
2.15 Subsection 7.9.1 of the Procedural By-law outlines the conduct for delegations and
presenters who shall not:
a) speak disrespectfully of any person;
b) use offensive words;
c) speak on any subject other than the subject for which they have given notice
to address Council/Committee;
d) disobey the decision of the Chair;
e) enter into debate with Members;
f) appropriate any unused time allocated to another Delegation or Presenter; or
g) deviate from answering directly when answering a question.
Page 11
Municipality of Clarington Page 7
Report LGS-018-24
2.16 To address Council’s direction regarding comments, Staff recommend that subsection
7.9.1 (a), regarding conduct of delegations and presenters, be replaced with the
following wording:
7.9.1 (a) speak disrespectfully of any person or make detrimental comments, or
speak ill of, or malign the integrity of staff, the public or Council and
Committee.
2.17 To address the display of placards and props, Staff recommend that the following
section also be added to Subsection 7.9.1:
7.9.1 (h) display placards or props.
2.18 Similarly, subsection 9.14.1 states that Members of the Public shall maintain order and
quiet and may not:
a) Address Council or Committee without permission;
b) Interrupt any speaker or action of the Members or any other person
addressing Council or Committee;
c) Speak out;
d) Clap, except following award presentations;
e) Behave in a disorderly manner; or
f) Make any other noise or sound that proves disruptive to the conduct of the
meeting.
2.19 To address Council’s direction Staff recommend that the following subsections be
replaced, with the addition of subsection 9.14.1(g):
9.14.1(c) Speak out and shall refrain from public outbursts, heckling, shouting,
making comments, or behaviour intended to disrupt the debate,
discussion and/or general proceedings;
9.14.1(e) Behave in a disorderly manner or be disrespectful of Council, Staff,
delegations, or any member of the audience.
9.14.1 (f) Engage in conversations or make any other noise, or sound, that
proves disruptive to the conduct of the meeting;
9.14.1 (g) Display placards or props.
Page 12
Municipality of Clarington Page 8
Report LGS-018-24
Time Limit
2.20 The matter of the delegation time limit has changed back and forth over the years. The
following is a summary of the history of the delegation time limit (beginning in 2001):
Report CLD-017-01 and its Addendum recommended changing the time
limit from 10 minutes to five minutes in By-law 95-55. Council referred it
back to staff and ultimately it was decided to keep it to ten minutes.
Report CLD-041-07 recommended five minutes and Council approved five
minutes (By-law 2007-227).
In January, 2022, arising out of a delegation and correspondence, Council
changed the limit from five minutes to ten minutes (Amending By-law
2011-009).
Report CLD-007-11 containing a new procedural by-law (By-law 2011-
016) which kept the ten minutes.
Report CLD-006-15 containing a new procedural by-law which (By-law
2015-029) kept the ten minutes.
Report LGS-017-21 containing a new procedural by-law which
recommended five minutes and Council changed it to ten minutes (By-law
2021-054).
Report LGS-017-23 was the most recent comprehensive Staff review of
the Procedural By-law and Staff considered recommending a reduction
from ten minutes to five minutes, but there did not seem to be an appetite
for that, in discussions with individual Members of Council, so it remained
at ten minutes with a single extension.
2.21 The current Procedural By-law contains the following time limits for delegations:
7.5.13 Each Delegation in respect of a particular matter shall be limited to 10
minutes in addition to the time taken by Council to ask questions of the
delegate and to receive answers to such questions.
7.5.14 An extension of 2 minutes may be provided to a delegation by passing a
motion with a simple majority vote. All other extensions require the
suspension of the rules of procedure.
Page 13
Municipality of Clarington Page 9
Report LGS-018-24
2.22 To address Council’s direction regarding time limits for delegations, Staff recommend
subsections 7.5.13 and 7.5.14 be replaced with the following:
7.5.13 Each Delegation in respect of a particular matter shall be limited to seven
minutes in addition to the time taken by Council to ask questions of the
delegate and to receive answers to such questions.
7.5.14 Should there be more than one individual who registers to speak as a
group on the same matter, the group shall be allotted up to ten minutes to
delegate.
7.5.15 A single extension, of up to three minutes, may be provided to a
delegation by passing a motion with a simple majority vote. All other
extensions require the suspension of the rules of procedure.
2.23 Regarding Council’s direction to change the time limit for Members of the Public to
speak at Public Meetings from ten minutes to five minutes, Staff have concerns about
communicating the distinction between delegations (i.e. one is for seven minutes, and
one is for five minutes) and presentations. However, if it is Council’s wish to proceed
with the original direction in the resolution, Staff recommend replacing the following
subsection 7.10.3:
Members of the Public speaking at a Public Meeting shall be limited to 10
minutes, in addition to the time taken by Council to ask questions of the person
and to receive answers to such questions.
With the following:
Members of the Public speaking at a Public Meeting shall be limited to five
minutes, in addition to the time taken by Council to ask questions of the person
and to receive answers to such questions.
2.24 Regarding Council’s direction to add a limit of 20 minutes for staff and consultant
presentations at Public Meetings, Staff recommend adding the following subsection
7.4.6:
“The time limit for Staff and Consultant presentations at Public Meetings shall be
20 minutes.”
Page 14
Municipality of Clarington Page 10
Report LGS-018-24
3. Changes Arising out of the Strong Mayors Act
Previously Identified Matters
3.1 The following matters were identified, in Report LGS-024-23 regarding the Strong
Mayors Act, as possible changes to the Procedural By-law:
Add that the Procedural By-law may be subordinated to the Strong Mayors
powers section (Part VI.1) of the Municipal Act.
Mayoral veto overrides must be by 2/3 majority vote as defined in Part VI.1 of
the Municipal Act.
The Strong Mayors powers allows the Mayor to appoint the Chair and Vice-
Chair of Committees wholly consisting of Members of Council (i.e. General
Government Committee and the Planning and Development Committee).
Deputy Mayors do not have the Strong Mayor powers.
The logistics of Council overriding a Mayoral veto, i.e. if there is a Council
meeting scheduled within the timeframe, a Councillor should be able to put
the proposed override resolution on the agenda for consideration. The
Procedural By-law however does not allow a Member to add new business to
a Council meeting. NOTE: If there is no meeting scheduled within the
timeframe, and the Mayor is not willing to call a Special Council meeting, the
current procedural by-law provisions for the calling of a special meeting by a
majority of members prevails.
Clarify the Mayor’s power to introduce a matter or a by-law that could
potentially affect a prescribed provincial priority and require Council to
consider the matter, regardless of the Procedural By-law.
3.2 Although the resolution, arising out of Report LGS-024-23, directed Staff to bring the
changes directly to a Council meeting, Staff felt that it would be appropriate to include it
in this update to the Procedural By-law. Therefore, Staff are recommending that the
following wording be added to the end of subsection 2.1.1, under the Applicability
section:
“unless specifically overridden by sections of the Municipal Act (i.e. Strong Mayor
powers).”
Page 15
Municipality of Clarington Page 11
Report LGS-018-24
3.3 Therefore, Staff are recommending that the following replace subsection 2.4.1(a):
“The majority of Members have the right to decide unless specifically noted
elsewhere in this Procedural By-law, or by Statute.”
3.4 Staff are recommending that the following words be deleted from subsection 5.1.1(b):
“Each Member shall Chair the GG Committee meetings in accordance
with the following schedule:”
And replaced with the following words:
“Unless the Strong Mayors Powers are invoked where the Mayor may
appoint the Chair and Vice-Chair of Committees wholly consisting of
Members of Council, each Member shall Chair the GG Committee
meetings in accordance with the following schedule:”
3.5 Staff are recommending that the following wording be added to the end of subsection
3.2.1, under the “Appointment of Deputy Mayor” section:
“except the Strong Mayors powers as defined in Part VI.1 of the Municipal Act.”
3.6 Staff are recommending that the following sections be added:
7.16.1.1 Notwithstanding subsection 7.16.1, Members of Council are permitted
to add an agenda item to the “Items for Separate Discussion” section
of the Council agenda (not a Standing Committee) to override a Strong
Mayors’ Mayoral veto by providing notice to the Clerk prior to the
meeting, in accordance with the Council override provisions of the
Strong Mayor powers within Part VI.1 of the Municipal Act.
7.16.1.2 Despite any provision in this Procedural By-law and subject to any
prescribed requirements, if the Mayor is of the opinion that a particular
matter could potentially advance a prescribed provincial priority, the
Mayor may require the Council to consider the matter at either a
Standing Committee or Council meeting, without notice, in accordance
with the Strong Mayor powers within Part VI.1 of the Municipal Act.
Page 16
Municipality of Clarington Page 12
Report LGS-018-24
7.20.1.1 Despite any provision in this Procedural By-law and subject to any
prescribed requirements, if the Mayor is of the opinion that a by-law
could potentially advance a prescribed provincial priority, the Mayor
may propose the by-law to the Council and require the Council to
consider and vote on the proposed by-law at either a Standing
Committee or a Council meeting, without notice, other than notice
prescribed in Statutes, in accordance with the Strong Mayor powers
within Part VI.1 of the Municipal Act.
3.7 Regarding the Mayor’s power to put items on an agenda, Staff are recommending that
wording be added to clarify that the Mayor is the mover and does not require a seconder
for Council to consider and vote on that by-law, but for a matter, Council may deal with it
how they see fit through the normal course of the mover, seconder, and voting on a
motion. These actions may include referring, deferring, dividing, or tabling, etc.
3.8 Therefore, Staff are recommending that the following subsections be added,
renumbering subsection 9.12.4 to be 9.12.4(a):
9.12.4(b) Notwithstanding subsection 9.12.4(a), if the Mayor is invoking Strong
Mayor powers within Part VI.1 of the Municipal Act for Council to
consider and vote on a particular by-law, the Mayor shall be the mover
and no seconder shall be required.
9.12.4(c) Notwithstanding subsection 9.12.4(a), if the Mayor is invoking Strong
Mayor powers within Part VI.1 of the Municipal Act for Council to
consider a matter, the matter may be dealt with as the Committee or
Council sees fit through the normal course of a mover, seconder, and
voting on a motion.
3.9 For clarity, Staff are recommending that the following be added:
3.3.3 Notwithstanding any requirement for the Mayor to leave the Chair to
introduce a motion, this does not apply when the Mayor is introducing
a motion under the Strong Mayor powers within Part VI.1 of the
Municipal Act.
Confirming By-law
3.10 Section 11 of the Municipal Act states that municipalities may pass by-laws respecting
matters prescribed in the section. A confirming by-law confirms all the decisions of
Council and provides a by-law reference for all its decisions in the meeting, whether
done by by-law or not. It ensures that the municipality complies with Section 11 of the
Municipal Act.
Page 17
Municipality of Clarington Page 13
Report LGS-018-24
3.11 The Procedural By-law includes a section for a Confirming By-law. The current
Clarington confirming by-law makes no reference to the Strong Mayors Act. Further to
Staff’s initial review of the impacts of the Strong Mayors Act, Staff are recommending
changes to the standard wording in the confirming by-law.
3.12 Staff have reviewed the confirming by-laws of other municipalities, and the legislation,
and will be changing the standard template for a confirming by-law to that indicated in
Attachment 3.
4. Financial Considerations
Not Applicable.
5. Strategic Plan
Not Applicable.
6. Concurrence
Not Applicable.
7. Conclusion
It is respectfully recommended that Council approve the draft by-law (Attachment 2) to
amend the Procedural By-law.
Staff Contact: June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk, jgallagher@clarington.net
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Summary of Durham Municipalities – Delegations & Procedural By-law
Attachment 2 – By-law to Amend the Procedural By-law
Attachment 3 – New Confirming By-law Template
Interested Parties:
Rege Harren
Libby Racansky
Page 18
Attachment 1 to Report LGS-018-24
Summary of Durham Municipalities’ Procedural By-law
Regarding Delegation Questions
Page 1 of 4
Question/Matter Region Ajax Brock Oshawa4 Pickering Scugog Uxbridge Whitby
A Delegate may only address a
Standing Committee/Council
with respect to an item on the
agenda.
With written
submission, at
Standing
Committees only.
Delegations at
COW are only
allowed on agenda
items, and
delegations at
Council or only
allowed on items on
the agenda that
were not first
addressed at a
Committee meeting.
Can only be heard
at Council provided
they first appeared
at Committee.
“All
Delegations
for items not
listed on an
agenda shall
register ten
(10) days prior
to the
Meeting.”
Committee first2. Request for
support, free use, in-kind, or
added services should go to
Council as there may be
budget implications, unless
there is delegated authority, or
a policy, or approved budget.
Delegations must be
submitted in writing with any
support documentation and in
accordance with our agenda
deadlines (one week prior).
We have an agenda item on
each agenda that is: Public
Comments or Questions as it
relates to Items on the
Agenda.
Written request5
With the
exception of
matters
considered
directly by
Council, a
Delegation will
be first heard at
the Committee
as determined
by the Clerk in
relation to the
subject matter of
the Delegation,
prior to Council.
Delegations for
items not listed
on an agenda
shall register 10
days prior to the
Meeting.
Delegations
requesting
action be taken
shall be referred
to Staff for a
report.
Can only be
heard at
Council
provided they
first appeared
at Committee,
except where
the matter is
on Council or
urgent.
Goes to
Committee, with
proper notice.
Uses the
suggested
wording.
Written notice
required.
Must first
appear before
Committee
unless the
matter comes
direct to
Council.
Not allowing delegations from
persons who are not citizens of
Clarington, excluding public
meetings (in order to allow
agents/consultants/developers).
No such exclusion No such
exclusion
No such exclusion No such
exclusion
No such
exclusion
No such
exclusion
No such
exclusion
No such
exclusion, but
they note
whether the
delegation is a
resident, non-
resident, or
representing a
company on
the agenda
Page 19
Attachment 1 to Report LGS-018-24
Summary of Durham Municipalities’ Procedural By-law
Regarding Delegation Questions
Page 2 of 4
Question/Matter Region Ajax Brock Oshawa4 Pickering Scugog Uxbridge Whitby
Not allowing delegations who
are there for the “sole purpose
of generating publicity for an
event”.
No such exclusion.
We sometimes
have delegations
promoting events
(usually if they are
encouraged by staff
and endorsed by the
Region).R1
Uses this
suggested
wording.
If the submission clearly has a
political intent, or other
publicity intent, then, in
discussions with the Mayor,
have the authority to say “no
thank you”.
Uses this
suggested
wording.
Uses this
suggested
wording.
Not allowing candidates, or
nominees, for a political party.
No such exclusion.
But such a
delegation could be
found to be out of
council’s jurisdiction.
Similar
wording1
No such exclusion – But could
be “outside of jurisdiction” or
could be addressed in the
“use of Corporate resources
during and election policy”
No such
exclusion - But
could be
“outside of
jurisdiction”
Uses this
suggested
wording.
No person shall make
detrimental comments, or
speak ill of, or malign the
integrity of staff, the public or
Council and Committee.
Chair to maintain
order & decorum
and, if necessary,
through points of
privilege which
includes impugning
the reputation of
staff. The Region
has experienced
“ambushing”.
“Attendees
shall maintain
order and not
heckle or
engage in
conversations,
display
placards or
props, or
engage in any
behavior that
may be
considered
disruptive.”
Members of the public shall
be respectful of Council, staff,
delegations and all attendees
at the meeting by refraining
from public outbursts,
heckling, shouting, making
comments, or behavior
intended to disrupt the debate,
discussion and/or general
proceedings.3
Meeting
attendees will
maintain mutual
respect and
order and not
disrupt the
Meeting in any
manner.
See below6
Also restrictions
on signs,
banners,
emblems and
flags
See below7 Can’t be
disrespectful of
any person; use
improper
language or
unparliamentary
language;
disobey the
rules of
Procedure or
decision of
Chair.
Uses this
suggested
wording.
How long are delegations? 5 minutes 5 minutes 5 minutes 5 minutes 5 minutes 5 minutes 10 minutes 5 minutes
Page 20
Attachment 1 to Report LGS-018-24
Summary of Durham Municipalities’ Procedural By-law
Regarding Delegation Questions
Page 3 of 4
NOTES:
R1REGION = Restrictions on delegations:
o Delegations related to labour relations, ongoing legal proceedings, insurance claims, or solicitation of business shall not be permitted.
o Delegations with respect to complaints about Regional administrative processes shall not be permitted, including but not limited to contract awards and billing
discrepancies/issues.
o We also have restrictions on delegations coming to speak repeatedly about previous decisions of council, as a means to not tie up meeting time addressing things that
are already dealt with.
1AJAX = The Clerk may decline to grant a request for delegation if the subject matter pertains to personnel matters, labour relations, ongoing legal proceedings, solicitation of business, political
parties, or if it is otherwise apparent that the subject matter of the delegation is not suitable for discussion at a meeting of Council. Individuals wishing to appear as a delegation may be
encouraged by a Member or a Staff person to consider resolving an issue or concern with Staff in lieu of, or prior to, submitting a request for delegation.
2BROCK = For matters which are more properly within the responsibility of staff, the Clerk shall notify the proposed delegate that the delegation shall not be listed on the agenda and shall direct
the proposed delegate to the appropriate department. The delegation shall not be listed on an agenda until staff has had the opportunity to address the matter.
3BROCK = Delegations shall not:
o Speak disrespectfully of any person;
o Use improper language or unparliamentary language;
o Speak on any subject matter other than the subject for which they have given notice to address Council/Committee;
o Disobey the decision of the Chair; or
o Enter into debate with Members.
Page 21
Attachment 1 to Report LGS-018-24
Summary of Durham Municipalities’ Procedural By-law
Regarding Delegation Questions
Page 4 of 4
4OSHAWA = Related to correspondence = Correspondence that, in the Clerk’s determination, relates to staff performance, labour relations, ongoing legal proceedings or solicitation of
business will not be placed on an agenda or considered by Council or a Committee and will be referred to staff. Council or the Committee to which the correspondence was addressed will be
advised of the Clerk’s determination. Correspondence that, in the Clerk’s determination, relates to the following will not be placed on an agenda:
o Matters which are not within Council’s jurisdiction;
o Matters which have been decided upon by Council, if the period for reconsideration on the matter set out in section 26.10 has not expired;
o Matters which have been referred to staff for a report, until the matter is before Council or Committee; and
o Matters which are the subject of an Education and Training Session.
5OSHAWA = Related to delegations = Delegation requests that relate to staff performance, ongoing legal proceedings or solicitation of business will not be placed on an agenda or considered
by Council or a Committee and will be referred to staff. Council, or the Committee to which the Delegation was intended, will be advised by the Clerk. Delegation requests that, in the Clerk’s
determination, relate to the following matters will not be placed on an agenda (similar restrictions as correspondence).
6PICKERING = Regarding conduct = The Chair may impose restrictions on any Delegation and any questions to a Delegation for disorder or any other breach of this By-law and, if the Chair
rules that the Delegation is concluded, the person or persons appearing shall end the Delegation. Delegations limitations are the same as Brock.
7SCUGOG= Same wording as Brock for matters that are staff responsibility. Regarding delegations the limitations are the same as Brock, with the following additions:
o appropriate any unused time allocated to another Delegation or Presenter.
o be placed on an agenda to discuss the same matter within six (6) months of the last appearance, unless otherwise approved by the Mayor.
Page 22
Attachment 2 to
Report LGS-018-24
Page 1 of 6
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
By-law 2023-XXX
Being a by-law to amend the Procedural By-law 2023-033.
Whereas, arising out of Report LGS-018-24, Council approved Resolution #GG-XXX-
24, to amend the Procedural By-law regarding delegations and the Strong Mayors Act;
Now therefore be it enacted that By-law 2023-033, Clarington’s Procedural By-law, be
amended as follows:
1. Add the following to Section 1 – “Definitions and Interpretation”:
“Candidate” shall have the same meaning as in the Canada Elections Act,
S.C. 2000, the Election Act, R.S.O. 1990, or the Municipal Elections Act,
1996, as applicable, and shall be deemed to include a person or an agent
for a registered person seeking to influence another person to vote for or
against any candidate, question, or by-law submitted to the electors.
“Group” means more than one person speaking on the same topic
registered as a single delegation.
“Political Party” means a political party registered with Elections Ontario or
Elections Canada if it succeeds in endorsing one, or more confirmed
candidates, in a general election or a by-election after it has become
eligible for registration.
Page 23
By-law to Amend the Procedural By-law
Page 1 of 6
2. Add the following new subsection to the beginning of the delegation section and
the subsequent sections be renumbered:
7.5.1 All requests for delegations shall be accompanied by a written
summary, to be included in the Agenda, outlining their subject,
their name and address, their reason for delegating, their desired
action requested of Council, and any supporting documentation.
Delegations will not be allowed if the Municipal Clerk, in
consultation with the CAO, deems that the written summary is not
sufficient to convey the topic and position of the delegation.
3. Replace the following words from subsection 7.5.11:
“if written notice to the Clerk is received, including the subject of their
address and their desired action requested by Council, by the Agenda
Update Deadline for the meeting.”
With the following words:
“if written notice to the Clerk is received, by the Agenda Update Deadline
for the meeting.”
4. Delete the following words from subsection 7.6.2:
“unless a majority of the Members present vote in favour to hear the
delegation.”
5. Add the following new subsections, and the subsequent sections be renumbered
accordingly:
7.5.2(f) Speak to matters which have been referred to Staff for a report
which is not yet on a published agenda or matters which are within
the responsibility of Staff. For these inquires, the Clerk shall notify
the proposed delegate that the delegation shall not be listed on the
agenda and shall direct the proposed delegate to the appropriate
Department. The delegation shall not be listed on an agenda until
Staff has had the opportunity to address the matter.
Page 24
By-law to Amend the Procedural By-law
Page 2 of 6
7.14.2 Communications which relate to a matter which has been referred
to Staff for a report which is not yet on a published agenda or
matters which are within the responsibility of Staff, shall not be
placed on an agenda or the ECCIP and will be forwarded to the
appropriate staff member for response to the author.
6. Add the following new subsections, and renumber subsection 2.6.1 accordingly:
2.6.1 (j) Solely for the purpose of generating publicity for an event.
2.6.1 (k) Involves an active by-law investigation or prosecution.
2.6.1 (l) Involves other administrative, or operational matters, including but
not limited to: contract awards and billing discrepancies/issues.
7. Replace subsection 2.6.1(i) with the following:
2.6.1 (i) Involves candidates, political parties, or nominees for a political
party.
8. Replace subsection 7.9.1(a) with the following:
7.9.1(a) speak disrespectfully of any person, or make detrimental
comments, or speak ill of, or malign the integrity of staff, the
public or Council and Committee.
9. Add the following to subsection 7.9.1:
7.9.1 (h) display placards or props.
10. Replace subsection 9.14.1(c) with the following:
9.14.1(c) Speak out and shall refrain from public outbursts, heckling,
shouting, making comments, or behaviour intended to disrupt the
debate, discussion and/or general proceedings;
11. Replace subsection 9.14.1(e) with the following:
9.14.1(e) Behave in a disorderly manner or be disrespectful of Council,
Staff, delegations, or any member of the audience.
12. Replace subsection 9.14.1(f) with the following:
9.14.1 (f) Engage in conversations or make any other noise, or sound,
that proves disruptive to the conduct of the meeting;
9.14.1 (g) Display placards or props.
Page 25
By-law to Amend the Procedural By-law
Page 3 of 6
13. Replace subsections 7.5.13 and 7.5.14 with the following:
7.5.13 Each Delegation in respect of a particular matter shall be limited to
seven minutes in addition to the time taken by Council to ask
questions of the delegate and to receive answers to such
questions.
7.5.14 Should there be more than one individual who registers to speak as
a group on the same matter, the group shall be allotted up to ten
minutes to delegate.
7.5.15 A single extension, of up to three minutes, may be provided to a
delegation by passing a motion with a simple majority vote. All
other extensions require the suspension of the rules of procedure.
14. Replace subsection 7.10.3 with the following:
7.10.3 Members of the Public speaking at a Public Meeting shall be limited
to five minutes, in addition to the time taken by Council to ask
questions of the person and to receive answers to such questions.
15. Add the following subsection:
7.4.6 The time limit for Staff and Consultant presentations at Public
Meetings shall be 20 minutes.
16. Add the following wording to the end of subsection 2.1.1, under the Applicability
section:
“unless specifically overridden by sections of the Municipal Act (i.e. Strong
Mayor powers).”
17. Delete the following words in subsection 2.4.1(a):
“The majority of Members have the right to decide.”
And replaced with the following words:
“The majority of Members have the right to decide unless specifically
noted elsewhere in this Procedural By-law, or by Statute.”
18. Delete the following words from subsection 5.1.1(b):
“Each Member shall Chair the GG Committee meetings in
accordance with the following schedule:”
And replaced with the following words:
Page 26
By-law to Amend the Procedural By-law
Page 4 of 6
“Unless the Strong Mayors Powers are invoked where the Mayor
may appoint the Chair and Vice-Chair of Committees wholly
consisting of Members of Council, each Member shall Chair the
GG Committee meetings in accordance with the following
schedule:”
19. Add the following words to the end of subsection 3.2.1, under the “Appointment
of Deputy Mayor” section:
“except the Strong Mayors powers as defined in Part VI.1 of the Municipal
Act.”
20. Add the following sections:
7.16.1.1 Notwithstanding subsection 7.16.1, Members of Council are
permitted to add an agenda item to the “Items for Separate
Discussion” section of the Council agenda (not a Standing
Committee) to override a Strong Mayors’ Mayoral veto by
providing notice to the Clerk prior to the meeting, in accordance
with the Council override provisions of the Strong Mayor powers
within Part VI.1 of the Municipal Act.
7.16.1.2 Despite any provision in this Procedural By-law and subject to
any prescribed requirements, if the Mayor is of the opinion that
a particular matter could potentially advance a prescribed
provincial priority, the Mayor may require the Council to
consider the matter at either a Standing Committee or Council
meeting, without notice, in accordance with the Strong Mayor
powers within Part VI.1 of the Municipal Act.
Page 27
By-law to Amend the Procedural By-law
Page 5 of 6
7.20.1.1 Despite any provision in this Procedural By-law and subject to
any prescribed requirements, if the Mayor is of the opinion that
a by-law could potentially advance a prescribed provincial
priority, the Mayor may propose the by-law to the Council and
require the Council to consider and vote on the proposed by-law
at either a Standing Committee or a Council meeting, without
notice, other than notice prescribed in Statutes, in accordance
with the Strong Mayor powers within Part VI.1 of the Municipal
Act.
21. Renumber subsection 9.12.4 to 9.12.4(a) and add the following subsections:
9.12.4(b) Notwithstanding subsection 9.12.4(a), if the Mayor is invoking
Strong Mayor powers within Part VI.1 of the Municipal Act for
Council to consider and vote on a particular by-law, the Mayor
shall be the mover and no seconder shall be required.
9.12.4(c) Notwithstanding subsection 9.12.4(a), if the Mayor is invoking
Strong Mayor powers within Part VI.1 of the Municipal Act for
Council to consider a matter, the matter may be dealt with as
the Committee or Council sees fit through the normal course of
a mover, seconder, and voting on a motion.
3.3.3 Notwithstanding any requirement for the Mayor to leave the
Chair to introduce a motion, this does not apply when the
Mayor is introducing a motion under the Strong Mayor powers
within Part VI.1 of the Municipal Act.
22. This by-law shall take effect on the date of passing.
Passed in Open Council this XX day of MMMM, 2024.
_____________________________________
Adrian Foster, Mayor
_____________________________________
June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk
Page 28
Attachment 3 to
Report LGS-018-24
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Co-ordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
By-law YYYY-NNN
Being a by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council of the Municipality of
Clarington at this regular meeting held on DATE.
Whereas Part 1, Section 11 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, states that a
municipality may pass by-laws respecting matters which are within the spheres of
jurisdiction approved by the Province;
Now therefore the Council of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows:
1. The actions of the Council of the Municipality of Clarington at this regular
meeting held on DATE, in respect of each recommendation contained in the
minutes of the Committees and each motion and resolution passed and other
action taken by the Council of the Municipality of Clarington at this meeting, is
hereby adopted and confirmed as if all such proceedings were expressly
embodied in this by-law.
2. The Mayor and proper officials of the Municipality of Clarington are hereby
authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the actions of
the Council of the Municipality of Clarington referred to in the preceding section
hereof.
3. The Mayor and Municipal Clerk are authorized and directed to execute all
documents necessary in that behalf and to affix thereto the seal of the
Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington.
4. For the purposes of the exercise of the authority of the head of council to veto a
by-law in accordance with section 284.11 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as
amended, this Confirming By-law shall be deemed to be separate Confirming By-
laws for each item listed on the meeting agenda.
Passed in Open Council this DD day of MMMM, YYYY.
_____________________________________
Adrian Foster, Mayor
_____________________________________
June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk
Written approval of this by-law was given by Mayoral Decision MDE-YYYY-NNN dated
MMMMMM DD, YYYY.
Page 29
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEES MEETING
RESOLUTION #
DATE: May 6, 2024
MOVED BY Mayor Foster
SECONDED BY Councillor
Item 6.1 – Report LGS-018-24 – Procedural By-law Changes – Delegations
and Strong Mayors Act
That the draft by-law be amended to add the following new section in the
Conduct of Delegations Section:
7.9.2 Delegations are encouraged not to repeat information, on the
same matter, presented by an earlier Delegation, at the same
meeting.
Page 30
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: General Government Committee
Date of Meeting: May 6, 2024 Report Number: LGS-020-24
Submitted By: Rob Maciver, Deputy CAO/Solicitor, Legislative Services
Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO Resolution#:
Authored by: Pinder DaSilva, IDEA Officer
File Number: By-law Number:
Report Subject: Equity and Inclusion Lens Guideline
Recommendations:
1. That Report LGS-020-24, and any related delegations or communication items, be
received;
2. That the Equity and Inclusion Lens Guideline attached to Report LGS-020-24, as
Attachment 1, be approved; and
3. That all interested parties listed in Report LGS-020-24, and any delegations, be
advised of Council’s decision.
Page 31
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report LGS-020-24
Report Overview
This report provides an overview of the Equity and Inclusion Lens Guideline for Council’s
approval.
The report includes an outline of the engagement process, including consultations with other
municipalities who have adopted similar guidelines, and presentations to the Diversity
Advisory Committee, Accessibility Advisory Committee, and the Anti-Black Racism Task
Force.
1. Background
1.1 Clarington’s Inclusion, Diversity, Equity and Anti-Racism (IDEA) Officer conducted
considerable research and consulted with different municipalities across Ontario which
have implemented an Equity and Inclusion Lens Guideline, including City of Ottawa and
City of Oakville.
1.2 Utilizing the different versions of the Equity and Inclusion Lens, the IDEA Officer worked
with the Staff Diversity and Inclusion Team to select content for the Equity and Inclusion
Lens Guideline that would be applicable to the Municipality of Clarington.
1.3 The content for the Equity and Inclusion Lens Guideline was presented to the Diversity
Advisory Committee, the Anti-Black Racism Task Force, and the Accessibility Advisory
Committee for feedback and approval. The Committees and Task Force all endorsed
the Equity and Inclusion Lens.
1.4 The Equity and Inclusion Lens Guidelines has been branded by the Communications
Division for Clarington.
2. Equity and Inclusion Lens Guideline
2.1 The Equity and Inclusion Lens (Attachment 1), is like a pair of glasses or a filter, helping
Staff to look at programs and services with a new or different perspective. It’s an easy-
to-use tool made up of three questions that prompt Staff and Council to think about
inclusion in their work. Using the lens helps Staff and Council to consider potential
impacts of programs, services, and initiatives on the diversity of our employees and
customers.
2.2 The Equity and Inclusion Lens Guideline is intended to be used by Council, Municipal
Staff and Municipal committees when creating a new initiative or when reviewing an
existing project or program.
Page 32
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report LGS-020-24
2.3 The Equity and Inclusion Lens Guideline is included in the IDEA Strategy and aligns
with the Strategy’s Guiding Principles and Pillars of Diversity, Equity and Anti-Racism.
2.4 The Equity and Inclusion Lens Guideline will be posted on the Hub and made available
for all staff to use. It will also be made public once it is uploaded to the Diversity, Equity
and Inclusion section of the website.
2.5 Formal presentation and training will be made available to departments interested in
learning more on using the Equity and Inclusion Lens Guideline.
3. Financial Considerations
Not Applicable.
4. Strategic Plan
L.1.4: Take steps to ensure our staff team is diverse and inclusive, representative of the
community it serves.
C.3.1: Recognize and celebrate the growing diversity of the community.
C.3.2: Reduce barriers to municipal programs, services and infrastructure.
5. Concurrence
Not Applicable.
6. Conclusion
These Guidelines pertain to Council, among others. As such, it is respectfully
recommended that the Equity and Inclusion Lens Guideline be approved by Council.
Staff Contact: Pinder DaSilva, IDEA Officer, 905-623-3379 ext. 2563 or
pdasilva@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Equity and Inclusion Lens Guideline
Interested Parties:
Clarington’s Diversity Advisory Committee
Clarington’s Anti-Black Racism Task Force
Clarington’s Accessibility Advisory Committee
Page 33
Equity and Inclusion
Lens Guideline
www.clarington.net
Page 34
2
Clarington’s
Equity and Inclusion Lens
The Municipality of Clarington recognizes that ethno-cultural, race, gender
identity, sexual orientation, ability, religious affiliation, age, and other aspects of
identity collectively impact and form our life experiences and how we interact
with each other and our communities. We value the diversity of the people and
communities we serve.
The need to belong is universal and fundamental. We recognize that there is work
to be done to close the belonging gap. Clarington is committed to closing the gap
and creating an inclusive, equitable and safe community.
Inclusion is about building environments and cultures where people with diverse
identities feel like they belong, can work and live to their full potential with
respect, dignity and freedom from discrimination, and participate freely in the
life of the community while retaining authenticity, uniqueness and autonomy.
Page 35
3
What is an Equity and Inclusion Lens?
An Equity and Inclusion Lens is like a pair of glasses that help you see things
with a new or different perspective. It’s an easy-to-use tool made up of three
questions that prompt us to think about inclusion in our work. Using the lens
helps us consider potential impacts of programs, services and initiatives on the
diversity of our employees and customers.
The three questions are:
• What am I already doing to promote inclusion?
• Who is not included in the work I am doing?
• What changes or recommendations can I make to improve inclusion
and create a positive impact?
Why use an Equity and Inclusion Lens?
• To become more aware of the diversity in our workforce and
our community
• To incorporate broader perspectives into our work, leading to
creative solutions to address diversity and inclusion challenges
• To create an inclusive and respectful work culture that values
equity and diversity
• To better understand the needs of our residents and the systemic
barriers preventing equitable access
Who should use the Equity and Inclusion Lens?
• Councillors
• Municipal Staff
• Municipal volunteers and committee members
• Community partners, consultants and businesses providing services on
behalf of the Municipality
When should you use the Equity and Inclusion Lens?
New initiatives: use it at the beginning of a project or when planning new
programs and services to identify impacts that may unintentionally exclude
certain groups. Remember to use the lens when developing a Request for
Proposal (RFP) or requesting a quote.
Existing initiatives: use it to review a current project, program or service to
identify steps to eliminate or reduce any unintended negative impacts or barriers.
Page 36
4
How to use the Equity and Inclusion Lens Guideline
The Equity and Inclusion Lens Guideline is intended to be an interactive tool
that can help staff to check their own perspectives and potential biases when
reviewing, designing and implementing programs, services and initiatives.
Check your Biases
When asking yourself the three Equity and Inclusion Lens questions, consider
starting by checking your biases.
We all have conscious or unconscious biases — those unsupported opinions,
assumptions or prejudices we make about people or groups that could result
in treating some people unfairly.
Unconscious or implicit bias refers to the social stereotypes and judgments
that people unknowingly assign to others based on a variety of factors, such as
their age, socioeconomic status, weight, gender, race or sexual orientation.
Unconscious bias has the potential to influence the way we work, the way we
think and the way we interact with colleagues. These biases can lead to
inaccurate judgments and reinforce stereotypes, greatly impacting
organizational decision-making.
Questions to ask yourself to check your biases:
•Do I seek out new experiences and interact with people with different lived
experiences than me?
•Which issues do I not care about as much? Why is that?
•Am I comfortable with questioning social norms or do I avoid conversations
about social issues?
•What privileges do I have that others do not?
•Do I actively listen to other peoples’ experiences and perspectives?
•What has formed my implicit biases?
•What will I do next to be more aware of my biases?
Page 37
5
Steps to implementing the Equity and Inclusion Guideline:
Identify
Identify a program, service, policy or project. Remember it can be new or already
implemented.
Answer
Answer the three questions below to help you determine the potential direct or
indirect impacts of the initiative and whether it encourages inclusion.
1. What am I already doing to promote inclusion? Create a list of the programs,
projects and initiatives that are addressing equity and inclusion challenges.
2. Who is not included in the work I am doing? Determine if you’ve missed a
group that may be impacted or impact your work:
Consider:
• New Canadians, newcomers, refugees • People with different educational
backgrounds • People with disabilities
(visible, invisible) • People with different language, literacy levels • Faith groups • Families
• 2SLGBTQQIA+ • Indigenous Peoples • Low-income households • Older adults, seniors • Racialized people • Women • Youth • Rural residents
3. What changes or recommendations can I make to improve inclusion and
create a positive impact? Be sure to find ways to consult individuals with lived
experience from the groups that you have identified as missing from your
work. If you are not making any changes describe why.
Gender neutral language in
forms/documents: Remove Mr./Mrs.,
his/her (or change to them)
Welcoming facilities: remove
physical obstacles, provide
inclusive wayfinding
Images: Include people
of diverse groups
Implement
Record ideas from discussions and reflections. Incorporate and implement outcomes
from the lens.
Page 38
6
Additional questions and facts when applying
the Equity and Inclusion Lens
These additional questions will help you take a deeper look at inclusion in key
areas below.
Working Together
When I interact with others, do I:
▢Check my assumptions? Am I using information I have, or information I
created based on my inferences and personal experiences?
▢Avoid stereotypes so I can see the individual for who they are?
▢Discourage jokes, insults and negative comments that may be offensive?
▢Respect differences and recognize what we have in common?
▢Encourage feedback and full participation from everyone?
As a leader, do I:
▢Take steps to create a respectful and inclusive environment and encourage
staff to contribute to creating an inclusive workplace?
▢Clearly communicate to staff and the public that inappropriate behaviour
such as offensive jokes and negative comments?
▢Actively gather input and ideas from staff or the public with diverse
perspectives?
▢Have procedures, practices or attitudes that unintentionally prevent some
people from fully engaging in our work? For example, scheduling meetings
that conflict with religious holidays or not considering accessibility in
planning or implementation. What alternatives are possible?
Page 39
7
Public Engagement
▢ What types of engagement and outreach will help to ensure that everyone
is able to fully participate? How are you creating opportunities for people
less likely to be heard to share their specific concerns? For example, using
multiple tactics such as online surveys and focus groups, types of questions
asked, communication supports and anonymous feedback.
▢ Is your team representative of the diversity of the population you are
engaging? What steps can you take to ensure you are inclusive of the diversity
of perspectives?
▢ What steps can you take to remove barriers to people’s full participation?
For example, ensuring the location is accessible, offer communication
supports such as ASL or CART, or considering date and time of day.
▢ Does the time of the event or hours of the service consider potential impacts
on people’s time? For example, transportation, language, time, religious and
cultural holidays, culturally appropriate content and family responsibilities.
▢ Which employee(s), department(s), or agencies with experience in these
communities or areas help us engage with the community?
▢ Is the environment welcoming to participants who may be reluctant to
share their views? Does the pace, format and language of the engagement
accommodate everyone, including participants for whom the information may
be new? If not, what can we do to change this? For example, pair a new
participant with an experienced one to help the new participant feel
encouraged to participate, use closed captioning and translation software or
services.
▢ Are the insights from groups who face systemic barriers and inequities
reflected in the final product?
Programs, services, policies and projects
▢ Have equity and inclusion been considered for the current or proposed
program, service, policies, or project?
▢ How is the current or proposed service, policy, project or program designed
to ensure that diverse people can participate and benefit with dignity? For
example, accessibility for mobility devices, visual and hearing disabilities,
language or access to public transit.
▢ Will the service or program give the community fair and equal access to
resources and benefits?
▢ Are there inclusion practices in other municipalities, departments or
community organizations that can inform the implementation?
▢ Have the primary target user groups been consulted?
Page 40
8
Communications
▢Have you considered all possible target audiences? Who might not be
included?
▢What specific communication strategies are needed to reach them? For
example, working with community leaders, community organizations and
networks, municipal website, community newspapers or social media?
▢Is the way you are communicating easily accessible and understood by the
full diversity of our target audience? For example, using plain language,
accessible formats, graphics, multiple languages and making information
available both online and print). Will any groups be missed by only using
certain methods? What other approaches might we use?
▢Do images represent the full diversity of employees or residents?
▢Will people relate to the images and feel included in the way they are
represented?
▢Is everyone portrayed in a positive way that promotes inclusion and
eliminates stereotypes?
Inclusive Hiring Checklist
The purpose of this checklist is to challenge unconscious bias and consider
barriers that candidates may face during the recruitment process. Below is a list
of questions to ask yourself to support an inclusive hiring process as much as
possible.
Pre-Posting
▢Do staff in your department reflect the diversity of the residents of the Municipality of Clarington?
▢Would it be beneficial to engage in any focused employment outreach
activities such as job fairs and information sessions to encourage diverse
applicants to apply for positions in your department?
▢Are you aware that unconscious biases or perceptions about who is suitable
for certain jobs exist for all of us? For example, assumptions that men are
more suited to certain jobs, people from certain backgrounds are better or
worse at certain positions, or that people are too young/old.
Page 41
9
Posting Content
▢ Have you reviewed the job posting to ensure it continues to include bona fide
occupational requirements that are integral to carrying out the functions of
the position?
▢Are the educational credentials (degree, diploma, certificate, licence) listed
in the job description, job posting, pre-screening criteria and/or assessment
criteria still necessary and/or required by law to perform the job? Could
a candidate with an equivalent combination of education and experience
perform the duties of the position?
▢Are the years of experience requirements that are listed in the job description,
job posting, pre-screening criteria and/or assessment criteria still necessary
or valid in order to perform the job? For example:
•Requiring “recent experience” can create barriers for people
re-entering the job market•Requiring a specific number of years of experience can create
barriers due to age
•Legally in Ontario, employers are not permitted to ask for Canadian
experience in a job posting
▢Are you using inclusive language in the job description, job posting, testing
materials, during your interviews and telephone discussions with candidates?
For example:
•Are your communications and terms gender-neutral, such as referring
to a “firefighter” not a “fireman”?•Are you providing examples and communicating messages that
reflect diversity?
•Are you using jargon, idioms or humour that would not be easily
understood across different generational, cultural, ethnic and
language groups?
Posting Content
▢Have you considered where to post your job to reach the broadest pool of
diverse applicants? For example, in addition to the Municipal website, the job
ad may be shared with community partners, employment agencies that
serve diverse applicants, educational institutions, or other places that
facilitate access to job postings for diverse applicants.
▢Have you considered the language level used in the posting? Use plain
language and consider testing your document’s readability.
Page 42
10
Screening
▢ Make sure when reviewing applications you are not allowing irrelevant
information to influence your assessment of candidates, such as their name,
home address, sex/gender, where or what year they completed their
education or training, where they received their prior work experience, etc.
Interview Panel
▢ Does your interview panel include diverse representatives?
▢ Have you considered having cross-departmental interview panels to draw
on the different experience, skill sets, educational background, professional
background, etc. of people outside of your department?
Evaluating Candidates
▢ Are you evaluating candidates in the same way, against the same criteria,
at every stage of the hiring process?
▢ Are tests/screening tools reviewed for cultural, gender, racial, age or other
biases?
Biases
▢ Are candidates being evaluated on factors that do not predict future job
performance and could result in bias, discrimination and/or a lack of diversity
in hiring and advancement decisions? These factors could include:
• Personality, generation, culture, gender, etc. • Your first impression or “gut” feeling • Perception of “fitting” in or how comfortable you feel with them • Communication style such as accent, speaking volume, speaking
style, level of formality, etc. • Whether they are introverted or extroverted • Body language, such as how they shake hands, eye contact, how
close they stand to others • Physical appearance and dress, facial hair, tattoos, piercings
Page 43
11
▢Make sure you are not evaluating candidates based on gaps in their
employment history. This could result in bias and create systemic barriers for:
•Individuals who left the workplace to care for children or aging parents•Individuals with disabilities who have periods of absence due to medical
reasons•New Canadians and foreign-trained professionals•Youth entering the workforce who face difficulty securing permanent
full-time work
•Individuals who face barriers and are underemployed due to race,
ethnicity, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, sex/gender,
sexual orientation, etc.
▢Make sure you are not rejecting candidates solely because they appear to be
overqualified. This could have an adverse effect on:
•Older individuals, who have significant work experience but are facing
barriers to employment, or who may desire a position with less
responsibility to transition into retirement or for greater work
life balance•Newcomers to Canada who are facing difficulties securing employment
despite their prior work experience and education
•Individuals re-entering the workforce after lengthy absences such as
individuals with disabilities or who have taken time off for childrearing
▢Make sure you are not favouring candidates that are similar to you in gender,
race, ethnicity/ancestry/place of origin, ability, sexual orientation, cultural
background, education background, similar interests, etc.
Barriers
▢Are you able to remove as many barriers as possible upfront? For example:
•Scheduling interviews in locations that are physically accessible•Arranging interview/testing rooms that are large enough for
assistive devices
•Providing a copy of interview questions for candidates to refer to•When a candidate asks for accommodation, be prepared to provide test
materials in alternate formats.
The Municipality of Clarington would like to extend thanks to the
Town of Oakville for sharing their Inclusion Lens.
Page 44
Equity and
Inclusion Lens
Guideline
The Corporation of the
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street,
Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6
1-800-563-1195
Local: 905-623-3379
info@clarington.net
www.clarington.net
Page 45
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: General Government Committee
Date of Meeting: May 6, 2024 Report Number: FSD-020-24
Authored by: David Ferguson
Submitted By: Trevor Pinn, Deputy CAO/Treasurer, Finance and Technology
Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO
Resolution Number: By-law Number:
File Number: CL2024-14
Report Subject: Concrete Curb and Sidewalk Repairs
Recommendations:
1. That Report FSD-020-24, and any related delegations or communication items, be
received;
2. That Epic Paving & Contracting Ltd. with a total estimated bid amount of $230,000
(Net HST Rebate) for the initial one-year term and an estimated five-year contract
value of $1,150,000 (Net HST Rebate) being the lowest compliant bidder meeting all
terms, conditions and specifications of CL2024-14 be awarded the contract for
Concrete Curb and Sidewalk Repairs;
3. That pending satisfactory performance and price, the Purchasing Manager, in
consultation with the Director of Public Works, be authorized to extend the contract
for this service for up to four additional one-year terms;
4. That the total estimated funds required for this project for the first-year term in the
amount of $230,000 (Net HST Rebate) be funded from the Sidwalk Mntce – Contract
account; and
5. That all interested parties listed in Report FSD-020-24, and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Page 46
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report FSD-020-24
Report Overview
To request authorization from Council to award tender CL2024-14 for Concrete Curb and
Sidewalk Repairs.
1. Background
1.1 Tender specifications for Concrete Curb and Sidewalk Repairs were prepared by the
Public Works Division and provided to the Purchasing Services Division.
1.2 Tender CL2024-14 was issued by the Purchasing Services Division and advertised
electronically on the Municipality’s website.
1.3 Thirty-five plan takers downloaded the tender document.
2. Analysis
2.1 The tender closed on April 12, 2024.
2.2 Thirteen bids were received in response to the tender call.
2.3 The bids were reviewed and tabulated by the Purchasing Services Division (see
Attachment 1) and deemed compliant. The results were forwarded to the Public Works
Division for their review and consideration.
2.4 After review and analysis by the Public Works Division and the Purchasing Services
Division, it was mutually agreed that the low-compliant bidder, Epic Paving &
Contracting Ltd., be recommended for award of tender CL2024-14.
2.5 Epic Paving & Contracting Ltd. has successfully completed work for the Municipality in
the past.
3. Financial Considerations
3.1 The annual funding required for the first-year term in the estimated amount of $230,000
(Net HST Rebate) will be funded by the Municipality as provided. Future budget
accounts include the funds required for the second, third, fourth, and fifth-year term
terms.
Description Account Number Amount
Sidewalk Mntce – Contract 100-36-380-10733-7163 $230,000
Page 47
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report FSD-020-24
3.2 Pricing submitted for Concrete Curb and Sidewalk Repairs is to remain firm for the first
year of the contract. For future contract years, the unit prices would be adjusted on the
anniversary date of the contract award by the annual percentage change in the most
recent issuance of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), All Items, Ontario, as published by
Statistics Canada and the pricing will remain firm for the contract year.
3.3 The total estimated contract is for one year plus four optional additional years is
approximately $1,150,000 (Net HST Rebate).
3.4 Queries with respect to the department’s needs should be referred to the Director of
Public Works.
4. Strategic Plan
Not Applicable.
5. Concurrence
This report has been reviewed by the Deputy CAO, Public Services and the Director of
Public Works who concur with the recommendations.
6. Conclusion
It is respectfully recommended that Epic Paving & Contracting Ltd. being the lowest
compliant bidder, be awarded the contract for Concrete Curb and Sidewalk Repairs in
accordance with the terms and conditions of Tender CL2024-14.
Staff Contact: David Ferguson, Purchasing Manager, 905-623-3379 Ext. 2209 or
dferguson@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Summary of Bid Results
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from Department.
Page 48
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report FSD-020-24
Attachment 1 to Report FSD-020-24
Municipality of Clarington
Summary of Bid Results
Tender CL2024-14
Concrete Curb and Sidewalk Repairs
Bidder
One-Year
Total Bid
(Net HST Rebate)
Potential Five-Year
Total Bid
(Net HST Rebate)
Epic Paving & Contracting Ltd. $104,960.35 $524,801.76
Avion Construction Group Inc. 105,830.40 529,152.00
May's Group 121,114.75 605,573.76
Shayk Construction Inc 122,061.12 610,305.60
ROYAL CROWN CONSTRUCTION 124,070.81 620,354.04
Quality Property Services 124,452.48 622,262.40
Emmacon Corp. 132,288.00 661,440.00
DIG-CON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED 144,448.32 722,241.60
Aloia Bros. Concrete Contractors Ltd. 156,075.93 780,379.63
FDS Construction Inc. 162,522.93 812,614.66
Vidan Roofing & Contracting Inc. 171,516.48 857,582.40
Aqua Tech Solutions Inc 199,245.06 996,225.31
GIP Paving Inc. 321,725.43 1,608,627.17
Note: The tender provided conservatively estimated project quantities and therefore, Epic
Paving and Contracting Ltd.'s bid is significantly below the approved operating budget. The
allocated 2024 budget for sidewalk and curb repairs is $230,000. The department will manage
the contract quantities to maximize the amount of work that can be completed within the limit of
the operating budget.
Page 49
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: General Government Committee
Date of Meeting: May 6, 2024 Report Number: FSD-021-24
Submitted By: Trevor Pinn, Deputy CAO/Treasurer, Finance and Technology
Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO Resolution#:
Authored by: Brittany Renwick, Administrative Assistant, Finance and Technology
File Number: By-law Number:
Report Subject: 2024 User Fee By-law Update
Recommendations:
1. That Report FSD-021-24, and any related delegations or communication items, be
received;
2. That the By-law attached to Report FSD-021-24, as Attachment 1, repealing and
replacing By-law 2023-044, the User Fee By-law, be approved; and
3. That all interested parties listed in Report FSD-021-24, and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Page 50
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report FSD-021-24
Report Overview
In June 2023, Council approved report FSD-029-23, which began the process of
consolidating user fees into one by-law, an efficient way to incorporate inflationary factors
and adopt new fees in a consistent manner. The Deputy CAO/Treasurer has the authority to
approve annual changes to existing fees in the User Fee By-law up to the CPI increase or
$5, whichever is greater. These changes took effect in January of 2024.
This report adds new fees and highlights administrative changes to the User Fee By-law,
which will take effect July 1, 2024. This requires Council approval. Once these new fees are
added to the Fee Schedule, they will also be subject to the annual CPI/$5 increase to be
approved by the Deputy CAO/Treasurer.
1. Background
1.1 For the 2024 update, in consultation with the Clerk, it was decided that last year’s By-
law would be repealed, and a new By-law would be created for ease of reference and
public transparency.
1.2 The Municipal Act, 2001 allows the Municipality to charge user fees for services which
are provided to individuals. The user fee must be provided for in a by-law approved by
Council.
1.3 Increasingly, municipalities are reviewing their user fee process to consider the
appropriateness of the amount of costs that should be borne by the property tax levy
versus the amount that the benefiting party should be paying.
1.4 As Municipalities are limited in the types of revenue that they may generate (property
taxes, user fees, investment income), it is important to ensure that user fees are
carefully considered when the service being provided benefits individuals.
2. By-law Changes
2.1 In By-law 2023-044, authority was provided to the Deputy CAO/Treasurer to waive fees
up to $50. The intent of this authority was to address customer service issues. It has
been noted that customer service complaints are not the only time that fee waivers may
be beneficial to the corporation.
Page 51
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report FSD-021-24
2.2 The Community Services Division of the Public Services Department receives requests
from community groups for in-kind support such as reduced rental charges. Further,
special events such as ParticipAction Week or other campaigns (such as Bike Safety
Week) may benefit from reduced fees for activities. As well, the Municipality historically
has provided free public swims during extreme heat events.
2.3 The Deputy CAO/Treasurer will develop a management directive and standard
operating procedures for implementing controls on the waiving or provision of
complimentary or reduced fees for community events and partners.
2.4 Throughout the year, it may be necessary for staff to establish new fees outside of the
schedule outlined in the User Fee By-law. In order to meet customer service standards
and service delivery requirements, it is recommended that the Deputy CAO/Treasurer
(or designate) be authorized to approve interim service fees to be ratified by Council
within 12 months of approval. For example, it is anticipated that certain services from
the Region of Durham may be transferred to the Municipality, there would be a need to
add these new services to the User Fee Schedule.
3. Legislative Services - Animal Services
Current Animal Adoption Services, Costs, and Fees
3.1 Currently, all animals made available for adoption are vaccinated with species-
appropriate vaccinations and rabies vaccinations, dewormed, and microchipped.
3.2 Any additional veterinary care, within reasonable parameters, may be undertaken, such
as eye and ear treatments or minor dental work.
3.3 Cats over six months of age are sterilized. Adopters of kittens under the age of six
months are provided a $75 voucher at the time of the adoption to be redeemable on
proof of sterilization by a veterinarian. Adopters are responsible for any other costs.
3.4 Most dogs in Clarington Animal Shelter's care are not sterilized prior to adoption as the
current adoption fees do not cover the cost of the required veterinary and aftercare.
Some exceptions have been made in unique circumstances, which has proven to
increase the animal's adoptability.
3.5 The current fee for a cat adoption is $135. The adoption fee includes the Municipality of
Clarington’s license fee ($15 for a microchipped/spayed or neutered pet) for one year.
3.6 The current fee for a dog adoption is $100. The adoption fee includes the Municipality of
Clarington’s license fee ($15 for a microchipped/spayed or neutered pet) for one year.
There is no voucher program currently in place.
Page 52
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report FSD-021-24
3.7 Dogs (adults and puppies) were not routinely sterilized prior to adoption until late 2023.
Costs were viewed as prohibitive, and there were concerns with recuperation in the
shelter. Post-surgical animals have a ten-to-fourteen-day recovery period.
Rationale for Proposed Animal Adoption Fee Increases
3.8 Moving forward, Shelter staff recommend that Clarington require sterilization of all dogs
prior to adoption. This will result in extra costs, however the returns, tangible and
intangible, are worthwhile.
3.9 Sterilization of animals is quite expensive for pet owners and can be a barrier to
adoption for many people. This could lead to a preference for sterilized animals, leading
to longer shelter stays between incoming and outgoing dates. Longer shelter stays cost
the Municipality for animal care (food, staffing, cleaning, shelter overhead) and
decreases available space in the shelter, causing challenges for sufficient housing of
incoming animals.
3.10 Unsterilized pets contribute to the overpopulation of unwanted and abandoned pet
populations. Pet owners often wish to surrender pregnant dogs or cats or entire litters of
puppies or kittens. They may also try to surrender puppies that they could not sell, after
intentional, or accidental, breeding. In 2023, one stray adult female Rottweiler was
impounded and within three days had eight puppies at the shelter. Eleven stray cats
gave birth at the shelter in 2023. Other callers asking about surrendering their pregnant
pets were referred elsewhere due to space limitations.
3.11 In a shelter setting, unsterilized dogs and cats are behaviourally more anxious,
excitable, and reactive and may show more signs of aggression.
3.12 Sterilized animals help decrease the domestic animal population. This assists in
mitigating the root cause of animal sheltering requirements—overpopulation with
unwanted animals.
3.13 Sterilized animals lead less stressful, healthier lives due to the reduction of hormonal
urges and effects. Sterilization has also been shown to reduce common hormonal-
related illnesses such as mammary gland tumours and testicular cancer.
3.14 Sterilization of young animals is not an accepted veterinary practice by many
veterinarians. Approximately six months is the commonly accepted age for a vet to
perform the surgery. Rebates are already provided to adopters of kittens. This rebate is
$75 off the $135 adoption fee, and the amount is sent once proof of sterilization is
remitted. This important incentive to sterilize adopted animals, provides a 56% discount.
A similar rebate program for dogs will incentivize puppy adoptions and have a positive
impact on the unwanted pet population by helping to reduce accidental breeding.
Page 53
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report FSD-021-24
3.15 There are many sources of incoming animals: strays, surrenders, Ontario Provincial
Police and Provincial Animal Welfare Services seizures, and protective custody holds
with varying hold times.
3.16 Incoming animals are vaccinated, dewormed, and treated with flea medication as
needed, within 48 hours of impoundment in the shelter, to protect them and other
animals.
3.17 Animals that are not redeemed become the property of the Municipality of Clarington
after the stray hold time is expired (five days, as per the Responsible Pet Owners By-
law 2013-024 Section 4.21(1)). After this time, they are assessed to determine
adoptability. This hold time can vary if the animal is from a seizure. Surrenders become
the immediately the property of the Municipality of Clarington as soon as the surrender
forms are signed.
3.18 Care costs are difficult to quantify for pets in the care of Clarington Animal Shelter. The
costs include many factors, depending on the length of stay, the animal's health, and/or
special needs such as diet or medication. Staff hours, disinfection, and cleaning
supplies, as well as appropriate bedding and enrichment, all contribute to the cost of
sheltering animals from their intake to their outcome. Once an animal is deemed
suitable for adoption, it is microchipped and sterilization surgery is booked as soon as
possible.
3.19 Veterinary Costs for Cats in 2023 (Average of various clinics used):
Item Average Cost
FVRCP $25
Rabies 30
Flea Tx 25.66
Deworming 10
Microchip 10
Male Neuter 121.32
Female Spay 179.80
Male Total $221.98
Female Total $280.46
Adoption Fees $130 ($135 in 2024)
Page 54
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report FSD-021-24
3.20 Veterinary Costs for Dogs in 2023 (Average of various clinics used):
Item Average Cost
DHCPP $25
Rabies 28
Flea Tx 30
Deworming 2
Microchip 10
Male Neuter 406.13
or Female Spay 499.70
Male Total $501.13
Female Total $594.70
Adoption Fees $95 ($100 in 2024)
3.21 The above charts include only routine veterinary costs to prepare an animal for
adoption. Any other treatments or interventions are in addition to these costs, such as
dental work or umbilical hernia repair.
3.22 Animals that remain in the shelter for more than 30 days may also require booster
vaccinations for the initial vaccines (FVRCP or DHCPP) and repeat flea treatment.
3.23 Currently, the Clarington Animal Shelter does not have a contracted veterinarian due to
the lack of bidder in the most recent Request for Quotations. The Shelter must obtain
services from whichever vet is willing to provide them, at their convenience, and at their
variable prices and discounts.
3.24 Currently the adoption costs in the Municipality of Clarington are very low compared to
surrounding municipalities. Differences range from 300% to 600% higher than the
adoption fee at Clarington Animal Shelter.
Page 55
Municipality of Clarington Page 7
Report FSD-021-24
3.25 Current Adoption Fees in Surrounding Communities:
Municipality Puppies Adult
Dogs
Senior
Dogs Kittens Adult
Cats
Senior
Cats
Clarington $100 $100 $100 $135 ($75
voucher) $135 $135
Pickering 300 ** 150
Whitby 500 309.74 250 150
Oshawa 500 400 226 169.50
Port Hope 600 450 300 200 150 100
Ajax (HSDR) 585 325 210 85
3.26 All surrounding municipalities adopt out only sterilized animals, except in the case of
Pickering, which offers a $75 rebate for kittens adopted unsterilized due to age.
Recommended Changes to Clarington’s Adoption Fees
3.27 The following chart summarizes the recommended changes:
Species New Fee Increase
Voucher
Rebate
(Proof of
Sterilization)
Net increase
Dog - Adult $400 $300 N/A $300
Dog – Puppy (<6mo) 500 400 $100 rebate
(25%) (new) 300
Cat – Adult 150 15 N/A 15
Cat – Kitten (<6mo) 150 15 $75 rebate
(50%) 15
3.28 Cat fees remain constant between adults and kitten, so the increase would be the net
increase in both cases.
Page 56
Municipality of Clarington Page 8
Report FSD-021-24
3.29 Fees for puppies would be higher to mitigate the cost of a voucher program.
3.30 In 2023, 24 adult dogs and 10 puppies were successfully adopted to new owners.
Additionally, 76 adult cats and 53 kittens were adopted. The recommended rate
increase applied to the 2023 adoptions would have resulted in a gain of $12,885
adoption revenue.
3.31 The increased fees would put the Clarington Animal Shelter fees in the mid-range of the
other area lakeshore communities.
3.32 New Adoption Fees in Relation to Surrounding Communities:
Municipality Puppy
Fee
Adult
Dog Fee
Senior
Dog Fee
Kitten
Fee
Adult Cat
Fee
Senior
Cat Fee
Pickering $300 ** $150
Whitby 500 309.74 250 150
Clarington 500 ($100
rebate) 400 150 ($75
rebate) 150
Oshawa 500 400 226 169
Port Hope 600 450 300 200 150 100
Ajax (HSDR) 585 325 210 85
Other Agency Boarding User Fee Addition
3.33 It is recommended that Clarington adopt new “Other Agency Boarding” fees and add to
the Legislative Services fee schedule.
3.34 Other agencies, such as the Provincial Animal Welfare Services or neighboring
municipalities, may sometimes require assistance housing animals in their care.
Clarington Animal Shelter may be able to assist in some cases, depending on the
number of animals in care at the time.
Page 57
Municipality of Clarington Page 9
Report FSD-021-24
3.35 This is to set the fees for outside agencies and allow them to be raised along with the
other user fees at the shelter when appropriate.
Other Agency Boarding Fee HST Total Unit
Intake exam – first day board $60 $7.80 $67.80 First day
Daily Boarding Fee (includes food, cage space, care, daily monitoring, etc.) Regular
Dog 30 3.90 33.90 Per animal,
per day
Cat 25 3.25 28.25 Per animal,
per day
Aggressive, dangerous, quarantine
or medical isolation animals 75-100 Plus HST Varies Per animal,
per day
Nursing mom and litter (kittens or
pups <4 weeks) 35-100 Plus HST Varies Per animal,
per day
Small Animals 30 3.90 33.90 Per animal,
per day
Medical Care
Veterinary intervention As billed Total bill per
animal
Daily medication administration 15 1.95 16.95 Per animal
Grooming (if necessary) As billed Total bill per
animal
Other Services
Cold Storage 25-40 Plus HST Varies
Billed by
month
based on
size
3.36 The Agency to whom the service is provided shall be responsible for all additional
incidental fees, including veterinary fees, medications, grooming, any special dietary
requirements, and any other unforeseen fees that may arise.
3.37 Unless a situation is an emergency, consent will be sought from the responsible Agency
for any additional care.
Page 58
Municipality of Clarington Page 10
Report FSD-021-24
3.38 It is recommended that Clarington adopt new “Other Agency Boarding” fees and add to
the Legislative Services fee schedule.
3.39 Staff will develop SOPs regarding temporary boarding services for outside agencies.
These additional SOPs and user fees will be included in future amendments to the
Responsible Pet Owner’s By-law (2013-024).
3.40 Staff will set out criteria for the SOP for numbers permitting intake, intake procedures,
responsibilities of each agency, and hold time/outcomes. Procedures for emergencies
and medical care will also be documented. Necessary documents will be drawn up and
executed by staff for these boarding services.
4. Legislative Services – Clerk’s Division
Marriage License
4.1 The Province of Ontario Form 8 is used to reduce the marriage license fee when both
parties to a marriage have, or are entitled to have, registered Indian status under the
Indian Act and also reside in Ontario on a reserve or Crown lands.
4.2 The Province of Ontario waives their portion of the marriage license fee when Form 8
“Affidavit to Waive Provincial Fee for a Marriage License” is used. Staff support waiving
the Municipality’s fee when Form 8 is used as well, to be consistent with the Province’s
process.
4.3 The current fee for a marriage license is $140, with $75 be the portion that the Province
waives. Clerk’s Division staff recommend that the remainder (i.e. the Municipal portion)
be waived.
4.4 This situation has not occurred in the past and is not anticipated to occur frequently but
inquires have been made and it speaks to the goals of the Strategic Plan.
Civil Marriage Ceremony Witnesses
4.5 Since Clarington started providing the civil marriage ceremony service, Clarington has
provided, free of charge, witnesses (aka Clarington Staff) for couples who are unable to
provide their own witnesses. This often happens when the couple is having a larger
celebration later and does not want to make it known that they are getting married at a
civil ceremony. Another reason occurs when the couple is getting married at a civil
ceremony during the day, and all of their friends (aka possible witnesses) are at work.
4.6 This does not happen frequently (perhaps six times per year), but it does take Staff
away from their duties.
Page 59
Municipality of Clarington Page 11
Report FSD-021-24
4.7 The following summarizes what other comparator municipalities charge for witnesses
(sorted by fee):
Municipality
with link to
Webpage
Witnesses
Provided? If yes, Fee? Notes
Clarington Yes Free
Ajax Yes Free
Prince
Edward
County
Yes Free
Cornwall Yes $20 per witness Cash only
Cobourg Yes $25 Not clear on whether this is per
witness
Kingston Yes $25 per witness
Welland Yes $25 Not clear on whether this is per
witness
Niagara
Falls
Yes $25 per witness (plus HST)
Hamilton Yes $31.85 per witness (HST
included)
Waterloo Yes $30 per witness
Uxbridge Yes $35 per witness (plus HST)
Brock Yes $50 per witness (HST
included)
Oshawa No
Whitby No
Pickering No
Caledon N/A Does not provide civil
ceremonies
Belleville N/A Does not provide civil
ceremonies
Page 60
Municipality of Clarington Page 12
Report FSD-021-24
Municipality
with link to
Webpage
Witnesses
Provided? If yes, Fee? Notes
Innisfil N/A Does not provide civil
ceremonies
Milton N/A Does not provide civil
ceremonies
Scugog N/A Does not provide civil
ceremonies
4.8 Clerk’s Division staff recommend adding a new fee line that indicates “$25 + HST per
witness, provided by Clarington, for civil marriages.”
Commissioner of Oaths Fee – Subsequent Documents
4.9 Clarington has an existing fee for Commissioner of Oaths ($26+HST=$29.38 currently)
but has never established how many documents that might include nor the fee for
subsequent documents. Commissioner of Oaths Services is provided by both the
Clerk’s Division and the Planning & Infrastructure Department (for planning documents
only).
4.10 The following summarizes Durham Area municipalities’ fees for Commissioner of Oaths,
sorted by “First Commissioning Fee”:
Municipality
First
Commissioning
Fee (non-
resident where
applicable)
First
Commissioning
#Documents
Subsequent
Commissioning URL & Notes
Uxbridge $25 5 $5 Uxbridge
Oshawa $25 + HST =
$28.25 3 $5 + HST = $5.65 Oshawa
Clarington
(Currently)
$26 + HST =
$29.38 N/A N/A Clarington
Pickering $26.50 5 $5 Pickering
Page 61
Municipality of Clarington Page 13
Report FSD-021-24
Municipality
First
Commissioning
Fee (non-
resident where
applicable)
First
Commissioning
#Documents
Subsequent
Commissioning URL & Notes
Brock $27 5 $5
Brock
Brock Resident initial
fee is $21.
Hardly any non-
residents.
Over 65 are free,
except for MTO
vehicle transfers.
Scugog $27 +HST =
$30.51 5 $7 + HST = $7.91 Scugog
Ajax $28.41 + HST =
$32.10 5 $23.72+HST
Ajax
Ajax Resident initial
fee is $23.72 + HST
Whitby $30 + HST =
$33.90 4 Full fee amount
again
Whitby
Whitby Resident initial
fee is $17.50+HST.
Vast majority are
Whitby residents.
Increase in resident
fee to $20 + HST to
take effect April 1st.
NOTE: The above is exclusive of Change of Name Forms and Pension (aka Life Certificates).
Page 62
Municipality of Clarington Page 14
Report FSD-021-24
4.11 Clerk’s Division Staff are recommending the following additions to the User Fee By-law,
within the General Schedule:
a. Add text to indicate that “the initial fee covers up to three documents for
commissioning in a single visit.”
b. Add a new fee line that indicates “$5 for each subsequent document for
commissioning in a single visit.”
Printing Services
4.12 Council approved Report LGS-007-27, which included a recommendation for
harmonization of printing fees with the Clarington Library Museum and Archives
(CLMA). Accordingly, the following fees are included in the attached by-law:
Service Fee Unit
Letter (8 ½” x 11”)
$0.15
0.35
Per side black and white
Per side colour
Legal (8 ½” x 14”)
0.15
0.35
Per side black and white
Per side colour
Ledger/Tabloid (11” x 17”)
0.20
1
Per side black and white
Per side colour
5. Legislative Services – Municipal Law Enforcement
Fees for Routine Disclosure of Information
5.1 Two new fees are being added resulting from a recent modernization of processes and
the creation of a Routine Disclosure Management Directive. The fees reflect the time
and resources required to meet routine disclosure requests. These requests are not a
public benefit but rather a benefit to identifiable parties, and therefore, a service fee is
reasonable.
5.2 A fee of $50 per investigation for investigation details will be charged for investigations
occurring in 2023 or onwards. In 2023, the Municipality completed its adoption of
AMANDA and all MLE investigations are now kept in this system.
Page 63
Municipality of Clarington Page 15
Report FSD-021-24
5.3 A fee of $100 per investigation for investigation details will be charged for investigations
occurring prior to 2023. This added cost reflects the additional time and effort required
to access the records for MLE investigations not maintained in the AMANDA system.
6. Finance and Technology - Taxation
6.1 There are several changes being recommended to provide clarity and or eliminate
redundancy:
Proposed Change Rationale
Remove in its entirety –
“Refund of incorrect
payment by lawyers,
mortgage companies”
This fee is duplicated. A refund would be included in
“Process a Refund”. There is no change to fee.
Remove in its entirety –
“Electronic payment
correction (first correction
at no charge for resident
only)”
In many cases, this fee contradicts the “Transfer
between accounts” fee which is $40
Remove in its entirety –
“Reprint tax bills, PASP
letter…” and replace with
“Reprint of any previously
issued tax
correspondence.”
Covers all possible current and future letters.
Add under “Dishonoured
payments (pre-authorized
payments/cheques) - $5 for
each additional roll
This captures the staff time required to correct returned
payments that impact multiple roll numbers.
Add under “Process a
refund/transfer between
accounts” - $5 for each
additional roll
This captures the staff time required to correct returned
payments that impact multiple roll numbers.
6.2 The addition of the per roll fee is recommended because commercial taxpayers or
developers pay multiple tax bills with one single payment. Each transfer or dishonoured
payment has to be individually adjusted and reviewed; the current fee treats does not
differentiate between payments to one or one hundred different properties and,
therefore, is not equitably treating the different situations.
Page 64
Municipality of Clarington Page 16
Report FSD-021-24
7. Planning and Infrastructure – Planning
7.1 As a result of changes to routine disclosures, a fee of $200 per property is
recommended to be added for each request for an Environmental Review Letter. These
letters are similar to Land Use Information and Compliance Letters which already have
a fee associated for the service.
8. Planning and Infrastructure - Infrastructure
8.1 It is proposed that, in accordance with the new Site Alteration By-law, changes to the
fees be made to reflect the changes as adopted:
Service Fee HST Total Unit
Minor Fill Operation Permit $250 $250 Per permit
Minor Fill Operation Permit
Renewal 125 Per permit
Small Fill Operation Permit
1,000 1,000 Per permit
2 2 Per cubic
metre of fill
Small Fill Operation Permit
Renewal
500 Per permit
2 2 Per cubic
metre of fill
Large Fill Operation Permit
2,000 2,000 Per permit
2 2 Per cubic
metre of fill
Large Fill Operation Permit
Renewal
1,000 1,000 Per permit
2 2 Per cubic
metre of Fill
9. Planning and Infrastructure – Building Inspections
9.1 Staff have proposed the addition of a Pool Enclosure Permit fee of $75 per application
to the fee schedule. Please note, this is not a new fee, but was not previously captured
on the schedule.
Page 65
Municipality of Clarington Page 17
Report FSD-021-24
10. Planning and Infrastructure – Development Engineering
10.1 Staff have proposed the following additions to the Planning and Infrastructure user fee
schedule. Please note, these are not new fees, but were not previously captured on the
schedule:
Development Engineering
Fees Fee HST Total Unit
ROW Closure and
Conveyance Application
Fee
$250 $32.50 $282.50 Per
application
ROW Closure and
Conveyance Processing
Fee
750 97.50 847.50
Per closure
and
conveyance
processed
Winter Maintenance Fee 5,600
Per km of
road in the
development
Streetlighting Fee 125 Per light in
subdivision
Engineering Review Fee
1.25% of the
Final Works
Cost Estimate
or $2,000,
whichever is
greater.
Engineering Inspection Fee
Estimated Cost of
Services:
Less than $500,000
$8,000 or
3.5% of the
Estimated
Cost of
Services,
whichever is
greater.
Page 66
Municipality of Clarington Page 18
Report FSD-021-24
Development Engineering
Fees Fee HST Total Unit
$500,000-$1,000,000
$17,500 or
3.0% of the
Estimated
Cost of
Services,
whichever is
greater.
$1,000,000-$2,000,000
$30,000 or
2.5% of the
Estimated
Cost of
Services,
whichever is
greater.
$2,000,000-$3,000,000
$50,000 or
2.25% of the
Estimated
Cost of
Services,
whichever is
greater.
$3,000,000 or greater
$67,500 or
2.0% of the
Estimated
Cost of
Services,
whichever is
greater.
11. Public Services – Public Works
11.1 It is being recommended that the Access Permit Urban, Curb Reinstatement, and
Sidewalk Remove and Replace fees be changed to match the wording for the
installation of culverts to read “Actual costs of required resources”.
Page 67
Municipality of Clarington Page 19
Report FSD-021-24
11.2 Staff have proposed the addition of a Commemorative Tree Plaque fee to the
Commemorative Tree and Bench Program:
Commemorative Tree and Bench
Program Fee HST Total Unit
Commemorative Tree $900 $117 $1,017 Per tree
Commemorative Bench 2,750 357.50 3,107.50 Per bench
Commemorative Tree Plaque 477.88 62.12 540 Per plaque
11.3 Staff have also proposed the addition of Incident Response fees pertaining to municipal
roadway and right of way clean up, infrastructure damage incidents and any additional
incurred expenses. Fees to be determined by the current MTO rate plus actual cost of
required resources.
12. Public Services – Community Services
12.1 Staff recommend the addition of new fees to better reflect available rental facilities in our
community:
12.2 Staff recommend the inclusion of a Youth equivalent general drop-in fee to support
program expansion. This fee is in-line with other comparable rates for drop-in
programming for youth:
Recreation Fee HST Total Unit
General Drop-In Youth 1.92 1.92 Per visit
12.3 Inclusion of wording ‘locker rentals per term’ in the per transaction Administrative Fee
description. Currently, the Administrative Fee applies to cancellations of activities,
memberships, and permit requests.
Facilities Fee HST Total Unit
Category F $25 $25 Per hour
Indoor Turf Half Field Discount 50 50 Per hour
Event – Additional Amenities
Community Group / Not-For-
Profit
0 0 Per event
Page 68
Municipality of Clarington Page 20
Report FSD-021-24
12.4 With the addition of new multi-use outdoor skating and civic square facilities anticipated
to open between 2024 to 2026, the Facility category of Parking Lots is updated to
include reference to Civic Squares. This provides staff an appropriate fee for these new
facilities that is in-line with current vendor markets and similar community events that
currently take place in our parking lots.
12.5 Staff wish to make clarification to items in FSD-029-23 where staff have continued to
honour previous rates and fees:
a. The non-resident surcharge was listed as applicable for activity registrations only.
The non-resident surcharge also applies to memberships and facility rentals;
b. The age-based discount for seniors aged 55 years and older was excluded. This
discount of 50% remains in effect;
c. The student membership discount was incorrectly stated at 20%. The correct
discount is 25%.
12.6 For clarification, the standard multi-fee discount of 10% off pay-as-you-go admissions
instated in FSD-029-23 is only applicable on drop-in programming and not on ticketed or
registered programs (i.e. luncheons and special events).
13. Public Services – Emergency and Fire Services
13.1 No proposed user fee updates.
14. Financial Considerations
14.1 The Financial considerations have been identified in the above rationale; departments
will update user fee revenue as part of the 2025-2027 Budget Update.
15. Strategic Plan
15.1 Not applicable
16. Concurrence
This report has been reviewed by the Planning and Infrastructure Services, Public
Services and Legislative Services Deputy CAO’s who concur with the
recommendations.
Page 69
Municipality of Clarington Page 21
Report FSD-021-24
17. Conclusion
It is respectfully recommended that Council approve the attached draft User Fee By-
law, and repeal By-law 2023-044.
Staff Contact: Trevor Pinn, Deputy CAO/Treasurer, CPA, CA, 905-623-3379 x2602 or
tpinn@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Draft User Fee By-law
Interested Parties:
The following interested parties will be notified of Council's decision:
Clarington’s Staff Truth & Reconciliation Committee, c/o Pinder DaSilva, IDEA Officer
Pranay Gunti, Founder and President, Cultural Association of Clarington
Page 70
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF
CLARINGTON
BY-LAW NO. 2024-xxx
Being a by-law to require the payment of fees for services.
Whereas Subsection 69(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.12, as amended,
provides that by-laws may be passed by the council of a municipality to establish a tariff
of fees for the processing of applications made in respect of planning matters;
And whereas Subsection 391(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, as
amended, authorizes a municipality to impose fees or charges for services or activities
provided or done by or on behalf of it;
And whereas Council passed a resolution arising out of Report FSD-021-24
recommending that the User Fee By-law 2023-044 be repealed and replaced;
Now therefore the Council of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows:
1. That, commencing July 1, 2024, the fees for services provided by the
Municipality shall be set out in the following Schedules to this By-law:
a. Schedule “A” – General Fees
b. Schedule “B” – Legislative Services Fees
c. Schedule “C” – Financial Services Fees
d. Schedule “D” – Emergency and Fire Services Fees
e. Schedule “E” – Planning and Infrastructure Services Fees
f. Schedule “F” – Community Services
g. Schedule “G” – Public Works Fees
h. Schedule “H” – Cemetery Services Fees
2. That the Deputy CAO/Treasurer is authorized to adjust the above schedules,
without amendment to this By-law, effective annually on January 1 of each year,
beginning July 1, 2024, by an amount not exceeding the July over July, Ontario
All-Items Consumer Price Index (CPI) or $5, whichever is higher.
Page 71
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
3. Notwithstanding Section 1, the Deputy CAO/Treasurer, or designate, is
authorized to waive service fees for customer service, community events, or
internal purposes.
4. That the Deputy CAO/Treasurer, or designate, be authorized to approve interim
service fees to be ratified by Council within 12 months of approval.
5. That By-law 2023-044, and any amendments thereto, be repealed.
6. That this by-law shall be effective on July 1, 2024.
Passed in Open Council this _____ day of May, 2024.
_____________________________________
Adrian Foster, Mayor
_____________________________________
June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk
Page 72
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
By-law 2024-xxx
Schedule “A”
General Fees
Fee Schedule Effective July 1, 2024
Service Fee HST Total Unit
Photocopies $0.67 $0.09 $0.76 Per page
3.10 0.40 3.50 Minimum
Printing –
Letter (8 ½" x
11”)
0.13 0.02 0.15 Per side black
and white
0.31 0.04 0.35 Per side colour
Printing –
Legal (8 ½” x
14”)
0.13 0.02 0.15 Per side black
and white
0.31 0.04 0.35 Per side colour
Printing –
Ledger/Tabloid
(11” x 17”)
0.18 0.02 0.20 Per side black
and white
0.89 0.11 1 Per side colour
Commissioner
of Oaths
26 3.38 29.38
Covers up to
three
documents for
commissioning
in a single visit
5 0.65 5.65
For each
subsequent
document for
commissioning
in a single visit
Commissioner
of Oaths(for
Ontario
“Change of
Name” forms
currently
referred to as
Form 11155E
and Form
1156E)
0 Not applicable
Page 73
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
By-law 2024-xxx
Schedule “B”
Legislative Services Fees
Fee Schedule Effective July 1, 2024
Service Fee HST Total Unit
Burial Permit $26 $26
Civil Marriage Ceremony 280 36.40 316.40
Marriage Licenses 140 140
Civil Marriage Ceremony
Witness – Provided by
Clarington
25 3.25 28.25 Per witness
Cost to File Appeal of Property
Standards Order (50% to be
refunded to Appellant following
appearance before Appeal
Committee. Failure to appear for
the Appeal will result in
forfeiture of entire fee amount)
88.50 11.50 100
Municipal Law Enforcement
Investigation
44.25 5.75 50 Per
investigation,
2023
onwards
88.50 11.50 100 Per
investigation,
2022 and
prior
Page 74
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
The following table is a summary of regulatory fees set by the Municipality and rules
outlining the license, applicability and eligibility should be referred to the appropriate
regulatory by-law:
Snow Clearing By-law (93-144) Fee HST Total Unit
Removal of Snow Actual
cost
Administrative Charge $50 $50 Per removal
Body Rub Parlour By-law
(2003-127)
Fee HST Total Unit
Application
Owner’s Licence $1,061.95 $138.05 $1,200
Operator’s Licence 176.99 23.01 200
Attendant’s Licence 132.74 17.26 150
Licence
Owner’s Licence 176.99 23.01 200
Operator’s Licence 88.50 11.50 100
Attendant’s Licence 44.25 5.75 50
Licence Renewal
Owner’s Licence 353.98 46.02 400
Operator’s Licence 247.17 2.83 250
Attendant’s Licence 88.50 11.50 100
Peddler’s License By-law (2005-
206) Fee HST Total Unit
Stationary $265.49 $34.51 $300 Per year
Mobile 265.49 34.51 300 Per year
Assistant 88.50 11.50 100 Per year
Page 75
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Auctioneers License By-law
(2006-116) Fee HST Total Unit
Auctioneer Annual $66.37 $8.63 $75 Per licence
Auctioneer Single Event 35.40 4.60 40 Per licence
Adult Entertainment By-law
(2007-063) Fee HST Total Unit
Owner Licence $2,654.87 $345.13 $3,000 Per licence
Operator Licence 884.96 115.04 1,000 Per licence
Attendant Licence 221.24 28.76 250 Per licence
Fill By-law (2008-114) Fee HST Total Unit
Minor Fill Operation Permit $250 $250 Per permit
Minor Fill Operation Permit
Renewal 125 Per permit
Small Fill Operation Permit
1,000 1,000 Per permit
2 2 Per cubic
metre of fill
Small Fill Operation Permit
Renewal
500 Per permit
2 2
Per cubic
metre of
FIll
Large Fill Operation Permit
2,000 2,000 Per permit
2 2 Per cubic
metre of fill
Large Fill Operation Permit
Renewal
1,000 1,000 Per permit
2 2
Per cubic
metre of
Fill
Page 76
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Exotic Animal By-law (2012-045) Fee HST Total Unit
Permit Application $44.25 $5.75 $50
Impound 44.25 5.75 50
Daily Care 13.27 1.73 15 Per day
Third-party Daily Care Actual
cost Note
Note: Where a Prohibited Animal is impounded and a third-party is contracted to care
for the Animal, the third-party care fee shall be charged for every day or part of a day
the Animal is cared for by the third-party.
Responsible Pet Owners By-law
(2013-024)
Adoptions
Fee HST Total Unit
Adoption – dogs (all dogs are
microchipped and sterilized prior
to adoption)
$353.98 $46.02 $400
Adoption – puppies (<6 months)
*$100 voucher rebate with proof of
sterilization
442.48 57.52 500
Adoption – cats (all cats are
microchipped and sterilized prior
to adoption)
132.74 17.26 150
Adoption – kittens (<6 months)
*$75 voucher rebate with proof of
sterilization
132.74 17.26 150
Responsible Pet Owners By-law
(2013-024)
Licenses
Fee HST Total Unit
Dog or cat – microchipped &
spayed or neutered $15 $15
Dog or cat – spayed or neutered
no microchip 25 25
Page 77
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Responsible Pet Owners By-law
(2013-024)
Licenses
Fee HST Total Unit
Dog – unaltered 40 40
Cat – unaltered 40 40
Dog or cat – Agricultural rate
(Note 1) 100 100 Annual
Note 1: Rate is offered where there are more than three dogs or three cats and where
owner provides proof current rabies vaccination for each, and proof of zoning.
Responsible Pet Owners
By-law (2013-024)
Impounding Wearing
License or Microchip
Fee HST Total Unit
First occurrence Free
Picked up
within 24
hours
$46.02 $5.98 $52 Otherwise
Second or subsequent
occurrence 68.58 8.92 77.50
Daily care fee (Note 2) 14.16 1.84 16 Per day
Note 2: Every dog impounded is subject to an additional charge for every day or part of
a day after the day the pet is brought into impoundment.
Responsible Pet Owners By-law
(2013-024)
Impounding Not Wearing License
or Not Microchipped
Fee HST Total Unit
First occurrence $46.02 $5.98 $52
Second or subsequent
occurrence 68.58 8.92 77.50
Daily care fee (Note 2) 14.46 1.84 16 Per day
Page 78
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Responsible Pet Owners By-law
(2013-024)
Impounding Not Wearing License
or Not Microchipped
Fee HST Total Unit
Not licensed (Note 3)
See
license
schedule
Note 2: Every dog impounded is subject to an additional charge for every day or part of
a day after the day the pet is brought into impoundment.
Note 3: In addition to the fees detailed above, every Owner of a dog not licensed for the
current year who is a resident of the Municipality is also required to pay the licence fee
in addition to the impoundment fees.
Responsible Pet Owners By-law
(2013-024)
Surrenders
Fee HST Total Unit
Transfer of ownership of a cat or
dog or litter, brought into the
Animal Shelter
$53.10 $6.90 $60
Transfer of ownership of a cat or
dog, picked up by the Animal
Services Officers, during normal
working hours (excluding Sunday
and Holidays)
61.95 8.05 70
Transfer of ownership of a cat or
dog, picked up by the Animal
Services Officer, outside of
regular business hours.
84.07 10.93 95
Responsible Pet Owners By-law
(2013-024)
Trap Rental Fees
Fee HST Total Unit
Deposit – Fully refundable upon
return of trap $45 $45
Page 79
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Responsible Pet Owners By-law
(2013-024)
Trap Rental Fees
Fee HST Total Unit
Daily rental 4.42 0.58 5 Per day
Responsible Pet Owners By-law
(2013-024)
Permit to Keep More Dogs than
Prescribed Limit
Fee HST Total Unit
Initial Application Fee $70.80 $9.20 $80
Annual Renewal 44.25 5.75 50
Responsible Pet Owners By-law
(2013-024)
Other Agency Boarding
Fee HST Total Unit
Intake exam – first day board $60 $7.80 $67.80 First day
Daily Boarding Fee (includes food, cage space, care, daily monitoring, etc.)
Dog 30 3.90 33.90 Per animal,
per day
Cat 25 3.25 28.25 Per animal,
per day
Aggressive, dangerous,
quarantine or medical isolation
animals
75-100 Plus HST Varies Per animal,
per day
Nursing mom and litter (kittens or
pups <4 weeks) 35-100 Plus HST Varies Per litter,
per day
Small Animals 30 3.90 33.90 Per animal,
per day
Medical Care
Veterinary intervention As billed Total bill
per animal
Page 80
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Responsible Pet Owners By-law
(2013-024)
Other Agency Boarding
Fee HST Total Unit
Daily medication administration 15 1.95 16.95 Per animal
Grooming (if necessary) As billed Total bill
per animal
Other Services
Cold Storage 25-40 Plus HST Varies
Billed by
month
based on
size
Kennel By-law (2013-025) Fee HST Total Unit
Initial Application Fee $176.99 $23.01 $200
Annual Renewal 132.74 17.26 150
Special Events on Private-
Property By-law (2014-020) Fee HST Total Unit
Application Review Fee $442.48 $57.52 $500
Traffic and Parking By-law
(2014-059) Fee HST Total Unit
Parking Meter Zones on
Highways (per schedule 5
of By-law)
$0.88 $0.11 $1 Per hour
4.42 0.58 5 Maximum
Municipal Parking Permit
Until 8:00am the next day $0 $0
Page 81
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Traffic and Parking By-law
(2014-059) Fee HST Total Unit
7 days 10 1.30 11.30
14 days 20 2.60 22.60
21 days 30 3.90 33.90
28 days 35 4.55 39.55
56 days 70 9.10 79.10
84 days 105 13.65 118.65
Refreshment Vehicle By-
law (2015-016) Fee HST Total Unit
Stationary Refreshment
Vehicle Annual Licence
$181.42 $23.58 $205 First
Vehicle
92.92 12.08 105
Per
additional
vehicle
Licensed Stationary
Refreshment Vehicle
Temporary Relocation Fee
0
Up to 10
times per
licensing
period
48.67 6.33 55
Each
additional
time per
licensing
period
Mobile Refreshment
Vehicle Annual Licence 181.42 23.58 205 First vehicle
92.92 12.08 105
Per
additional
vehicle
Mobile Refreshment
Vehicle Temporary
Relocation Fee
0 0
Refreshment Cart Annual
Licence 181.42 23.58 205
Unlimited
number of
carts
Page 82
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Refreshment Vehicle By-
law (2015-016) Fee HST Total Unit
Participation in a Special Event
Currently licensed in
Clarington 0 0 Per vehicle
Currently licensed in
Durham 26.55 3.45 30 Per vehicle
Currently licensed in
another jurisdiction in
Ontario
48.67 6.33 55 Per vehicle
If not Currently licensed in
any jurisdiction
181.42 23.58 205 First
Vehicle
92.92 12.08 105
Each
additional
vehicle
Fireworks By-law (2015-047) Fee HST Total Per Unit
Class A (Permit to Discharge
Consumer Fireworks) (Note 1) $44.25 $5.75 $50
Class B (Permit to Discharge
Display Fireworks or Special
Effect Pyrotechnics
66.37 8.63 75
Class C (Permit to Sell from a
Mobile Sales Location) 88.50 11.50 100
Class D (Permit to Sell from a
Temporary Sales Location) 44.25 5.75 50
Fire Inspection Fee for all Permits
other than a Class Permit. 66.37 8.63 75
Note 1: The fee for a Class A Permit is waived for cultural or religious holidays.
Vehicle-For-Hire By-law
(2019-069) Fee HST Total Unit
Taxicab/Limousine Broker
Licence $1,327.43 $172.57 $1,500
TNV Broker Licence 22,123.89 2,876.11 25,000
Replacement Plate 8.85 1.15 10
Page 83
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Vehicle-For-Hire By-law
(2019-069) Fee HST Total Unit
Broker Information Update
(during term of licence) 22.12 2.88 25
Page 84
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
By-law 2024-xxx
Schedule “C”
Financial Services Fees
Fee Schedule Effective July 1, 2024
Taxation Services Fee HST Total Unit
Tax Certificate $70 $70 Per roll
Tax Certificate – Rush 80 80 Per roll
Tax Receipts/Letters 10 10 Per notice
Reprint of any previously issued
tax correspondence 10 10 Per notice
New tax account set-up fee 50 50 Per roll
Research/archival fee (one hour
minimum) 30 30 Per hour
Post dated cheque removal fee
or date change 25 25 Per roll
Mortgage company information 15 15 Per roll
Addition to tax roll (e.g., Region
of Durham water/sewer lien, POA
arrears, development charges
etc.)
40 40 Per roll
Dishonoured payments (pre-
authorized payments/ cheques)
35 35 Per
transaction
5 5 Each
additional roll
Ownership change 35 35 Per roll
Statement of Account 10 10 Per roll
Arrears notice 5 5 Per roll
Legal Fees/Title Searches 100 100 Per roll
Farm Debt Notice Fee 40 40 Per notice
Process a refund/transfer
between accounts
40 40 Per
transaction
5 5 Each
additional roll
Page 85
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Taxation Services Fee HST Total Unit
Tax sale registration recovery
service fee
Recovery
of actual
cost
Page 86
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
By-law 2024-xxx
Schedule “D”
Emergency and Fire Fees
Fee Schedule Effective July 1, 2024
Information / Document Fee HST Total Unit
Copy of Emergency Response
Report, Fire Loss Report –
Within past two (2) years
$150 $19.50 $169.50
Copy of Emergency Response
Report, Fire Loss Report – Over
past two (2) years (Archival)
225 29.25 254.25
File Search for buildings up to
four (4) units.
150 19.50 169.50 Up to first
four (4) units
25
Per
additional
unit
Permits Fee HST Total Unit
Schedule “A” Open Air Fire Permit –
Residential (12 months) $81 $81
Schedule “A” Open Air Fire Permit –
Residential (30 day) 40.50 40.50
Schedule “B” Agreement for
Controlled Burn Permit – farm
No
Charge
Fireworks – Class B (permit to
Discharge Display Fireworks or
Special Effect Pyrotechnics)
225 225
Fireworks – Class C (permit to Sell
from a Mobile Sales Location) 100 100
Fireworks – Class D (permit to Sell
from a Temporary Sales Location) 50 50
Open Aire Fire/Explosion Permit –
Special Effects/Movie/Theatrical/Music 225 225
Page 87
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Request Fee HST Total Unit
Inspection of all buildings and
occupancy
$225 $29.25 $254.25 Up to 600m2
225 29.25 254.25
Each
additional
600m2 or
part thereof
Propane Plan review
Existing plan up to 5,000
USWG
300 39 339
Existing Plan, greater than
5,000 USWG 450 58.50 508.50
New/Modified Plan, up to 5,000
USWG 750 97.50 847.50
New/Modified plan greater
than 5,000 USWG 2,250 292.50 2,542.50
Retention of third-party
engineering or other firm
Actual
cost
Single Family Residential
Inspection No charge
Refreshment Vehicle Inspection 75 9.75 84.75
Public Education and Training Fee HST Total Unit
Fire Safety Presentations and
Lectures
No
charge
Fire Drill No
charge
Fire Extinguisher Training No
charge
Extinguishers
to be provided
by requestor
Page 88
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Emergency Services Fee HST Total Unit
Standby requests Current
MTO Rate
Per vehicle
for the first
hour or part
thereof
Motor Vehicle Collisions on
400 Series Highways, Highway
35/115, Highway 35, Highway
115
Current
MTO Rate
Per vehicle
for the first
hour or part
thereof
Motor Vehicle Collisions on
Municipal Roadways (both
Municipal and Regional Roads)
– Non-Clarington Resident at
fault
Current
MTO Rate
plus
Authorized
Requestor
Information
Service fee
Per vehicle
for the first
hour or part
thereof, and
for each
additional
one-half
hour or part
thereof
Response to a natural gas
incident
Current
MTO Rate
plus any
costs
incurred to
clean up or
mitigate the
hazard
Per vehicle
for the first
hour, and
every one-
half hour
thereafter
Response to a dangerous
goods, or hazardous materials
incident
Current
MTO Rate
plus any
costs
incurred to
clean up or
mitigate the
hazard
Per vehicle
for the first
hour, and for
every on-half
hour or part
thereof
thereafter
Additional expenses to retain a
private contractor or rent
equipment on fire apparatus in
order to suppress a fire,
preserve property, prevent fire
spread, remove materials
Cost
recovery at
actual
costs
Page 89
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Emergency Services Fee HST Total Unit
creating a hazard, secure a
property for investigation,
determine fire cause, conduct a
fire watch, or otherwise
eliminate an emergency or
hazard
Preventable Fires and Alarm
Services Fee Unit
Response to unapproved open-
air burning (after one warning
per 12-month period)
Current
MTO Rate
Per vehicle,
minimum
one (1) hour,
and every
one-half hour
thereafter
Responses to fires on or beside
rail lines caused by railway
company
Cost
recovery
at actual
costs
Response to malicious and
nuisance alarms (following two
occurrences in a 12-month
period)
Current
MTO Rate
Per vehicle,
minimum
one (1) hour,
and every
one-half hour
thereafter
Page 90
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
By-law 2024-xxx
Schedule “E”
Planning and Infrastructure Services Fees
Fee Schedule Effective July 1, 2024
Official Plan Amendment (Note 7) Fee HST Total Unit
Minor Application $17,960 $17,960
Major Application (Note 1) 26,320 26,320
Aggregate Pit or Quarry 39,740 39,740
Regional Official Plan
Amendment Review
3,240 3,240
Neighbourhood Design Plan
Amendment
5,990 5,990
Zoning By-law Amendment (Note
7) Fee HST Total Unit
Minor $9,030 $9,030
Major (Note 3) 13,530 13,530
Removal of “(H)” Holding Symbol 3,120 3,120
Extension of a temporary use 2,650 2,650
Combined Official Plan
and Zoning By-law Amendments
(Note 11)
Fee HST Total Unit
Minor $24,730 $24,730
Major 33,080 33,080
Draft Plan of Subdivision (Note
7) Fee HST Total Unit
Residential
$19,160 $19,160 Base
amount
305 305 Per unit
Page 91
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Draft Plan of Subdivision (Note
7) Fee HST Total Unit
510 510 Per block
Non-Residential 7,930 7,930
Preparation of Subdivision
Agreement (Note 5) 4,790 622.70 5,412.70
Preparation of Subdivision
Agreement Amendment (Note 5) 1,200 156 1,356
Recirculation Fee 50% of the
base fee
Red Line Revisions to Draft
Approval Plan of Subdivision
(Note 7)
Fee HST Total Unit
All revisions
$10,580 $10,580 Base
amount
305 305 Per unit
510 510 Per block
Major Revisions to Subdivision
Applications Not Draft
Approved (Note 7)
Fee HST Total Unit
Where original application was
filed prior to July 1, 2000
$16,740 $16,740 Base
amount
305 305 Per unit
510 510 Per block
8,390 8,390 Base
amount
Page 92
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Major Revisions to Subdivision
Applications Not Draft
Approved (Note 7)
Fee HST Total Unit
Where original application was
filed between July 1, 2000 and
December 31, 2006
305 305 Per unit
510 510 Per block
Where original application was
filed after December 31, 2006
8,390 8,390
Subdivision Clearance 3,050 3,050
Extension of Draft Plan
Approval
3,050 3,050
Draft Plan of Condominium
(Note 7) Fee HST Total Unit
Residential and Non-residential $8,730 $8,730
Application for Condominium
Conversions
10,580 10,580
Preparation of Condominium
Agreement (Note 5)
4,380 569.40 4,949.40
Preparation of Condominium
Agreement Amendment (Note 5
890 115.70 1,005.70
Condominium Clearance 2,410 2,410
Part Lot Control (Note 7) 1,200 1,200
Base
amount
60 60 Per unit
Site Plan Approval / Amendment
(Note 7) Fee HST Total Unit
Telecommunications Towers $9,580 $9,580
Residential Use 7,200 7,200 Base
Page 93
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Site Plan Approval / Amendment
(Note 7) Fee HST Total Unit
230 230 Per unit for
first 100 units
150 150 Per unit after
first 100 units
Commercial Use
5,990 5,990 Base
2 2
Per m2
commercial
gross floor
area
Mixed Use Building (note 12)
5,400 5,400 Base
0.70 0.70
Per m2
commercial
gross floor
area
60 60
Per
residential
unit (max
$20,000)
Industrial / Other Uses
3,610 3,610 Base
0.50 0.50
Per m2 gross
floor area
(max
$10,000)
Amendment – Residential Use
1,200 1,200 Base
50 50
Per unit
(maximum
$6,000)
Page 94
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Site Plan Approval / Amendment
(Note 7) Fee HST Total Unit
Amendment – Commercial Use
2,170 2,170 Base
2 2
Per m2
commercial
gross floor
area
(maximum
$16,000)
Amendment – Mixed Use (note
12)
2,550 2,550 Base
0.70 0.70
Per m2
commercial
gross floor
area
60 60
Per
residential
unit
(maximum
$16,000)
Amendment – Industrial / Other
Use
980 980 Base
0.50 0.50
Per m2 gross
floor area
(maximum
$6,400)
Minor Site Plan / Oak Ridges
Moraine (note 2) 780 780
Sales Trailer / Model Home 2,410 2,410
Preparation of Section 41
Agreement (note 5) 730 94.90 824.90
Preparation of Section 41
Agreement Amendment (note 5) 730 94.90 824.90
Page 95
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Site Plan Approval / Amendment
(Note 7) Fee HST Total Unit
Landscape Inspection Fee
For
projects
with
greater
than 2500
sq.m. of
floor area,
or 25 units
or greater
(0.5% of
the
landscape
cost
estimate
with a
minimum
of $1,000)
Recirculation Fee 50% of the
base fee
Extension of Site Plan Approval
50% of the
original
application
fee
Committee of Adjustment – Minor
Variance (Notes 4 and 7) Fee HST Total Unit
Accessory Buildings and
Structures $690 $690
Residential Minor (single, semi-
detached, townhouse or
proposed lot)
890 890
Residential Major (all other
residential) $1,450 $1,450
Commercial 2,060 2,060
Other non-residential 890 890
Page 96
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Committee of Adjustment – Minor
Variance (Notes 4 and 7) Fee HST Total Unit
Tabling and Recirculation Fee
(applicant initiated) 305 305
Land Division Fee HST Total Unit
Application Fee $3,175 $3,175
Pre-Application Meeting 310 310
Tabling of Application 310 310
Re-circulation 750 750 Per additional
circulation
Additional Committee of
Adjustment Hearing 520 520
Per additional
Committee of
Adjustment
Hearing
Preparation of Section 53
Agreement 730 94.90 824.90
Sign Permit Fee HST Total Unit
Permanent $240 $240
Temporary 130 130
Sign By-law Fee HST Total Unit
Variance $840 $840
Amendment 2,100 2,100
Additional Dwelling Unit Fee HST Total Unit
Application and Registration $250 $250
Page 97
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Additional Dwelling Unit Fee HST Total Unit
Registration for Applications
submitted prior to January 1,
2015
120 120
Rental Protection Act 1,550 1,550
Land Use Information and
Compliance Letter Fee HST Total Unit
Zoning, Building, and all other
property information $200 $200
Subdivision and Site Plan (per
agreement) 200 200
Environmental Review Letter 200 200 Per
property
Peer Review Fee HST Total Unit
Peer review
(Applicant
responsible
for 100%
Municipality's
full costs of
undertaking
a Peer
Review)
Comments on Applications
under the Green Energy Act Fee HST Total Unit
microFIT applications (10 kW or
less) $200 $200
FIT applications up to 10 MW
(solar energy) 560 560
FIT applications up to 10 MW
(other than solar) 7,310 7,310
Page 98
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Other Fee HST Total Unit
Pre-Consultation Stage 1 –
Conceptual Proposal Review $1,030 $1,030
Pre-Consultation Stage 2 –
Technical Proposal Review 5,160 5,160
Pre-Consultation - Minor 300 300
Street Name Change Request
1,450 1,450 Base
50 50
Per
Municipal
Address
Activation of a dormant
application not requiring a
public meeting
Greater of
25% of
initial
application
fee or
$1,650
Greater of
25% of
initial
application
fee or
$1,650
Application Fee HST Total Unit
Application Requiring An Open
House or Additional Public
Meeting
$2,110 $2,110 Per meeting
Application Requiring
Additional Public Meeting 2,410 2,410
First meeting
plus fee for
each
subsequent
public
meeting
where notice
is provided
through the
local
newspaper
Application Involving Review
Under EPA and/or EAA Process
(additional fee)
17,370 17,370
Page 99
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Application Fee HST Total Unit
Ontario Municipal Board or
Land Planning Appeals
Tribunal Related
Administration Fee (note 8)
Preparation of Development /
Servicing Agreement (note 5
and note 9)
Folding of drawings
accompanying a submission
(fee per sheet)
5.10 0.66 5.76 Per sheet
Notarial Fee by Municipal
Solicitor
26 3.38 29.38
Commissioners Fee by
Municipal Staff
26 3.38 29.38
Publications Fee HST Total Unit
Small maps $5.10 $0.66 5.76
Large maps 15.40 2 17.40
Aerial Photography (colour) 5.10 0.66 5.76
Official Plan Colour Map 5.10 0.66 5.76
Clarington Official Plan 80 10.40 90.40
Clarington Zoning By-law 80 10.40 90.40
Clarington Street Name Index CD
Format
20 2.60 22.60
Studies
Under 40 pages 13.40 1.74 15.14
40 to 100 pages 30 3.90 33.90
100 to 200 pages 45 5.85 50.85
Page 100
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Publications Fee HST Total Unit
Over 200 pages 65 8.45 73.45
CD 15 1.95 16.95
Real Property Transactions Fee Unit
Preparation of any agreements
relating to real property
transactions not otherwise
specifically addressed in this Fee
schedule; land transfers (e.g.,
right-of-ways, encroachments,
leases and licensed, easements)
the person requiring the
agreement shall be required to pay
fees and disbursements in
accordance with notes 5 and 9
below.
Development
Engineering Fees Fee HST Total Unit
ROW Closure and
Conveyance
Application Fee
$250 $32.50 $282.50 Per
application
ROW Closure and
Conveyance
Processing Fee
750 97.50 847.50
Per closure
and
conveyance
processed
Winter Maintenance
Fee 5,600
Per km of
road in the
development
Streetlighting Fee 125 Per light in
subdivision
Engineering Review
Fee
1.25% of the
Final Works
Cost
Page 101
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Development
Engineering Fees Fee HST Total Unit
Estimate or
$2,000,
whichever is
greater.
Engineering Inspection Fee
Estimated Cost of
Services:
Less than $500,000
$8,000 or
3.5% of the
Estimated
Cost of
Services,
whichever is
higher
$500,000-$1,000,000
$17,500 or
3.0% of the
Estimated
Cost of
Services,
whichever is
greater.
$1,000,000-$2,000,000
$30,000 or
2.5% of the
Estimated
Cost of
Services,
whichever is
greater.
$2,000,000-$3,000,000
$50,000 or
2.25% of the
Estimated
Cost of
Services,
whichever is
greater.
$3,000,000 or greater
$67,500 or
2.0% of the
Estimated
Page 102
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Development
Engineering Fees Fee HST Total Unit
Cost of
Services,
whichever is
greater.
Chief Building Official Service Fee Unit
Master Plumbing License $103.20 $103.20
Drain Contractor License 103.20 103.20
Pool Enclosure Permit 75 75 Per
application
Note 1
The following are criteria for determining what constitutes a Major Official Plan
Amendment application:
New golf courses or expansion to existing golf courses; New waste facility or expansion to existing waste facility; Commercial Development greater than 2,500 m2;
Deletion or addition of arterial or collector road; and/or
Any application that due to the broader policy implications for the
Municipality would require the need to review or manage studies, or any
application deemed to be a major by the Director of Planning Services.
Note 2
The following are criteria for determining what constitutes a Minor Site Plan application:
A residential or agricultural site plan in the Oak Ridges Moraine as
required by the Official Plan and Zoning By-law 2005-109;
A dog kennel and similarly scaled uses; and/or
A minor alteration to an existing site plan to revise parking, add a patio, add
a storage building, revise signage, add or delete portables, etc.
Note 3
The following are criteria for determining what constitutes a major Zoning By-law
Amendment application:
Associated with an Official Plan Amendment;
Associated with an application for proposed Plan of Subdivision;
Application involving multiple properties, except for commercial and
industrial related applications; and/or
Any application that requires the review of technical support documents
Page 103
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
or studies (e.g., environmental analyses, transportation).
Note 4
Minor Variance applications for the construction or placement of an accessibility
device to provide access to a single-detached/link or townhouse dwelling is
exempt from the fee. An “accessibility device” is defined as a device including a
ramp that aids persons with physical disabilities in gaining access to a dwelling
unit.
Note 5
Agreement preparation fee does not include the cost of registering the
agreement and all related documents (e.g., Transfers, Postponements, or
inhibiting orders) in the Land Registry office. The cost of such registrations is as
follows:
Initial registration $250 plus HST, plus disbursements.
All subsequent registrations $125 plus HST, plus disbursements. Applicants
must provide the Municipality (Legal Services) with all such costs prior to
registration.
Note 6
The following are criteria for determining what constitutes a minor application for
red- line revisions to Draft Approval:
Does not require circulation to outside agencies.
Note 7
Fees for all Planning applications submitted by a registered charitable
organization or for a registered non-profit housing organization will be reduced
by 50%.
Note 8
In addition to the fees set out for Planning Act Applications, the total fees payable
shall include all fees associated with supporting an applicant at any hearing where
the application was approved by Municipal Council including legal fees at a rate of
$180/hour and consultant/witness fees where required but excluding the costs of
the Planning Department staff.
Note 9
For preparation of any development/servicing agreement other than a subdivision
agreement, Section 41 agreement or a Section 53 agreement, the applicant is
required to reimburse the Municipality for its legal costs. If the legal work is
undertaken by the Municipal Solicitor, it will be charged at the rate of $180/hour. If
the legal work is undertaken by other legal counsel, it will be charged at the legal
counsel’s hourly rate. The minimum fee for any such agreement shall be $475
plus HST.
Page 104
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Note 10
This Schedule “A” shall remain in effect from July 1, 2022, until June 30, 2023. In
the event that a fees review is not undertaken before that date fees will be
increased annually by 3%, commencing on July 1, 2024.
Note 11
Where Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments are submitted together a
reduction of 50% of the Major Zoning By-law Amendment Fee shall apply.
Note 12
The fee for a Mixed-Use Building will apply when residential units are proposed and a
minimum of 50% of the ground floor of a building is for non-residential purposes.
Note 13
Recirculation fees will be required on the 4th resubmission of application materials
that require circulation to internal departments and/or external agencies.
Note 14
The following are criteria for determining what constitutes a Minor Pre-consultation:
Applications associated with a single detached dwelling; and/or
Applications associated with an agricultural use.
Page 105
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
By-law 2024-xxx
Schedule “F”
Community Services Fees
Fee Schedule Effective July 1, 2024
Aquatics Fee HST Total Unit
Category A $19.99 $19.99 Per hour
Category B 14.07 14.07 Per hour
Category C 60.83 60.83 Per hour
Category D 38.61 38.61 Per hour
Bronze Cross 6.83 0.89 7.72 Per hour
Bronze Medallion and
Emergency First Aid 6.99 0.91 7.90 Per hour
Bronze Star 8.88 8.88 Per hour
Lifesaving Society
Instructor
2.60 0.34 2.94 Per hour
National Lifeguard Full
Course
5.33 0.69 6.02 Per hour
Advanced Leadership
Instructor
6.58 0.86 7.44 Per hour
National Lifeguard
Recertification
8.01 1.04 9.05 Per hour
Standard First Aid and
CPR C
4.76 0.62 5.38 Per hour
Swim Instructor 4.49 0.58 5.07 Per hour
Exam Cost Actual Per exam
Material Cost Actual Per exam
Swim / Skate
Adult 4.33 0.56 4.89 Per visit
3 and Under 0 0 Per visit
Senior 3.41 0.44 3.85 Per visit
Youth 3.41 3.41 Per visit
Group 10.78 1.40 12.18 Per visit
Page 106
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Aquatics Fee HST Total Unit
Membership 214.55 27.89 242.44 Per year
Camps Fee HST Total Unit
Category A $5.36 $5.36 Per hour
Category B 5.69 5.69 Per hour
Category C 7.22 7.22 Per hour
Category D 7.33 7.33 Per hour
Extended Care 3.16 3.16 Per hour
Community
Development Fee HST Total Unit
Admissions and
ticketing
Set by
event
Based on
services and
on a cost
recovery
basis
Facilities Fee HST Total Unit
Category A
Resident $104.23 $13.55 $117.78 Per hour
Parking lot /
Civic Square 629.52 81.84 711.36 Per day
Category B
Resident 90.64 11.78 102.42 Per hour
Parking lot /
Civic Square 314.76 40.92 355.68 Per day
Page 107
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Facilities Fee HST Total Unit
Category C
Resident 77.40 10.06 87.46 Per hour
Parking lot /
Civic Square 157.08 20.42 177.50 Per hour
Category D
Resident 56.76 7.38 64.14 Per hour
Parking lot /
Civic Square -
Community
Group
10 1.30 11.30 Per hour
Category E
Resident 41.54 5.40 46.94 Per hour
Category F
Resident 25 3.25 28.25
Per hour
Starting
July 1, 2024
Event
Full Hall 1,000 130 1,130 Per day
Dry Pad 1,325 172.25 1,497.25 Per day
Full Facility with Dry
Floor 3,400 442 3,842 Per day
Page 108
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Facilities Fee HST Total Unit
Full Facility with Ice 5,500 715 6,215 Per day
Licensed event 10 1.30 11.30 Per hour
Drapery rental
Resident 82.56 10.73 93.29 Per event
Community Group /
Not-For-Profit 0 0 0 Starting
July 1, 2024
Kitchen
Resident 125.90 16.37 142.27 Per day
Community Group /
Not-For-Profit
0 0 0 Starting
July 1, 2024
Indoor stage set-up
Resident 51.60 6.71 58.31 Per event
Community Group /
Not-For-Profit
0 0 0 Starting
July 1, 2024
Dry Floor
Resident 94.10 12.23 106.33 Per hour
Ice 5 Skater 87.72 11.40 99.12 Per hour
Ice Discount 132.61 17.24 149.85 Per hour
Ice Non-Prime
Resident 181.47 23.59 205.06 Per hour
Ice Prime Time
Resident 239.54 31.14 270.68 Per hour
Lacrosse Bowl
Page 109
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Facilities Fee HST Total Unit
Resident 27.64 3.59 31.23 Per hour
Turf Full Field Discount
Resident 75.34 9.79 85.13 Per hour
Turf Full Field Non-Prime
Resident 168.93 21.96 190.89 Per hour
Turf Full Field Prime Time
Resident 205.17 26.67 231.84 Per hour
Turf Half Field Discount
Resident 50 6.50 56.50
Per hour
Starting
July 1, 2024
Turf Half Field Non-Prime Time
Resident 84.47 10.98 95.45 Per hour
Turf Half Field Prime Time
Resident 103.39 13.44 116.83 Per hour
Gymnasium Full
Resident 59 7.67 66.67 Per hour
Gymnasium Half
Resident 42.31 5.50 47.81 Per hour
Gymnasium South Courtice Arena
Resident 24.77 3.22 27.99 Per hour
Page 110
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Facilities Fee HST Total Unit
Pool Main
Resident 164.92 21.44 186.36 Per hour
Pool Additional Staff 25.36 3.30 28.66 Per hour
Pool Swim Club / School Board
Youth 69.13 8.99 78.12 Per hour
Adult 83.44 10.85 94.29 Per hour
Squash Club Court
Rentals 663.72 86.28 750 Per month
Internal Bookings /
Community Group 0 0 Per event
Fields Fee HST Total Unit
Major Field – Lit
Adult $57.40 $7.46 $64.86 Per hour
Commercial 68.88 8.95 77.83 Per hour
Youth 34.04 34.04 Per hour
Major Field – Unlit
Adult 28.70 3.73 32.43 Per hour
Commercial 34.44 4.48 38.92 Per hour
Youth 4.99 4.99 Per hour
Minor Field
Page 111
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Fields Fee HST Total Unit
Adult 15.94 2.07 18.01 Per hour
Commercial 19.13 2.49 21.62 Per hour
Youth 4.04 4.04 Per hour
Tournaments
Baseball Tournament 217.06 28.22 245.28 Per day
Tournament lighting 40.04 5.21 45.25 Per hour
Batting Cages 0 0 Per hour
Artificial Turf Field – Lit
Adult 100 13 113 Per hour
Commercial 120 15.60 135.60 15.60
Youth 84.21 84.21 Per hour
Artificial Turf Field – Unlit
Adult 68.42 8.89 77.31 Per hour
Commercial 82.11 10.67 92.78 Per hour
Youth 57.90 57.90 Per hour
Gazebo 0 0 Per hour
Picnic Area 0 0 Per hour
Special Event
Commercial 77.86 10.12 87.98 Per hour
Resident 38.74 5.04 43.78 Per hour
Page 112
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Fields Fee HST Total Unit
Stage Rental
Saturday (minimum 3
hours) 51.73 6.72 58.45 Per hour
Sunday / Stat holiday
(minimum 3 hours) 70.41 9.15 79.56 Per hour
Fitness Fee HST Total Unit
Category A $6.46 $0.84 $7.30 Per hour
Category B 9.37 1.22 10.59 Per hour
Assessment – Body Scan 13.23 1.72 14.95 Per service
Assessment – First Steps 71.21 9.26 80.47 Per service
Dryland Training (max 30
players) 140.53 18.27 158.80 Per hour
High School Visits (max
30 students) 84.90 11.04 95.94 Per hour
Workshops 13.25 1.72 14.97 Per hour
Personal Training
Per Hour 52.05 6.77 58.82 Per hour
5 Hours 49.45 6.43 55.88 Per hour
10 Hours 44.24 5.75 49.99 Per hour
Semi-Private 39.17 5.09 44.26 Per hour
Semi-Private 5 hours 37.21 4.84 42.05 Per hour
Small Groups 15 1.95 16.95 Per hour
Fitness Centre 423.12 55.01 478.13 Per year
Fitness Centre Plus 595.55 77.42 672.97 Per year
Group Fitness 377.40 49.06 426.46 Per year
Page 113
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Fitness Fee HST Total Unit
Locker Rental 82.56 10.73 93.29 Per year
Fitness 10.79 1.40 12.19 Per visit
Group Fitness 9.37 1.22 10.59 Per visit
Recreation Fee HST Total Unit
Category A
Adult $4.50 $0.59 $5.09 Per hour
Youth 4.30 4.30 Per hour
Category B
Adult 5.40 0.70 6.10 Per hour
Youth 6.81 6.81 Per hour
Category C
Adult 7.29 0.95 8.24 Per hour
Youth 8.27 8.27 Per hour
Category D
Adult 9.93 1.29 11.22 Per hour
Youth 10.72 10.72 Per hour
Category E
Adult 12.57 1.63 14.20 Per hour
Youth 17.50 17.50 Per hour
Tournament 3.96 0.51 4.47 Per hour
Page 114
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Recreation Fee HST Total Unit
Trade Booth
Commercial 56.31 7.32 63.63 Per event
Community Group 0 0 Per event
Luncheon 10.49 1.36 11.85 Per visit
Special event with meal and
entertainment 20.99 2.73 23.72 Per visit
Special event with
refreshment 14.29 1.86 16.15 Per visit
General Drop-in
Adult 3.84 0.50 4.34 Per visit
Senior 1.92 0.25 2.17 Per visit
Youth 1.92 1.92
Per visit
Starting July
1, 2024
Sports Drop-in
Adult 5.30 0.69 5.99 Per visit
Senior 2.37 0.31 2.68 Per visit
Youth 2.65 2.65 Per visit
Sports Drop-in Specialty
Adult 7 0.91 7.91 Per visit
Senior 4.75 0.62 5.37 Per visit
Youth 4.75 4.75 Per visit
Daytime Skating Drop-in
3 and Under 0 0 Per visit
Page 115
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Recreation Fee HST Total Unit
Adult 3.10 0.40 3.50 Per visit
Senior 2 0.26 2.26 Per visit
Youth 2 2 Per visit
Administration Fee HST Total Unit
Aquatic Leadership
Discount 20%
Remote Programming
Incentive Discount 20% Starting January
1, 2024
Non-Resident Surcharge 10%
Activity
registration
Memberships
Facility rentals
Age Based Discount –
Senior 50%
Activity
registration
Memberships
Age Based Discount -
Youth 50% Memberships
Employee Part-time
Discount 50% Memberships
Family/Group Discount 20% Memberships
Inclusion Membership
Discount – Adult 50% Memberships
Inclusion Membership
Discount – Senior 20% Memberships
Inclusion Membership
Discount – Youth 20% Memberships
Student Discount 25% Memberships
Page 116
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Administration Fee HST Total Unit
Community Group / Not
for Profit Discount (not
already identified)
20%
Facility rentals
Starting January
1, 2024
Commercial Business
Surcharge (not already
identified)
20%
Facility rentals
Starting January
1, 2024
Multi-pack Discount (not
already identified) 10%
Pay As You Go
(drop-in
programming)
Starting January
1, 2024
Facility Cancellation
Surcharge – Spot rentals
with notice
10% Per hour
turnback
Facility Cancellation
Surcharge – Spot rentals
without notice
50% Per hour
turnback
Statutory Holiday Rental
Surcharge 88.49 11.50 99.99 Per hour
Administrative Fee 10 1.30 11.30 Per transaction
Replacement Access
Card 5 0.65 5.65 Per card
Discounts do not apply where rates have already been discounted.
Page 117
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
By-law 2024-xxx
Schedule “G”
Public Works Fees
Fee Schedule Effective July 1, 2024
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Fee HST Total Unit
Daytime electric vehicle station
use under three (3) hours $1.50 $0.20 $1.70 Per hour
Daytime electric vehicle station
use after three (3) + 30 minute
grace period
4 0.52 4.52 Per hour
Nighttime electric vehicle station
use 1.50 0.20 1.70 Per hour
Reservation no-show 3 0.39 3.39 Flat fee
Note:
1. For daytime use (7:30am to 5:00pm Monday to Sunday), the user is expected to
move their vehicle from the charge station parking spot after three (3) hours. A
grace period of 30 minutes will be permitted once their allotted time has elapsed
before an additional fee is applied.
2. Where offered by the Electric Vehicle Charger Service Provider, Electric Vehicle
Parking Spaces may be reserved via an online booking platform on a first come
first served basis. If the User does not connect to the electric vehicle charging
station within 10 minutes of the reserved time, the User will be charged a fee and
lose their place in the queue.3
Special Events on Municipal
Highways By-law (2014-021) Fee HST Total Unit
Application Review Fee $500
Road Occupancy By-law (2014-
022) Fee HST Total Unit
Municipal Resources required for
the temporary closure or
occupancy
Actual
costs of
required
resources
Page 118
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Senior Snow Clearing Program Fee HST Total Unit
Senior snow clearing program $91.33 $11.87 $103.20 Per Season
Commemorative Tree and Bench
Program Fee HST Total Unit
Commemorative Tree $900 $117 $1,017 Per tree
Commemorative Bench 2,750 357.50 3,107.50 Per bench
Commemorative Tree Plaque 477.88 62.12 540 Per plaque
Access Permits Fee HST Total Unit
Access Permit
Application $125 $125
Access Permit Rural
(based on size of
culvert)
Actual
costs of
required
resources
Access Permit Urban
Actual
cost of
required
resources
Curb reinstatement
Actual
cost of
required
resources
Sidewalk remove and
replace
Actual
cost of
required
resources
Page 119
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Incident Response Fee HST Total Unit
Response to incident clean up
on municipal roadway and right
of way
Current
MTO
Rate plus
actual
costs of
required
resources
Per vehicle
and labour,
minimum
one (1) hour
Response to a municipal
infrastructure damage incident
Current
MTO
Rate plus
actual
costs of
required
resources
Per vehicle
and labour,
minimum
one (1) hour
Additional expenses to retain a
private contractor or to rent
equipment to repair or replace
municipal infrastructure
Actual
costs of
required
resources
Page 120
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
By-law 2024-xxx
Schedule “H”
Cemetery Fees
Fee Schedule Effective July 1, 2024
Sale of
Plots
Care and
Maintenance Plot Total
Fee HST Total Unit
Single (3’
x 9’) $861.60 $1,292.40 $2,154 $280.02 $2,434.02
Per plot,
includes 40%
care and
maintenance
Infant (1.5’
x 3’)
Not
applicable No charge No
charge
Cremation
(2’ x 2’) 288.40 432.60 721 93.73 814.73
Per plot,
includes 40%
care and
maintenance
Sale of
Crematio
n Niches
Care and
Maintenanc
e
Niche Total Fee HST Grand
Total Unit
Niche
(including
plaque)
$368.85 $2,090.15 $2,459 $319.67 $2,778.67
Per niche,
includes 15%
care and
maintenance
Interment Fee HST Total
Adult – Single Depth $1,138 $147.94 $1,285.94
Adult – Double Depth 1,415 183.95 1,598.95
Cremation 438 56.94 494.94
Niche 222 28.86 250.86
Infant No charge
Page 121
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Disinternment Fee HST Total
Adult – Single Depth $1,870 $243.10 $2,113.10
Adult – Double Depth 2,248 292.24 2,540.24
Cremation 516 67.08 583.08
Niche 222 28.86 250.86
Infant 516 67.08 583.08
Fee HST Total
Saturday Plot Interments $271 $35.23 $306.23
Saturday Cremation/Niche Interments
No
additional
charge
Sunday & Stat Holidays Plot Interments 632 82.16 714.16
Sunday & Stat Holidays
Cremation/Niche Interments 233 30.29 263.29
Rental for lowering device, set up and
dressing 149 19.37 168.37
Provincial Licence Fee Set by
province
Granite Plaque Replacement 338 43.94 381.94
Administrative Fee HST Total
Transfer Fee $44 $5.72 $49.72
Duplicate or Replacement Certificate 44 5.72 49.72
Third Party Sale Transfer 44 5.72 49.72
Transfer Back to Municipality 44 5.72 49.72
Page 122
Attachment 1 to FSD-021-24
Monument
Foundation
or Marker
Setting
Care and
Maintenance Monument Total
Fee HST Grand
total
Monument $200 $282 $482 $88.66 $770.66
Flat Marker –
Regular 100 205 305 52.65 457.65
Maximum
height
24.5” x
18.5”
Flat Marker –
Cremation 100 38 138 30.94 268.94
Maximum
size 22” x
16”
Flat Marker –
Block IBL
Not
Applicable 137 137 17.81 154.81
Maximum
size 16.5”
x 10.5”
Foot Marker Not
Applicable 137 137 17.81 154.81
Maximum
size 16” x
10”
Removal of
Monuments
Not
Applicable 97 97 12.61 109.61
Page 123
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: General Government Committee
Date of Meeting: May 6, 2024 Report Number: FSD-022-24
Authored by: David Ferguson
Submitted By: Trevor Pinn, Deputy CAO/Treasurer, Finance and Technology
Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO
Resolution Number: By-law Number:
File Number: RFP2024-2
Report Subject: Engineering Services for Multiple Bridge and Culvert Replacements
Recommendations:
1. That Report FSD-022-24, and any related delegations or communication items, be
received;
2. That the proposal received from Cima Canada Inc. being the most responsive bidder
meeting all terms, conditions and specifications of RFP2024-2 be awarded the
contract for the provision of Engineering Services for Multiple Bridge and Culvert
Replacements for the specific locations highlighted in Section 1.3 of the report;
3. That the funds required for this project in the amount of $412,152.42 (Net HST
Rebate) be funded from the approved budget;
4. That subject to municipal resources at the time of construction, budget approval and
construction contract award, CIMA Canada Inc. be authorized to provide the
required Inspection and Contract Administration at a maximum cost of $218,580.48
(net HST Rebate); and
5. That all interested parties listed in Report FSD-022-24, and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Page 124
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report FSD-022-24
Report Overview
To request approval to award RFP2024-2 to the most responsive proponent to provide
Engineering Services for Multiple Bridge and Culvert Replacements.
1. Background
1.1 The Municipality of Clarington (Municipality) requires the assistance of a qualified firm to
provide Engineering Services for Multiple Bridge and Culvert Replacements.
1.2 A Request for Proposal (RFP) was drafted to allow the Municipality to select a qualified
Engineering Services Consultant with the skills, resources, and experience necessary to
provide a cost-effective design, tender preparation, construction inspection, and
contract administration services for the replacement of one (1) bridge and five (5)
culverts within the Municipality of Clarington.
1.3 The various locations of bridges and culverts being replaced are as follows:
Culvert 98513 – East Townline Road between Regional Hwy. 2 and Hwy. 401
Culvert 98535 – Best Road between Concession Road 8 and Hwy. 407
Culvert 98533 – Concession Road 7 between Best Road and Hwy. 35/115
Structure 99077 – Hancock Road between Nash Road and Regional Hwy. 2
Culvert 99125 – West Townline Road between Concession Road 9 and Regional
Road 9
Culvert 99525 – Concession Road 6 between Acres Road and Darlington-Clarke
Townline Road
1.4 East Townline Road and West Townline Road are boundary roads with the adjacent
Municipality of Port Hope and City of Oshawa, respectively. Therefore, Culverts 98513
and 99125 will be eligible for partial cost recovery through the Municipality’s Boundary
Road Agreements. As outlined in these agreements, infrastructure replacement costs of
this nature shall be split in equal parts between each Municipality that share the subject
boundary road.
1.5 The RFP was split into two Parts. Part 1 included the detailed design and tendering for
the bridges and culverts and Part 2 included provisional inspection and contract
administration services during construction. Part 2 of this contract is subject to Council
budget and contract approval for the construction of this project.
Page 125
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report FSD-022-24
1.6 RFP2024-2 was issued by the Purchasing Services Division and advertised
electronically on the Municipality’s website. The RFP was structured on a two-envelope
system with price being an evaluated factor.
2. Analysis
2.1 The RFP closed on February 23, 2024.
2.2 The RFP stipulated, among other things, that the proponents were to provide a
description of the Firm/Consulting team, key qualifications, firm profile, highlights of past
service and experience of team members with projects of similar size, nature and
complexity, and demonstrate an understanding of the Municipality’s requirements.
2.3 Twenty-two companies downloaded the document, and eight proposals were received
(refer to Attachment 1) by the stipulated closing date and time. Submissions were
reviewed to ensure that they met the Phase 1 - Mandatory Requirements. Two
submissions received did not meet the mandatory requirements and were deemed non-
complaint. Six proposals met the mandatory requirements and were deemed compliant.
The six compliant proposals were distributed to the evaluation committee for review,
evaluation, and scoring.
2.4 The technical proposals were evaluated and scored independently by the members of
the evaluation committee in accordance with the established criteria as outlined in the
RFP. The evaluation committee was comprised of staff from the Planning and
Infrastructure Services Department.
2.5 The evaluation committee met to review and agree upon the overall scores for each
proposal. Some of the areas on which the submissions were evaluated were as follows:
The Proponent’s understanding of the Municipality’s requirements;
Highlights of services provided performing similar work on projects of comparable
nature, size, and scope in a municipality of similar population size;
Proposed team’s experience with projects similar in size and nature;
A methodology describing the Proponent’s project management approach, work
plan, goals, objectives, and methods of communication to be utilized to meet the
requested deadlines; and
A proposed solution including a detailed work plan indicating the project method,
schedule, Gantt chart, tasks and deliverables showing an estimated overall
timeline of the project.
2.6 Upon completion of the evaluation, four submissions met the established passing
threshold of 80 percent for Phase 2—Technical Submission and moved to Phase 3—
Pricing. The evaluation committee determined that a presentation from the short-listed
proponents would not be required.
Page 126
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report FSD-022-24
2.7 The pricing envelopes were opened, reviewed and scored as stipulated in the RFP
document.
2.8 The RFP was structured to award the detailed design and tendering for the bridges and
culverts with the option to include inspection and contract administration services during
construction.
2.9 The inspection and contract administration was bid as a provisional item dependent on
the construction budget and contract being approved by Council. The amendment to
include Part 2 Inspection and Contract Administration will be subject to budget
availability, Council approval of the construction contract and Municipal resources at the
time of award.
2.10 Upon completion of the evaluation scoring, the recommendation is to award the contract
for this work to the highest-ranked proponent, Cima Canada Inc.
2.11 Cima Canada Inc. has provided Engineering Services to the Municipality in the past,
and as such, a reference check was not required.
3. Financial Considerations
3.1 The Proponents provided provisional pricing for the inclusion of Inspection and Contract
Administration. The fees are allocated between the two items is as follows:
Part 1 – Lump Sum for Detailed Design and
Tendering
$412,152 Total net HST rebate
Part 2 – Provisional Item: Lump Sum for
Inspection and Contract Administration
$218,580 Total net HST rebate
3.2 The funding required for Part 1 of this contract award is up to $412,152.42 (Net HST
Rebate) and will be funded from the following account:
Description Account Number Amount
Structures Rehabilitation 110‐50‐330‐83275‐7401 $252,152
Oshawa Cost Recovery (99125) 110‐50‐330‐83275‐7402 50,000
Port Hope Cost Recovery (98513) 110‐50‐330‐83275‐7402 20,000
Hancock Rd. Box Culvert (99077) 110-32-330-83365-7401 90,000
Page 127
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report FSD-022-24
3.3 Part 2- Inspection and contract administration for the project was included in the issued
RFP as a provisional item in addition to the pricing requested to complete the design
and tendering work. There are cost and quality efficiencies when the contract
administration and inspection are performed by the same consultant as the design of
the capital work. Contract administration and inspection costs will be included in the
2025-2027 multi-year capital budget. Approval of the award of the contract for this work
is subject to the project receiving budgetary approval in a subsequent year.
3.4 The funding required for Part 2 of this contract in the amount of $218,580 (net HST
rebate) will be required to complete inspection and contract administration for the
project and will be identified in a future budget submission.
4. Strategic Plan
4.1 Not Applicable
5. Concurrence
This report has been reviewed by the Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure
Services who concurs with the recommendations.
6. Conclusion
It is respectfully recommended that Cima Canada Inc. be awarded the contract for the
provision of Engineering Services for Multiple Bridge and Culvert Replacements.
Staff Contact: David Ferguson, Purchasing Manager, 905-623-3379 Ext. 2209 or
dferguson@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Summary of Proposals Received
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from Department.
Page 128
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report FSD-022-24
Attachment 1 - Summary of Proposals Received
Municipality of Clarington
RFP2024-2– Engineering Services
Multiple Bridge and Culvert Replacements
Proposals Received
Bidder
CIMA Canada Inc.
D.M. Willis
GHD Ltd.
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Jewell Engineering Inc.
Q&E Engineering Inc. *
REMISZ Consulting *
TSI Inc.
Note: Companies with * were deemed non-compliant.
Page 129
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: General Government Committee
Date of Meeting: May 6, 2024 Report Number: FSD-023-24
Authored by: Sandra McKee
Submitted By: Trevor Pinn, Deputy CAO/Treasurer, Finance and Technology
Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO
Resolution Number: By-law Number:
File Number: CL2024-3
Report Subject: High Street and O’Dell Street Reconstruction
Recommendations:
1. That Report FSD-023-24, and any related delegations or communication items, be
received;
2. That GIP Paving Inc. with a total bid amount of $1,507,333.84 (Net HST Rebate)
being the lowest compliant bidder meeting all terms, conditions and specifications of
CL2024-3 be awarded the contract for High Street and O’Dell Street Reconstruction;
3. That the total funds required for this project in the amount of $1,726,400.00 (Net
HST Rebate) which includes construction costs of $1,507,333.84 (Net HST Rebate)
and other related costs such as topographic survey, geotechnical investigation,
excess soil planning documents, tree inventory and impact assessment, material
testing, and contingencies of $219,066.16 (Net HST Rebate) be approved; and
4. That all interested parties listed in Report FSD-023-24, and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Page 130
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report FSD-023-24
Report Overview
To request authorization from Council to award tender CL2024-3 High Street and O’Dell
Street Reconstruction to the lowest compliant bidder being GIP Paving Inc.
1. Background
1.1 Tender specifications were prepared by Planning and Infrastructure Services, the
Region of Durham and provided to the Purchasing Services Division.
1.2 The tender scope of work for the reconstruction of High Street and O’Dell Street
includes local storm sewer and structure removal and replacement, local sanitary sewer
and structure removal and replacement including replacement/relining of existing lot
connections, local watermain abandonment including removal and replacement of
service connections, installation of new watermain and subdrain, curb and gutter
installation, associated road and landscape work.
1.3 The work for this project is located in Bowmanville at the following locations:
High Street – Concession Street West to northern terminus (south of the CP Rail
Corridor)
O’Dell Street – High Street to western terminus (east of Elgin Street)
1.4 Tender CL2024-3 was issued by the Purchasing Services Division and advertised on
the Municipality’s website. The tender closed on April 22, 2024.
2. Analysis
2.1 Thirty-three plan takers downloaded the tender document. Four bids were received in
response to the tender call. The submissions were reviewed by the Purchasing Services
Division (see Attachment 1), and all were deemed compliant. The bid results were
forwarded to the Planning and Infrastructure Services Department for their review and
consideration.
2.2 After review and analysis by the Planning and Infrastructure Services Department and
the Purchasing Services Division, it was mutually agreed that the low compliant bidder,
GIP Paving Inc. be recommended for the award of tender CL2024-3.
2.3 GIP Paving Inc. has successfully completed this type of work for the Municipality in the
past and as a result there was no need to do a reference check.
Page 131
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report FSD-023-24
3. Financial Considerations
3.1 The total funds required for this project in the amount of $1,726,400.00 (Net HST
Rebate) which includes construction costs of $1,507,333.84 (Net HST Rebate) and
other related costs such as topographic survey, geotechnical investigation, excess soil
planning documents, tree inventory and impact assessment, material testing, and
contingencies of $219,066.16 (Net HST Rebate) is included in the approved Capital
Budget and will be funded from the following accounts:
Description Account Number Amount
High Street & O'Dell Street
Reconstruction 110-50-330-83332-7401 $790,000
High Street & O'Dell Street
Reconstruction- Region Recovery 110-50-330-83332-7402 $936,400
4. Strategic Plan
Not applicable.
5. Concurrence
5.1 This report has been reviewed by the Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure Services
Department who concurs with the recommendations.
6. Conclusion
It is respectfully recommended that GIP Paving Inc., being the lowest compliant bidder
meeting specifications, be awarded the contract for tender CL2024-3 for High Street
and O’Dell Street Reconstruction.
Staff Contact: Sandra McKee, Acting Purchasing Manager, 905-623-3379 Ext 2210 or
smckee@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Bid Summary
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from Department.
Page 132
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report FSD-023-24
Attachment 1 – Bid Summary
Municipality of Clarington
CL2024-3– High Street and O’Dell Street Reconstruction
Bid Summary
Bidder Total Bid
Including HST
Total Bid Net HST
Rebate
GIP Paving Inc. $1,673,827.87 $1,507,333.84
Nick Carchidi Excavating Limited 1,807,607.89 1,627,806.89
614128 Ontario Ltd. o/a Trisan
Construction 1,972,722.02 1,776,497.28
Elirpa Construction & Materials Ltd. 2,088,972.29 1,881,184.25
Page 133
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: General Government Committee
Date of Meeting: May 6, 2024 Report Number: FSD-024-24
Submitted By: Trevor Pinn, Deputy CAO/Treasurer, Finance and Technology;
Carlos Salazar, Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure Services
Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO Resolution #:
Authored by: Amanda Crompton, Principal Planner
Trevor Pinn, Deputy CAO/Treasurer, Finance and Technology
File Number: PLN 1.1.31 By-law #:
Report Subject: Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act 2024 (Bill 185) Comments
Recommendation:
1. That Report FSD-024-24, and any related delegations or communication items, be
received for information;
2. That Report FSD-024-24 be adopted as the Municipality of Clarington’s comments to
the Province on the Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act 2024 (Bill 185);
3. That a copy of Report FSD-024-24 and Council’s decision be sent to the Ministry of
Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ministry of Red Tape Reduction, the Region of Durham
and the other Durham Region area municipalities; and
4. That all interested parties listed in Report FSD-024-24 and any delegations be advised
of Council’s direction.
Page 134
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report FSD-024-24
Report Overview
On April 10, 2024, the Ontario government released a suite of proposed legislative,
regulatory and policy changes as part of the “Spring 2024 Red Tape Reduction Package”
aimed at achieving its goal of building 1.5 million homes by 2031. These changes, which
follow previous rounds of legislation introduced by the Government, would impact
Clarington’s powers under the Planning Act, Development Charges Act and Municipal Act.
Two major pieces of legislative and policy changes were released for consultation: Cutting
Red Tape to Build More Homes Act (Bill 185) and an updated draft of a new Provincial
Planning Statement.
The deadline to submit comments to the Province is May 10, 2024. Staff plan to submit
Municipal comments by May 10, subject to Council ratification/modification.
The purpose of this report is to (i) summarize the Province’s changes under Bill 185, (ii)
present staff’s comments on the changes submitted to the Province as draft to meet the tight
commenting deadline, and (iii) bring forward recommendations to address potential
implications of the legislation for Council’s consideration.
Comments on the new draft Provincial Planning Statement 2024 will be presented in a
separate Planning and Development Report (see Report PDS-017-24) at the May 13, 2024
Planning and Development Committee.
1. Background
1.1 On April 10, 2024, the Government of Ontario introduced Bill 185: Cutting Red Tape to
Build More Homes Act, 2024, to achieve its goal of building 1.5 million homes by 2031.
These changes, which follow previous rounds of legislation introduced by the Provincial
Government, would impact Clarington’s powers under the Planning Act, Development
Charges Act, and Municipal Act.
1.2 On the same day, the Province released an updated draft of a new Provincial Planning
Statement (PPS) 2024. This release comes one year after the first draft of the new PPS
was issued for comment. Staff comments on the new PPS will be detailed in a separate
report to Planning and Development Committee on May 13, 2024 (Report PDS-017-24).
1.3 The following proposals were posted for consultation with a commenting deadline of
May 10, 2024:
ERO #019-8462: An updated proposed Provincial Planning Statement, with new and
updated policies for feedback based on the results of the 2023 consultation of the
proposed Provincial Planning Statement (ERO #019-6813);
ERO #019-8366: Removing barriers to additional residential units;
Page 135
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report FSD-024-24
ERO #019-8368: Proposed amendments to Ontario Regulation 73/23: Municipal
Planning Data Reporting regulation;
ERO #019-8369: Changes to the Planning Act, City of Toronto Act, 2006, and
Municipal Act, 2001;
ERO #019-8370: Regulatory changes under the Planning Act and Development
Charges Act, 1997: Newspaper Notice Requirements and Consequential
Housekeeping Changes; and
ERO #019-8371: Changes to the Development Charges Act, 1997, to enhance
municipalities’ ability to invest in housing-enabling infrastructure.
1.4 Over the last three years, there have been no fewer than ten bills brought forward by
the Province related to matters of land use planning, development and municipal
regulatory powers. The following past staff reports are of particular relevance to the
matters outlined in this report:
June 3, 2019, Planning and Development Committee, PSD-027-19 More Homes,
More Choices Act, 2019 (Bill 108);
December 5, 2022, Planning and Development Committee, PDS-051-22 More
Homes for Everyone Act, 2022 (Bill 109);
December 5, 2022, Planning and Development Committee, PDS-054-22 More
Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 (Bill 23); and
June 27, 2023, Planning and Development Committee, PDS-037-23 Helping
Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants Act, 2023 (Bill 97) and Proposed Provincial
Planning Statement, 2023.
Although the above bills received Royal Assent and are in effect, bill numbers are
referenced throughout the report for ease of recognition.
Summary of Proposed Changes Under Bill 185
1.5 Bill 185: Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024 includes amendments to 15
Acts. Some of the changes are new, whereas others are carried forward, amended, or
revoked from previous legislation.
1.6 As Bill 185 is considered an omnibus bill, there are several items that will have no
impact to the Municipality. The following are the schedules to the bill, items impacting
the Municipality will be expanded in following paragraphs:
Page 136
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report FSD-024-24
Schedule Impacted Act Summary of Change
1 An Act to Incorporate the
Trinity College School
Provides the capacity, rights, powers and
privileges of a natural person and changes to
the governing body
2 Arts Council Act Renames the Province of Ontario Council for
the Arts to the Ontario Arts Council
3 Building Opportunities in
the Skilled Trades Act
Permits the Registrar to delegate their powers
and duties to employees
4 City of Toronto Act, 2006 Changes to the City of Toronto Act which mirror
changes to the Municipal Act (to be discussed
below)
5 Coroners Act Requires the sheriff to provide information as
may be prescribed
6 Development Charges Act,
1997
See Section 2 of this Report
7 Hazel McCallion Act, 2023 Renames the act to include “Peel
Restructuring” rather than “Peel Dissolution”.
Provides update mandate for the transition
board to provide recommendations on the
transfer of powers, responsibilities or
jurisdiction of the Region with respect to land
use planning, water and wastewater, storm
water, highways and waste management
8 Line Fences Act Changes the definition of “appeals division”,
adds a new section sets out by which means
any document is required to be sent, served or
given. Changes to allow the Minister to appoint
a referee or deputy referees, previously the
Page 137
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report FSD-024-24
Schedule Impacted Act Summary of Change
Lieutenant Governor in Council Other
housekeeping and consequential amendments
9 Municipal Act, 2001 See Section 3 of this Report
10 Niagara Parks Act Remove the requirement that members of the
Commission be appointed annually, changed to
a term as determined by council for the
municipality
11 Ontario Energy Board Act,
1998
Changes subsection 90(2) to provide that the
requirements to obtain leave to construct
applies to the relocation or reconstruction of a
hydrocarbon line only if the conditions
prescribed in the regulations are met, 92(2) is
also re-enacted
12 Planning Act See Section 4 of this Report
13 Poet Laureate of Ontario
Act
Amendments to reflect the name change to the
Ontario Arts Council
14 Redeemer Reformed
Christian College Act
Reduces the size of the board of governors and
other related amendments
15 Université de Hearst Act,
2021
Changes the composition of the board of
governors of the University
1.7 The following three sections summarize the proposed changes that have an impact to
the Municipality of Clarington.
Page 138
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report FSD-024-24
2. Summary of Proposed Changes to the Development Charges
Act, 1997
Redefines eligible capital costs
2.1 Reinstates background studies, such as master plans and development charge (DC)
background studies, as eligible capital costs for DCs.
2.2 This change ensures that the costs associated with studies related to growth, such as
official plans, road needs studies, master plans and other studies, are paid for by the
growth that they facilitate. The Municipality’s current DC by-law was adopted prior to the
change, so there is no change or financial impact; however, as we are underway with
our new DC background study, we will be able to maintain the studies as an eligible
cost for recovery.
Repeals mandatory phase-in
2.3 Repeals the mandatory five-year phase-in of DC rates that was introduced through Bill
23. This phase-in would reduce the charge, which is based on the costs that are needed
to facilitate growth, by 20% in the first year, 15% in the second year, 10% in the third
year and 5% in the fourth year. The impact of the phase-in was that up to 20% of the
growth-related capital would have to be funded by other sources, such as taxes.
2.4 As the Municipality’s DC study was adopted in 2021, we were operating under the
former rules and not subject to the phase-in. The proposed change is welcomed as we
are currently undergoing our new DC background study. The result will be that all of the
eligible costs will be included in the DCs collected, subject to exceptions for prescribed
properties.
Reduces time limit on DC freeze
2.5 Reduces the time limit on the DC freeze from two years to 18 months from when a site
plan application (or zoning application) is submitted to the municipality.
2.6 As the Municipality is able to charge interest, the impacts are not large; however, the
greater impact is around a change in DC studies where there may be larger changes in
the value of the charge. The reduction in time limit reduces the potential lost revenue
related to the cost of capital infrastructure. As it relates to the Municipality’s ability to
meet our housing pledge, the change in the time limit is an incentive for developers to
start the building process as they will lose the lower rate after 18 months rather than 24
months.
Page 139
Municipality of Clarington Page 7
Report FSD-024-24
Implements affordable residential unit exemptions
2.7 Implements the Affordable Residential Unit exemptions on June 1, 2024. This will result
in qualifying properties being exempt from DCs subject to maintaining their qualifying
status.
3. Summary of Proposed Changes to the Municipal Act, 2001
Changes to Bonusing Rules
3.1 The proposed legislation adds section 106.1 which allows the Province to make
regulations authorizing municipalities to grant assistance to a specified manufacturing,
industrial or commercial business if the Province considers that it is necessary or
desirable in the provincial interest to attract investment in Ontario.
3.2 Within the regulations, the Province may set out the types of assistance that may be
granted as well as impose restrictions, limits or conditions.
3.3 This change could allow municipalities to provide grants, or tax incentives to the
prescribed types of manufacturing, commercial or industrial businesses in an effort to
support economic development. This is similar to recent Provincial and Federal support
for electric vehicle manufacturers to locate plants in Southwestern Ontario. Currently,
the only way to provide any financial support is through a Community Improvement
Plan, which may not be able to provide the types of economic development incentives
required. Another example could be providing financial incentives for physician
attraction to the Municipality.
3.4 Further, as experienced in the pandemic, the ability to support businesses impacted by
a pandemic, natural disaster, or civil unrest is restricted due to the bonusing rules.
These changes could, if prescribed, allow the Municipality to provide support to
businesses experiencing harsh impacts from external factors.
4. Summary of Proposed Changes to the Planning Act
Removes upper-tier planning responsibilities
4.1 In 2022, Bill 23 introduced the concept of an “upper-tier municipality without planning
responsibilities”. Upon proclamation, the specified upper-tier municipalities will no longer
(i) exercise approval authority over lower-tier planning decisions, (ii) maintain an upper-
tier official plan, or (iii) have appeal rights as a public body on Planning Act applications.
4.2 Under Bill 185, the Region of York, Region of Peel and Region of Halton will become
“upper-tier municipalities without planning responsibilities” on July 1, 2024. The Region
of Durham, Region of Waterloo, Region of Niagara and County of Simcoe will become
Page 140
Municipality of Clarington Page 8
Report FSD-024-24
“upper-tier municipalities without planning responsibilities” at a future date to be named
by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor.
Adds new parking restrictions
4.3 Prohibits municipal councils from approving official plans or enacting zoning by-laws
with minimum parking requirements in Protected Major Transit Station Areas (PMTSA)
and other areas where minimum densities are required by official plans or provincial
policies.
Eliminates third-party appeal rights
4.4 Removes permission for a third-party, such as a landowner, ratepayer or other member
of the public, to appeal approved official plans, official plan amendments, zoning by-
laws and zoning by-law amendments.
Makes pre-application consultation voluntary and removes application fee refunds
4.5 Removes a municipality’s authority to require pre-consultation applications for official
plan amendments, zoning by-law amendments, site plan approval and draft plans of
subdivision. These pre-application consultations, which currently have a fee associated
with them, would now become voluntary; however, municipalities retain the authority to
deem an application “complete” or “incomplete”.
4.6 Allows an applicant to challenge complete application requirements to the Ontario Land
Tribunal (OLT) at any time after the application fee has been paid or pre-consultation
has begun. Currently, applicants have 30-days to dispute an “incomplete application”
determination.
4.7 Removes the fee refund provisions from the Planning Act for zoning by-law amendment
and site plan control applications, which were introduced in 2022 through Bill 109.
Clarington will no longer be required to refund planning application fees to an applicant
if a decision is not made within legislative timelines.
Introduces new appeal rights for settlement area expansion applications
4.8 Allows applicants to appeal a municipality’s refusal or non-decision on a privately
requested official plan or zoning by-law amendment that would change the boundary of
a “settlement area”, provided the lands are outside of the Greenbelt Area.
4.9 This new appeal right under the Planning Act is paired with new criteria for assessing
settlement area boundary expansion proposals in the new PPS as detailed in Report
PDS-017-24.
Page 141
Municipality of Clarington Page 9
Report FSD-024-24
Creates “use it or lose it” tools
4.10 Creates “use it or lose it” tools that would (i) expand municipal authority to attach
lapsing provisions to approved site plans, (ii) require approval authorities to provide
lapsing provisions to draft plans of subdivision/condominiums and (iii) authorize
municipalities to adopt policies that enable servicing capacity to be allocated or
reallocated to other projects if the approved development has not proceeded after a
specified period. The Municipality currently has similar tools in place for site plans and
subdivision applications.
4.11 Authorizes a municipality, under the Municipal Act, to adopt a municipal allocation by-
law, which may include (i) a system for tracking the water supply and sewage capacity
available to support approved developments, and (ii) criteria to determine the
circumstances for when allocation of water supply and sewage capacity is assigned,
withdrawn or reallocated.
4.12 Repeals the section of the Planning Act that allows municipalities to pass by-laws
establishing a system for allocating water and sewage services to land that is the
subject of an application.
Introduces new additional residential unit regulations
4.13 Enhances the Minister’s regulation-making authority to remove zoning barriers to
building additional residential units (ARUs), such as maximum lot coverage and limits
on bedrooms allowed per lot.
4.14 Creates a regulation-making authority that would enable the establishment of
requirements and standards to facilitate planning approvals for ARUs.
4.15 Changes were previously made to the Planning Act through the Bill 23 which allowed
three units per lot “as-of-right” in existing residential areas and removed specific ARU
barriers, such as parking requirements, parkland requirements, minimum unit sizes, and
development charges. These changes stand, and the new proposed changes aim to
further facilitate the creation of more ARUs.
Removes the Community Infrastructure and Housing Accelerator tool
4.16 Removes the Community Infrastructure and Housing Accelerator (CIHA) tool from the
Planning Act. However, a Minister’s Zoning Order (MZO) can still be used under section
47 of the Planning Act to regulate the use of land in Ontario.
4.17 The Municipality submitted a request for a CIHA order to facilitate an affordable housing
development at 200 Baseline Road West. With the proposed removal of the CIHA tool,
staff support the Minister considering a MZO for these lands.
Page 142
Municipality of Clarington Page 10
Report FSD-024-24
4.18 The Ministry introduced a new framework for how requests for MZOs will be considered.
The framework details the types of requests that will be considered, submission
expectations and the assessment process.
Exempts community service facilities and post-secondary institutions from Planning
Act requirements
4.19 Enables a streamlined approvals pathway for prescribed class(es) of community service
facility projects, such as public schools, hospitals and long-term care facilities.
4.20 Exempts publicly assisted universities from the Planning Act for student housing
projects on and off campus.
Allows digital public notice
4.21 Enables municipalities to provide notice of a public meeting on a municipal website,
instead of in a newspaper (if there is no local print newspaper available).
Proposes changes to the Provincial data reporting requirements
4.22 Adds new items that need to be reported to the Province quarterly and annually.
Municipalities would be required to report on several new planning actions, share
additional geospatial data indicating available serviced land, and publicly share a
summary table with the total number of applications reported, submitted, decided on,
and the number of housing units approved for that quarter.
4.23 The summary table would be required to be published on the municipal website by
October 1, 2024.
5. Key Comments and Concerns on Bill 185
General Comments
5.1 Staff recognizes the need to address the housing crisis in Ontario and generally
supports the Province’s efforts to improve housing supply and affordability.
5.2 However, staff are concerned about the extent to which planning matters currently
under the jurisdiction of municipalities and subject to public participation are proposed to
be exempted from the Planning Act and/or subject to future provincial regulations and
out of the hands of local government.
5.3 It is challenging for staff to provide informed and fulsome comments on such extensive
legislative changes within the 30-day commenting period. This is particularly so when
many details required to fully understand the impacts of the proposed changes are not
Page 143
Municipality of Clarington Page 11
Report FSD-024-24
included in the information currently available (including those that are to be prescribed
through regulations at a later date).
5.4 Staff will submit draft comments to the Province to meet the commenting deadline of
May 10, 2024.
Regional Planning Framework
5.5 Regional planning provides a valuable role coordinating long-term land use planning
and infrastructure across municipalities to maximize efficiency and return on public
investment.
5.6 The Province is requested to provide information about how upper-tier
municipalities without planning responsibilities would continue to implement
capital projects for transportation and servicing infrastructure.
5.7 The Province is requested to provide information about how and over what time
period the transfer of powers to lower tier municipalities will occur.
5.8 The removal of Durham Region from Planning Act processes means that Clarington will
assume responsibility for all planning matters. This will place increased pressure on
existing municipal staff to carry out these functions and will impact application
processing timelines in situations where in-house expertise to complete adequate
review is not currently present.
5.9 Similar comments as outlined above have previously been submitted to the Province in
response to Bill 23 and Bill 109.
Development Review Process Changes
5.10 Clarington’s By-law 2007-132 requires that pre-consultation with the Municipality occur
prior to the submission and acceptance of development applications. Clarington would
no longer have the authority to require participation in the pre-consultation process,
which facilitates the presentation and discussion of development proposals with relevant
staff and external agencies.
5.11 In response to changes made through Bill 109 (application fee refunds), staff
implemented an enhanced two-stage pre-application consultation process (see Report
PDS-051-22). Stage 1 aimed to provide preliminary comments on a development
proposal and determine application requirements, and Stage 2 focused on screening
the materials and studies before submission to verify adequacy and completeness.
5.12 The proposed removal of the Bill 109 fee refund requirements would allow the pre-
application process to return to a single consultation meeting.
Page 144
Municipality of Clarington Page 12
Report FSD-024-24
5.13 The Province is requested not to make pre-application consultation voluntary.
Pre-application consultation provides the opportunity to clarify the development
review process and the supporting materials and information that will be required
to support the Planning Act application.
5.14 Currently, the Municipality’s practice is to determine the requirements of a complete
application through the mandatory pre-consultation process in accordance with the
policies of the Clarington Official Plan and the Pre-consultation By-law. These
requirements (studies, assessments, drawings) are tailored to the specific development
proposal and communicated to applicants via the minutes of the pre-consultation
meeting.
5.15 Should Bill 185 be passed as proposed, staff will need to consider alternatives to
identify and communicate complete application requirements. This may require an
amendment to the Clarington Official Plan, and current consultation processes.
5.16 In addition, applicants would be permitted to dispute if the information or material
required for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, site plan, or draft
plan of subdivision application by the municipality is reasonable at any time. This could
disrupt the pre-application consultation process further, by having our complete
application requirements disputed before an application is deemed “complete” or
“incomplete”.
Appeal Rights
5.17 The new appeal rights for settlement area expansion applications, coupled with the
proposed changes in the draft 2024 PPS, allow for settlement area boundary
expansions of any size to be decided by the OLT, rather than by the local government.
This could result in piecemeal planning that threatens Clarington’s ability to plan for and
finance growth in an environmentally, socially, and fiscally responsible way.
5.18 The Province is requested to maintain the existing provisions in the Planning Act
that exclude an applicant from appealing a private application that would expand
or alter an in-force settlement area boundary.
5.19 Bill 23 originally proposed to remove third-party appeal rights to the OLT for all planning
applications but was revised to only remove third-party appeal rights for minor variance,
draft plan of subdivision and consent to sever applications. Bill 185 proposes to extend
the same limitation on appeal rights to approved official plans, official plan amendments,
zoning by-laws and zoning by-law amendments.
5.20 The removal of third-party appeals on Planning Act matters means that residents and
community groups will lose the right to appeal decisions about land use changes in their
neighbourhoods. Should Bill 185 be passed as proposed, staff recommend that
Page 145
Municipality of Clarington Page 13
Report FSD-024-24
additional opportunities for community engagement be prioritized at the plan-making
level.
5.21 The Province is requested to maintain third party appeal rights to the OLT for
approved official plans, official plan amendments, zoning by-laws, and zoning by-
law amendments.
Development Charges
5.22 Repealing the mandatory five-year phase-in of DC rates will ensure that all development
pays its eligible share of the costs and reduce taxpayer subsidies of development costs.
5.23 Reducing the DC freeze will incent development as developers have a time limit to
avoid DC increased. There is still interest, at a prescribed rate, that can be collected.
5.24 There is revenue loss anticipated with the implementation of the Affordable Residential
Unit DC exemption.
Planning Act Exemptions
5.25 The proposed widening of the scope of the Minister’s regulation-making authority to
remove zoning barriers to build ARUs and potentially exempt such units from all of Part
V (Land Use Controls) of the Planning Act would weaken the Municipality’s ability to
regulate lot and building standards relating to lot coverage, and consequently, the
proportion of landscaped open space, among others. In many cases, such regulations
were developed to mitigate land use conflicts, nuisance factors, and provide for the
enjoyment and protection of personal property.
5.26 Should Bill 185 be passed as proposed, staff will need to consider how potential
adverse impacts that would have been regulated and mitigated through zoning
requirements may continue to be addressed using other available tools and processes
to ensure development functions safely and efficiently both at the property and
neighbourhood scale. An example of this would be to make sure there continues to be
sufficient landscaped open space to provide for proper drainage.
5.27 The Province is requested to provide additional information about the scope of
the exemptions from Part V of the Planning Act for ARUs in order for
municipalities to understand the full impact of the proposed changes prior to
enactment.
5.28 Currently, development undertaken by post-secondary institutions would be subject to
the land use policies and regulations of Clarington’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law and
would also be required to go through the development application process (including
site plan approval).
Page 146
Municipality of Clarington Page 14
Report FSD-024-24
5.29 The Province is requested to provide information about the review process
proposed to be applicable to undertakings of post-secondary institutions to
ensure these developments are located appropriately and are designed to
function safely and effectively within the community.
5.30 The Province is also requested to provide a framework requiring consultation
with the affected local municipality.
5.31 The non-application of the Planning Act for certain undertakings of school boards, long-
term care homes, and hospitals appears to rely on the development of forthcoming
regulations.
5.32 The Province is requested to include requirements for consultation with the
affected municipality as part of any proposed regulation providing exemptions to
the Planning Act for community service facilities. Further, the Province is
requested to provide information as to what details may be included in such a
regulation prior to enactment.
Parking restrictions in PMTSAs
5.33 The proposal to prohibit municipalities from setting parking minimums in PMTSAs would
result in developers deciding parking requirements based on market demands. Staff
support the concept of reduced parking in areas supported by higher order and local
transit, such as PMTSAs, however the transit infrastructure should be in place to
support the reduced rate.
5.34 The Province is requested to allow local municipalities to determine parking
requirements in PMTSAs until the transit infrastructure (GO Train) is in operation
in the PMTSA.
Public Engagement
5.35 Until recently, Clarington published notice of publicly initiated amendments affecting a
large geographic area in the newspaper. However, with the ceasing of local print
newspaper, this option for providing public notice is no longer available. Proposed
public notice changes, which staff support, will enable the Municipality to give
notification of any publicly initiated amendment on a website.
Resource, Time and Transition Considerations
5.36 Municipalities would be given the authority to enact by-laws under the Municipal Act to
track water supply and sewage capacity and to set criteria for when an approved
development can have their allocation withdrawn, which could require new processes
and additional staff resources.
Page 147
Municipality of Clarington Page 15
Report FSD-024-24
5.37 Lower-tier municipalities, such as Clarington, will assume responsibility for all planning
in their geographies when Durham Region’s powers are removed (except for matters
requiring provincial approval). These changes will require additional staff resources and
time to adjust to absorbing the Region’s Official Plan and components of the planning
processes currently handled by Regional planning staff.
5.38 Since April 2023, Clarington and other large and fast-growing municipalities have been
required to report municipal planning data to the Province. The increased reporting
requirements would require additional staff time to assemble, coordinate and publish the
new metrics.
5.39 The municipal resources required to review, understand, adapt and implement the
multitude of legislative changes that have been rolled out over the last two years have
been extensive. The continual need to pivot and adapt policy and processes to comply
with the continually changing provincial planning framework has diverted resources from
the efficient processing of development applications and progressing our secondary
plan program to enable development to take place in these designated growth areas to
deliver the much-needed housing units.
5.40 Staff is hopeful that Bill 185 and the proposed PPS, 2024 represent the last round of
substantial changes to the legislative and policy framework for a while to enable
municipalities to focus on completing the necessary planning studies and working with
the development community to move towards achieving the 2031 housing targets.
6. Financial Considerations
6.1 The proposed changes to the Development Charges Act will reduce the negative
impacts of Bill 23, which removed studies as eligible expenses and introduced a phase-
in of development charges over five years. The proposed changes will ensure that
growth pays for growth to a greater extent.
6.2 Proposed changes to the Planning Act removes the requirement for refunding planning
application fees. As the Municipality had established requirements for pre-consultation,
few refunds were provided, so the change is not expected to have a large impact.
6.3 On a related note, the Province has eliminated the ability for municipalities to mandate
pre-consultation meetings. This will remove approximately $160,000 from revenues in
the budget, which will have to be funded from other fees, reserves or changes to the tax
levy.
6.4 With the proposed removal of mandatory pre-consultation meetings and the increased
threat of an OLT appeal regarding ‘complete application’ requirements, additional
resources including development engineering staff and legislative services staff will be
needed. The early engineering review that was completed as part of the pre-
Page 148
Municipality of Clarington Page 16
Report FSD-024-24
consultation will now be required earlier in the process, and much quicker so as to
prevent an appeal. Staff also anticipate the need for additional legislative services staff
as the Province has opened the door for appeals before an application has been
submitted.
7. Strategic Plan
7.1 Not Applicable
8. Concurrence
This report has been reviewed by the Deputy CAO of Planning and Infrastructure who
concurs with the recommendation.
9. Conclusion
It is respectfully recommended that Council adopt this Report as the comments to be
provided to the Province, that a copy of this report be sent to the Province and other
parties as our comments on the proposed changes.
Staff Contacts:
Amanda Crompton, Principal Planner, 905-623-3379 ext.2444 or acrompton@clarington.net.
Trevor Pinn, CPA, CA, Deputy CAO/Treasurer, 905-623-3379 ext.2602 or
tpinn@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Not Applicable
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from the Department.
Page 149
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: General Government Committee
Date of Meeting: May 6, 2024 Report Number: FSD-025-24
Authored by: Sandra McKee, Acting Purchasing Manager and Toni Anderson, Buyer
Submitted By: Trevor Pinn, Deputy CAO/Treasurer, Finance and Technology
Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO
Resolution Number: By-law Number:
File Number: CL2024-15
Report Subject: Diane Hamre Recreation Complex Dehumidification Equipment
Recommendations:
1. That Report FSD-025-24, be received;
2. That HTS Engineering with a total bid amount of $677,796.70 (Net HST Rebate)
being the lowest compliant bidder meeting all terms, conditions and specifications of
tender CL2024-15 be awarded the contract for the supply of dehumidification
equipment, as required by the Community Services Division;
3. That the total funds required for this project is $677,796.70 (Net HST Rebate), is in
the approved budget allocation as provided and be funded from the following
account:
Description Account Number Amount
DHRC – Building Improvements 110-42-421-84244-7401 $677,797
4. That all interested parties listed in Report FSD-025-24, and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Page 150
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report FSD-025-24
Report Overview
To request authorization from Council to award CL2024-15 for the supply of dehumidification
equipment for the Diane Hamre Recreation Complex.
1. Background
1.1 Tender specifications and drawings were prepared by CIMA Canada Inc. and provided
by the Community Services Division to the Purchasing Services Division. The scope of
work included the supply of dehumidification equipment for the Diane Hamre Recreation
Complex.
1.2 Tender CL2024-15 was issued by the Purchasing Services Division and advertised
electronically on the Municipality’s website.
1.3 Seven companies registered as official plan takers. The tender document included two
non-mandatory site visits. Four companies attended the mandatory site visits.
2. Analysis
2.1 The tender closed on April 25, 2024.
2.2 Two submissions were received in response to the tender call (see attachment 1). One
submission received included restrictive conditions and did not include all the specified
requirements; therefore, their submission was deemed non-compliant. The compliant
submission was forwarded to the Community Services Division for their review and
consideration.
2.3 HTS Engineering has completed work for the Municipality in the past with satisfactory
results.
2.4 After review and analysis of the bid by the Community Services Division and the
Purchasing Services Division, it was mutually agreed that the low compliant bidder HTS
Engineering be recommended for the award of CL2024-15.
3. Financial Considerations
3.1 The total funds required for this project in the amount of $677,796.70 (Net HST Rebate)
is in the approved budget allocation as provided and be funded by the Municipality as
follows:
Page 151
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report FSD-025-24
Description Account Number Amount
DHRC – Building Improvements 110-42-421-84244-7401 $677,797
3.2 Queries with respect to the division needs should be referred to the Director of
Community Services.
4. Strategic Plan
The replacement of the dehumidification equipment at the Diane Hamre Recreation
Complex supports strategic plan priority L.2.5 - Maintain, protect, and invest in
Municipal infrastructure and assets.
5. Concurrence
This report has been reviewed by the Deputy CAO, Public Services who concurs with
the recommendations.
6. Conclusion
It is respectfully recommended that HTS Engineering with a total bid price of
$677,796.70 (Net HST Rebate) being the low compliant bidder be awarded the contract
for the supply of dehumidification equipment for the Diane Hamre Recreation Complex,
in accordance with the terms, conditions and specifications of Tender CL2024-15
Staff Contact: Sandra McKee, Acting Purchasing Manager, 905-623-3379 ext. 2210 or
smckee@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Summary of Bid Results
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from Department.
Page 152
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report FSD-025-24
Attachment #1
Municipality of Clarington
CL2024-15
Diane Hamre Recreation Complex Dehumidification Equipment
Bid Summary
Bidder Total Bid Price
(Including HST)
Total Bid Price
(Net HST Rebate)
HTS Engineering $752,663.39 $677,796.70
Kilmer Environmental Non-Compliant Non-Compliant
Page 153
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: General Government Committee
Date of Meeting: May 6, 2024 Report Number: LGS-017-24
Submitted By: Rob Maciver, Director of Legislative Services
Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO Resolution#:
Authored By: Lindsey Turcotte, Committee Coordinator
File Number: By-law Number:
Report Subject: Appointments to the Accessibility Advisory Committee, Newcastle Hall
Board, Orono Business Improvement Area, and Samuel Wilmot Nature
Area Management Advisory Committee
Recommendations:
1. That Report LGS-017-24, and any related delegations or communication items, be
received;
2. That the resignation of Samantha Hansen, from the Samuel Wilmot Nature Area
Management Advisory Committee, Diana Stephenson, from the Orono Business
Improvement Area, and John Bate from the Committee of Adjustment Committee, be
received with thanks;
3. That Heather Maitland be appointed to the Orono Business Improvement Area until
December 31, 2026, or until a successor is appointed;
4. That the Committee consider the applications for appointments to the Accessibility
Advisory Committee, Newcastle Hall Board, and Samuel Wilmot Nature Area
Management Advisory Committee, and that the vote be conducted to appoint the
citizen representatives, in accordance with the Appointment to Boards and
Committees Policy; and
5. That all interested parties listed in Report LGS-017-24 and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Page 154
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report LGS-017-24
Report Overview
This report is intended to provide background information, regarding the vacancies on the
Accessibility Advisory Committee, Newcastle Hall Board, Orono Business Improvement Area
and the Samuel Wilmot Nature Area Management Advisory Committee to assist in the
appointment process.
1. Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC)
1.1 At the March 4, 2024, General Government Committee meeting, Council approved the
new Terms of Reference, which included an increase in members to the AAC. The
Committee composition was changed from 7 to 8 citizen members.
1.2 The Committee requirements are as follows:
The majority of Committee members (at least 50 per cent) shall be persons with
disabilities. If this requirement is not met, the Committee can still meet while
vacancies are being advertised;
Members must be residents of Clarington;
Members must have awareness and knowledge of the Accessibility for
Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) and its standards;
Members must have awareness and knowledge of disability and accessibility
issues;
Members must be familiar with Clarington’s goods, services, and facilities.
1.3 Currently, the AAC has 6 citizen members, therefore Committee may appoint 2
residents, who are persons with disabilities, for a term ending December 31, 2026, or
until a successor is appointed.
1.4 The following have put forward an application for consideration:
Allison Speight
Beverley Oda
Jeannine Raymond
Barbara Henn
Laura McClelland
Stacey Fuller
Page 155
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report LGS-017-24
2. Samuel Wilmot Nature Area Management Advisory
Committee (SWNAMAC)
2.1 At the March 4, 2024, General Government Committee meeting, Council approved the
new Terms of Reference, which included an increase in members for the SWNAMAC.
The Committee composition was changed from 10 to 11 citizen members.
2.2 The Committee requirements are as follows:
All members must be residents of Clarington, should possess various skills, and
participate in the implementation of the Environmental Management Plan (EMP).
The required skills are as follows:
o Technical– interpret the EMP, recommend the annual work plan and
provide leadership during the implementation of projects and monitoring.
o Public Relations – create a public relations strategy focusing on public
awareness, education, and promoting the site.
o Fundraising – create a fundraising strategy aimed at soliciting private
funds, donations-in-kind, and investigating charitable status.
o Volunteer support – responsible for soliciting volunteers and organizing
work programs.
The Committee shall be supported by volunteers, who can be any individuals from
the public who possess various skills or who have an interest in the site and are
willing to participate in protection/enhancement projects or other aspects such as
fundraising, writing, leading walking tours, tree planting, collecting litter, trailblazing,
etc.
2.3 The Clerk’s Division received a resignation from Samantha Hansen who was appointed
to the SWNAMAC in January 2023 for a term ending December 31, 2026, or until a
successor is appointed.
2.4 Currently, the Committee has 9 citizen members, therefore Committee may appoint 2
residents for a term ending December 31, 2026, or until a successor is appointed.
2.5 The following have put forward an application for consideration:
Kayla Stephens
Meg Vandenbrink
Gregory Smith
Page 156
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report LGS-017-24
3. Newcastle Hall Board
3.1 At the March 4, 2024, General Government Committee meeting, Staff were authorized
to re-advertise for the one remaining vacancy on the Board, for a term ending
December 31, 2024.
3.2 Accordingly, Committee may appoint one member to the Board, who must be a resident
of the Village of Newcastle. The following Village of Newcastle Residents have put
forward an application for consideration:
Deanne Frost
Vincent Wong
4. Orono Business Improvement Area (BIA)
4.1 The Orono BIA’s terms of reference state that four directors shall be selected by a vote
of the membership of the BIA and appointed by the Municipality.
4.2 The Clerk’s Division received a resignation from Diana Stephenson, who was appointed
to the Orono BIA in January 2023 for a term ending December 31, 2026, or until a
successor is appointed. The BIA now has three members.
4.3 Accordingly, the Orono BIA has selected Heather Maitland as the fourth board member,
for Council appointment.
5. Committee of Adjustment (COA)
5.1 The Clerk’s Division received a resignation from John Bate, who was appointed to the
Committee of Adjustment in January 2023 for a term ending December 31, 2026, or
until a successor is appointed.
5.2 Accordingly, Committee may appoint one member to the COA for a term ending
December 31, 2026, or until a successor is appointed. Following our Appointment to
Boards and Committees Policy, Staff contacted the applicants on file and the following
have put their names forward for consideration:
Bernard Sanchez
Dave Brandreth
David Prashad
Emilia Gruyters
Funmi (Elizabeth) Adedeji
Jim Vinson
Kevin Thompson
Robert Livingstone
Sebastien Hersco
Wendy Partner
Page 157
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report LGS-017-24
6. Advertising and Applications
6.1 The Municipal Clerk’s Division placed an advertisement on the Municipality’s website,
www.clarington.net/Commitees, to fill the vacancies on the Accessibility Advisory
Committee, Samuel Wilmot Nature Area Management Advisory Committee, and the
Newcastle Hall Board.
6.2 To extend the reach of our advertisements for vacancies, the Clerk’s Division has
created a profile on the www.claringtonvolunteers.ca website. Vacancies on the above-
noted Committee’s were listed on the Clarington Volunteers website.
6.3 In accordance with the “Appointment to Boards and Committees Policy”, a confidential
application package has been attached, as Attachment 1.
7. Financial Considerations
Not applicable.
8. Strategic Plan
L.4.1: Increase opportunities for civic engagement and public participation.
9. Concurrence
Not Applicable.
10. Conclusion
It is respectfully recommended that Committee consider the appointments to the
Accessibility Advisory Committee, Samuel Wilmot Nature Area Management Advisory
Committee, Orono Business Improvement Area, and the Newcastle Hall Board.
Staff Contact: Lindsey Turcotte, Committee Coordinator, 905-623-3379 ext. 2106 or
LTurcotte@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Confidential Application Package
Interested Parties:
The following interested parties will be notified of Council's decision:
All applicants
Accessibility Advisory Committee
Page 158
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report LGS-017-24
Committee of A
Newcastle Village Community Hall Board
Orono Business Improvement Area
Samuel Wilmot Nature Area Management Advisory Committee
Page 159
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEES MEETING
RESOLUTION #
DATE: April 8, 2024
MOVED BY Councillor Rang
SECONDED BY Councillor
Whereas the homelessness crisis is taking a devastating toll on families and
communities, undermining a healthy and prosperous Ontario, and that Council accepts
that the responsibility to address these challenges rests with community stakeholders,
partners, and residents as well as regional, federal, and provincial governments and
agencies; and
Whereas the Municipality of Clarington recognizes the challenges of mental health,
addictions, and homelessness, which are complex issues that have a significant and
detrimental impact on the residents of the Municipality of Clarington and surrounding
areas within Ontario; and
Whereas addressing and responding to these issues has placed extreme stress on all
levels of regional, municipal, and non-municipal programs and services, including
various not-for-profit organizations and provincially funded health services within the
Municipality of Clarington and surrounding areas;
Now Therefore Be It Resolved That the Municipality of Clarington acknowledge that
homelessness in Ontario is a social, economic and health crisis, including people with
substance use disorders;
That the Municipality of Clarington commits to ending homelessness in the community
in collaboration with the Region, and both the Provincial and Federal governments; and
That the Municipality of Clarington call on the Region, the Province, and Federal
governments to increase action and supports on the following:
Commit to ending homelessness in Ontario;
Work with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and a broad
range of community, health, and economic partners to develop, resource, and
implement an action plan to achieve this goal;
Provide a long-term financial commitment to assist in the creation of more
affordable and supportive housing for people in need, in Durham Region,
including people with substance use disorders; and
Page 160
Increase investments in evidence informed substance use prevention and
mental health promotion initiatives that provide foundational support for the
health, safety and well-being of individuals, families, and neighbourhoods,
beginning from early childhood; and
That a copy of this motion be sent to the Premier of Ontario; the Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Housing; the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services; the
Minister of Health; the Minister of the Solicitor General; the Minister of Finance; the
Chief Medical Officer of Health; local MPs and MPPs; and the Association of
Municipalities of Ontario.
Page 161
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
RESOLUTION #
DATE: May 6, 2024
MOVED BY Councillor Zwart
SECONDED BY Councillor
Whereas other municipalities have developed a mechanism to allow for
“recreational campfires in urban areas”;
Now therefore be it resolved:
1. That Emergency and Fire Services Staff be directed to prepare a report for
the Fall of 2024 reviewing Clarington’s Open Air Burning By-law;
2. That the report contemplate the inclusion of a framework/regulations to
allow residential burning/campfires on properties that meet a defined size
and location threshold; and
3. That the review include best practices from other municipalities.
Page 162