Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/09/2013 0 C gton lairill Leading the Way GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE DATE: September 9, 2013 TIME: 9:30 A.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER 2. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS 4. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING(S) (a) Minutes of a Regular Meeting of June 24, 2013 4-1 5. PUBLIC MEETINGS (a) Application to Amend the Zoning By-law 84-63 5-1 Applicant: Republic Live Inc. Report: PSD-045-13 (b) Application for a Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision and Application to 5-3 Amend the Zoning By-law 84-63 Applicant: Claret Investments Ltd. & 13611989 Ont. Ltd. Report: PSD-046-13 6. DELEGATIONS (Draft List at Time of Publication —To be Replaced with Final 6-1 List) (a) Fred Brumwell Regarding Report EGD-030-13, Trudeau Walkway (b) Shirley Crago Regarding Street Name Request for Crago Road (c) Kenneth Kerrigan Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival (d) Leslie Kerrigan Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival (e) Shannon McNevan, Republic Live, Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 G.P. &A. Agenda - 2 - September 9, 2013 (f) Brian Crow, Executive Producer, Republic Live, Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival (g) Chris Paterson,.Republic Live, Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival (h) Adam Breitkreuz, Republic Live, Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival (i) Laura Kennedy, Republic Live, Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival (j) Brad Black, Black's Water Supply Inc., Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival (k) Justin Oliver Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival i (1) Barbara Sarginson Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival 7. PRESENTATIONS (a) Faye Langmaid, Manager of Special Projects, Regarding Report PSD-049-1.3, Official Plan Review, Release of The Countryside Discussion Paper 8. .PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT (a) PSD-045-13 An Application for a Temporary Use By-Law to Allow 8-1 Camping and Ancillary Uses Applicant: Republic Live Inc. (b) PSD-046-13 An Application to Amend a Draft Plan of Subdivision and to 8-11 Amend the Zoning By-law Applicant: Claret Investments Ltd. and 1361189 Ontario Limited (c) PSD-047-13 Street Naming Policy and the Request by Bob Owen to 8-19 Reserve "Roy Nichols" as a Future Street Name for Courtice (d) PSD-048-13 Street Name Changes in Courtice: Request to Rename a 8-31 Portion of Solina Road and a Portion of Osborne Road to Crago Road; Request to Rename Energy Drive to McKnight Energy Drive; Proposal to Rename South Service Road to Energy Drive; Proposal to Rename a Portion of Courtice Road (e) PSD-049-13 Official Plan Review 8-45 Release of The Countryside Discussion Paper G.P. &A. Agenda - 3 - September 9,' 2013 (f) PSD-050-13 Application for Removal of Holding Symbol 8-48 Applicant: Valiant Rental Inc. (g) PSD-051-13 Proposed General Amendment to Sign By-law 2009-123 8-55 9. ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT (a) EGD-030-13 Trudeau Walkway 9-1 (b) EGD-031-13 Speed Hump Installation and Warrant Analysis 9-15 10. OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT No Reports 11. EMERGENCY AND FIRE SERVICES DEPARTMENT (a) ESD-006-13 Second Quarter Activity Report 2013 11-1 12. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT No Reports 13. MUNICIPAL CLERK'S DEPARTMENT (a) CLD-024-13 Appointment of Animal Services Officer— 13-1 Duncan Anderson 14. CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT (a) COD-019-13 Contract Awards During Council Recess 14-1 (b) COD-020-13 CL2013-13 2013 Development of Port Darlington 14-60 Waterfront Park at East Beach 15. FINANCE DEPARTMENT (a) FND-010-13 2013/2014 Insurance Program 15-1 (b) FND-011-13 Tax Area Accessibility Improvements 15 76 (c) FND-012-13 Financial Update as at June 30, 2013 15-10 (d) FND-013-13 Accepting Credit Card Payments for Cemetery Related 15-22 Fees G.P. &A. Agenda -4 - September 9, 2013 16. SOLICITOR'S DEPARTMENT (a) LGL-005-13 Governance Issues in "Report of the Mississauga Judicial 16-1 Inquiry— Updating the Ethical Infrastructure" (b) LGL-006-13 Updated Subdivision Agreement 16-84 (c) LGL-007-13 Code of Conduct— Investigation and Enforcement 16-125 (d) LGL-008-13 Possible Amendment to Fortification By-law No. 2011-091 16-147 17. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE (a) CAO-008-13 Customer Service Survey: Results 17-1 (b) CAO-009-13 Municipality of Clarington's Comments on the Review of 17-21 Ontario's Long Term Energy Plan (LTEP) 18. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None 19. OTHER BUSINESS 20. COMMUNICATIONS (a) Correspondence from Susan Lloyd Swail, Principal, Planit Connections 20-1 Consulting Services Regarding the Public Meeting (Agenda Item 5(a)), Regarding an Application for a Temporary Use By-Law to Allow Camping and Ancillary Uses, Report PSD-045-13 21. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS No Reports 22. ADJOURNMENT C1 n Leading the Way General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes June 24, 2013 Minutes of a meeting of the General Purpose and Administration Committee held on Monday, June 24, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Present Were: Mayor A. Foster Councillor R. Hooper Councillor M. Novak Councillor J. Neal Councillor W. Partner Councillor C. Traill Councillor W. Woo (until 5:40 p.m.) Also Present: Chief Administrative Officer, F. Wu Municipal Solicitor, A. Allison Municipal Clerk, P. Barrie Director of Engineering Services, T. Cannella (until 4:48 p.m.) Director of Community Services, J. Caruana Director of Planning Services, D. Crome Deputy Treasurer, L. Gordon Director of Operations, F. Horvath (until 5:25 p.m.) Director of Emergency & Fire Services, G. Weir Deputy Clerk, A. Greentree Committee Coordinator, J. Gallagher (until 4:49 p.m.) Mayor Foster chaired this portion of the meeting. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST There were no disclosures of pecuniary interest stated at this meeting. ANNOUNCEMENTS Councillor Novak announced that the Regional Property Tax Update Brochures were mailed Wednesday, June 19 and Friday, June 21, 2013. Councillor Novak announced the following upcoming events: • Durham Art of Transition Creative Awards on Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at the Regent Theatre in Oshawa. - 1 - 4-1 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes June 24, 2013 • Metrolinx Public Meeting on Thursday, June 27, 2013, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., at the Abilities Centre in Whitby. • Big Brothers Big Sisters of Clarington's 17th Annual Golf for Kids' Sake Tournament on Thursday, June 27, 2013 at the Newcastle Golf Course. Councillor Partner announced the following upcoming events: • Kendal Salad and Strawberry Supper on Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. • Orono Horticultural Society's June Flower Show on Thursday, June 27, 2013, 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m., at the Orono United Church. • Buttercup Hollow Day on Saturday, June 29, 2013 with various events between 11:00 a.m. and midnight, in downtown Orono. • On-line donations for "In the Face of the Angel" will be accepted until Sunday, June 30, 2013. Councillor Woo announced that he participated in the 5th Annual "Walk a Mile in Her Shoes" event on Saturday, June 22, 2013. Councillor Woo announced the following upcoming events: • 2013 Siren's for Life Kick-off & Blood Donor Clinic on Wednesday, June 26, 2013, 2:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., at the Garnet B. Rickard Recreation Complex. • Canada Day Celebration in Newcastle at 5:00 p.m. Councillor Hooper announced the following: • The Clarington Public Library July to August 2013 Library Guide is available at the following website www.clarington-library.on.calcalendar. • The new Emergency Planning Guide, produced by the Marketing & Communications Department and the Emergency & Fire Services Department. • The 5th Annual "Walk a Mile in Her Shoes" event on Saturday, June 22, 2013. • The 6th Annual Firehouse Youth Centre Great Balls of Fire Golf Tournament on Friday, August 16, 2013 at the Cider House Golf Course. Mayor Foster announced the following: • Clarington Museums and Archives' Children at Play exhibit, showing over 100 years of toys and games, is currently open at the Sarah Jane Williams Heritage Centre. • Hotel California, Original Tribute to the Eagles, on Thursday, June 27, 2013 at Rotary Park, as part of the Concerts in the Park Series. - 2 - 4-2 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes June 24, 2013 • Canada Day Celebrations to be held as follows: Clarington Museums and Archives at 10:30 a.m.; Newcastle Business Improvement Association in downtown Newcastle in the evening; Port of Newcastle; Wilmot Creek parade; and Garnet B. Rickard Recreation Complex. • Ontario Heritage Trust's 2013 Recognition Programs nominations are due to the Planning Services Department by Friday, August 23, 2013, with further details available on the Municipality of Clarington website, www.clarington.net. MINUTES Resolution #GPA-370-13 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Novak THAT the minutes of the regular meeting of the General Purpose and Administration Committee held on June 10, 2013, be approved. CARRIED Councillor Woo chaired this portion of the meeting. PUBLIC MEETING (a) Subject: Application to Amend the Zoning By-law 84-63 Applicant: Stephen Krezanowski Report: PSD-040-13 Anne Taylor Scott, Planner II, made a verbal and PowerPoint presentation to the Committee regarding the application. No one spoke in opposition to or in support of the application. Stephan Krezanowski was present to answer questions from the Committee. He explained the background for the request for the zoning by-law amendment. Mayor Foster chaired this portion of the meeting. DELEGATIONS DELEGATION OF MICHAEL HACKENBERGER, CO-OWNER, BOWMANVILLE ZOO, REGARDING NOISE COMPLAINTS AND GIRAFFES Michael Hackenberger, Co-Owner, Bowmanville Zoo, was present regarding noise complaints and giraffes. He made a verbal presentation to accompany two short videos. Mr. Hackenberger explained that the Bowmanville Zoo has recently acquired two sub- adult male giraffes, which are housed in the front part of the Zoo. He explained that the - 3 - 4-3 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes June 24, 2013 Zoo is endeavouring to acclimate the giraffes to their new home. Mr. Hackenberger explained that giraffes are unsettled by loud and unexpected noises. He noted that they are slowly becoming accustomed to the road noise. Mr. Hackenberger explained that the animal rights groups are targeting zoos with elephants, including the'Bowmanville Zoo, regarding the Zoo's elephant, Limba. He stated that the animal rights groups have gathered at the front of the Zoo and are using mega horns, which can trigger a flight response on the part of the giraffes, which may cause them injury. Mr. Hackenberger asked the Committee for an exemption to the Noise By-law 2007-071 to prohibit the use of any sound amplification equipment within 150 m of the front entrance of the Bowmanville Zoo. Resolution #GPA-371-13 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT the request, from the Bowmanville Zoo, for an exemption to the Noise By-law 2007-071, be referred to Staff to prepare a report regarding an amendment to By-law 2007-071 to prohibit the use of any sound amplification equipment 150m buffer from the front entrance of the Bowmanville Zoo and Orono Jungle Cat World Wildlife Park. CARRIED DELEGATION OF KENNETH KERRIGAN REGARDING REPORT CAO-007-13, BOOTS & HEARTS MUSIC FESTIVAL 2013 CANADIAN TIRE MOTORSPORT PARK Kenneth Kerrigan was present regarding Report CAO-007-13, Boots & Hearts Music Festival 2013 Canadian Tire Motorsport Park. He made a verbal presentation to accompany a PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Kerrigan explained that he has lived on the property between Canadian Tire Motorsport Park and the proposed off-site camping area for approximately five years. He noted that he is a supporter of Canadian Tire Motorsport Park and believes that Canadian Tire Motorsport Park is a great neighbour. Mr. Kerrigan explained that he is a supporter of the Boots & Hearts Music Festival, but is concerned about the proposed off-site camping area. He noted that there was no notification of the proposed off-site camping area. Mr. Kerrigan provided the Committee with photos of the area near his home, including the proposed off-site camping area. He explained the issues, risks and objections including: the timing of the planning of the proposed off-site camping area, isolation and safety concerns, lack of environmental assessment, no curfew, alcohol permitted, access of campers, and restricted personal access. Mr. Kerrigan concluded by stating that this application would infringe on his property rights and endanger his personal health and safety, compromise his well water, and should not be permitted. - 4 - 4-4 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes June 24, 2013 Resolution #GPA-372-13 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Councillor Traill THAT the delegation of Mr. Kerrigan be extended for an additional five minutes. CARRIED Mr. Kerrigan continued with his presentation by stating that he is concerned that there will be problems at the August event and there is a concern that there will be similar events in the future. He added that his family is extremely nervous about concert goers trespassing and causing personal/property damage. Mr. Kerrigan noted that his family expects that the security alarms will be set off several times during the weekend event. DELEGATION OF LESLIE KERRIGAN REGARDING REPORT CAO-007-13, BOOTS & HEARTS MUSIC FESTIVAL 2013 CANADIAN TIRE MOTORSPORT PARK Leslie Kerrigan was present regarding Report CAO-007-13, Boots & Hearts Music Festival 2013 Canadian Tire Motorsport Park. Ms. Kerrigan informed the Committee that the proposed off-site camping area is in the aquifer range. She noted that By-law 2005-109, the Municipality of Clarington's Zoning By-law for Lands within the Oak Ridges Moraine, does not allow camping on the moraine. Mrs. Kerrigan made several references to specific sections of the By-law as they relate to the use of the land for the Boots & Hearts Music Festival, in particular: the high number of people expected, access to emergency services, public nuisance, regulating, licensing, permits, minimum standards, pressures of growth, agriculture, and the protection of the environment. She stated that she wants her children and grandchildren to enjoy the beauty of the moraine. Mrs. Kerrigan urged government, corporations and property owners to provide stewardship of the moraine. She urged the Committee to stop the proposed off-site camping areas. Resolution #GPA-373-13 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT the delegation of Mrs. Kerrigan be extended for an additional five minutes. CARRIED Mrs. Kerrigan continued by noting that healthy communities, growth management and strategic development must all be considered with any proposals on the moraine. - 5 - 4-5 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes June 24, 2013 DELEGATION OF JARETT HEBERT REGARDING REPORT CAO-007-13, BOOTS & HEARTS MUSIC FESTIVAL 2013 CANADIAN TIRE MOTORSPORT PARK Prior to the meeting, Jarett Hebert indicated to the Municipal Clerk's Department that he was postponing his delegation until the July 2, 2013 Council meeting. DELEGATION OF TRICIA HEBERT REGARDING REPORT CAO-007-13, BOOTS & HEARTS MUSIC FESTIVAL 2013 CANADIAN TIRE MOTORSPORT PARK Prior to the meeting, Tricia Hebert indicated to the Municipal Clerk's Department that she was postponing her delegation until the July 2, 2013 Council meeting. RECESS Resolution #GPA-374-13 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT the Committee recess for 10 minutes. CARRIED The meeting reconvened at 11:46 a.m. DELEGATION OF BRIAN CROW, ADAM BREITKREUZ, SHANNON MCNEVAN, CHRIS PATERSON, REPUBLIC LIVE, REGARDING REPORT CAO-007-13, BOOTS & HEARTS MUSIC FESTIVAL 2013 CANADIAN TIRE MOTORSPORT PARK Shannon McNevan, Founder of Republic Live, was present and spoke on behalf of the other delegates from Republic Live, regarding Report CAO-007-13, Boots & Hearts Music Festival 2013 Canadian Tire Motorsport Park. Shannon McNevan, founder of Republic Live, explained the background of Boots & Hearts Music Festival. He noted that corporate sponsors were reluctant to invest last year, but were eager to invest this year. Mr. McNevan explained that this was a local initiative. He explained the success of the Festival, which was based on the support of the Municipality. Mr. McNevan noted that, if something goes wrong, there will be no future festivals; therefore Republic Live is invested in solving problems. He announced that Republic Live can accommodate the campers within the boundaries of the Park, for the tickets currently sold. Mr. McNevan added that Republic Live is formally withdrawing the rezoning application for the proposed off-site camping areas (referred to as Parcels 2 and 3 in Report CAO-007-13). He added that he plans to work with everyone, within the correct processes, for the next step to grow the festival. Mr. McNevan asked the forgiveness of the neighbours. He clarified that the plan for the off-site camping accommodation was never for 40,000 people, it was for 7,500 people. - 6 - 4-6 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes June 24, 2013 DELEGATION OF SHIRLEY CRAGO REGARDING CLARINGTON ENERGY PARK Shirley Crago was present regarding Clarington Energy Park. Ms. Crago provided the Committee with background on the origins of Durham Region, in particular, the origins of her property near Solina Road and Osborne Road. She explained that it is difficult for strangers to find the south end of Solina Road. Ms. Crago asked that the south end of Solina Road be renamed to Crago Road. She also asked that the east-west section of Osborne Road be included with the renaming of Solina Road. Ms. Crago noted that hers is the only property affected by the renaming. She noted that the road from her driveway west was called Lovers Lane when Mrs. Crago purchased her property. She informed the Committee that she and her husband requested that Lovers Lane be closed. Mrs. Crago stated that she tried to cooperate with Hardco when they installed water and sewer lines by allowing fences to be temporarily removed, however, they were never re-erected. She added that a snow plow cannot clear the road without hitting a fence in this area. Mrs. Crago stated that the Police had stopped patrolling the road due to pot holes. She stated that part of the road is on her property. Mrs. Crago requested that the fence be replaced and that the drainage be corrected. Resolution #GPA-375-13 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Novak THAT Staff engage in discussion with the interested parties related to Mrs. Crago's concerns and respond in the form of a memo to Members of Council. CARRIED DELEGATION OF GEORGE FRANKLIN REGARDING REPORT PSD-044-13, NOISE FENCE FOR LOTS ON WEST SIDE OF VIVIAN DRIVE George Franklin was present regarding Report PSD-044-13, Noise Fence for Lots on West Side of Vivian Drive. He explained that he has lived in the Homestead subdivision for two years. Mr. Franklin noted that the traffic has doubled in the two years he has lived in the house. He noted that backyard BBQs and entertaining are not enjoyable due to the traffic noise. Mr. Franklin explained that the developer and the Municipality had agreed to build a chain link fence and to plant cedar trees. He noted that the owners of the 13 lots adjacent to Trulls Road expected that there would be a noise barrier erected. Mr. Franklin quoted Section 2.3 of Report PSD-044-13. He stated that he had assumed that a noise and traffic study had taken place in the beginning of the development. He added that the extension of Highway 407 to Harmony Road will only increase the noise levels. Mr. Franklin asked that Council revisit the idea of a traffic and noise assessment to assist the residents with the difficulty caused by noise. He added that he is concerned with speeding traffic in the area as well. He confirmed that he is not asking that anything be erected at this time. - 7 - 4-7 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes June 24, 2013 Resolution #GPA-376-13 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Novak THAT Staff be directed to: • Perform noise measurements in Mr. Franklin's back yard, next to Mr. Franklin's patio door, • Undertake a Traffic count on Trulls Road, and • Coordinate, with Durham Region Police Service, the installation of a temporary radar sign on Trulls Road. CARRIED CAROLYN MOLINARI, PLANNER, CM PLANNING INC., ON BEHALF OF FOURTEEN ESTATES LTD., REGARDING REPORT EGD-023-13, PROPOSAL TO CLOSE AND CONVEY TWO ADJOINING RIGHT-OF-WAYS SITUATED IN LOT 17 CONCESSION 2, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON (HAMPTON) Carolyn Molinari was present but withdrew her delegation stating that she was in agreement with the recommendations contained in Report EGD-023-13. RECESS Resolution #GPA-377-13 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT the Committee recess for one hour. CARRIED The meeting reconvened at 1:50 p.m. with Councillor Woo in the Chair. PRESENTATIONS PRESENTATION OF NICOLE GRANZOTTO, PLANNER, AND CARLOS SALAZAR, MANAGER COMMUNITY PLANNING & DESIGN, REGARDING REPORT PSD-043-13, OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND DRAFT LAND BUDGET Nicole Granzotto, Planner, was presenting regarding Report PSD-043-13, Official Plan Review Growth Management and Draft Land Budget. Ms. Granzotto made a verbal presentation to accompany a PowerPoint presentation. She explained that the proposal outlined in Report PSD-043-13 addresses growing planning challenges, the Provincial Growth Plan policies, through compact oriented development. Ms. Granzotto explained that the land budget analysis forms the basis of the Official Plan policies. She reviewed population forecasts in general and within the designated Greenfield and built-up areas - 8 - 4-8 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes June 24, 2013 in Clarington. Ms. Granzotto explained that the land budget is a tool used to plan the population growth within the built-up areas. She explained the current supply of gross developable land. Ms. Granzotto noted that secondary plan policies and phasing will need to be developed to manage growth. She concluded by explaining the challenges. Ms. Granzotto and Carlos Salazar, Manager of Community Planning & Design, were present to answer questions of the Committee. PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ALTER THE AGENDA Resolution #GPA-378-12 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Novak THAT the agenda be altered to consider the Report PSD-043-13, regarding Official Plan Review Growth Management and Draft Land Budget, at this time. CARRIED OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND DRAFT LAND BUDGET Resolution #GPA-379-13 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Novak THAT Report PSD-043-13 be received; and THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD-043-13 be notified of Council's decision and advised that Report PSD-043-13 is available online at www.clarington.net/ourplan. CARRIED AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE ZONING BY-LAW TO ALLOW FOR THE SEVERANCE OF AN EXISTING SINGLE DETACHED DWELLING FROM LANDS TO BE RETAINED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT: STEVE KREZANOWSKI Resolution #GPA-380-13 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Mayor Foster THAT Report PSD-040-13 be received; - 9 - 4-9 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes June 24, 2013 THAT the application to amend Zoning By-law 84-63, submitted by Stephen Krezanowski for the future severance of an existing residential dwelling continue to be processed and that a subsequent report be prepared; and THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD-040-13 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. CARRIED POLICIES FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNA AND TOWERS Resolution #GPA-381-13 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT Report PSD-041-13 be received; THAT the revised policy, attached to Report PSD-041-13, be approved; and THAT the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and Industry Canada and any other parties listed in Report PSD-041-13 be advised of Council's decision. CARRIED DESIGNATED HERITAGE PROPERTY MINOR ALTERATIONS Resolution #GPA-382-13 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT Report PSD-042-13 be received; THAT the Director of Planning Services be authorized to approve minor alterations to designated heritage properties in consultation with the Clarington Heritage Committee, in accordance with Section 33(15) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18; and THAT the Ontario Heritage Trust, the Clarington Heritage Committee, and all interested parties listed in Report PSD-042-13 be advised of Council's decision. CARRIED - 10 - 4-10 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes June 24, 2013 NOISE FENCE FOR LOTS ON WEST SIDE OF VIVIAN DRIVE Resolution #GPA-383-13 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT Report PSD-044-13 be received; THAT Engineering Services Staff review the proposed tree planting program contained in our 2013 Trulls Road Reconstruction Project in an effort to enhance the vegetative buffer plantings between the rear yards on Vivian Drive and Trulls Road; and THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD-044-13 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. CARRIED Councillor Novak chaired this portion of the meeting. ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT ON BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY FOR MAY, 2013 Resolution #GPA-384-13 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Mayor Foster THAT Report EGD-021-13 be received for information. CARRIED COST RECOVERY FOR ENTRANCE INSTALLATIONS Resolution #GPA-385-13 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Mayor Foster THAT Report EGD-022-13 be received; THAT Council pass the by-law attached to Report EGD-022-13 to amend Schedule 'A' of By-Law 2006-105 (being a by-law to regulate the construction of driveway entrances upon highways under the jurisdiction of the Municipality of Clarington) to address cost recovery for the construction of entrances in the Municipality; and - 11 - 4-11 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes June 24, 2013 THAT all interested parties listed in Report EGD-022-13 be advised of Council's decision. CARRIED PROPOSAL TO CLOSE AND CONVEY TWO ADJOINING RIGHT-OF-WAYS SITUATED IN LOT 17, CONCESSION 2, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON (HAMPTON) Resolution #GPA-386-13 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Mayor Foster THAT Report EGD-023-13 be received; THAT Council approve, in principle, the closure and conveyance of two adjoining unopen right-of-ways being two lanes created by Plan H50066 and Plan H50067 situated in Lot 17, Concession 2, former Darlington Township (Hampton); THAT the applicant pay all advertising, legal, appraisal and land costs associated with this transaction; and THAT 562503 Ontario Limited and Honey Harbour Estates Ltd. be advised of Council's decision. CARRIED PROPOSAL TO CLOSE AND CONVEY A PORTION OF A ROAD ALLOWANCE (MCKNIGHT ROAD) SITUATED BETWEEN LOTS 26 & 27, CONCESSION 1, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON Resolution #GPA-387-13 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT Report EGD-024-13 be received; THAT Council approve, in principle, the closure and conveyance of McKnight Road from the south side of Courtice Court to the south end at Highway 401; THAT the applicant pay all advertising, legal, appraisal and land costs associated with this transaction; and THAT Waste Management of Canada Corporation be advised of Council's decision. CARRIED - 12 - 4-12 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes June 24, 2013 ENGINEERING SERVICES PROJECTS UPDATE Resolution #GPA-388-13 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT Report EGD-025-13 be received for information. CARRIED CONNECTING TO THE TRUNK SEWER IN COURTICE Resolution #GPA-389-13 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT correspondence be issued to the Region of Durham to request the specifics of the Region of Durham's plan for local servicing of both residential and non-residential lands in the Courtice areas with Sanitary Sewer in conjunction with the trunk sanitary sewer. CARRIED Councillor Partner chaired this portion of the meeting. OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT WINTER BUDGET REPORT i Resolution #GPA-390-13 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Neal i THAT Report OPD-011-13 be received for information. CARRIED Councillor Hooper chaired this portion of the meeting. - 13 - 4-13 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes June 24, 2013 EMERGENCY AND FIRE SERVICES DEPARTMENT EMERGENCY AND FIRE SERVICES — 2012 ANNUAL REPORT Resolution #GPA-391-13 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Mayor Foster THAT Report ESD-005-13 be received for information. CARRIED COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT There were no reports to be considered under this section of the Agenda. RECESS Resolution #GPA-392-13 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT the Committee recess for 10 minutes. CARRIED The meeting reconvened at 3:54 p.m., without Councillor Woo, and with Councillor Traill in the Chair. CLERK'S DEPARTMENT APPOINTMENT TO THE SUSTAINABLE CLARINGTON COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Resolution #GPA-393-13 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT Kira Nowick (Rigelhof) be appointed to the Sustainable Clarington Community Advisory Committee as a youth representative for a term concurrent with the term of Council. CARRIED - 14 - 4-14 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes June 24, 2013 APPOINTMENTS TO NEWCASTLE ARENA BOARD Resolution #GPA-394-13 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Mayor Foster THAT Report CLD-023-13 be received; THAT the resignation of Jo-Anne Raymond be received, with regret, and that she be thanked for her contribution to the Newcastle Arena Board; THAT Shea-Lea Latchford be appointed to the Newcastle Arena Board for a term concurrent with the term of Council; and THAT all interested parties listed in Report CLD-023-13 be advised of Council's decision. CARRIED Councillor Woo returned to the meeting at 3:58 p.m. Mayor Foster chaired this portion of the meeting. CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT TENDER CL2013-08, 2013 SURFACE ASPHALT, VARIOUS LOCATIONS Resolution #GPA-395-13 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Novak THAT Report COD-017-13 be received; THAT Coco Paving Inc., Oshawa, Ontario, with a total bid in the amount of$519,328.41 (net of H.S.T. Rebate), being the lowest responsible bidder meeting all terms, conditions and specifications of Tender CL2013-08 be awarded the contract for 2013 Surface Asphalt, Various Locations, as required by the Municipality of Clarington, Engineering Department; and - 15 - 4-15 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes June 24, 2013 THAT the funds required in the amount of $581,000.00 (which includes $519,328.39 for construction, material testing, contingencies and net HST) be drawn from the following Engineering Department 2013 Capital Accounts: Surface Asphalt Accounts: 110-32-330-83408-7401 $129,000 110-32-330-83296-7401 $183,000 110-32-330-83298-7401 $107,000 110-32-330-83332-7401 $89,000 110-32-330-83409-7401 $20,000 110-32-330-83331-7401 $22,000 110-32-330-83236-7401 $31,000 Total Funding $581,000 CARRIED FIRE HALL #4— COMMUNICATIONS TOWER CO-LOCATION AGREEMENT Resolution #GPA-396-13 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Novak THAT Report COD-018-13 be received; THAT a lease (co-location) agreement between the Municipality of Clarington and Bell Mobility for the installation and co-location of a communications tower at Fire Hall #4 Trulls Road, Courtice, be approved, subject to an agreement acceptable of the Municipal Solicitor; THAT the funds required for the removal of the current antenna if necessary be taken from account # 110-16-162-81610-7401; and THAT the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary agreement. CARRIED FINANCE DEPARTMENT There were no reports to be considered under this section of the Agenda. SOLICITOR'S DEPARTMENT The Solicitor's Department report was considered under the Confidential Reports section, later in the meeting. - 16 - 4-16 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes June 24, 2013 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER "VALUE ADDED SERVICE" AUDIT Resolution #GPA-397-13 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Traill THAT Staff be directed to undertake a review, internally (i.e. no consultants) the cost savings that could be realized by contracting cleaning services at the Municipal Administrative Centre. MOTION LOST Resolution #GPA-398-13 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT Report CAO-006-13 be received for information. CARRIED BOOTS & HEARTS MUSIC FESTIVAL 2013 CANADIAN TIRE MOTORSPORT PARK ALTER THE AGENDA Resolution #GPA-399-12 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT the agenda be altered to consider the matter of Report CAO-007-13 later in the meeting, in Closed Session. CARRIED UNFINISHED BUSINESS There were no items to be considered under this section of the Agenda. - 17 - 4-17 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes June 24, 2013 OTHER BUSINESS PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FORTIFICATION BY-LAW REGARDING VIDEO SURVEILLANCE Resolution #GPA-400-13 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT Section 9(2)(c) of the Fortification By-law 2011-091 be amended regarding video surveillance equipment, to amend the wording such that any video surveillance equipment, in a residential property, is not directed towards the adjacent homeowner's property. MOTION WITHDRAWN Resolution #GPA-401-13 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Traill THAT the matter of an amendment to the Section 9(2)(c) of the Fortification By-law 2011-091, respecting video surveillance equipment which would prevent homeowner's from using video surveillance equipment to capture images of neighbouring properties, be referred to Staff for a report. CARRIED MARRIAGE CEREMONY— OCTOBER 26, 2013 Resolution #GPA-402-13 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Woo WHEREAS on December 13, 2004, Council passed By-law 2004-253 to "opt in" to providing civil marriage services; AND WHEREAS the authority to provide the civil marriage services extended to those services held Monday to Friday in the Municipal Administrative Centre only; AND WHEREAS the fee for civil marriages was set at $250 to cover the cost of staff time and use of the Municipal Administrative Centre; AND WHEREAS the Deputy Clerk has received a request to perform a civil marriage service outside of the parameters set by By-law 2004-253; - 18 - 4-18 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes June 24, 2013 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON THAT the Deputy Clerk be authorized to perform a civil marriage service on October 26, 2013, at Deer Creek Golf and Banquet Facility, 2700 Audley Road North, Ajax, Ontario; THAT the $250 fee be waived in this instance; and THAT the appropriate by-law be forwarded to Council. CARRIED COMMUNICATIONS There were no items considered under this section of the Agenda. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS VERBAL REPORT FROM MUNICIPAL SOLICITOR REGARDING ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD (OMB) APPEALS — PRESTONVALE HEIGHTS LIMITED CLOSED SESSION Resolution #GPA-403-12 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT, in accordance with Section 239 (2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, the meeting be closed for the purpose of discussing: • Prestonvale Heights Limited OMB Appeals, a matter that deals with litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board; and • Report CAO-007-13, regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival 2013, a matter that deals with advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose. CARRIED RISE AND REPORT The meeting resumed in open session at 5:40 p.m. with Mayor Foster in the Chair. Mayor Foster advised that two items were discussed in "closed" session in accordance with Section 239(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001 and one resolution was passed. - 19 - 4-19 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes June 24, 2013 CONFIDENTIAL VERBAL REPORT OF THE MUNICIPAL SOLICITOR REGARDING PRESTONVALE HEIGHTS LIMITED OMB APPEALS Resolution #GPA-404-13 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the confidential verbal report of the Municipal Solicitor, regarding Prestonvale Heights Limited OMB Appeals, be received for information. CARRIED ADJOURNMENT Resolution #GPA-405-13 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Councillor Traill THAT the meeting adjourn at 5:41 p.m. CARRIED MAYOR DEPUTY CLERK - 20 - 4-20 PUBLIC MEETING REPORT# PSD-046-13 CLARET INVESTMENTS LTD. & 0 1361189 ONTARIO LTD. NOTICE OF COMPLETE ArrUk;AI1®IN Leading the Way AND PUBLIC MEETING The Municipality of Clarington has received Complete Applications to amend a Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision and for a proposed Zoning By-law Amendment. APPLICANT: Claret Investments Limited&1361189 Ontario Limited PROPERTY:' North of George Reynolds Drive, east of Courtice Road, being in Part Lot 28, Concession 3, former Township of Darlington APPLICATION TO AMEND TO A DRAFT APPROVED PLAN OF SUBDIVISION: Proposed revisions to the lotting pattern resulting from decreasing road widths and removal of the parkette block. The revisions result in an additional 10 residential units. APPLICATION TO AMEND ZONING BY-LAW 84-63: Proposed rezoning to place lands in appropriate zones reflecting the revisions to the lotting pattern and to amend setback and lot coverage regulations in the subdivision FILE NOS.: 18T-94027&ZBA 2013-0018 A Public Meeting to receive input on the applications will be held on: DATE: Monday September 9, 2013 TIME: 9:30 a.m. PLACE: Council Chambers,2nd Floor,Municipal Administrative Centre, 40 Temperance St.,Bowmanville, Ontario Additional inforriiation relating to the applications is available for inspection between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 P.M. (during July and August 8:00 a.m, and 4:00 p.m.) at the Planning Services Department, 3`d Floor, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, Ontario L1 C 3A6, or by calling Anne Scott Taylor (905) 623- 3379, extension 2414 or by e-mail at ataylorscott@ciarington.net If you cannot attend the Public Meeting on this application you can make a deputation to Council at Their meeting on Monday, September 16, 2013, commencing at 7:00 p.m. Should you wish to appear before Council, you must register with the Clerks Department by noon on Wednesday, September 11, 2013 to have your name appear on the Agenda. If you wish to be notified of the decision in respect of the proposed plan of subdivision and/or rezoning you must make a written request to the Municipality of Clarington, Planning Services Department. APPEAL If a person or public body does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to the Municipality of Clarington, Planning Services Department before the by-law is passed, and/or before the approval authority gives or refuses to give approval to the draft plan of subdivision, the person or public body: i) is not entitled to appeal the decision of Clarington Council to the Ontario Municipal Board;and ii), may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Municipal Board unless, in the opinion of the Board, there are reasonable grounds to do so. Dated at the Municipality of Clarington this day of 2013. vi J.Crome, C.I.P., R.P.P. 40 Temperance Street Director of Planning Services Bowmanville,Ontario Municipality of Clarington L1C 3A6 /nl Cc: LDO i N Property Location Map(Courtice) P ' L! Subject Site • o 0 w U O IT I I MW U ®Lands Subject to Applications 13T-94027 Amendment to Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision ZBA 2013-0019 Zoning By-law Amendment Applicant: Claret Investments Ltd. and 1361189 Ontario Ltd. PUBLIC MEETING REPORT# PSD-045-13 NOTICE OF COMPLEI DARCLARKE PROPERTIES CORP.' Leading the Way AND PUBLIC MEETING The Municipality of Clarington has received a Complete Application for a proposed Zoning By-law Amendment. APPLICANT: Darclarke Properties Corp. PROPERTY: Part of Lot 1, Concession 8, Former Township of Darlington PROPOSAL: A proposed temporary use by-law (maximum 3 years) to permit outdoor camping, parking and portable washroom facilities associated with two (2) annual music festivals on adjacent Canadian Tire Motorsport Park lands. FILE NO.: ZBA 2013-0016 A Public Meeting to receive input on the application will be held on: DATE: Monday, September 9, 2013 TIME: 9:30 a.m. PLACE: Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, Municipal Administrative Centre, 40 Temperance St., Bowmanville, Ontario Additional information relating to the application is available for inspection between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. (during July and August, 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.) at the Planning Services Department, 3rd Floor, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, Ontario L1 C 3A6, or by calling Anne Taylor Scott (905) 623- 3379, extension 2414 or by e-mail at ataylorscott @clarington.net. If you cannot attend the Public Meeting on this application you can make a deputation to Council at their meeting on Monday, September 16, 2013, commencing at 7:00 p.m. Should you wish to appear before Council, you must register with the Clerks Department by noon on Wednesday, September 11, 2013 to have your name appear on the Agenda. APPEAL If a person or public body does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to the Municipality of Clarington, Planning Services Department before the by-law is passed, the person or public body: i) is not entitled to appeal the decision of Clarington Council to the Ontario Municipal Board; and ii) may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Municipal Board unless, in the opinion of the Board, there are reasonable grounds to do so. Dated at the Municipality of Clarington this �/day of Cam, 2013. a id J.eo7e, M.C.I.P., P. 40 Temperance Street Director of Planning Services Bowmanville, Ontario Municipality of Clarington L1C 3A6 /nl cc: LDO N Property Location Map (Clarke) o _ } Q it REGIONAL ROAD N J Q Z 0 Subject 0 } Site REGIONAL ROAD 20 < W a Z Z ROADIP 0 w S EL g a U ° REGIONAL ROAD 20 ° � Z o a CONCESSION ROAD 10 ° 0 O Q O ION ROA 7 ON E I N RO m 0 Q O W Z J Z O W ZBA 2013-0016 °a Q Zoning By-law Amendment p o U p fy m O W CD Q O Z Applicant: Darclarke Properties Corp J Q CONCESSION ROAD 8 DRAFT LIST OF DELEGATIONS GPA Meeting: September 9, 2013 (a) Fred Brumwell Regarding Report EGD-030-13, Trudeau Walkway (b) Shirley Crago Regarding Street Name Request for Crago Road (c) Kenneth Kerrigan Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival (d) Leslie Kerrigan Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival (e) Shannon McNevan, Republic Live, Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival (f) Brian Crow, Executive Producer, Republic Live, Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival (g) Chris Paterson, Republic Live, Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival (h) Adam Breitkreuz, Republic Live, Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival (i) Laura Kennedy, Republic Live, Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival (j) Brad Black, Black's Water Supply Inc., Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival (k) Justin Oliver Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival (1) Barbara Sarginson Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival 6-1 ClairaWgta a MEETING REPORT PLANNING DEPARTMENT SERVICES PUBLIC Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: September 9, 2013 Resolution#: By-law#: N/A Report#: PSD-045-13 File#: ZBA 2013-0016 Subject: AN APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY USE BY-LAW TO ALLOW CAMPING AND ANCILLARY USES APPLICANT: REPUBLIC LIVE INC. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-045-13 be received; 2. THAT the application for a temporary use by-law, submitted by Republic Live Inc., to allow camping and ancillary uses for a period of up to three (3) years continue to be processed and that a subsequent report be prepared; and 3. THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD-045-13 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Submitted by: Reviewed by: _ Da d J. 15ome, MCIP, RPP Franklin Wu, Director of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer ATS/CP/df 3 September 2013 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 8-1 REPORT NO.: PSD-045-113 PAGE 2 1. APPLICATION DETAILS 1.1 Owner: Darclarke Properties Corp. (Canadian Tire Motorsport Park) 1.2 Applicant: Republic Live Inc. 1.3 Agent: Valerie Cranmer, Valerie Cranmer &Associates 1.4 Proposal: A proposed temporary use by-law (maximum three (3) years) to permit outdoor camping, parking and washroom facilities associated with two (2) annual music festivals on adjacent Canadian Tire Motorsport Park lands. 1.5 Area: 26.36 hectares (65 acres) 1.6 Location: Part of Lot 1, Concession 8, Former Township of Darlington 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 On June 11, 2013, Republic Live Inc. submitted an application to allow unserviced camping as a temporary use on three parcels (see Figure 1). Parcel Owner Approximate Number of Campsites 1 Darclarke Properties Corp 2,500 2 & 3 Ryeland Farms 3,000 2.2 On June 24, 2013, the applicant advised the General Purpose and Administration Committee (GPAC) that they were withdrawing the portion of their application that comprised Parcels 2 and 3. On July 2, 2013 the agent for the applicant formally amended the application in writing. 8-2 REPORT NO.: PSD-045-13 PAIGE 3 F GMRC 1 %N Property Location Map(Clarke) ¢ ' 4 +� REGI0 NAL-RD-20 S� I � 11 1L` _ T - - CfYC -10i Subject Site Parcel 1 I 1 + Canadian Tire r' Motors port Park I_ P � Subject Site 4. 1 • 1.. � --.'4``�L' �� - �� F _ '�i-` ti..� 1� ❑ 'mod n - a con Essic Ln e — t ) �� � 4lSl Parcel2 Parcel Owners: Canadian Motorsport Ventures Parcel 1,Darclarke Properties Corp R Parcel 2, eland Farms Y Parcel 3,Ryeland Farms zeA zola.mis 2.3 The Boots and Hearts Music Festival was held August 1 to August 4, 2013. Approximately 18,000 people camped at the festival. Camping, which included both the tents and recreation vehicles (RV's), was accommodated as follows: Approximate Number of Owner Campsites Darclarke Properties Corp (Parcel 1) 2,500 Canadian Tire Motorsport Park 2,000 2.4 Republic Live Inc. submitted a Planning Justification Letter in support of the application. 8-3 REPORT NO.: PSD-045-13 PAGE 4 3. LAND CHARACTERISTICS AND SURROUNDING USES 3.1 The subject lands, Parcel 1, owned by Darclarke Properties Corp., is located immediately west of the existing Canadian Tire Motorsport Park lands, with frontage along Regional Road 20 and Concession Road 10, Clarke. The aerial photograph (see Figure 2 on next page) shows the extent of the proposed use of the subject property during the recent Boots and Hearts Music Festival. The main event area on the Mosporf site is shown on Figure 3 on next page. 3.2 The surrounding uses are as follows: North - Existing Aggregate Extraction operation, agricultural land South - Woodlot East - Canadian Tire Motorsport Park West - Existing (inactive) Aggregate Extraction site, agricultural land 4. PROVINCIAL POLICY 4.1 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) The lands are within a Rural Area as defined by the PPS. Recreational, tourism and other economic opportunities are promoted in Rural Areas. Development that is compatible with the rural landscape and sustained by rural service levels should be promoted. Development shall be appropriate to the available infrastructure. Locally- important agricultural and resource areas should be designated and protected by directing non-related development to areas where it will not constrain these uses. 4.2 Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) The ORMCP designates the subject lands Countryside Area, and a small portion Natural Linkage Area. Countryside Area policies promote the protection and continuation of agricultural uses. Natural Linkage Area policies promote the creation of open space linkages between natural heritage features identified as Natural Core Areas. Both designations allow low-intensity recreational uses and unserviced parks. Major recreational uses are permitted in Countryside areas, but prohibited in prime agricultural areas and areas designated primarily for agricultural uses. 8-4 I� s • 1 i • • • '.�r .� �' � Tim - •�� —* _.�` ry.- s K lit c REPORT NO.: PSD-045-13 PAGE 6 5. OFFICIAL PLANS 5.1 Durham Regional Official Plan The Durham Regional Official Plan designates the lands Countryside Area and Natural Linkage Area. Natural Linkage Areas form part of a central corridor system, the purpose of which is to maintain, improve and restore the ecological integrity of the Moraine. Limited new uses including low-intensity recreation and unserviced camping are permitted in Natural Linkage Areas. Uses permitted in Countryside Areas include those mentioned above as well as agricultural-related uses, small scale commercial, industrial, and institutional uses. Major recreational uses are permitted in Countryside areas, but prohibited in prime agricultural areas and areas designated primarily for agricultural uses. 5.2 Clarington Official Plan The Clarington Official Plan designates the lands General Agricultural, Natural Linkage Area and Environmental Protection Area. A significant woodland is identified on the portion of the site designated as Natural Linkage Area. General Agricultural Areas shall be predominantly used for farm and farm-related uses. In addition, lands so designated may also be used for farm-related industrial/commercial uses, home-based occupation, limited home industry uses, riding and boarding stables, dog kennels, fur farms, sod farms, farm produce outlets and other similar uses provided that such uses: a) are compatible with the existing and/or designated land uses in the surrounding areas and do not generate excessive amounts of odour, traffic and other nuisances; b) do not conflict with any surrounding agricultural operations; c) are not located on Class 1 or Class 2 soil as defined by the Canada Land Inventory of Soil Capability for Agriculture; d) conform with the Minimum Distance Separation Formulae; and e) do not abut any designated rural settlement areas. The Natural Linkage Areas shall be used only for agricultural uses, home-based occupations, home industries, bed and breakfast establishments, farm vacation homes, low-intensity recreational uses, unserviced parks, and uses related to fish, wildlife and forest management, conservation projects, and flood and erosion control projects. Small-scale structures accessory to low-intensity recreational uses may be permitted. No development shall be permitted on lands designated Environmental Protection Areas, except low-intensity recreation and uses related to forest, fish and wildlife management or erosion control and stormwater management. 8-6 REPORT NO.: PSD-045-13 PAGE 7 Temporary use by-laws may be passed to permit the use of lands, buildings or structures, on a temporary basis, for any purpose provided that: a) the proposed use is temporary in nature; b) the proposed use is compatible with adjacent existing land uses, there is minimal impact on the Natural Features and Land Characteristics identified on Map C, or satisfactory measures to mitigate any adverse impacts will be applied; c) there will be no adverse impacts on traffic or transportation facilities or services in the area; d) adequate access and parking are provided; e) the use can be removed and the site can be restored to its original condition; f) adequate sewage disposal and water services are available in compliance with provincial and regional standards; and g) it does not jeopardize the long term implementation of this Plan. Generally, Council will not permit the extension of any temporary use by-law beyond a period of 10 years. 6. ZONING BY-LAW 6.1 Zoning By-law 84-63 zones the subject lands Agricultural (A) which permits agricultural uses and a single detached dwelling. 7. PUBLIC NOTICE AND SUBMISSIONS 7.1 Public notice was given by mail to each landowner within 120 metres of the subject property and a public meeting sign was erected along Regional Road 20. 7.2 At the time of writing this report, two (2) individuals have contacted staff regarding the application, citing the following concerns: ® Protection of the Oak Rid.ges Moraine . ® Traffic ® Road conditions ® Speeding ® Noise ® Trespassing 8. AGENCY COMMENTS 8.1 Regional Plannina Department The Regional Planning Department finds that the proposal to permit an unserviced, temporary, short term use campground conforms to the policies of the Regional Official 8-7 REPORT NO.: PSD-045-13 PAGE 8 Plan and the Oak Ridge Moraine Conservation Plan, provided the following comments are addressed: • Demonstrate no potential for site contamination through a site screening questionnaire and/or an environmental site assessment • Provide calculations to satisfy the Provincial Minimum Distance Separation formulae with respect to proximity to agricultural operations • Camping is encouraged to be located a minimum of 120 metres from the significant woodland, otherwise a natural heritage evaluation is required. 82 Regional Health Department The Health Department requires more detailed information on the proposed sewage disposal system and water supply prior to providing comments. 8.3 Regional Works Department The Region of Durham Works Department notes that municipal services are not available. No access/entrance will be permitted along Regional Road 20 (Type `A' Arterial). 8.4 Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority The Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority has no objection. The property is not within a regulated area. While the use is temporary, it would have to be considered intensive during the period(s) it is permitted to occur. A natural heritage evaluation should be completed to support any development within 120 metres of the woodland feature. 9. DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS 9.1 Emergency and Fire Services All fire access routes to all camping areas shall have a minimum width of 6.0 metres. 9.2 Engineering Services The use of Darlington-Clarke Townline Road for access to the campground area will not be permitted. The point where Darlington-Clarke Townline Road is crossed must be along the open portion. A 30.0 metre x 10 metre sight triangle is required at the intersection of Concession Road 10 and Darlington-Clarke Townline Road. The southerly limit of the open portion of Darlington-Clarke Townline Road must be barricaded to traffic for two days before, during and two days after any music festival. The applicant will be responsible for 100% of all costs, financial and otherwise to establish a suitable road barricade. 8-8 REPORT NO.: PSD-045-13 PAGE 9 A Traffic Management Plan with respect to any music festival will be required on an annual basis subject to the approval of the Director of Engineering Services. Engineering Services highlights that while there is no re-grading proposed at this time, any future plans for regrading would require the approval of a grading and drainage plan and may warrant a site alteration permit and/or a road damage deposit. 9.3 Building Division The Building Division has no concerns regarding the application. 10. DISCUSSION 10.1 The proposed temporary use by-law is to permit camping, parking and washroom facilities on the subject lands in conjunction with music festivals on the adjacent Canadian Tire Motorsport Park lands which is a designated Tourism Node. 10.2 Canadian Tire Motorsport Park is an established facility with zoning for a motor vehicle race track, agricultural fairground and music festivals. It is identified as a Tourism Node in the Clarington Official Plan, an indication of an area of major tourism and recreation potential. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan would consider Mosport as a major recreation use and provides polices for the establishment and expansion of such uses. 10.3 The Clarington Official Plan designates the subject lands as General Agricultural Area.. As it stands, neither major recreational uses or low-impact recreational uses are permitted. The applicant has been verbally advised that an amendment to the Clarington Official Plan is required. 10.4 In considering this proposal, it is noted that while the duration is very limited, the festival and associated camping can have significant implications during the course of the event, including: ® Traffic management ® Emergency services (Fire, Police, EMS, Security personnel) Positive and negative community impacts ® Impacts on the natural heritage system ® Potential agricultural impacts 11. CONCURRENCE — Not Applicable 8-9 REPORT NO.: PSD-045-13 PAGE 10 12. CONCLUSION 12.1 The purpose of this report is to provide background information on the proposed temporary use zoning application submitted by Republic Live Inc. In order to proceed with this proposal and any other camping sites for the festival, the applicant must also submit an application to amend the Clarington Official Plan. Staff cannot proceed with the further processing of this application until additional materials are filed. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — Not Applicable Staff Contact: Anne Taylor Scott, Planner II List of interested,parties to be advised of Council's decision: Republic Live Inc. Darclarke Properties Corp. Valerie Cranmer, Valerie Cranmer & Associates Leslie Kerrigan Rob Whitehead Susan Lloyd Swail 8-10 S REPORT PLANNING DEPARTMENT SERVICES PUBLIC MEETING Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Dane: September 9, 2013 Resolution#: By-law#: Report#: PSD-046-13 File#: 18T-94027 AND ZBA2013-0018 Subject: APPLICATIONS TO AMEND A DRAFT APPROVED PLAN OF SUBDIVISION AND TO AMEND THE ZONING BY-LAW APPLICANT: CLARET INVESTMENTS LIMITED AND 1361189 ONTARIO LIMITED RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-046-13 be received; 2. THAT the application for proposed Amendment to Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision 18T-94027 submitted by Claret Investments Limited and 1361189 Ontario Limited continue to be processed including the preparation of a subsequent report; 3. THAT the application for Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA 2013-0018) submitted by Claret Investments Limited and 1361189 Ontario Limited to implement the proposed amendment to Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision 18T-94027 continue to be processed including the preparation of a subsequent report; and 4. THAT all interested parties listed in PSD-046-13 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Submitted by: Reviewed by: David J.Vome, MCIP, RPP Franklin Wu Director, Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer ATS/C P/df 4 September 2013 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 8-11 REPORT NO.: PSD-04613 PAGE 2 1. APPLICATION DETAILS 1.1 Owner/Applicant: Claret Investments Limited and 1361189 Ontario Limited 1.2 Agent: WDM Consultants 1.3 Proposal: Proposed Amendment to a Draft Approved Plan To adjust the lotting pattern resulting from decreased road widths and removal of the parkette block. The revisions result in an additional 10 residential units. Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment To place lands in appropriate zones reflecting the revisions to the lotting pattern and to amend setback and lot coverage regulations in the entire subdivision, including the registered plan draft approved and the additional 3.3 metre strip south of Lots 23 and 37. 1.4 Area: Subject to Amendment to Draft Approved Plan: 2.191 hectares Subject to Zoning By-law Amendment: 9.375 hectares 1.5 Location: North of George Reynolds Drive, east of Courtice Road, being in Part of Lot 28, Concession 3, Former Township of Darlington, Courtice (see Figure 1). 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 In 1994, Courtice Heights Development filed subdivision application 18T-94027 located in the northerly portion of Hancock Neighbourhood in Courtice. It was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board July 28, 1999. 2.2 The original Hancock Neighbourhood Design Plan was approved on September 10, 1998. Over time, many factors prompted the need to review and update the Hancock Neighbourhood design plan including: ® Identification of Provincially Significant Wetlands by the Ministry of Natural Resources; ® Release of Provincial Growth Plans and Regional Official Plan Amendment to implement Provincial Policy (ROPA 128); ® Needs of the local school boards; and ® Approved alignment of the East Durham Link to Highway 407. 2.3 The Hancock Neighbourhood Design Plan was revised on April 17, 2013 following the approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 80 (PSD-015-13). 8-12 X m '0 /V Property Location Map(Courtice) N Courfice Urban Boundary Cn Subject O Site 6 P HOLYROD DRIVE t~p Jj3»JjJja _ a Jy� p�S �, GEORGE REYNOLDS ORNE" Z• Z �j>Ja� DRIVE _ JaJJ J J a 3 Q) o > a J o` ]r l KI N ER CT W = >a a > N Q 0 ELMER ADAMS DRIVE .. : ':.::::-:, >aJ_✓Q,J? �I cLENwEw F- 0 6' J??o JJ; CC Z w x O BROOMEAV Z - O LLl J»�r JJ tee: o•� ' -n J aS IAN DD 0(' � •�.�>.�JaJ> f \MLSERT HOAR Cij�BDAV yV ...• :...•....•.,•;: D JJ J��J> STbiORE ST O ELMER ADAMS DRIVE 0 >;j J�� z_ -U rNASH ROAD aW > � [Y ] O aJ)a>i�J>J a > JJJ >a O :[c: _i:_ •. .: » >a]> O 3JJ✓'J> jJJJ��JJJJJ S .i: J>✓J>✓>JJ J>JJa JJJ>> j7!j JjaJJJ>JJJ �,� JJJ j»3J '�, J� jjj>J'J Lands Subject to Rezoning Application J a a > Jaa J JJ > �> >»aJ a»]a J> Jaa>J ✓ci> J j J>J J ® Lands Subject to Subdivision App lication '03 ? Lots Registered as Plan 40M-2496 aJa E on�me.a>�P>oz,reaC i,>aA„]-3 > ;ton rea� J ) >aJ, Jaa »JJ >>a)a )J J»JJJJ f�j �? �3p JJ 3✓a J Jaa >JJJ>a>J>JJJ>aJ�JJ> >a>>aJJJ 3»JJJ'J jJJJ•'jJJJJJ]�,JJJ jjJJa>3J�JJ>a1J>>�J�J,.- >>} J> �?�JJ3JJJJ>J a'JJ>Jj aJJ>�JJJ%JJJJJ 3]>>J, JaJJJJA�-J > JaJ> a7 JJJ> 3Ja Jaa J>a]>JJaJ'>>?�j>J�JJa✓�J Co > ZSA 2013-0018 W REPORT NO.: PSD-046-13 PAGE 4 2.4 Official Plan Amendment.No. 80 dealt with amendments impacting the subject plan of subdivision, specifically it: • Eliminated the need for 26 metre collector roads. Firstly, the extension of Harry Gay Drive, north of George Reynolds Drive, a portion of which is now a walking trail and servicing corridor through the wetland, and the remainder, a local road; secondly, the east-west connection along the top of the subdivision which was originally planned as the Adelaide Avenue extension; and • Adjusted housing and population targets to allow for proposed revisions. 2.5 The Hancock Neighbourhood Design Plan revisions impacted the draft approved plan of subdivision, specifically it: ® Amended road widths from 26 metres to 20 metres; ® Removed the parkette; and ® Adjusted road and lotting pattern. 2.6 Since the amendments, Phase 1 of the subdivision has been registered as Plan 40M- 2496 and construction is underway. The remaining lands require approval of the requested amendments to the draft approved plan and rezoning. The proposed changes are as a result of efficiencies achieved given the reduction in road widths and the removal of the parkette block. The wide/shallow lots on Street A were replaced with traditional depth 12 metre singles. The amendments would increase the number of units from 151 to 161 (see Figure 2). 2.7 The purpose of the rezoning application is to: ® Implement the revisions to the lotting pattern; ® Rezone a small strip of land (3.3 metres wide)just south of the draft plan of subdivision to be incorporated as exterior side yards to existing lots; and ® Revise lot coverage and setbacks in the subdivision to allow for greater flexibility. 3. LAND CHARACTERISTICS AND SURROUNDING USES 3.1 The subject lands are currently vacant. A portion of the draft plan of subdivision is now registered as Plan 40M-2496 (see Figure 1). Servicing of the lands and construction of the roads is underway. 3.2 The surrounding uses are as follows: North - Significant Woodlands and Provincially Significant Wetlands South - Dwellings on existing lots of record East - Significant Woodlands and Provincially Significant Wetlands West - Dwellings on existing lots of record 8-14 RE PORT NO.: PSD-045-1 3 PAGE 5 Figure 2 ' rnz uisw _ �i 1i13�I-° --------- M x RC_L .3SSm ..,ty - JI AE.�-"'--- � - _ I t.• aA.6 , p _ , IM Z111 41 J1376 - AREA TpRLE -- e W , W77 {� I °155n EU ER C a.,A •�- S.''^ 1 -_ ---_ _, _-------- W _ t �dj - 9 B 4 _ � I'fl9 !� N1 8A 3 N b ^101 1 ^S] QO 5 ATFUMoVur ... .......M...A.L.'. . � ... .a v 33<.n .. -- FLAMER ADAA:S DRIVE R -------—� o R STREET B E c c; c c V c c c;�� R y KA c. c c °z° c H c c c c =14 17A M1ms..Sr...„....«:«.,.. ----- 33 V 4 BLOCK 116 3A vn 26 O j BLOCK 117 1 i 1'.•s.: 1 FUTURE {,i2 -- O r- . DEINr 1 ) MEffl NF " M 25 s A 0079 ,I ---- 0.056 HA A ,...ALL.. : 36 2sF r I } x � cs•iN sE\aa.y�. > imri ro a'ra __L1 _-_._________ _-_.__-_-______ -- .l. RMxDs D aA_s Inu PW T- ITOUF'4 PROPOSEDS_'5DYSION F!X OFl0128�COICESVON3 1t I 1 IF _-,,____ 9 1.bx h1JNC'UVOCPN OFMTON 1- 1$ -_ 1 1 ,�1 REGO.'lAl1.:UNICIPAl11Y OF D:'kHA'.1 i ( 1 � I I 1 1 1 1 �•\ '\I � aQ /10 80USf1ELDS INC. 4. PROVINCIAL POLICY 4.1 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) The PPS identifies settlement areas as the focus of growth. Land use patterns shall be based on densities and a mix of land uses that efficiently use land, resources and infrastructure. Energy efficiency and improved air quality is promoted by a compact urban form, a mix of uses and utilization of public transit. Natural features, surface water features and ground water features shall be protected. The applications are consistent with the PPS. 4.2 Provincial Growth Plan The subject lands are within the greenfield area as defined by the provincial Growth Plan. The Growth Plan establishes the target of 50 jobs and residents combined per net hectare in the greenfield area. Both targets are measured across the Region of Durham. The Growth Plan encourages the creation of complete communities that are compact and transit-supportive, offering a diverse mix of land uses, a range and mix of employment and housing types, high quality public open space and easy access to local stores and services. The Growth Plan supports the identification and protection of natural heritage features and areas that complement, link, or enhance natural systems. The proposed development, with the 10 additional lots, will result in approximately 52 residents per hectare and conforms to the Growth Plan. 8-15 REPORT NO.: PSD-046-13 PAGE 6 S. OFFICIAL PLANS 5.1 Durham Regional Official Plan The Durham Regional Official Plan designates the lands as "Living Areas". Key Natural Hydrologic and Heritage Features and High Aquifer Vulnerable areas exist in the area. Lands within this designation shall be used predominantly for housing purposes incorporating the widest possible variety of housing types, sizes, and tenure. Living Areas shall be developed in a compact form through higher densities and by intensifying and redeveloping existing areas, particularly along arterial roads. Key natural heritage and hydrologic features are to be protected. Greenfield areas in the Lake Ontario Shoreline municipalities shall develop at a minimum gross density of 50 persons and jobs combined per hectare. The applications conform to the Durham Regional Official Plan. 5.2 Clarington Official Plan Within the Clarington Official Plan, the subject lands are designated Urban Residential which are predominantly used for housing purposes. Lands are within the Hancock Neighbourhood, and has a current population allocation of 3400 and a housing unit target of 1225. The subject lands are within 120 metres of natural heritage features including watercourses, significant woodlots and provincially significant wetlands as identified on Map C1, Natural Heritage System. The subject site is within the Lake Iroquois Beach. The wetlands are part of the Harmony-Farewell Iroquois Beach Wetland Complex, a Provincially Significant Wetland. Appropriate studies in support of the original draft approval have been previously completed to the satisfaction of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority and the Municipality of Clarington and the OMB. The amendment to Draft Approval and the rezoning will not adjust any boundaries abutting identified natural features, and no further analysis of natural features was required. The Transportation Map identifies Courtice Road as an Arterial Road. All other roads are local roads. The applications conform to the Clarington Official Plan. 6. ZONING BY-LAW 6.1 Zoning By-law 84-63 zones the subject lands a number of urban residential zones; all subject to Holding (H) symbol. The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment would rezone the lands to allow for the proposed amendment to Draft Approval, and would increase permitted lot coverage, and adjust setbacks typically applied in more recent subdivision proposals. 8-16 REPORT NO.: PSD-046-13 PAGE 7 7. PUBLIC NOTICE AND SUBMISSIONS 7.1 Public notice was given by mail to each landowner within '120 metres of the subject property and a public meeting sign was erected along Courtice Road North. . 7.2 At the time of writing this report, one individual has contacted staff regarding the application with concerns about road widths, drainage/water, and loss of parkland, and another individual has had questions with regard to impacts on a neighbouring property. 8. AGENCY COMMENTS 8.1 Regional Planning Department The Regional Planning Department has no objection to the proposed amendments and has provided conditions of approval to be cleared by the Region prior to registration of the plan. 8.2 Regional Works Department The Region of Durham Works Department notes that municipal services are available to service the additional lots. The developer will be required to enter into a subdivision agreement with the Region for the installation of the water and sanitary sewer services for the additional lots. 8.3 Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority(CLOCA) CLOCA has no objection to the proposed changes to the lot layout resulting in additional lots. 8.4 Other agencies Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board, Canada Post and Rogers Cable offer no objections. 9. DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS 9.1 Emergency and Fire Services Emergency and Fire Services has no objection. 9.2 Engineerinq Services Engineering Services has no objection and is satisfied with stormwater water management for the development. 9.3 Buildinq Division The Building Division has no objection. 9.4 Operations Department The Operations Department has no objection. 8-17 REPORT NO.: PSD-046-13 PAGE 8 10. DISCUSSION 10.1 The principle of the changes to the draft approved plan of subdivision and most elements of the rezoning have been previously established through the approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 80 and the update to the Hancock Neighbourhood Design Plan which took into account the reduction in road widths, removal of the parkette and revisions to the lotting pattern. 10.2 The approved Official Plan Amendment No. 80 and revisions to the.Hancock NDP were part of a public process with a Public Meeting held on December 10, 2012 and two (2) Open Houses held on June 14, 2012 and October 10, 2012 to seek input on changes. 10.3 The proposed amendments to the Zoning By-law propose increased lot coverage and reduced front yard and interior side yards to allow for larger homes to be constructed on each lot type. For the most part these are similar to more recent subdivision approvals. 11. CONCURRENCE — Not Applicable 12. CONCLUSION 12.1 It is recommended that staff continue processing the applications and prepare a recommendation report having regard for any submissions made at the Public Meeting. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN The recommendations contained in this report conform to the general intent of the following priorities of the Strategic Plan: Promoting economic development X Maintaining financial stability Connecting Clarington Promoting green initiatives Investing in infrastructure Showcasing our community Not in conformity with Strategic Plan Staff Contact: Anne Taylor Scott, Planner II List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Claret Investments Limited 1361189 Ontario Limited William Manson, WDM Consultants Pam Callus Pauline White 8-18 Cla)r-m0gfon REPORT PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: September 9, 2013 Resolution#: By-law#: Report#: PSD-047-13 File#: PLN 7.9 Subject: STREET NAMING POLICY AND THE REQUEST BY BOB OWEN TO RESERVE "ROY NICHOLS" AS A FUTURE STREET NAME FOR COURTICE RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-047-13 be received; 2. THAT Council provide direction on the street name request; and 3. THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD-047-13 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Submitted by: Reviewed bbl/ David JL6rome, MCIP, RPP Franklin Wu, Director of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer DJC/sn/df 14 August 2013 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 8-19 REPORT NO.: PSD-047-13 PAGE 2 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 On December 10, 2012 the GPA Committee considered a motion to add "Roy Nichols" as a street name for Courtice. A subsequent resolution was passed referring this request and requesting a report on the municipality's street naming policy. Resolution #GPA-607-12 THAT Planning Staff be directed to reserve the name "Roy Nichols" as a future street name in Courtice. REFERRED TO STAFF (See following motion) Resolution #GPA®606-12 THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 607 -12, regarding reserving the name "Roy.Nichols" as a future street name in Courtice, be referred to Staff. CARRIED 1.2 Street Name Policy There are two policies regarding commemorative street names: • Planning Services Department Policy on the use of War Dead and War Veteran Names for Streets (Attachment 1); and • Municipal Policy regarding Memorial Tributes (Attachment 2). In addition, there are two other policies or practices: ® Street names in the Energy Park are to reflect an Energy Theme; and ® Key Street names in new neighbourhoods are provided to create a sense of identity for the area (e.g. Brookhill Drive, Northglen Avenue). There are also private roads or lanes, which are named at the developer's discretion, provided that they meet emergency criteria and are approved by the Region. This includes the streets within the Wilmot Creek Lifestyle Community and a growing number of common elements in condominium projects. The Region is the overall approval authority for street names to ensure that there is no duplication across the Region and that there will be no confusion for emergency responders for like-sounding names or names that are difficult to pronounce. I 8-20 REPORT NO.: PSD-047-13 PAGE 3 2. DISCUSSION 2.1 War Dead and War Veteran Names are addressed by staff in consultation with the Legion Branch 178 and Dominion Command. It is a fairly rigourous process conducted by the Legion and Dominion Command to determine the validity of the street name relative to the Municipality's criteria. 2.2 Other commemorative names have no similar screening or process with respect to the validity of the honour being bestowed. As the policy states, it is done on an ad-hoc basis recognized by Council.. These are instituted by council resolution. 2.3 In recent years, a number of street name requests have been made by individuals or members of Council: ® Hooper by Council (for former Councillor Ken Hooper) 1994; ® Carson Elliott by Savario Montemarano of Melody Homes (1998)*; ® Ella Mae by residents of Enniskillen during the 911 street renaming process (2001); 9 Col. Patterson by Mayor John Mutton (2003); ® Harry Gay by Rick Gay (2004); ® Richard Gay by Lawson Gay (2008); and 0 Roy Nichols by Bob Owen (2012). * Note: Carson Elliott was reserved as a street name by the developer but never used. It remains on our list of reserved street names. 2.4 ' Commemorative street names can be a difficult area in which to judge the significance of a person's contribution to the community. Some municipalities establish Committees to evaluate nominations. Some municipalities have experienced a large number of requests from citizens nominating names as a memorial to recently deceased persons, which has led to controversy. In other communities, there is controversy over the validity of person being honoured relative to the other possible names. To date, Caarington has not had that problem with the focus on veteran and war dead street names. 2.5 The Municipality's policy is that members of the community at large be recognized based on "the length and degree of service to the community". Without a more rigorous process, the commemorative value of street names is left to Council's discretion on the basis of their knowledge of the individual being nominated. There may be a tendency not to offend the nominator or to make a judgment on the merits of the person requested to be memorialized. To assist Council to that end, staff requested that Mr. Owen provide some additional background information on Roy Nichols. This information is provided on Attachment 3. It is noted that in addition to his business accomplishments, Mr. Nichols was a member of Darlington Township Council for 14 years, 7 of these as the Reeve of the Township. 8-21 REPORT NO.: PSD-04713 PAGE 4 2.6 If, after reviewing the information provided, Council deems that Roy Nichols qualifies as an appropriate commemorative street name, appropriate direction should be provided. Council resolution would be as follows: "That Roy Nichols be reserved as a street name for the Courtice Urban Area". 3. CONCURRENCE — Not Applicable 4. CONCLUSION The commemoration of Clarington residents through street names is governed by two policies. The War Dead and War Veteran street naming policy and procedure is well tested and rigorous in its implementation. The policy on Memorial Tributes, which covers commemorating.members of Council, members of the community at large or national tributes and recognition of royalty, is strictly a matter of Council discretion. It is recommended that in the future Council obtain background information on the person being nominated so that it can make an informed decision on a memorial tribute. Information should be provided on their contribution to the economy and development of the Municipality, their contribution to community life, and awards received for community service. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — Not Applicable Staff Contact: David J. Crome Director of Planning Services Attachments: Attachment 1 - Clarington Policy on War Dead and War Veterans Street Names Attachment 2 - Municipal Policy regarding Memorial Tributes Attachment 3 - Roy Nichols Background Information List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Bob Owen, President, Roy Nichols Motors John Greenfield, Royal Canadian Legion 8-22 ATTACHMENT 1 TO REPORT PSD-047-13 Municipality of Clarington Planning Services Department Policies SUBJECT: War Dead and War APPROVED BY: ® Council Veteran Names for Streets SECTION: Development General DATE APPROVED/UPDATED: SUBSECTION: PSD-DG010 May 29, 2001/June 26, 2006 1March 25, 2008/April 16, 2012 PURPOSE: To honour the memory of men and women from Clarington who have fought or performed battlefield nursing in a war or served in peacemaking or peacekeeping assignments overseas as part of Canada's military, POLICIES: 1. For the purpose of this policy, the "war dead" refers to those persons who died serving overseas in active military duty including in the Canadian Merchant Navy that served in a war zone as defined by the Canadian Government and in nursing overseas during: the Peninsular and Crimean Wars, the Boer War, World War 1, World War 2, peacemaking action initiated by the United Nations and/or NATO including the Korean War, the Gulf War of 1991 and Afghanistan or any peacekeeping action initiated by the United Nations and/or NATO in which Canada played an active military role. 2. For the purposes of this policy, "war veterans" refers to those persons who voluntarily enlisted with Canada's military forces including the Canadian Merchant Navy that served in a war zone as defined by the Canadian Government and in nursing and served overseas in active duty during: the Peninsular and Crimean Wars, the Boer War, World War 1, World War 2, and any peacemaking action initiated by the United Nations and/or NATO including the Korean War, the Gulf War of 1991 and Afghanistan or any peacekeeping action initiated by the United Nations and/or NATO in which Canada played an active military role. 3. The use of war dead and war veterans' names will be submitted to Royal Canadian Legion, Dominion Command for approval in compliance with their Poppy & Remembrance Committee poppy symbol usage policies. 4. The use of war dead and war veterans' names will comply with the Region of Durham street- naming policy, 5. The war dead and war veterans that will be honoured in this manner are those men and women who were residents of Clarington at the time that they enlisted. 6. Municipal staff will work with the Royal,Canadian Legion in determining the men and women that qualify for recognition. 7. The Municipality will encourage the use of war dead and war veterans' names within plans of subdivision on the following order of priority: a) . Soldiers killed or missing in action; and b) War veterans who have died. 8. Street signs honouring war dead and war veterans will include a poppy in the design. 9. Streets previously named for individuals of historic significance or Clarington families and not specifically identified at the time for a specific war dead or war veteran will not be recognized with a poppy on the street name sign. 8-28 ATTACHMENT 2 TO REPORT PSD-047-13 POLICY REGARDING MEMORIAL TRIBUTES (Report Admin-16-96) A) MEMBERS OF COUNCIL: Mayors: recognize past or present Mayors by the naming of a facility. Councillors Deceased Durinq Term of Office/or Deceased in First Term After Leaving Office: may be recognized upon request, by the naming of a street or a park within the Municipality. B) MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE Members of the Community At Large: recognition on an ad-hoc basis by Council, as requests are received, by the naming of any park, street or facility, based on the length and degree of service to the community. C) NATIONAL TRIBUTES/RECOGNITION OF ROYALTY Nationally recognized individuals, such as Terry Fox, and recognition of Royalty through visits to Municipally hosted events, may be recognized by the naming of a street, park, or facility. STREET NAMES: The suggestion of any street names will be processed in conjunction with the Planning Department's registry and street naming process. FUNDS: Funds required to implement recognition memorial tributes will be budgeted in any given year that the tribute is anticipated, and otherwise may be drawn from the Unclassified Administration Receptions and Tributes account. INITIATION: Requests will be considered by Council on an as requested basis. Interested parties are to be notified of-Council's decision 8-24 ATTACHMENT 3 TO REPORT PS®-047-13 K40TORS LTD. Aug 6,2013 AU..G Municipality a Ciarlogton Mtlflt �FAlVNM.l 4CTemperance$t. 111ltlllf l! PLh1NINW?EPtt &Irrl F._. .. Bovvmonville ON CIC SAC ATTN: Mr.Davld,l.Creme Dfrector of Planning Services RE; Proposi,l to Clarington about Rolf Nichols street name D,Par David; Here is sgma inforuwtiott regarding to the CourticeArea, Roy was born in the year 1900 to the Dart of a well-known farrner In the co?t muWity. Ray's bulUng was,an old bfackgrrtith shop'i0ich he converted to s garage repair shop. It w"-on the only road tonnecting Toronto to KNg�#an at the time. hie started tho dealership in 192.2 selling l INIes and Whippet cars. Its 1,.933 he received the complete General Motors Irne4rp at the-tlrtre Including Chevrolet,Pontlac,Oldslitoblfa guicid r nd GJN1CTnAcr§. Roy made outs-tanding tontrlbutiom to the rocal municipal 4ovornment having served Darlington as Councilor for four years,bepgty Reeve for two years and Reeve of the Tawwnshipfor efghtyeara. Ho was often respertfu Uy referred[to as the Mayor of Courtice years ago. In 1969 upon Ray's cleath his riapl ows-Fred and.Ray wen took over the businemcon[Inatng-the reputation.that Roy es.tablished.gIvIng customers a square,deal. They joined the company right out of school learning the l:>usiness€rout tite ground up. In.1994 Ray's groat ttaphew Bob Owen took over the:buSlness and he is still continuing the swing customer servfw as hl.s uncfarr and great uncfoF 0 urtng inert,Roy and Bob's torture the 40-olorsh1p has won the Gen�-:rat Motors'President sUp.le Crown awvardl5ycvars; Th Is m4ra rd recognizes top quality customer seivIce.,top sa(es ourn bets,and all around dealership performance. It is onty givers to the.toj�100 dealers in Canada.A-,q vvell countlass awards have bean,,von 3tytlte dIerstps saieas 7eopla sorvc � ltniarse The ba:,iness has had upP,ra:dr_s to the facilities in the 195Vs,in 197$and our neiv and uitrm-modern faculty i-vas cornploted In Oct 2G11 to bettor serve ovr Customers. I have attached some newsp,7 per articles from the 1930's and.1940's shovring Roy's comribuflons to the local charitles. ToIl Free: 1-8£a-R85w88L2 a 9-Q5- 6 x; L4 t9- f 2728 Gooillca Road•Cou.rftre,� Ontario$ L 8-25 )IMIrs trulyy, Gott Owen Pre0dent1 Roy Nichols'MatorsUmIted -�505-A36- 8-26 `a-'iZ : -?:.i°'_ t_7:Y$r+, �'•.)a`I:,: ;cniii`:`.>3'. t:y"G:i ..•Yf;r' .�:.+ tS,: - . .,l..,Z.G iJ�%. _.t,. J:i:t'r-v �'ii: �r F''i>i;so`•':<,t,.�`:e?'.•:':r'.. 1:<, -,/•. .:f:3:H. �L`1� _'.S'a :'y:% :?! !, :).< •:Y; fir;-�.. - vF:''-"I:v .5:7< :t.I." ?,Y':' �'Ji�e�.i' .:i L:' :•.Si'.' ..j:�,l`�•2- i'yf:..,_ n�.�, <.r;'f^ .s:C' v al> :c.: i.. ,t;t°Y. t�=,' r5... :L.,::':':';• :.E•:'.,J:y�q:t *�.�1'• ."!' py 1! •,'.. t ,,J 1:...4.c �y� -�•y^� ,vim.•.T !F •�Zi:v",.'.'.,•':.rs R. '.{_': :d,,;;r<, •:,::4t.a:.(5�'��r.'•s��°.�:i:) y:p5'_�5:'Jh�i:e>.i:;'T.:a}:=24:i P. ' ';;:f2 ,'Y":•7v;`., ;n.:,;:.z�;!.z�•,`,r{i,�j :�?• ! �'.'V:': �i}� ;::i'F .:Y:' :�} ...): ..f<y x'�?` ^:CI"�Y:t,n^.+�:1:?:` :•15i:.. •.r -.ti...�i: ..7:' = ;.2•••'<-^:^, .Yt:. :0;;•,..,?•;<:v::: .:f..:.)1't`:< r'iZ,; �;t• ^Y� �1: 1;:F•%:';�,((� .(,: �)•., •'•I"i'��.;^. �«r'i:%''>:,,Y ,f; �.�.;td,. :i._:�:C-„':d ,z3J - ,?� �;i,n i} :�f+ i'•J,S .:ai�Y•v!i• S )M, �iS' ^f: i �:;, �is- ,�},.J :'r; :n ,-.t{,•u S tlF:.�Sj'^- 'J,E...ON't ti - 4Zt i i'),':'' �•s1% 't�• "r.; ;r:t",y 5,y'}♦�:`} ? j _ `..:.Jy�'(�i 7 i'tAJy..tc ..t�?r :lv. ,•rL .. ..1; ` i:.: �, p{\:..,. r,': :�� tAl_: ,5S _ ':h,. it;li ;,,i.i :::li. .✓.♦>'efi ei`: yih: .�F:>_.)- :"i* i",.�. ::Fy::;l:J-p :'.(1..�. .ti' " ...................... No''1•' .,.tj l:�. `.t: - •\'.'• ..lrF",.•:'c<,h.T;':::<'i.<.••l.n ,t..•s i' t..�. '?:is.�''};�;•',,, �,i i✓ rl,i.�_{>i'•:::F)'i' S. ��,'i^)i::; :• ,.t:;T:.,`l)�!i, t_.•,��.� •4 - - is Y.` .il:,y f•.- ':)•`' '.t 'i�t,, :it%. 't`: - ii.l(SS:"�•l✓'-.)din il: e.L;.•:t.' fug +�ic�., 'i:ff.. '.Za`•' 7,'i +`•i1cv� a' Y4. •:;•:.t;�( `' '..t;:-.2,cy ;''pi xC T<, :.G: ..Y' •��'"1•; :,'l::��(' ;ii77i CS`t' .�'�i:: •i'1': ' ti.• PAY, ::t is .'.S,(.•'i�_ .l �, _Y<' i�s�"i;;iF;;,'< '?''� :.:Jaf. ;tc. t`',`,•:i:; ,r•;::..i;'''.e, - :�,Z :tfj•�i -('-v".f '. :`i;. :'Y'••- :sir♦ �a ♦ ;�`ta£. "` •a'•.' ):',i: ..�> - '{d;�f•i'II)'' 'ii•::l: ..i ..';.v^ ,'L�'.::G+',.°`;�i - .>�ii t.:it.5�::�.`i�:O :��' ti'i!^ ..;'t•°�" c•Y:' .ir�'rr}`,,t;;S.; i,\.•, ,3'-r .,.,}.'^ tai=,• 2:5. '%ZP. i r i� i' �l ti 4 i 7:y)z;=SlD: +_Y: -;.•s )'.i(%< ;i'> ;_y.;\;::...�'..'.�ij+ Stns �<I:':f.�:` :I;: �y,:,�:r�: «'��inh;tl,};• Z."t♦:'`::•'.l;ij::}'. :;�:1�;`•. _ iit"`•:Ty 2 ITEM 'tf: i,>:;:! - h'. ::i'.)%.T.-:. :.i", "G':�• , •:)r;J t:' ;.,;'. _ ra <:X•"':f• �.i.; ;,,.':; - ^J.t': 1','t�'<'i,j''���i'•K- •y%.(�:1'' :)!S:c'^::�:i:'i,::,' !'; `y�.;'•�':i.';:l.}l. ,.ter•,L,'• �: i:• tf :$i. J: .S'.Ann t t:. :.�.• ';i•:;.: :it�i :rte; KNOW ,•?:'11.t_ `.'G.•` :,.1. ..>•.ti'..:�ST:� .rt•;ire;:':•:`:.;:':.,:�� ::? :Y., T•t+.i5:M1 �,),::1 '`:. "Y�''...:F,:':,�!, ,^.,D i`.)Yti•.V'r i'.�f. .:. :�L:"•::. Tt`« ,a.}'f N', i')• >t: J'•v- .;(.:'(dim.:t1' ;.�h i�' .'i<.:, c:i ,.\)i:;ifI ')'� .2.)G �'Y�^ iil:jf,•J.1•): ;:}<�•«::":;�:.Y �.�:1.�::;•, ;�•?i< . -,;��?'4 :'t�:' •Tt �,'i:::':)+�•J:i,)': "y ':'2�., >, t� i5�%•.r)t,. .t.ryt • z.,>.�_��, ::.y:' _:<' <„l",•.i': :.;4•`:.$'°i'::?�@ie:Sr .a :i,1 ';., .: ,.ij:V .:.g ,t;`,.<.l. ..4'>.:•°i�':>.'',;""iii:. *,:,.{.`.ii, �:i;:' _ Ft's::;' ;.��:. �i:,:i �:ji°- `��:?;::•:•• : C!D;: d,ci•ji ti r�';i":i.4->.t ' , "'WAS _,.tip•';t,': ,as` :''>�•!v'�.:'i:.':'.:.;�:.i'!e•'''.;M1;'i_�``' c L�:i"iiFo i6 •i.>i'] :`'�J�f1 �%y ii::.i..T:?:`� ;:i;i:•i!+!t{,..':l•:::i:: :;u.� tai:' -••y"✓N,�ii,°.:, "�•, .�''';:.�' v :1 T:�. .t :j`,. .)•);'- �i%i;�f^ rC'< 1'. -.U�^(R•L`ii(a•, n.R•�:Tt't :ijt%:i+.: •:•\•::>,• f<`'' �i5; ,,<,Y .�,.. ,r.�nJ.'4,. 'is -vn,<...�„. .:L',.^,".?,r.c.}�:':�i;::..:.!•=. stYr ',�r'�,.•,t); i:�r .; ,-;S ,1:t a..:• v.s.,,..z,-.t:•n L.-a,.�t:t i H•eri a,). > '1t°. ? ;=fY#► ']23;�' w �vi::cryyyt r }L.a� CS• L+ t? 4pv '�. _ ',•' -;{ 1` ,i.. (' L:A fi'j ]:•h `_`="x, :,,;ti's...., h.. [c t S '•)' "NOV.::.5.)?S\3d iwn..�y ;fit;'•w ice qa _ •� .:,�ny. ly.f " :•iM1^ ',�^ M `;�t� ' '4•T:'J!�`{'iZT.sT,,:. :i•)f: f�?••i."' .,°.%,?. ...<•x'' ,,, F!,Y'''k., .♦.,:cl.�yJta,:r?t? s,.'!�•9, .;: 3 t '�iny':Y•�.�•Ifi 'yf�# .. K ] ::;3'•15G''.1�'C( ..c• t.. r.,✓•: , :!?4'r iYt�x' ii�r'i '•sf? 1}SL�•:ei.RC .gig e ':a ,•< , ,.r,. r. i;= n ?, r^'.'"•``•: ,,�.."z,',Lf.Y�;*;��'��bl �'�C�',��1,���.(��y�- i;u;��'n.'�, -i�'•z:2-4�' S; _'. xC--` y'S<� ihf�•: yyL�, 1.:•:.71.�J._ t _); 4,_zy�`y'::•::•:.c.,r.�.�,�5rf•Uf'.1,%:'.'\: •.i� �y::%: p`.,, '•f�'• j:r , y�5,13 ,: CtY,yd_�3.?tt' :L'�fi4 :� F3 S\ ��'i' (::'.,;..:.,,. �s- i 4.5:. :+�14u <�:.:, �. �Qe lii; Y' 1'•) •:>;: �" � New r1CWW=y,1[y/��y .�z :" F.F & !f;2L' 5� 2 �j c'�7J�k'�1z'{1{_3ryySF.�yryf1a :r L'•M1Ot�`ie; €:; {^ C�4#i:�Q 'A:' �8fl '� '4. "r'• .r :' {`� i ;- c.'> : i# ;X' '.. fi' �..,.. .. onFr,':;• h�}� y�}�y� �y.,(y� �y ��,[t �{y.�� '.�y .• fie"' y,�i%f,,yr♦':�:..,.•.:c ,�j ,�� �:�y�{cM:,�,:y,•�,, , ��I.�T�')-V'ti'�Ix�US:'Al'[�7:.':`:!'.Yi��lit�aCii:':k27 Ai;r:�lf�Y:".4f� .�:;:�:S.y�i�<:':'�L� i3�ifC'.�'%ftli":t'•:i.F3�.��`: .;;.5iy _ .wx. «;awC. _�!_ t=•..uu xa��,,..i�. �r - .t.?,:,..;3,;,;..�.y>'a r'�'t• :Nl;`�o: :..�...�..,p,y 'n3[ --�•y, � �).an.:..•. 4�� <r"i,`a Y,::::?\. G!;;����,T�y�'y:�.,",�'1: 1�:�`„j4,:�'�� -j• .`�; ,fit �..,.._ •`P='•::;'.•�, 1.` -L: `�i�` '-,f.I ;? �� ,5�,',,,.�,,..Ji.II ��-�,`=�<:���f�,€sew';;�'Q��"E�,,'';:,'w,'��{j{��'%�7��-�.� 3��Y1�}'�'��''��y z�`'•_:-:: .�;; rtry�e'.��.<,•J.�,r�{u:f':.�#nyS�.�eJ�9��w�}.y�.5,.��,±+�(�iy,Y.,._ et `�,}\. fii,d ryN ,{p i�. -�`J:i. •'.3i�.`:_ i.:,n. ..�'ff^>tl'G�.`•'(..YiG:;,..Fibi4iA.�1_� 5��'' ��:.LL 'VA�LL�1 r.�-.•r.' :X: 8-27 r>�r; A.i ._,-... ,_•�`,'P,. -...r:`.Y,2":_,,n,::::�c.�....o.:...::.:......ai:r,;''.:.,... ,:c.:`r.,r3::�' ''i :... ........ .......0 .,.. _. ,. �.... ._._:. ,: .::;:••:::::...•. ..,,..: :)tn.::.:a,n::r.¢f=.9oi '!I;�?;i:=`r,:"� `;.x, ir:r::<.:,.:.»,.:,r Ic` ' 1'7cj_ •- •Sy r mil )• ;tAe v i,e••`, - f:^ 1n t"i"�'�i:•: •ti - '•}> •:i-; - } ,'i?.tai: .t tiff r� - y,J •1�j`:r %i - '1 Y :�-1 t •rr... y 7' t i+tip :sr" y• ,3.. =,�-:%.:. _:•ice ,J. :.!!^ k: i.,:•_ f•. r Yt iris- l.- r'E - }.•c:J';"..•:to ft''...;.1•. I. L.. •v L, y tt,,,,__YY,, +�E`YJ f.l� 'v+Yk''i` �: •'r:!L`sU+:�r::> .l.'�;;:�i�".-„+ :j%....,t ,,,.,,,,,:.. vY�� y� �� �,.t •:"``-�'q t� tV� Ot't;'�.* ,.� t4::1 _ ,le" .}' - ':>:;. - ::r.•;:': 55 �S'' /.�v�y�+, }� - •.t,. ��, ,:):�i:] •.lr'�ii'i` 1.. -l. .1.4a pdg •.rr, - �=iF.,r! ?�s.. "iJ'�'>t'^ ?+ •-is:�i;:i..>;�;k.. t,.:.., '(7:...:1.• .-`ti ::�,: � .n','i'.:,?''_. :/.:•x.i"+''�i��i,i,:.t:...�:ir_i=�`:);:.r.• rr_ .:•.�•a,_,,y,,r.,I3...154�`t�`�y]3S. .i�ffilr! Ct� - ..t. "><-.:: - - - �i• !.1i- ..`i .S'�. _'=SY• �,�!f:✓i,t': ', ..1fa<,:Z`.. �•: .+.;I.. - t t 1. t .1 - - ,t,- `T `rr _ .t. .'$��}},,..�� ,�5,�,�c a1 �:. 'rr): _.r, ].a,yf ,:}5., '1,=..d.•. >.y 'tY:Ns7s `<F�'Fttl:•R^-"h� �1,�� .:I� -:Lt. ::�•<r"o?t R: ''J ��• _,ll�i',�7��'---•!f�t::i .�_ ;3• - .S.•s; `.Y:i>]�r_'�.t.,... :.F).,,�, - t. - ::::r. -,L „cC' +:il..]- •t}{:� ::j�? .rf.::���`:!.'. ::.��.,..yii ..'j.Y�n,.,. )�' K :�'�'rrt •%fii. .,t.`"`^,.>:li v.:j:f,.1t ,.rrt r•:.•.n:u... S, -qJ-..,t,.:',.- ii�?Ctr:.!,,:t��-''%t• r7.i=,. J� .#)'.is (a; .:?:,,_1_r! _ .,trf:. ,ti;`.a:. t,.•> _ I_i'. .r, {{ t'l' ;fin. r,� ea<?:'j`•r%'c�: 'w�, ';-.r'�`s.,., .S'�+'rt •r,xa._ ;,•1., -;�7..� a1 Y. S `"` ':Y-•l4-v_ ,'tn ) - :.'9. ,niy:+_.:•dErl;:;:3,...v.J'.:. �s,:r!<J r:'v. :iid�4::: t.P `-�" ,i �` 'T- t�. s` .].• '`-% .' - I)i :?ti:.. .G•r.::::Fl-,. _ .i'L':i{'....'.?tr. .,,'+.. i-z,.u'+IV. �,n }cFZ. • Rug x �Y� r•;.t..-`.:.:-,'ri,-„,:_'L:•.e.�S•tny.;vStr:ri:i::r” :n.�. ! •,:4hSYY 'J Z'I`J.!�. �.C.(ty3'�ktSt3E.sJ•fir : . ruµG7.� L?:'{iti.i 'K•:«✓,'.z,ti _ Z[ ��x�.F�L--�.,-i^: z:.l". i:?.:i.)St:i) -`ly:i:.�i.� J�q ...t .may., •y' ;,'1,7.:2 :k 6.1430---Z' 'S'r`.:" i:d`y .C. .ts?i[':i• .:.tY:^,M,i�•�� ,4;W:, .��'•�•: ,�7tS4'A�i '{) �ilr._:t)<"'•)t• -,!Q FL's:+,,vii`:'i- •C 1,., '1f. - T��rkyl,y, .,,:r.�- ,,`, a, �.i'';,t ;iS<'F,�,'--S'..,'+k.F7i�:-;11i•: - '••�,:-�L�= -��t.":, -),'�;<..y. .�,-y,����;- ,tr^ :-J`,_x)bc r.\'J�fi: - ...3;; =..r,.),. _ .• :.r5 f: �;�; -`\':`^',.`.•:'�i'i��:'' i'' {`�'`.°7`''lS!x't �:.�� Ss.t� = F#?'S�` ;.�';. ,�.. •.1, 3fi��-'�sr�•�i?:`s,..- a'�,:'iiT�'if1.�Y.J..�.�3tsa,.,;���n�,.. a:";::'): s.Yi.;, ¢`L �y, y x.:__ _:s.. .:,:,•. _::+i.Si,C:'. >.+1i27.. ,.I±r•?: $�31::.,' '.•' LT 'Y>.):ti�y�7.�y} ;�'y�y:t,n..:r..,•u:9'-.: .�i �.A{:?(,eet.".Lr�'+n -f ,,r� ../•!J. SL\_,Vr5.7.Yt i1:4,PlL,t Y, "'•.3� s-_ ..a>", .z.' .:J;e, is zt,,., y��,yS �,y���y -,{4E%::".r.::. ryr. ,(v f'v. - r 4:�NGN,v�r.,�,��,,�,'�{l• �7i+��Y_lli (�- '(�%�It::' �• '.t=1..'!. �=i;� - i'lyl?'��ff ..Y3C'�7+.. _rte_ ;�• �7l�.ry ��yy�'�,: - ..e"<�:l..,ir`C::n.,�i:'<�:F.,•''.i: -..Yr., :s..Y.,•.,•�r:, .tg>;- •_�_ ,'r. ••;x _tt .t.., '•te. ';ruat;F edt',,<+�r •'t•' '(�;t.ry-i.�r•,.., ,,, - 'rig.. .:?+p"ti•r' l,s: %t�.. ;1 •; C��i ({ i'ppC`ti2:L'JkffiF:i11 � ' a = .Z.�I.: v�,. i§Y'^'(:'f:'J- - r,J-,4, .4., is�..,t` •i.: .,{,:.,.• •:,L�:!•-'.S ^::.li'fS c - :+, '•li:' - ,fil;5.i;i IEL.� -- nr.. !�F.;,t3,�'i s,� .3, lY �{, ~s'c���:l., ri`:.1., �.}•�. :P'�" 21.. ..,.` ::5:'1iia..:4:T:!{i::��.t. �v .3�Se3'.tH;�, '.Y.2'1~ Q.TI Sftl;�i'cuJ.'1�IiL�1", •)7tCrtiT`+:. .:5r-\ - Yi.-��?]33' ;�1�+'i}-� {,{?�z�'l�.th��.'.}I�j,.LAYl �i`�'dC�k: �'.7r-'o-o'� ,:1,. 3«•.ti: ....�,C_'_; :.••'l'.,• `l ;1�.".'1., r.4:' ..�:'i,=r:.i LIB J^:•[Y•,� Av,? _ _ fc:•�R' ^,? � }� ••:•. t,': '1'r - _ •)� )$'!^%-;;;;�:•:i�(.°i:. sJ%�>:,i.r:JY(:=.:ctt': �y -yy �ypJ y _ ,-�,�,.:��SS ��j�.iS;=Jv�=,?;,i5. ..�'�) •,_:�, / .,}-_ ..-�.:- „ta:. ,:f.. :;,..... FfW��7�-L(!C�TOi{Y.�iCC.,C•' '1. t.�'tt"it%jj�:'i�,,..,.,cs.,i:1�i gv{CSs((�� 4b�.-y�p�'kfo�•i�Yi�_'��r�•���,r(�):f:.,.,:2.,...ti�:.�. t.'`;^. ..7., _ _ t.:.::_:::::;_. :':,�, :it•i:. ,.,y:',W,�.. .,'•)'•-.Y-" r1. ,.F�.,,{,. �r F,�i <'ft".•:,: ay 5:. _ _ '•i:J,l, -al ..1. �`I x't).J: - ..,tC�i� ';"-t:=j _ ry•t'�+*.L. J� ::L i:'fi:e: li• t.4't .l. ^':).•t:;r�.'.+...1.1 ,;d',.f., is{:•:1 'n},`:1, �A '��>-'):(,],�y �f Q .ii F:{ll. {�f� yT[•r2-0�e�y�}��� .,i' ':t- .0 -.4:T=':. ,y.,<:.cr••.�y'<:.f;;r r.�:;S`<?.� ., '•y�;., 3�:Q•�.�5.' ::.� � �i'�Citl& 0� it::. ,='i'r, a?•:'S�`'F:s„�^_�:"!- Siwn:^_>.i!).. .1... Li:.?i I �.:_a„::i, [:1:'.t`Ir..••,Ti"•::- �Y.�`,, y.l i4: .1:: .att'i.•.;y;:^.•,:i.:....._'.s:•r�_..r.c.f'' -�{� .,•1 f:�:^ _ _C aL_. �•?'sj��••ttuii)' . - t7�: .•{.•�• :'l,j •ry, _ -,5.t+. ter;•}', -` �. ::C�i- '1�N fie i Y... �1}li7� - "!`• ..PJ.), \.., [ .,t.._E ...K3,`i? - .1 'i %.) avr::.i•a;•at. :z1: - .. r r. .._ , .�.,.,1... ,2:'�-. ..:Y'K:i.v_...,,_....:e,,...1.'i�`�.-mow\<il to ♦ „:., v�'� x ,:iii'�`'�, .. ..f lZ...:i:- , _. ti:'>':kT:. - ,.3. �:i;i';.r}y.r,y,...5;•i'<i.`,i.' , =1r):,_-.,,'.it,.,,. t'�`ti{S!T 8-28 . ii>�$z ::j.;_ ':1';.�:-;•;}.+„ _ ',!;°?'F?7itfz;f:•;�?;;:P:p t<<tti..r•:':Stt�v"a":3::'!,:•:--'.';5;:�ti,;�•i2 NA , 1^]:.•: AM ii�7<�y�}.1ty;;u`a��.r•5=^' T'p.��.t:��:i.:yi:�i7•i}�•,' i...:2.).v'jr'-'^.� °:;._ ''•6 �: ,rs. Nh�:a -t>f::�l S%-,!:�ar i�."{.+.''•','(ci'!°` ;'Y•s•:ti'.4%t;' y,!U'tib:�;_t:f Mistr;:�=qs•?`r.^ - •'•>•+':z•:a:ir-r�-;<•^:i�-•.:;.-''�''t'"f e'. :.`. .. 117. :.iyi) �~;;?Y�i> l!�F�.�J:'.�.:i., .�, >r�u••, i,t?s.• W.',I ii!•:1,'d`s.:_`,k't>'cYii.'•.Tc.. :r..:.,.g't{�S�sY.l�ri'S.��,:;L-iL.:.i i+y's': ..A= :.�I a..:'no' ,•,.}' . ft. S,1`:X �t ''•Yr�.. _.. :.rfx�,S ', y. `nth.!%'`-Vli y r. �?�t f 'i'2r:fF�.�'y' �{1• '� c @;t;''i �y+.:i��4•.'t'S( r'a,' ��°: ;vi. ,,i,' -::25:: .ti? .n'"ttt'."�t24',� r,<:5�;,�;� - 'l:�n 3•rr. i:�;fi`y'l.f> ..?. i- .,.f;,;:.•�_:c.-..�.t1 ,,,t._.t •�! ..l y�. C 1.7Y-t' :'/f��V i'l�i=.v:vi:�.lhi ���:..J:':if`.'�r'+(' `r3:1`..r,1i,R-,j rS.%' _ .,+tcr �?.4Y�:��.9-.k�.��ktY tz' r5, Z (]•:f;'.�Yy fi�r.. 4� 2{ ""-•°�' -�':9 ��.: •�i���':�.�!: ��i':�.,,,fit' �1:�'�Ct�2��. '��. ��_<'a�-3"1,';=,"c i.�at:.4�-• ,z:.Fxx��1J_n.SScF:e;niy,}_;. �:?ky6''e.-t:.•.`a yo�t,`t.`•P,by c..e �rJ:i^:'•: --= {} ;':F1'n;?.••iii 7''�s'tef_,uYY T ,SL4* tS'i' J .3' .'�:` MP�Y_q(�J��'�i7�i%.�F�.Sa��•' �� <��=•t;i..4:r ;.�7 tf _ -_ , .-:.s7f•,c;Ftis;'•1:'•.'x,•t.'^t;l•xty�:��, Sy•S�:(qS _ .,_ y ...�;t+^.Y.` at,p^' 7.'• �1:--a'.:1 r. •':J,.:'� .i<•f ''� : i`tic(Yh�, 'Y $-'}T. }a�7 \ t�•vi`'"ie ." ...v...., "f-.It.c ::Tf _7_ %.jc`Ct _.t�4'; S•''�::t5:� (i tv'T C`�y 11 y.f�':tai�•�<tv:.tki'.J7.... l.c.. J .; ..{�vj l.•j-S`i:G::4:,• '%)) :'s,f:'i:' "..J �;'':tiFr.i,:=:,• ! 54,..-. �Rp -- .:, ✓'. ° .R �C:,,...itr;.iit:':/,. f h't)' k. f .+t.,.i:•;f y.�i:.: rt �(+ 5�. ,;-J�' ':Y;,.r`-1C.f �,is�.f,�„i'iF.�.j���t�'•�'L#. ��l�y;:�' ��:syi�•c:;����f,i; Y I r�:�`: `:t�. �;�:x•_,': - :SY(.v�.yu.3: h 4i/� S.t�ln.?.�� '.`-'i [' �,h�.•}j 4J 7�i'� y y't i')5 q ,:.'ti7v�':'/'.1 7't( •S' .���..057.�?i��l.]}�V��:�:}'t���f:���V�i��Zit7.T3�"•`-^••-'tj,. �•'s��it��f�.\+e` IT�fa :t f >•'':h X,,;_ ..t 1. ..]J.:il_r...y tat. n.,.:tf2'X.'.:Y.y.1,.:�,Yr".•5'•:..-;°y't5:i!• ±?27 ski > T %<_''�yJxwSi�; p' # , tE13rf ''r+�',\.�:.r�'_i,ty:' ;,, t i^",.A i�� :5: si�:_�-�•..\� ..��fJ. F;..I:s•. �ryyy�.'i•.�a;fyy- tt'. •'."n.*.igc:'•r� _f TJj.+1f'r.>it"_A tiJ •3 f'h :Sj�rC' ?�L+�,�•":' 7�ii `r+,l+'.Yri7 '`•tLiy.i t ':4'.4ii'f•'L�1,ty$: '+��t`r.YttS�.•:Y.._�y�si?�;�'�",.�.'y�;':yF.t--,•e_%.-'��,#t,�ri"�:Scati �(�•r��,,; �y�a?,�.;-'r,:i; •:,}�xr��f,.t . ' of s t +Y1 S+"1'•:`. :t: 1 kxct4iAXILPO �.!' V3 S P[i � €)t �� 1 kz rty;?y {(}y►�3h #� #r�yi6 }f�yIt3y ?tl '�i42y�.� �`�} u� I h' li i:,`e"::r•. 42=`.;±+T" f4al.4.1'� ��s:,�'.�ti.i��l' t?'!-"- 1.y yj�,� t T �j�A�,, �5�./.,�:. 7E� jy:Jye �t k,{� tt ill'£�j'`:�l..}?ry'-at,')t��53;M.i,'j:S�.1�'C.•���i '_1vi,L,�i.2t��3Mj�.;Si�['�+C�ITi {.•��, L_4� �.�...t is 4_ •.Si'.�U �'..l CiyS:}'� _1'� lil�FJ •�ii."'.t.Y��k,Ext9'!�M�y�u V`���•�,,+f�f�`����,t S3•l{i,�•y1��y,7•lir�}�Xt'rt�. yr53 aA th• rj t t+ ,� L �tF4.'_' pv pv� a r Y}`y`a1 t �,,ttY3i�x�y].t..♦{. }f}� �ry�y�(J tpC( '3;.•. ,✓r)��.rV, • Tv;;y,?l k.:!;T�t�:(:r.,.;)�'' t�i�Y'[15�..'•k���)�y>iJ!.!;�c'�LEKi y��1t'yri,;�J.[;AS,tx+r�t'"="r����i{�ria,'!1:Lr11>, ' F�naj x t S of {�y�4�i(:o-:.c�';}±,s.:)r Y z r,.4`�!�'t.t�_t,i,'}.,-G:t;a s.•;t•�'•,�s itJi�.:�,Cy� yy�3 m-t a}Y�>_r.r 1l cL C .0 tiy f .,....s. �•s.� .c )�.]�•; yfy `�•�y; _�.;,i�i i nt�i.?+.._�•+�:-..=?yE ,15:^j ��,'+.r:+r T ;t� S,ic>,,',}' -�k'•�. '.�?i;-",t;J;i:j:�ict±•1 ;` `.. ,•;F?`Y. '_i•`�;.f: r+t 4.: fit{.2. .n..`;. .. ,c/•�V�}::�_,`{•]}i�--t�.�ir.2yg,�.a�.j-..,�t1.: _•1'rT�i' li.?..d'C7:i:V>`� W:? ....,tom'tiF.;:yy�,^'.t?s:•4 fti��l� �,��r�:. ,y.fl�Yr�:!•."1, t,; - r•tr'`���a:i:y�._t .�'f:>•.yc..N:i':.'.'� ,�r5 8,1,�1.4{Y•.��.����u#4.tn�'�y Sty+,; : gm r;i•,�i;,}•v,�tf'�'4`�f��.,."r`'.4r;v�)••.1r^"v�^`fi:.4'y 4«�1h'i 1:;'.3('r'.=S:..t n"i i Yf!:n.i•�:'<:^Y ai-,.�'i`i•.�?';�.:7':<3_'.;N,^.'.F-t#i�[?n;�.0 v»•4x:�>t,t`Ff•..•l:�;rSfi��''�lk�.�.�-r; x..p.-.ia'•3.�•".r!rEi �!t�'y_',ss• a`0'y x4�:y.ryryrjJi_ 30 %ON .',^,}fµTr'k,t.{�r�'�5.{`.;�T5"{f.s�r::•'c,^"{:���.-�.'1..Ji3 t'��1'��.'...�'..�:Fr'',ti r^�'.t�`l�t«.t Y. , •� .L1sal .b l^a' %}'i's f�'4% 5'% ��s�r ✓ TFE�{� I3E3 Lit .4..f.=fnt4�n•L,�AtFS�'g 3; 4 4j:tK;`S a 't�,'���' •r� �4 r.•z ta:a^ :�...a.>:: r.,...� ............ -:3^ -` 'zm`C-'�• ,';�•1Sri '?;rJ''L:i, B:t�' r ��' ;4�4�' ` _r`Ilrra;'t �:;' iL::JAS4':'i�:�f;:-. � �,f�r 7)''.y�.y�a y.{ '}t!''��((y •,��y t .v.�r�:;. .cf_. I,�,'�vz'��'G''~ rL`Z.'� l�h+�•z>^�{y��L,'�`f1- f�:1r'A:f• �L'y{'�`,4 p �y.•t�.. �(,v� !:^'. 'C �'`-.Sr`'C' ��'.; 'f, l' •!`d, tr r'� ''y t-f� •°��.��,��tl�a•�t�.•iF'�?f':vl{. �L•.J:.��l'4A7,3 uhii:�;``.�SZniysy,n" "' !?r t 4:-a^!'%.�r,:a.•r--: �,4igt�,F��:��:rxi,.'y. y,��a'.a,..�'t�_{t>�'r�'z1-'"]`, ij��v-*,JS• O i 3rie�t,{ ,:G,t._. _ki=...��.✓- ,r K�A' F•✓.;ct�'L} r^.`�•C;iic 1 �t•..... ` • : =4�:�� •.�; [Au MR kr5,.fray;'tt�yS it`^�`�y�^q,�1��1..yy����'})?'y�.sr�.�ity: y11_fP sP,MP�vw,!i +( J}�.: j[;'f.f.,i 4„-", �✓? ,4f,13,'t'eiYl Y•:4!J'�L 4','Y jl4,^'i`;J Mi��• � :+: If�, •:';;4-. at ;;:r-,� .,.( ,7' t� sip e [ '�y yya .>)`?S<,.[•,.,_�'i' t$�rir t <tj'a7� f1� i', 1y,'•, Yrvp,�'.:�:�:'��° N. 1�• - lkl' - • t`vYfiSjY�f,:�;)!rrY:��:�J��.^,�1v�^•'^,�"si.�;.Gy{,^t�S.'�. 't •:fi. ,l+q: . i :,.• •t?.._ Jbi itf,tfit,:?•. t.F.71hk•; . ;..•ctr �"•i�` C �fy �y /�7�)rg/� t 4 .t \y[t .�{-]'L}� �({}(s� �y, gf�LF fV��E��'i<�y,Y!.�s.t',�'.•L:.:232��_yy}�F•J...u,.. �} :.C�tsv,1..1�s'�,,�+ti:�5,. '•'�...•�••�;�,; ?3;r.•=.c .p?r(ita=:�;""''''t tip;^t'->� s:�'it7,�.7 �, 17...:=��•)"t.}Y'%��i3i'j.� "••`'Y•` 11.' �''-:; ��� `?`I f:tE sJ.•r.'?:=�;t.: t_f'n7.:.ti�;"t tirC>ti'^1�,�1,1!vfrt.?�iE:(r,<' •.,k.L�..ssa..r. .. _ . L'wut^iR. '-; •t^3-1-E�' ;x?j' �i.._ tF?`;•':Ctt� r5 �2t'..tli�ti :. it;3r).,.t�4[y( ,v I �:'(.`:' :•:a •i: VJ, ':rk: `; IF{' : {;;1if-" _ ,:Sri:'�tY+ i•F.. :^NQ..+,'•`•t�,.s4• h+F, �,G';Yvld"M'�.1 `l}my2iNi.O ;7 '.. .x�R,� ..•�...� y^k'..!."_vnGl;i Saryn'�:: 4,Y:;�j*� )'.L+':J.rS!r' ..:.1-�_i #�y't _=..L.:fa:r(.,y ii .�,i'�v,•S.Y��:a�•:{,��:E. :i'r.^`'-i `ter:7?> .i�+?::::t!��w�Y::,.�Li�'p:�.• •�,! �.. „:;;'7,��.gi :<St: - L,\� Yf ;.orw.'?i,'•KS .:�},-�'i-cit,r�..-:'lo)i•:Jy,;xn.;:- J.�asrc)%¢ f'^•:'.•alc - .?°,t:�•k.l =lZv.i!�tt �:yL, _ :�t..•.'__rr: - n.}•::.x-,_ ..r., ''r,�;}�`. ^;•t:-c:':.Fr;t ';i•:�•;5i:t>S�+'t7a.•t,.���,:z•k�;�'.})�� .:Jt: x_ =.��:'=�.r':..,-:�:?:•:., •..•_ . ..__...w,yr_::aja•%J._.r_..:h'?.:x.....".. _:•.Y,;. ,.:<4:r•,...at-,.,....:. ..... .. .:a.'°..__.a..._..,......, 8-29 - - ,�tt. --}'iF�`JtCv ::(\<:.JJ.'- _ .:;'laf.'.' ,}i''s(:7::`�•i':'Jtr-.:_15:'`e':. _ �:.'t+".£�,5 �d,5'..�:::'i1:.::�T e'5* _alt_: _ - "'i�,..c�;.l,. •M.: _a>.f:i: Y if — - `_1it, ,[S' i�L�'Si.-�•iSk.`:i _ al'},:! .s,f,..; �Y.•a -`?xt '4idxt--r. r,.%.S`.:�i<l-� ,.,.:_:, +mac.:.,•.....;��i,, '' � ' _ _.n.s ,::1K'{a:.;pi('.•s"i.`�SI�:'a',�ut i; i:.t-;.:,:•,.fr :t i Rely. _ - /-,.�t i5j "T': .'i•.•1'S r-:::t.i+:itt.: - :�.S t<: - 'i i:<:: h'" -r)(•I I 7✓�^FY' - - :'ti. jr'fJ i •`j:i 1.. f..3:.1 ..2 � yS- {1 -l. t. ..r!'•: ::S-:. �.i'„ -oi''ia.. 'i. -..c_,:.._..-.n.-;.--:-,--'-�- tV _sat-, <?>::r• `' :-•;- 'q,.r.r. 1 { •I:.t'I� '�Z' I I {II t Ttr :°==�>t,':'''y' rzr�? y1' t�=- _-'s.,.•,,u.�[?-'`T.:,- {tt :•t• .:Tjt�:tlrxl,3�,CI 1 Ttl�Ti.,$St S .:�:dl7T.•:' M_h,;U✓.'' , ry 't -rJ} LS!_1J� /A,rf .s. ..t,'r✓;..'.' .,.. ,'=.:�_:rr,._ _ 3 ?' o-4 r.» - gix. .p ,c N:: a 7 1� 1f..r 2 - �` � } o 4. poi ��•° Pt ) t _ E _ ?S v.: 1 SS! _h. sr! - ai �� pp .%z= •rr•i; 1i _ Q t r l,y C2� Vii}. 4 n�i' Isr c Qil,a• 7� - 13' 5 `r• Eri _ '•�} � b te^ 3 ;f ta..L, '•, nfEtti<cy ;:,4 .,,.•-.ter.. D q' 2 - tr-- -rtx a.. .,^ 3 a� I Y-•. e o: 1, he - - ybtu Z' .7 Pr.+; r 4;S K - '•S' :ii't r` •! 0".; �I )�Lr} .a:s:•c rr itN x' ', �f . - . :r) - a>i hV`. e �y R 4 --•d•.l. ._t4 I Niel_ :B '`r'• - - ,fl''{'.j.,..F3t0:" .,:r, .r.tE�x(?t !I.].�,,,..,:�� •�;� `I'' ,,. ".'ifi: •t(1'K � .p �Y ..r.-r r-Ilot>< '•.._ - Rf.._ 0 t"- �'t gg fh8'� •�i'. �F 3 7 i)N�•=5 s'tvom x.'i F'.•(5{'-i`ta i.p,,'[J} L-r.�mss's I 4 ..F:{.�jii efi c:5�`•4 :. � v a mv spot TNOWN re7: y j� =:L:!'[` -U F - nti 1W` •t`t •A cfi •r UU t•r ,a, ••{;� t' rr `a tI` •E- 'h �c - 7t=' C 2 t' :r 7i�tif`" 1 °t e a° r i s•j" .T �;t:: ,� •`fir: _1 e' -J - tr= s• T'j'r 7 e l G... !.r.aO ..C4w�-}p: g: 3 t . -P 1 1i^ 1 •syY3 'Y•'.t. a t Z, enL•• fb. cJ'^ }x t Z'_ Y "DOWN, `ra:-. t E ,k 4Y ! d `i +f y`�` k" 4.t •f U t -� ;t :Sy.,,:.iSn:I f:.LY.'ir�'',CQ' ._M: �j::...�'�%,,:C•:'•. �•tt ','J 1'.'j6yf`a11'IE:It: �;,.:>�:, - �',,;`^'�<. �•'' _ r.. -! , �{, ,� fin„ r�, �(',rflm; 1- t y} •if. �Y 1'� U ,3.' r•'fit: 0_ :. r} t i, �F x.,<.1, 4: A ., r _9� - - Tr "ll- 'r L-s zL ry -,�7 d � r�: }' t: L _c1 �: lr� a"1:i la I• .. _ "-sr,. .,y. „Fr -4rn 'Sid'} •f - 't �rr +•'f !v.f'' .S. il. Y.y .r. .E .fir:. ;::•3: ..,r: ..rr ,i y' :-t vt .i•. 1. `r=.ft .=tikes `.•'•t,. "1., .fitt {v .�•,Yt it Ru':.r''•v! _ raiS .n bl• .] o.,. Will��):(. ,.,7,,.c`,;'�a rt.:-r::. A.,�1�T'8A' t=. '�:r„'• ,..!, ..t a•=1`'-: i':2:._Fi3!Oti. .may. r.:>os;L z 'ti>,7 5-,�::J tat-- .t...�.<. L'-�';+` ..1. 1...(�. .t li..`]i± +.rl r�:L^]' _ 727!1 [ p� Yti 11 ''S t3` _ `. 72• 4� a.{;a✓.- - ';.;:�y:,.r-1.+f.?:+_- ,(..u,,$,tvS:i r�1..f,^f%I.. :ti• +.t 7. rt -r= 8 taF. , .., .r�t.rr-.:4' nJ.._ ..:<i:,;'(„`r�::,.!�:1_'•... t:' t•.. ]., .'2i' '-'2! Sly _t f�tc'iE•'. .r] a.. e?SJS - i ^t, a,!) Y�!2 ::ii '-r:''.{'.. }..c .'t'may ,.L'". --:L.t•M1.t..- TAN .`a i:•t _.f�...::=.�,- .Ft r .,$::Q� �0�1{�vv� (( .c;:?-=. (}••�� y��'( ,t�g��D J'�]I� ���jj f�.7 )+,••i:(•• T., n t �t'•'^Ce+ n! }i. al� /•�:':� �jQ�j�v•'•'•R`4 �:�i @$�Fyyt�, :�f•..;•..:.:,(.•�: ii.: �..:a.�•.,.�',. _ ...t 7:;:sri;,� �b"`15,,x:•"',lt;a._ :.K+r.F _ .,.^.'t:.... .s"M?",.. �r. y M1Y.it s� q L .'(i:a• mil. `t_=' :tip' �y�i.. 1 t u q "iG F _' ,, rya _ '•�;. 4ii53.:..uAL'It..w.i'al+.: '•::"E% •i'f - _ _ :7:;`...._Ilya:_ _..;•z,- - _a.:>.�arr '•a;,xJ.,.:� " A:i:r':r�<..,,, eiy'k�:;:t-pia..,n5'r.'s;.:'.-.�;i.`t:l�.r:rr1:._ •F_;!•.t•��:`f!L!• �:_l%Y`,i.:SCZ�:S7 i.`{4=.'::y°or, -..,.<..'+.:nr.:..,>,.::�`�.,.,�;.y iT,%a`.:R.:r7<,,}.u:,.:r 4•x.r ). ut,{ I 8--30 (Glar-m9lon REPORT PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: September 9, 2013 Resolution#: By-law#: Report#: PSD-048-13 File#: PLN 7.9 Subject: STREET NAME CHANGES IN COURTICE: REQUEST TO RENAME A PORTION OF SOLINA ROAD AND A PORTION OF OSBORNE ROAD TO CRAGO ROAD; REQUEST TO RENAME ENERGY DRIVE TO MCKNIGHT ENERGY DRIVE; PROPOSAL TO RENAME SOUTH SERVICE ROAD TO ENERGY DRIVE; PROPOSAL TO RENAME A PORTION OF COURTICE ROAD RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-048-13 be received; 2. THAT Council waive the Street Name Change fee for Ms. Crago's request to rename a portion of Solina Road; OR THAT Council request Ms. Crago to submit the fee for a Street Name Change; 3. THAT staff be authorized to take appropriate actions under the Municipal Act, to advertise in the local newspapers for, and to hold, a Public Information Centre and a Public Meeting for the renaming of the portion of Solina Road south of Highway 401 to Crago Road; 4. THAT Council provide direction with respect to Ms. Crago's request to rename a portion of AT Road; 5. THAT no action be taken on renaming Energy Drive to McKnight Energy Drive; 6. THAT staff be authorized to take appropriate actions under the Municipal Act, to advertise in the local newspapers for, and to hold, a Public Information Centre and a Public Meeting for the renaming of South Service Road east of Solina Road to Energy Drive; CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1 C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 8-31 REPORT NO.: PSD-048-13 PAGE 2 7. THAT staff be authorized to take appropriate actions under the Municipal Act, to advertise in the local newspapers for, and to hold, a Public Information Centre and a Public Meeting for the renaming of South Service Road west of Solina Road to an energy themed name; 8. THAT staff be authorized to take appropriate actions under the Municipal Act, to advertise in the local newspapers for, and to hold, a Public Information Centre and a Public Meeting for the renaming of Courtice Road, south of the future Energy Drive to an alternate name, potentially with a waterfront theme; and 9. THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD-048-13 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Submitted by: Reviewed by: �' �`- av J. Crome, MCIP, RPP Franklin Wu, Director of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer DJC/sn/df 26 August 2013 8-32 REPORT NO.: PSD-048-13 PAGE 3 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 On April 8, 2013, Shirley Crago appeared before the GPA Committee requesting that Council rename a portion of Solina Road. Committee passed a resolution as follows: Resolution #GPA-214-13 THAT Staff be directed to investigate the renaming of the southern portion of Solina Road to Crago Road. On June 24, 2013, Ms. Crago appeared at Committee again with several issues, one being to extend her requested street name change to include the east-west portion of Osborne Road. 1 .2 At the April 8th meeting, Councillor Neal also indicated that Wallace McKnight had indicated that his family wished to be recognized in the Courtice Energy Park. Resolution #GPA - 241 -13 THAT Staff report back on renaming Energy Drive to McKnight Energy Drive. 2. DISCUSSION 2.1 Fees 2.1.1 Changing a street name is a detailed process, particularly since it involves ensuring that full public input is provided, that the people can notify people/businesses of their change of address and that more than 40 agencies/departments are notified by the Municipality. It involves public notice and a public meeting. The Municipality has established a fee for a street name change requested by a resident or business to cover the Municipality's costs. The current fee is $1,668. 2.1.2 Staff contacted both Ms. Crago and Mr. McKnight to advise them of the fee and determine if they were willing to pay such a fee or whether they were also requesting that Council exempt them from the fee. Ms. Crago is requesting an exemption. Mr. McKnight is not interested in street renaming. If Council wishes to exempt Ms. Crago from the fee, this matter should be addressed in the resolution. 2.2 Crago Request 2.2.1 Ms. Crago's request is twofold: • Rename Solina Road south of Highway 401 to Crago Road; and • Rename the east-west portion of Osborne Road to Crago Road. 8-33 REPORT NO.: PSD-048-13 PAGE 4 FIGURE 1 Crago Street Name Change Requests. — 401 — - - - SERV�D= —� ENERGY DRIVE p O O ¢ ? DARLINGTON w HYDRO O REQUEST 1 O FIELDS c SOLINA ROAD 0 TO CRAGO ROAD OSBORNE ROAD REQUEST 2 OSBORNE ROAD TO CRAGO ROAD �- DARLINGTON NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION 2.2.2 Request 1: The request to rename the portion of Solina Road on the south side of Highway 401 has merit. There is no direct connection to the other portion of Solina Road and it could be confusing for someone looking for this address. It is not much of a problem now since the only address related to this section of road is the Darlington Soccer Fields. However, it could be a problem in the future as the lands are built-out for industrial purposes. Trucks and other visitors may anticipate that they could connect from one portion of the Solina Road to another. 2.2.3 Request 2: Ms. Crago's second request to rename the east-west portion Osborne Road to Crago Road is not required from a planning or emergency services perspective. In our conversation, Ms. Crago advised that it should be considered because the Osborne family lived on lands on the east side of the north-south segment of the current Osborne Road and did not abut the east-west portion of the road. The 8eldon's Historical Atlas of the counties of Northumberland and Durham 1878 confirms this was the case in 1878 but staff did not do a full property search on the ownership of these properties. 8-34 REPORT NO.: PSD-048-13 PAGE 5 FIGURE 2 Extract from Beldon's Atlas 1873 � u Rl.S 33,o n W .-� _ o_ g©ti j h.Usbor �J 2T mrxy T 0 40 p � rWi C��j C 0 ey t) "v -1 %A U� a-, Nj ! $ o Fa, H ,A) y'� 0" 13 13 N a -� f l 26 s I L �Ccu�rz IL z I , ,Z. 2.2.4 If Council wanted to rename this portion of Osborne Road to Crago Road, the street numbering could be accommodated without a change to any existing addresses. The only developed property with an address on this section of road is Ms. Crago's home. However staff would caution Council on this change as it was very recent, in 2008, that Council corrected the spelling of the road name (Osbourne Road to Osborne Road) at the request of some members of the Osborne family. 2,2.5 To qualify as an appropriate street name, it should either comply with the War Dead and War Veteran Street Name policy or meet the criteria of the Memorial street names based on "the length and degree of service to the community" as outlined in Report PSD-047-13. Additionally Council should be cognizant of a previous resolution that new street names within the Energy Park were to have an energy theme. 2.2.6 Crago is a name currently on the Reserved Street Name list. Percel (Percival) Leroy Crago was a soldier born in Bowmanville who died in World War 1. The 1911 census informs us that Percel was the son of Rhoda Crago. It is currently reserved for use in Bowmanville. Ms. Crago confirmed that the families are related. 2.2.7 The reasons advanced by Ms. Crago regarding the naming of the road is that the Crago family has been associated with the lands on either the west or east sides of Solina road for over 100 years. Albert Crago purchased the farm on the east side of Solina Road (Lot 24, now part of OPG's Darlington Nuclear Generating Station) in 1911 and it was in the family's ownership forjust over 50 years. Shirley and Keith Crago purchased the lands on the west side of Solina Road in 1951 and it has been in their possession for 62 years. The original settlers were the Beith family, later sold to the Langmaids, then Parson and lastly Keith and Shirley Crago. Staff did not pursue further information 8-35 REPORT NO.: PSD-040-13 PAGE 6 regarding Memorial Tributes, since the War Dead and War Veterans policy identified Crago as an appropriate street name. 2.2.8 If Council wishes to proceed, the south portion of Solina Road could be renamed in honour of Percei Crago. It would then have a dual significance also being located in an area that members of the Crago family had farmed for over 100 years. The street sign would have a poppy symbol. 2.2.9 The Region of Durham has advised that they have no objection with the renaming of the south portion of Solina Road. 2.2.10 The Operations Department manages the Darlington Hydro Soccer Fields on the east side of Solina Road. They have indicated that they have no objection to the street name change. 2.2.11 Staff recommend that the south portion of Solina Road (shown on Figure 1) be renamed for the reasons noted above. A public information centre and a public meeting must be advertised. Council would need to provide direction with respect to Ms. Crago's request for an exemption from fees and renaming of a portion of Osborne Road. 2.3 McKnight Request 2.3.1 There is an existing McKnight Road on the south side of Baseline Road. The motion approved by Council was for the consideration of renaming Energy Drive to McKnight Energy Drive. FIGURE 3 Renaming Energy Drive to McKnight Energy Drive o ,� PROPOSE0407 ,\ Z \ EXISTING _ McKNIGHT ROAD \ 401 \ _ PROPOOSAL SAL TO NAME FUTURE SEGMENTS OF _s _ ENERGY DRIVE AS ViGE ROAD McKNIGHT ENERGY DRIVE i L ENERGY DRIVE ``✓l __-' —— - D �l 0 0 ° U 0: z 0 Z PROPOSALTO w o RENAME EXISTING 00 M ENERGY DRIVE TO 0 U) McKNIGHT ENERGY DRIVE o OSBORNE ROAD 8-36 REPORT NO.: PSD-040-13 PAGE 7 2.3.2 Staff spoke to Wallace McKnight regarding this proposal. He indicated that he did not want his family name removed from the existing McKnight Road which is on the south side of Baseline Road. His concern was that, in his view, at one time McKnight Road extended on both the north and south sides of Highway 401. He indicated that at some point in time the southerly portion was renamed "Osborne" Road. He raised this matter in 2008 when staff was undertaking the Osbourne Road name correction exercise and Council took no action on it at that time. Staff researched this matter in 2011 in response to a request by Councillor Neal and provided Council with a memo on this issue. There are no records that indicated that Osborne Road was once named McKnight Road. 2.3.3 In May 2009 Council passed a resolution for the use of energy-related street names within the Energy Business Park (Report PSD-044-09 Attached). The report also noted that South Service Road would be renamed so that the name Energy Drive would be used from Waverly Road to Courtice Road when the two segments connect. This is further outlined in Section 2.4 below. 2.3.4 Staff do not support the proposal to rename Energy Drive to McKnight Energy Drive for the following reasons: There is no interrelationship between the energy theme and the McKnight family name; ® Mr. McKnight does not support the addition of his family name to Energy Drive but simply had concerns that the southerly road was renamed to Osborne Road at some point in time; and ® The more distinctive each road name can be, the better it is for emergency services. It is recommended that no further action be taken on this. 2.4 Renaminq South Service Road 2.4.1 As noted above, the long term intent is that Energy Drive connect to the South Service Road at Solina Road. At that time the portion of South Service Road east of Solina Road would be renamed Energy Drive. OPG is supportive of the renaming to Energy Drive, further branding their site. 8-37 REPORT NO.: PSD-048-13 PAGE 8 FIGURE 4 Renaming South Service Road to Energy Drive fW I_ �BLOOR STREE_lll_ o' IOU� n -,r' l 17 II' 1 BASELINE ROA ED HIGHWAY 4 \ NERG.. NS-UTH SERV ���•�` /'/ -"} �_.. { z DRIVE RENAME PORTION OF RENAME SOUTH SERVICE \� SOUTH SERVICE ROAD ROAD TO ENERGY DRIVE AND NEW CONNECTING ROADS 2.4.2 The EA for the Holt Road interchange includes the reconstruction of the South Service Road across the northern portion of the OPG lands as shown below. The detailed design stage of this study is currently underway. FIGURE 5 Holt Road and Related South Service Road Improvements tw � {J �:J i 4�.o+r�'�I�ry�. . .t•�~' � o-o ` i1' q'� [ ' 1� •�lii HIGHWAY 409 � _� --_-- I 'z. 7• Rig �'� r.�«� \�� '�� d. i yy,i � LEGEND ° 1, navvsrnrtvvcRrY 1',",° F •I. �RIGII�d:-ri4rFXd-1 �, � � ) 1 .' - f I1. XY+MYAY h'�EAS•L�r , t - "' Rvntw•xme+lrulo- { --..... = DARUNt'sTQIV NUCLFJifi ��,f �� 'i �,,,� `•"1 r j�_ Q cwuwsvcr ti .. R GENERATI�GSTATtOht - QxaAOlurrmw.ewa ' M' _ _ - II 3EiAM zSL�.gY ti ,, 1 8-38 REPORT NO.: PSD-048-13 PAGE 9 2.4.3 It would be desirable for the renaming of the South Service Road to occur during the construction period of the new Holt Road interchange and realigned South Service Road so that signage could be planned and installed appropriately. 2.4.4 Provided that Council agrees with Ms. Crago's request, it is recommended that the necessary public information centre and public meeting on the renaming of South Service Road east.of Solina Road be undertaken concurrently. The timing of when the renaming would become effective would be reviewed with the Darlington Traffic Management Working Committee, which comprises OPG, MTO, Durham Region and the Municipality. After this consideration, Council could establish the date for the renaming to occur. It would seem appropriate for this to occur around the time of the realignment of the road so that signage could be planned accordingly. 2.4.5 In addition eventually there will be a residual section of South Service Road within the Energy Park between Courtice Road and Solina Road. During the construction of the Highway 407 Durham East Connecting Freeway, this portion of South Service Road will be moved southerly to accommodate the ramps and widening of Highway 401. It would be possible to rename this section of the road and the connection portions to Energy Drive with a new name that reflects the energy theme as outlined in Report PSD-044-09 (Attachment 1). 2.4.6 It is recommended that staff be authorized to consult with the public on an energy- related name for the disconnected portion of South Service Road at the same time as the public information centre and public meeting. 2.5 Renaming Courtice Road South of Highway 401 2.5.1 One of the Region's commitments under the EFW host community agreement is to acquire and service the lands east of Courtice Road including the construction of new roads and the realignment of existing roads. Construction will commence in September 2013 and be completed in the summer of 2014. In addition to constructing a segment of Energy Drive from Courtice Road to Osborne Road, the Region will be constructing related works which include the realignment of Darlington Park Road, the realignment of a portion of the existing Courtice Road and the construction of the rear lane entranceway to the EFW Facility. 2.5.2 The construction of Energy Drive will disconnect the southerly leg of the existing Courtice Road from Courtice Road which will be north of the Highway 401 interchange. In order to avoid confusion with the disconnected road segments, it is recommended to rename the portion of Courtice Road south of Energy Drive. 8-39 REPORT NO.: PSD-048-13 PAGE 10 FIGURE 6 South Portion of Courtice Road after Realignment —J L PROPOSED�4 0 7 401 40' 0 ENERGY DRIVE I 0; 1< O W1 Z LLI X: 0 O, 0 0 PROPOSAL TO RENAME A PORTION OF COURTICE ROAD 2.5.3 It is recommended that staff be authorized to consult with the public on a new name for the southerly portion of Courtice Road with a potential waterfront-themed name and bring forward a recommendation to a public meeting. 3. CONCURRENCE — Not Applicable 4. CONCLUSION 4.1 Over the next few years, the road system around the Clarington Energy Business Park will be completely revised to accommodate the 407 East Durham Link, a revised Holt Road interchange and the development of the Energy Park. It is recommended that the street renaming process be coordinated with the request for renaming Solina Road to Crago Road so as to minimize staff time and expense for the public participation process. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — Not Applicabl 6 Staff Contact: David J. Crome, Director of Planning Services 8-40 REPORT N®.: PSD-048-13 PAGE 11 Attachments: Attachment 1 - Report PSD-044-09 List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Shirley Crago Wallace McKnight John Greenfield, Legion Branch 178 8-41 Attachment 1 ® To Report PSD-048-13 Leading the Way REPORT PLANNING VICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Monday, May 4, 2009 Report#: PSD-044-09 File #: PLN 7.9 By-lair#:' Subject: ENERGY-RELATED STREET NAMES FOR THE ENERGY BUSINESS PARK RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-044-09 be received; 2. THAT the Energy Business Park be approved to use energy-related street names for any new streets to be established; and . 3. THAT all interested parties listed in this report and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Submitted b Reviewed by �l �� E �. vid J pir me, f RPP Franklin Wu, Director of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer BR/CP/sc/df 28 April 2009 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F(905)623-0830 8-42 REPORT NO.: PSD-044-09 PACE 2 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 In 2005 staff successfully requested the name Energy be reserved by the Region as a street name for Clarington. At the time of draft approval for the Ontario Power Generation proposed plan of subdivision, a second street name request was forwarded to, and approved by, the Region for use in the Energy Business Park. This request included Atomic and Nuclear. 2.0 STAFF COMMENTS 2.1 The above "theme" street names, although appropriate for their context, do not conform to Clarington's street naming policy which requires the use of historic and.Clarington war dead or war veterans names. As such their use must be approved by Council. 2.2 This report deals with the "theme" street names reserved for new streets in the Energy Business Park. Existing street names for Osborne Road and Solina Road would remain, but new streets created through Plans of Subdivision would have an energy- related theme. 2.3 At some point in the future, when Energy Drive is connected at both Courtice Road and to the South Service Road at Solina Road, it is planned that South Service Road would be renamed in its entirety as Energy Drive from Waverly Road to Courtice Road. This provides the OPG Nuclear Generating Station with an address on "Energy Drive". 3.0 CONCLUSIONS 3.1 It is respectfully recommended that Planning Staff be authorized to use energy-related street names in the Courtice Energy Business Park Attachments: Attachment 1 — Proposed Energy Park Road Network Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision: Nick Mensink, G.M. Sernas & Associates 8-43 00 m I � BASELINE ROAD WEST PORTION OF SOUTH SERVICE ROAD TO BE RENAMED WITH AN ENERGY RELATED THEME LL LL C @/ ENERGY DRIVE p 1 Q O Y Q Q PORTION OF SOUTH SERVICE ROAD Q 0 w Q TO BE RENAMED ENERGY DRIVE n Lu w z to O p W W in O w Z OSBORNE ROAD 0 ENERGY BUSINESS PARK O co � D o Proposed Energy Park Road Network ' D w DEPARTMENT REPORT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: September 9, 2013 Resolution #; By-law #: N/A Report #: PSD-049-13 File #: PLN 38.62.2 Subject: OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW RELEASE OF THE COUNTRYSIDE DISCUSSION PAPER RECOMMENDATIONS: . It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-049-13 be received for information. Submitted by: Reviewed b `� avi J. Crome, MCIP, RPP Franklin Wu Director, Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer KK/FL/df 27 August 2013 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 8-45 REPORT NO.: PSD-049-13 PAGE 2 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 The Official Plan Review has been broken into several major components including: Main Themes Built Environment and Planning Process; Planning for Prosperity and Growth (Growth Management and Intensification); Planning for the Countryside; and Planning for Sustainable and Healthy Communities, Special Projects Courtice Main Street; Courtice Employment Lands; and Parks, Open Space and Trails. 1.2 Each component follows the same process, beginning with Discussion Papers and finishing with an Official Plan Amendment. Public input and review opportunities are presented as often as possible to ensure that the Official Plan Amendments proposed to Council meet the needs of the community and conform to Provincial Plans and policies. 2. COUNTRYSIDE DISCUSSION PAPER 2.1 The Countryside Discussion Paper was released on August 19, 2013. It reviews the role of the rural area in: food and crop production; hamlets and rural settlements; continuous systems of open space; natural heritage conservation; recreation; and the aggregate resource industry. The top five issues facing the countryside are identified and explored in this Discussion Paper. These are: Agricultural Uses, Major Recreational Uses, Secondary and Accessory Uses, Urban/Rural Fringe and Whitebelt Lands, and Rural Settlements. 2.2 Specific discussion is also provided regarding the Provincial and Local policies that support the protection of the rural countryside. A major part of the Planning for the Countryside component is ensuring that the Clarington Official Plan is in conformity with the Province's Greenbelt Plan policies; Provincial Policy Statement; and Region of Durham's conformity exercise, Amendment 114 to the Regional Official Plan. 3. PUBLIC CONSULTATION 3.1 Four Public Information Sessions were scheduled as follows: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 - Carriage Country Baptist Church (6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.) Friday, September 6, 2013— Orono Fair (6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.) Saturday, September 7, 2013 — Orono Fair (1:00 p.m -4:00 p.m.) Wednesday, September 11, 2013 —Tyrone Community Centre (6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.) 8-46 REPORT NO.: PSD-049-1 3 PAGE 3 A variety of times were scheduled to provide multiple opportunities, particularly for farmers who are busy at this time of year. 3.2 A notice was sent to all interested parties announcing the release of the Countryside Discussion Paper and the public information sessions. 3.3 The Countryside Discussion Paper is available on the Official Plan Review website http://www.clarington.net/ourplan/. Compact discs of all Discussion Papers are available. The Discussion Papers are available to the public in all Clarington Library branches. The public is encouraged to provide comments. 4. CONCURRENCE - Not Applicable 5. CONCLUSION 5.1 The Countryside Discussion Paper explains the existing policy framework, evaluates the effectiveness of rural and agricultural Official Plan policies in achieving the goals and objectives identified, and recommends sections where existing policy could be improved or further developed. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN The recommendations contained in this report conform to the general intent of the following priorities of the Strategic Plan: X Promoting economic development Maintaining financial stability Connecting Clarington X Promoting green initiatives Investing in infrastructure Showcasing our community Not in conformity with Strategic Plan Staff Contact: Faye Langmaid, Manager, Special Projects Attachments: Attachment 1 - Countryside Discussion Paper (Under Separate Cover) 8-47 ( ,® PLANNING SERVICES T T Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: September 9, 2013 Resolution#: By-law#: Report#: PSD-050-13 File#: ZBA 2013-0001 Subject: APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF HOLDING SYMBOL APPLICANT: VALIANT RENTAL INC. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-050-13 be received; 2. THAT the attached By-law to remove the Holding (H) Symbol be passed; 3. THAT Council's decision and a copy of Report PSD-050-13 be forwarded to the Region of Durham and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC); and 4. THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD-050-13 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Submitted by: Reviewed by: ;avid J. C Franklin Wu, Director of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer PW/CS/df 28 August 2013 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 8-48 REPORT NO.: PSD-050-13 PAGE 2 1. APPLICATION DETAILS 1.1 Owner/Applicant: Valiant Rental Inc. 1.2 Agent: D.G..Biddle & Associates Ltd. 1.3 Proposal: Removal of Holding (H) Symbol 1.4 Location: 80 Clarington Boulevard, Bowmanville HIGHVV MCDONALD'S KELSEY'S LOBLAUVS PROPOSED BANK J AND DRIVE m THROUGH z O o ~ Q O O z Z CURREN"TIj W LANK I , W U r FUTURE (� TARGET PRINCE WILLIAM BOULEVARD I 2. BACKGROUND AND COMMENTS 2.1 On March 25, 2013, Council approved a Zoning By-law Amendment for the subject property which would permit the operation of a drive-through facility as accessory to a bank. As part of that same approval, Council placed a Holding (H) Symbol on the proposed development lands. Within the resolution of Council, it was articulated that the purpose for the Holding (H) Symbol was to ensure that the Site Plan met the urban design requirements outlined in Section 11.5 of Report PSD-016-13. These included urban design elements such as minimizing the visual impact of surface parking areas, 8-49 REPORT NO.: PSD-050-13 PAGE 3 high quality landscaping treatments to define site boundaries, and enhancing the main entrance to the building. 2.2 Site Plan review has now been completed and Staff are satisfied that the proposed development achieves the urban design objectives and meets the intent of the Clarington Official Plan and Bowmanville West Town Centre Secondary Plan. The Municipality has issued conditional Site Plan approval for this development which has been accepted by the Applicant. There are no outstanding concerns with lifting the Holding (H) symbol. 2.3 A Zoning By-law Amendment to remove the Holding (H) symbol cannot be appealed and shall be deemed final and binding upon Council's approval. 2.4 All property taxes have been paid in full. 3. CONCURRENCE - Not applicable 4. CONCLUSION 4.1 In consideration of the comments noted above, removal of the "Holding (H)" symbol for the subject site, as shown on the attached By-law and schedule (Attachment 1), is recommended. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — Not applicable Staff Contact: Carlos Salazar, Manager, Community Planning & Design Branch Paul Wirch, Planner II, Community Planning & Design Branch Attachments: Attachment 1 - Proposed Bank— East Elevation Attachment 2 - Proposed Bank— Landscape Plan Attachment 3 - Zoning By-law Amendment to Remove 'H' Symbol List of interested parties to be notified of Council's decision: Bob Hann, Valiant Rental Inc. Glenn Genge, D.G. Biddle & Associates Ltd. Anne Messore, Smart!Centres Edgar Lucas, Historic Downtown Bowmanville Business Improvement Area Adam Thompson, Novotech Engineering Consultants Ltd. 8-50 ATTACHMENT I TO REPORT PSID-050-13 I O ,61 y_ o :] Al 11 f _ E E t o- .9.lGI H� a \ (I 15 HEM OR2 5 JUN SAB spy I50.200mm DEPTH OF sI6 450n450x 1200.. 900mm STEEL PIPE SAFETY 9 I gal Potted SOcm Ht. WATER WASHED STONE SP-a SPa 450x450x 1200.. H RMOUR SFONH RMOUR5T0_NE • a ... ... .... /.-J RAILING 160'-2'0)0mm DEPTH A OF WATER WASh STONE (50D OV ER TOPSOIL - EX`' �— 21 .tt OR2 ROS RUG NIGHT H— — N• — '4M F— DEPOS'T IgaICALAR2 r/ ro 50—ht5AB --- gal Poted: -�50cm—Mt. TV RAMP AT 0 CAL AR2 -- J TV — 8.50% SLODE E gal X 1 1 i (18)Ham OR2 �_ _ IV , --I / ) 31 CAL AR2 Igal Patted ✓�L) ` G^- /v 15 -200..DEPTH 0, 54 '� i gai It CAL AR2 R WASHED 5TONE _ ` 5 HYD ANO �7 4 CLEJ'- I .PROPOSED I gal I PLANTING TO BE 1t I.Sm MIIJ.,FROM SP< SOLDIER COURSE:IL CAMPO TRELL WITH LATTICE SCREEN UN-0PEND SIDE OF COLOUR:HERITAGE BROWN ` . SIZE:100x30Ox7Omm 19 ROS RUG .: TRANSFORMER -' ell -- SOcm 0 spq SOLDIER COURSE:IL CAMPO I •� - p O 8 R05 RUG COLOUR. BLEND :` /[• SOL.Ht. OE ' GUN BENCH sp< SIZE:I OOx300x70mm.300x300.70.. c -• SURFACE. PATTERN E MO NTED ON'T fTl ON E FAO Z I -.(� - '•� I450x450x1200mm Sp;q �P' AREA TO BE D D ARMOUR STONE', / 12 CAL AR2 PLANTED BY �/� zZ - I HEFA'OR2 _ Igai TARGET AS PER CJ 32 JUN WI2 6 PIN CH2 PLACE ISO.. MULCtt OVER I gai Potted y G9 HEM OR2/ OLD PLAN _ m 50cm Ht. 80cm Ht. I 150.200mm DEPTH- P 450mm'GOOD q ALITY 5 POT ROB 1. SP4 I gal Potted _ 152'POT:ROB 11JJ -„WATER WASHED 5T0 E ('TOP501I.1N COMJNUOUS� 30an Ht. .- -- �PtPNTING'BED 'r CF PSS P55 PCC PCC ITI s SPA 450x450x1200mm I POT ROB 8 POT ROB I ING SHRUB NIE 0 R�CS- BCD TO REMAIN I MOUNTED ON RMODR-5T0NE _ 30cm nt TOP OF _ EV CONCRETE PAD CONC SIDEWALK v (9) PROPERTY 116.20, ® > ccn Zz CD ® c� QD Ci7 C4 6�j N ' ATTACHMENT TO REPORT P.SD-050-13 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW NO.2013- being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63,the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Municipality of Clarington WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington for ZBA 2013-0001; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. Schedule"3"to By-law 84-63,as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone designation from: "HOLDING STREET-RELATED COMMERCIAL EXCEPTION (H(C9-1))ZONE" to "STREET-RELATED COMMERCIAL EXCEPTION (C9-1)ZONE" ' as illustrated on the attached Schedule"A"hereto. 2. Schedule"A"attached hereto shall form part of this By-law. 3. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of passing hereof, subject to the provisions of Sections 34 and 36 of the Planning Act. BY-LAW passed in open session this day of ,2013. Adrian Foster, Mayor Patti L. Barrie,Municipal Clerk 8-53 Thos as SchedWe "A" to By4aw 2013. q passed Ns day of 9 2013 Q.D. DHRHAII4 HIGHVVAY2 o J 0] Z V Z Z g U PRINCE WILLIAM BOULEVARD /V zoning Change From"(H)C9-1"To"C9-1" Adrian Foster,Mayor Patti L.Barrie,Municipal Clerk a N a _ • e�'�'`Oa punwuwcwrur: E ZBA 2013.000 �OWmanVille ° a°° �4(Removal ofHoldin3) SCHEDULE 3 8-54 REPORT Id a PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: September 9, 2013 Resolution#: By-law#: Report#: PSD-051-13 File #: PLN 8.13 Subject: PROPOSED GENERAL AMENDMENT TO SIGN BYLAW 2009-0123 RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully requested that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-051-13 be received; 2. THAT the general amendment to the Municipality of Clarington Sign By-law 2009-0123, be approved and that the By-law, contained in Attachment 1 to Report PSD-051-13 be passed; and 3. THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD-051-13 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Submitted by: Reviewed by4. DaNkd,Xorome, MCIP, RPP Franklin Wu, Director of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer PW/COS/df 28 August 2013 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 8-55 REPORT NO.: PSD-051-13 PAGE 2 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 The Clarington Sign By-law 2009-123 came into effect on January 1, 2010. The preparation of the new Sign By-law was the result of an extensive public and stakeholder input process that included visual preference studies and examined specific areas of the Municipality that have special regulations such as the downtowns. 1.2 The Sign By-law is viewed as a living document subject to amendment when necessary much the same as the Zoning By-laws. As such, Planning Services staff have amended the Sign By-law to address implementation and interpretation issues as they have arisen. Individuals can also request an amendment in response to site specific requirements. 2. SIGN BY-LAW PROVISIONS 2.1 The general intent of Sign By-law 2009-0123 is to provide the parameters necessary for businesses, residents and local organizations to display signs which successfully promote business and community without creating an overwhelming and/or unattractive environment in the process. 2.2 While canopy signs are defined and regulated within Sign By-law 2009-0123, it is clear that the "awning style" canopy signs, such as may be found on storefronts of street- related buildings, are different in size and scale than "fuel bar" canopy signs. As a result, it is necessary to create a distinction in the Sign By-law between these two signs in order to appropriately regulate each sign type. 2.3 The intent of the proposed amendment to Sign By-law 2009-0123 is to provide greater flexibility to business and property owners in providing effective and attractive signage. 3. PROPOSED AMENDMENT 3.1 Definitions The definition of"canopy signs" will be amended and "awning signs" will be added to the list of defined sign types. 3.2 Regulations The current canopy sign regulations will continue to be applicable to signs such as those installed on fuel bar canopies. It is reasonable to consider regulating awning signs in the same context as wall signs which would also be affixed and displayed along the facade of a building. 4. CONCURRENCE — Not Applicable 8-56 REPORT NO.: PSD-051-13 PAGE 3 5. CONCLUSION 5.1 Staff believe that it is appropriate to amend the definition within Sign By-law 2009-0123 in order to more effectively distinguish and regulate various sign types. Therefore, it is respectfully recommended that the general amendment to Sign By-law 2009-0123, be APPROVED and that a by-law be passed by Council to adopt the amendment as contained in Attachment 1 of Report PSD-051-13. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — Not Applicable Staff Contact: Carlos Salazar, Manager, Community Planning Branch Paul Wirch, Planner II, Community Planning Branch Attachments: Attachment 1 - Proposed Sign By-law Amendment List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: i Chris Hackett, Gould Signs Corporation Chris Corcoran, LCBO Peter Cheng, The Great-West Life Assurance Company and London Life Insurance Company 8-57 ATTACHMENT 1 TO REPORT PSD-051.13 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW NO.2013- being a by-law to amend By-law 2009-0123, the Sign By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend By-law 2009-0123, as amended,of the Municipality of Clarington; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. Section 2.1 is hereby amended to delete the definition of"Canopy Sign"in its entirety. 2. Section 2.1 is hereby amended to include the definitions as follows: "Awning Sign" means a sign contained within or affixed to a projection that serves as a shelter over a storefront, window, door, or deck and is attached to the exterior of a building without any supporting columns. -------J.:..------ ... 8-58 "Canopy Sign" means a sign contained within or affixed to the surface of either: 1. A fully self-supported, unenclosed structure;or 2. A projection from a building which is supported on columns. AL L !: l ELI 4t_--- ay. Sign 3. Section 7.8, SIGNS ALLOWED BY PROPERTY USE, is hereby amended to include: Column 1 Column 21 Column 3 Sign Type Section Property Use Category RES IND COM INS AGR(1) HRA(2) CWG Awning Sign n/a A A A A A A A 4. Section 7.9, MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SIGNS, is hereby amended to include: Sign Type Number Allowed Awning Sign 1 per residential property Unlimited for all other uses 5. Section 7.10, MAXIMUM SIGN AREA, is hereby amended to include: Property Use Sign Type RES COM I IND I INS I AGR HRA CWG Awning Sign See the requirements for a Wall Sign 8-59 6. Section 2.1 is hereby amended to delete the definition of"ALLOWED"in its entirety. 7. Section 2.1 is hereby amended to include the following definition: "ALLOWED" means permitted by Sign By-law 2009-0123. BY-LAW passed in open session this day of 2013. Mayor Adrian Foster, Mayor Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk 6-60 d a gt on REPORT ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: September 9, 2013 Resolution#: By-law#: Report#: EGD-030-13 File#: Subject: TRUDEAU WALKWAY RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report EGD-030-13 be received; 2. THAT the Municipal Solicitor continue to work with the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board (KPRDSB) to finalize a legal and appropriate smoking area; 3. THAT surveillance cameras be installed at either end of the walkway in compliance with all legislated requirements pertaining to surveillance; 4. THAT a policy be developed around the Municipality's rationale and purpose of the surveillance system; 5. THAT "No Loitering" signs be erected with specific reference to the Municipality's Nuisance By-Law; 6. THAT public education be carried out in partnership with the School Board regarding nuisance and loitering; 7. THAT the Municipality encourage increased presence in this area from Durham Region Police Services and Municipal Law Enforcement; 8. THAT KPRDSB be requested to encourage a student volunteer program to keep the Trudeau Walkway clean; 9. THAT the Municipality's Operations Department provide an increased level of service/maintenance in this area; 10. THAT a garbage receptacle be installed at the walkway; CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 9-1 REPORT NO.: EGD-030-13 PAGE 2 11. THAT a curb cut be provided in front of.the walkway; 12. THAT the Traffic By-Law be amended to prohibit parking on Trudeau Drive from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Monday to Friday and; 13. THAT the Traffic By-Law be amended to prohibit stopping within one metre of any driveway. Submitted by: Reviewed by: A. S. Cannella, Director Franklin Wu, Engineering Services Chief Administrative Officer ASC/LJB/dv/jb/dv August 30, 2013 9-2 REPORT NO.: EGD-030-13 PAGE 3 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 On June 10, 2013 the General Purpose and Administration Committee considered Report EGD-020-13 in which staff made a number of recommendations pertaining to a number of issues regarding the Trudeau Walkway which links Trudeau Drive to the Bowmanville High School site (see Attachment 1). 1.2 At that meeting Mr. Tom Woods and, Mr. Nik Papanikolas each made their second delegation to Committee expressing their concerns about the walkway. Their delegations are documented in the June 10, 2013 General Purpose & Administrative minutes. 1.3 On June 8, 2013, the Mayor and Council received e-mailed correspondence from Mr. Eric Guenette informing Council that he was unable to attend the June 10th General Purpose and Administration Committee meeting and documenting his views of the walkway. Mr. Guenette's e-mail also contained nine questions to which he was requesting answers from staff. 1.4 As a result of the delegations and the e-mail, at the June 10th General Purpose & Administration Committee meeting, the Committee recommended to Council: THAT Report EGD-020-13, regarding Trudeau Walkway, be referred back to Staff, until the General Purpose and Administration Committee meeting of September 9, 2013, for Staff's best efforts to address: ® All issues raised during the delegation of Mr. Nik Papanikolas ® The nine issues contained in the email correspondence, dated June 8, 2013, from Mr. Eric Guenette ® The issues and concerns raised during the delegation of Mr. Tom Woods; and THAT the Municipal Solicitor be directed to address the privacy implications, legal and cost wise, of video surveillance on the Trudeau Walkway. 2.0 ISSUES 2.1 Mr. Nik Papanikolas Issues 2.1.1 Failure of the report to recommend closure of the walkway despite a petition from 100.residents recommending closure. While Council received a petition from 100 Trudeau Drive/Marchwood Crescent residents requesting the closure of the walkway, a petition was subsequently received from 43 addresses (which equates to approximately 86 residents) on Trudeau Drive/Marchwood Crescent/Orr Court in which: 9-3 REPORT NO.: EGD-030-13 PAGE 4 -37 addresses requested that the walkway remain open -6 addresses requested that the walkway be closed. Staff note that five individuals who signed the first petition to close the walkway were recorded as supporting the walkway in the second petition. Petitions are important because they usually initiate an awareness of issues that are of significance to the local community and which require an objective analysis of the magnitude, scope and characteristics of a given situation. It is then our responsibility however, to respond in a manner that seeks, above all, to protect public safety. 2.1.2 Omission, in the report, of the petition to keep the walkway open. Staff did not refer to either petition in the June 10th report because the petitions had been previously received by Council which lead to Council's direction to staff on December 17, 2012 to hold a public meeting and report back to Council on the findings of the PIC. 2.1.3 Lack of an examination to relocate the walkway to the east. Relocating the walkway to the east may simply result in a relocation of the residents' concerns. Relocating the walkway will not eliminate those concerns. Staff further do not recommend the walkway's relocation as that would result in: ® directing pedestrians through the stormwater management pond block ® directing pedestrians to walk behind the backyards of approximately twenty residences; neither of which staff recommend. The location of the walkway was designed to be (close to) centrally located in the neighbourhood to provide the most convenience to the users. 2.1.4 Lack of costs (and revenue) associated with additional enforcement, video surveillance and "cost savings for closure". Potential additional costs and revenue were discussed in Sec. 4.1.2, 5.2 and 6.2 . of Report EGD-020-13. Staff maintain that those sections of the report are representative and accurate. With respect to additional costs that may or may not be required as a result of additional enforcement it must be understood that: The Municipality passes by-laws for many reasons, including: ® to ensure public safety; ® to eliminate public nuisances; ® to regulate through licensing and permits; ® to set minimum standards of property maintenance which helps protect property value and the general health and safety of the community. 9-4 REPORT NO.: EGD-030-13 PAGE 5 By-law enforcement is fluid in that needs arise in one area, while moderating in others. For this reason, a budget for by-law enforcement services is presented to Council each year for their consideration and approval. That budget is presented as a.cost to protect public safety and quality of life on a priority basis for our community as a whole and due to the fluid nature of providing this service it is based on statistics rather than constantly changing specifics. As for revenues, they will tend to ebb and flow within a range that is expertly defined, analyzed and monitored by staff both in By-law and in Finance on an annual basis. 2.2 Mr. Eric Guenette's questions 2.2.1 How many students reside on Trudeau Drive, Marchwood and Orr that frequent the 4 schools? Anyone outside of these jurisdictions shouldn't be affected since [it]is just a few extra steps to the school via Concession and Liberty. In reality, all students outside of these above mentioned streets shouldn't be in the report. Attachment 2 in Report EGD-020-13 (Attachment 2 in this report) showed a breakdown of the number of students within walking distance of the four area schools. This plan depicts approximately sixty-two students in the Trudeau/Marchwood/Orr area who attend one of those four schools. This number can increase or decrease at any time. As shown on that attachment provided by Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board (KPRDSB), currently a total of 316 students potentially use the walkway. Closing the walkway would add as much as 0.93 km to those students' routes. Staff do not agree that only a "few extra steps" would be added and that students outside of the Trudeau/Marchwood/Orr area should not be considered. Further, staff have always maintained that the greater public frequently uses this walkway, particularly those attending the Bowmanville Fitness Centre and those attending a variety of functions at the school. 2.2.2 How many children living on Trudeau would be bussed, if the walkway were to be closed? As stated in Report EGD-20-13, kindergarten children who live farther than 1 km and older students who live more than 1.6 km from school are eligible for bussing. It is impossible to know the exact ages of the students depicted in Attachment 1; however, if the additional distance (if the walkway were closed) exceeds either thresholds, additional bussing will be required. 2.2.3 Your report shows over 300+ students from a walking distance to the 4 schools, yet only 135 were counted. The difference in those numbers are attributable to: • absenteeism on any given day or students who had spares at the time the counts were taken. • the fact that many students are driven to school. 9-5 REPORT NO.: EGD-030-13 PAGE 6 • students may choose to take public transit. • the fact that some students may deliberately take other routes to school for any one of a number of reasons. 2.2.4 How many cars are picking up/dropping off per day? Four different vehicular counts (one in the morning and three in the afternoon) revealed an average of between 26 and 27 cars at drop off/pickup times in the vicinity of the walkway. 2.2.5 Has the Police services changed their tune on security cameras? The Durham Region Police Services is certainly supportive of appropriate measures that help to deter illegal activities., 2.2.6 Will By-L.aw fine vehicles dropping off/picking up their children on Trudeau on a daily basis? It is not illegal to drop off nor pick up children on Trudeau Drive. Municipal Law Enforcement will enforce No Stopping and No Parking regulations as frequently as their resources permit. 2.2.7 Why has the city allowed a school to be built in a sensitive high density vehicular traffic area? The Municipality cannot prevent the KPRDSB from constructing a school on their property provided that all applicable studies and plans are completed to the approval of the Municipality, the Region of Durham and all other authoritative bodies. In terms of traffic, a comprehensive traffic study was completed to the satisfaction and ultimate approval of the Region of Durham (who have jurisdiction over Liberty Street). 2.2.8 How many Police charges have been given over the past two years in regards to illegal activities surrounding this walkway? Durham Region Police Services reported in June of this year that no charges have been laid in this calendar year at this location. Staff are currently obtaining an update from DRPS. 2.2.9 How many by-law infractions have been issued in the past years? Municipal Law Enforcement has reported that 99 by-law infractions have been ticketed in this area since January 1, 2012. Infractions include: ® overnight parking, ® parking for longer than 3 hours and; ® obstruction of sidewalks or driveways. 9-6 REPORT NO.: EGD-030-13 PAGE 7 No infractions for noise, nuisance or loitering have been ticketed nor have there been any tickets issued which were directly related to the presence of the walkway. 2.3 Mr. Tom Woods Issues 2.3.1 Not all parties received notification of Report EGD-20-13. An Interested Parties list was developed by staff which includes: • those who attended the Public Meeting • those who have contacted the Municipality before or after the Public Meeting. All Interested Parties for whom staff had an e-mail address were e-mailed the report. All Interested Parties for whom staff had a mailing address were mailed the report (including those who were e-mailed) the week before the General Purpose and Administration meeting as soon as the report was completed. It was posted on the Municipality's Facebook page that the report was available on-line and that a questionnaire was available to fill out on-line. 2.3.2 Report EGD-20-13 should be re-evaluated to contain the opinions of the 100 persons who asked for the walkway to be closed. The Municipality received the petition signed by almost 100 individuals under the petition statement "We the residents and taxpayers of Trudeau Drive and Marchwood Crescent, Bowmanville, Ontario request the closure of the walkway to Bowmanville High School between 83 and 85 Trudeau Drive. The walkway has caused excess congestion in a residential area as well as issues related to loitering and vandalism". Individual opinions of the petitioners were not received with the petition. As reported in Report EGD-020-13, in conjunction with the April 10, 2013 Public Meeting on this matter, 23 comment sheets were reviewed before, during and after this date.. Thirteen were in favour of leaving the walkway open while 10 were in favour of it being closed. The issues and concerns of those opposed to leaving the walkway open were fully outlined and resolutions explored in Report EGD-20-13. 2.3.3 Any signs to be installed should include times for enforcement. Staff concur. By-Laws which are enforceable 24/7 need not state this on the sign; however, those with specific days and times will be appropriately addressed on the sign. 2.3.4 The Trudeau Drive Walkway should not.be used as a drop off zone. It is staff's opinion that parents can drop their children off on Trudeau Drive (thereby preventing added congestion on Liberty Street and the school site) 9-7 REPORT NO.: EGD-030-13 PAGE 8 provided that the Traffic By-Law is complied with at all times particularly as it pertains to No Parking and No Stopping restrictions. 3.0 PRIVACY IMPLICATIONS, LEGAL AND COST WISE 3.1 The Municipal Solicitor has provided the comments below respecting "the privacy implications, legal and cost wise, of video surveillance on the Trudeau Walkway". 3.2 In 2007, Ontario's Information and Privacy Commission published an updated version of its "Guidelines for the Use of Video Surveillance Cameras in Public Places" (the Guidelines were originally published in 2001). The updated Guidelines "are intended to assist organizations in deciding whether the collection of personal information,by means of a video surveillance system is lawful and justifiable as a policy choice, and if so, how privacy protective measures can be built into the system." They essentially set out best practices for institutions to follow when implementing video surveillance programs. A copy of the Guidelines is attached to this Report (Attachment 3). 3.3 Engineering Staff were aware of the Guidelines when Report EDG-020-13 was written, and the recommendations in that Report were intended to be consistent with the Guidelines. 3.4 Section 3 of the Guidelines states that organizations must be able to demonstrate that any proposed collection of personal information by a video surveillance system is authorized by statute. In this case, the applicable statute is the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act ("MFIPPA"). Under subsection 28(2) of MFIPPA, "[n]o person shall collect personal information on behalf of an institution unless the collection is expressly authorized by statute, used for the purposes of law enforcement or necessary to the proper administration of a lawfully authorized activity." In our Municipal Solicitor's opinion, the collection of personal information by video surveillance in these circumstances meets the requirements of subsection 28(2) of MFIPPA both because it is used for the purpose of law enforcement and because it is necessary to the proper administration of a lawfully authorized activity (for reasons contained in Privacy Complaint Report MC 10-20 dated October 29, 2010 regarding video surveillance within Mississauga's Civic Centre). 3.5 Section 4 of the Guidelines sets out several matters for organizations to consider prior to deciding to use a video surveillance system. All of these considerations factored into Staff's recommendations in Report EGD-020-13 (i.e. conventional means of law enforcement, verifiable reports of incidents of crime and significant safety concerns,,the impacts of a video surveillance system on personal privacy, consultations with stakeholders, and design measures to minimize privacy intrusions). 3.6 Section 5 of the Guidelines provides that "[o]nce a decision has been made to use a video surveillance system; an organization should develop and implement a comprehensive written policy for the operation of the system." This was why in Report EGD-020-13 Staff specifically recommended that "a policy be developed 9-8 REPORT NO.: EGD-030-13 PAGE 9 that clearly demonstrates the Municipality's rationale and purpose [for] the surveillance system". 3.7 Section 6 of the Guidelines sets out several matters that should be considered in the design and installation of video surveillance equipment. The first consideration reads: "Reception equipment such as video cameras ... should only be installed in identified public areas where video surveillance is necessary to protect public safety, detect or deter, and assist in the investigation of criminal activity." This is directly applicable to the Trudeau Drive walkway. The balance of the considerations in section 6 of the Guidelines will be addressed by Engineering Services if and when a system is installed. 3.8 Section 7 of the Guidelines is essentially a paraphrasing of every municipality's statutory obligations under MFIPPA.regarding any personal information obtained by way of video surveillance. The Municipality is always mindful of these statutory duties. Any clarification or direction to Staff that may be required to properly carry out these statutory duties can be included in a comprehensive written Municipal policy. 3.9 Section 8 of the Guidelines recommends that the use and security of video surveillance equipment be subject to regular audits and that a municipality's operational policies and procedures should also be audited. The comprehensive written Municipal policy can include requirements to this effect. 3.10 In summary, it is our Municipal Solicitor's opinion that the collection of personal information by means of a video surveillance system at the Trudeau Drive walkway is authorized under subsection 28(2) of MFIPPA. He is also of the opinion that steps can be taken by Staff to ensure that all other requirements set out in the Guidelines and MFIPPA can be met (e.g. notice of collection of personal information (section 29), use of personal information (section 31), disclosure of personal information (section 32), security of personal information (section 3 of Ontario Regulation 823), and retention of personal information (section 5 of Ontario Regulation 823)). 3.11 In Report EGD-020-13, staff provided an estimate of$7,500 for the cost of the two surveillance cameras. This estimate is still valid. 4.0 SMOKING 4.1 The Municipal Solicitor has also provided the following update regarding the need to establish a smoking area that high school students can occupy that will (a) minimize impacts on the neighbouring properties and (b) not violate provincial legislation regulating smoking (Smoke-Free Ontario Act). 4.2 Bowmanville High School students have been smoking in the parking area that is located to the south of the Clarington Fitness Centre because it is owned by the Municipality. When the new elementary school is built, this parking lot will no longer be an appropriate location for students to smoke. 9-9 REPORT NO.: EGD-030-13 PAGE 10 4.3 Students can legally smoke on the public sidewalks and walkways that provide access into the school (from both Liberty Street and Trudeau Drive), but Municipal Staff, the Durham Region Health Department, the Durham Region Works Department (because Liberty Street is under the Region's jurisdictian), and the School Board are all concerned about the safety of the students if they are forced to smoke in these locations. There is also a concern that forcing the students to smoke in these locations will create additional nuisances. 4.4 There is'a very clear and compelling public interest that all of the public sector agencies share —the need to find a means of regulating smoking in the vicinity of the high school in a way that does not create even greater problems. The proposed solution is to have the School Board recognize that an area of the property that it owns is surplus to the high school's immediate needs and simply let the students smoke in that area. The specific location that has been identified is the area west of and bordering the school's northern parking lot. The Municipality can contribute to the proposed solution by planting 3 - 4 trees in this area to provide visual screening at minimal cost. 5.0 COMMENTS Staff acknowledges the concerns from some of the residents on Trudeau Drive and Marchwood Crescent. However, the Trudeau Walkway Working Group maintains and respectfully submits that closing the walkway is not in the best interests of the residents of the greater neighbourhood: a significant number of whom have clearly expressed their request to leave the walkway open (almost all of whom live on Trudeau Drive, Marchwood Crescent or Orr Court). Rather than close the walkway, staff continue to recommend that the twelve measures outlined in Report EGD-020-13 be implemented; specifically: ® that the Municipal Solicitor continue to work with the Kawartha Pine Ridge School Board (KPRDSB) to finalize a legal and appropriate smoking area; ® that surveillance cameras.be installed at either end of the walkway in compliance with all legislated requirements pertaining to surveillance; ® that surveillance cameras be installed at either end of the walkway in compliance with all legislated requirements pertaining to surveillance; ® that a policy be developed around the Municipality's rationale and purpose of the surveillance system; ® that "No Loitering" signs be erected with specific reference to the Municipality's Nuisance By-Law; ® that public education be carried out in partnership with the School Board regarding nuisance and loitering; ® that the Municipality encourage increased presence in this area from Durham Region Police Services and Municipal Law Enforcement; ® that KPRDSB be requested to encourage a student volunteer program to keep the Trudeau Walkway clean; ® that the Municipality's Operations Department provide an increased level of service/maintenance in this area; ® that a garbage receptacle be installed at the walkway; 9-10 REPORT NO.: EGD-030-13 PAGE 11 • that a curb cut be provided in front of the walkway; • that the Traffic By-Law be amended to prohibit parking on Trudeau Drive from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Monday to Friday and; • that the Traffic By-Law be amended to prohibit stopping within one metre of any driveway. 6.0 CONCURRENCE — The recommendations contained within this report have been made in concurrence with the Municipal Solicitor, the Director of Operations, the Municipal Clerk and our Director of Emergency and Fire Services. 7.0 CONCLUSION Staff continue to maintain that it is in the best interests of the Trudeau Drive/Marchwood Crescent/Orr Court and greater neighbourhood that the walkway remain open. Staff is confident that by implementing the measures outlined in Section 5 of this report, neighbours will experience a significant improvement over past experience. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN The recommendations contained in this report conform to the general intent of the following priorities of the Strategic Plan: (Place an "X" in the box for all that apply) Promoting economic development Maintaining financial stability Connecting Clarington X Promoting green initiatives Investing in infrastructure Showcasing our community Not in conformity with Strategic Plan Staff Contact: Leslie J. Benson, P. Eng., Manager Development Engineering & Traffic Attachments: Attachment 1 - Aerial Key Map Attachment 2 - Map Showing Number of Students Using Walkway List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Kawartha Pineridge District School Board Durham Regional Police Services Norman Johnston Teofilo Corpus Maurice Laganiere Jamie Coutu Melissa & David Daminato Nik Papanikolas 9-11 REPORT NO.: EGD-030-13 PAGE 12 Chris Beatty Josee Cournoyer Paul Hurtubise David Wood Jay Smith Carol McAllister Bill Crossey Brendan Goldsworthy Benny Young Marianne DePass Alison Innis Christine Williams Carol Hopps Fred Brumwell Kim Nixon Teresa Edwards Leonard Welsh Ellen Slack Tom English Lorraine Mathews Jennifer Jandron Amy Duval Vince Polidoro Morgan McMeedin Maisie Daley Bernice Chamberlain Tom Woods Jackie Nosal 9-12 wl f; � CAF--�m.'�o �:P;.;,' �t �v �wt�Ka �' �''�3.� � •' WIN •�y}l��p � �,. - Y yy`,s(`+]�°�� y� '0�{I�'��„� /yam 9 �13r �� ., �7w i r--Jrl'9yJ`ti&7.�1���.F• ��-'��''���� ``t•'�4 ,��6 .:1��,�,� :,yl. • �' � Fill H F V,ggt cm ON 1''�''•_{ � F;+{(�1��- ��yv5• y�r. 3�{���,ny�'.�'y�`�Py_�Pn Si��y..T' � ��—e - Y vi�f"� �.P'L e:�' d Leda©k°`,vS7 rsan,��� �Aki•., AJ_�f� `�'_����}�' Q��'.,�yi'�.�(9F!'r+C �r "All �`` t� .i T, . �.i'u �."-�- Y-_.fit - �.•, a��,'- ��� I'LL =;t. S py'!sl�'�J t ,�.�+-, tL «<555- t' r�W+'d I�-•;'t +• ,. J -°��"„1/' ,�`'_`� � Vii.'.,•i�t� �� �. Trudeau Walkway with How many students may access it walking to school. . F Total BHS students 245 =� Total BOS students Total ONT students p a a _ Total VMA students 3.7 ry t �� uo��®,� � Total students = 316 g.o Grp p" Amy 1 Y 3syono_ Trudeau Walkway flu 9J 'oo- �ppp — Qty ONT-Ontario Street Public School(Duke sHS-f3owmanville High School of Cambridge) Bos-Bowmanville Senior Public School 9-14 VMA-Vincent Massey Public School Clarington REPORT ENGINEERING VI DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: September 9, 2013 Resolution#: By-law#: Report#: EGD-031-13 File#: Subject: SPEED HUMP INSTALLATION AND WARRANT ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report EGD-031-13 be received; and 2. THAT Council endorse the Speed Hump Installation and Warrant Analysis. Submitted by: i °'_Reviewed by: A.S. Cannella, G.E.T. Franklin Wu, Director of Engineering Chief Administrative Officer Services ASC/LJB/dv/jb September 3, 2013 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 9-15 REPORT NO.: EGD-031-13 PAGE 2 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 The Municipality of Clarington Engineering Services Department is responsible for ensuring that the Municipality's road network provides as safe a transportation environment as possible to motorists, cyclists, individuals with mobility challenges, and pedestrians. While the Municipality has a well established Road Watch program, which the Engineering Services Department augments with the Traffic Watch program, staff continue to receive complaints of speeding and other poor driver behavior. Complaints are usually accompanied by requests for all- way stop control, speed bumps or speed humps. 2.0 ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL, SPEED BUMPS AND SPEED HUMPS 2.1 It is well documented that all-way stop control is not intended to reduce speeds. The Ontario Traffic Manual (published by the Ministry of Transportation) states "The purpose of a STOP sign is to clearly assign right-of-way between vehicles approaching an intersection from different directions when traffic signals are not warranted or not yet installed and it has been determined that a YIELD sign is inadequate." Further, it states "STOP signs are not intended to be used as speed control devices. Their usage should be limited to the control of right-of- way conflicts," and "All-way stop controls should not be used under the following conditions: as a speed control device [among others]." 2.2 Speed bumps are short in height and short in length (in the direction of travel) and result in an abrupt vertical motion. Speed bumps are typically used in private lanes and parking lots. They are not recommended for use on public roads, and they are particularly disruptive to emergency vehicles and transit. 2.3 Speed humps are generally rounded or flat topped and are longer (in the direction of travel) than speed bumps. The result is a more gentle vertical transition to the travelling vehicle, and they are considered to be a potential traffic calming device when used in appropriate applications (see Attachment 1). There are definite advantages and disadvantages to the presence of speed humps, and they are not recommended to be installed without thorough consideration and public input. Advantages are that speed humps: • are generally effective in reducing speeds • are "self-enforcing" potentially reducing police enforcement • create a visual which discourages speeding. Disadvantages, however, are that speed humps: • result in longer emergency vehicle response time • do not reduce speeds as much as some residents want • can pose a danger to motorcyclists and bicyclists who could lose control of their vehicle • can result in increased speeds between and beyond the speed humps 9-16 REPORT NO.: EGD-031-13 PAGE 3 • divert traffic to other streets, creating volume and speed complaints from those residents • are considered by some to be unattractive with respect to the requisite signage and pavement markings • result in increased noise of vehicles decelerating and accelerating, particularly in the presence of loose articles in open trucks or trailers • can result in cars swerving in an attempt to avoid the hump. This is of particular concern where there are ditches and where there are no sidewalks • can result in vehicle damage • are more difficult to maintain by municipal staff during winter operations • are costly (approximately $2,000.00-3,000.00 each including asphalt, line painting, signage and installation) • are often, subsequently, removed at the request of residents; thereby, resulting in additional costs 3.0 DISCUSSION 3.1 The Canadian Guide to Neighbourhood Traffic Calming (published by the Transportation Association of Canada) identifies the speed hump as an appropriate tool to reduce speeds in certain applications: • urban cross-section (curb and gutter) • local and collector streets • posted speed limit <_ 50 kph • close to streets illuminated to Municipal standards for roadway lighting. • on road grades <_ 5% (desirably) 3.2 The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), of which the Director of Engineering Services is a member, is an international education and scientific association of transportation professionals. ITE is a highly recognized association for transportation expertise. Spacing of humps per ITE to obtain desired vehicle speeds between humps are recommended as follows: On local streets: • 50 km/hr every 125m • 45 km/hr every 100m • 40 km/hr every 80m • Every 125m to maintain 50 km/hr on collectors 3.3 While speed humps may be considered in certain applications, they are not intended to be installed everywhere. They should only be considered where there is a documented speed problem: not a perceived one. Traffic studies must be completed and public and stakeholder input must be elicited. 9-17 REPORT NO.: EGD-031-13 PAGE 4 Most municipalities which consider the installation of speed humps have developed a Speed Hump Warrant Analysis in the same manner that municipalities use warrants to determine the appropriateness of traffic signals and all-way stops. Clarington staff have developed a Speed Hump Warrant Analysis for Council's consideration. The warrant is consistent with the principles contained in approximately 10 speed hump warrant analysis which were researched by Clarington staff. The warrant also follows the principles laid out in the document entitled Canadian Guide to Neighbourhood Traffic Calming prepared by ITE and the Transportation Association of Canada. Meeting the criteria of this warrant is a function of: • road classification • roadside environment • posted speed • results of speed studies taken over time • annual average daily traffic (AADT) • public support • input from other stakeholders In addition to the public, stakeholders in this matter include: • emergency/fire services • police services • school bus companies • transit services • operations department • cycling/motorcycle clubs • waste management 3.4 Staff recommend that the Speed Hump Warrant checklist be used to determine the appropriateness of installing speed humps (Attachment 2). 4.0 PROCESS AND ADMINISTRATION 4.1 The following is-the recommended process which will lead to the assessment of a request to install speed humps on a Clarington road: i) A petition must be received by the Municipality from area residents requesting the installation signed by at least 2/3 of the residents on that street. ii) The Municipality must undertake a traffic and speed study to determine if a speeding problem does exist. iii) Municipal staff must confer with all departments, transportation agencies and stakeholders which may be impacted. iv) The Speed Hump Warrant checklist must be completed, and all warrants in Part A must be met before the request can be further processed. 9-18 REPORT NO.: EGD-031-13 PAGE 5 v) The Municipality must consider area wide traffic-related impacts (e.g. potential for infiltration through parallel streets). It is imperative that there be a net benefit in terms of road safety throughout the immediate road network in the event that speed humps are installed. vi) The Municipality must conduct a Public Information Centre to present the proposed design of the works and to receive public input. vii) Staff will then make a recommendation to the Director of Engineering Services with respect to the request, anal, if recommended, the installation can be ranked with other projects for consideration of inclusion in the Municipal budget. 5.0 CONCURRENCE —The recommendations contained within this report have been made in concurrence with the Director of Operations and our Director of Emergency and Fire Services. 6.0 CONCLUSION 6.1 The installation of speed humps could be recommended in certain applications to reduce speeds on local and minor collector roads where a speeding problem exists as evidenced by traffic studies and where it has been determined that a speed reduction can be achieved without compromise to public safety and where traffic-related problems are not transferred to other areas. Staff recommend that Council endorse the use of the Speed Hump Installation Warrant Analysis (Attachment 2) when considering the appropriateness of installing speed humps on Clarington roads. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN The recommendations contained in this report conform to the general intent of the following priorities of the Strategic Plan: _ Promoting economic development _ Maintaining financial stability _ Connecting Clarington Promoting green initiatives X Investing in infrastructure _ Showcasing our community Not in conformity with Strategic Plan Staff Contact: Leslie J. Benson, Manager, Development Engineering & Traffic Attachments: Attachment 1 - Speed Hump Detail Attachment 2 - Speed Hump Warrant 9-19 co I N O A Q m m D p 600)(600mm WARNING SIGN If) - E kD n 110 W r, 3 W SPEED HUMP SIGN O ° 1-2.0 2.0 i.o PEED Q_ HUMP cn N 300X300mm TABS FTi SPEED HUMP SIGN I-�--��--Lo SOLID WHITE REFLECTIVE A PAVEMENT MARKING TRIANGLES (MATERIAL TO BE SPECIFIED IN CONTRACT) C I� 2.0—x{ 3.0 —2.0� GRIND OUT EXISTING ASPHALT 135mm HI-3 ASPHALT O PROVIDE A 400mm WIDE cn ST mOpNTTON ALL SIDES SECTION A—A O rn =s —0.5—►I ca 0.25 rn CII cn p > D SECTION B—B n NOTES: > 9. ALL SIGNS TO BE HIGH INTENSITY REFLECTIVE SHEETING ON GALVANIZED U—CHANNEL POSTS. sG) -2. ADD THIRD PAVEMENT MARKING TRIANGLE ON EACH SIDE OF SPEED HUMP IF ON COLLECTOR ROAD. m fi 3. EXACT LOCATION AND CONFIGURATION MUST PROVIDE SAFE CONVEYANCE TO VEHICLES,CYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS. Z Speed Hump Warrant A) Requisites ❑ A petition has been received from area residents (representing at least 2/3 of the property owners on the subject street) supporting the installation of speed humps. ❑ The street is classified as (and operates as) local or collector. ❑ The street has an urban cross section with sidewalks on at least one side of the street. ❑ The street is predominantly residential in nature. ❑ The posted speed is <_ 50 KPH. ❑ The street is not a primary emergency response route (as identified by fire, police, and EMS services). ❑ The roadway grade does not exceed 5%. ❑ Speed studies have been undertaken to support a claim of a speeding problem. ❑ The 85th percentile speed is greater than 10 kph above the posted speed. ❑ The street is not a public transit route. All warrants in Part A) must be met in order for the request to proceed. B) Other Considerations ❑ There is not a significant potential for traffic to divert to parallel residential streets causing issues on the adjacent road network. ❑ There are pedestrian generators (park, school, church, community centre) in the area. ❑ There are at least 750 cars per day on the local street or at least 2500 cars per day on the collector street. ❑ It has been determined that public safety will be enhanced by the installation. 9-21 Clarftwo REPORT EMERGENCY AND FIRE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: September 9, 2013 Resolution#: By-law#: Report#: ESD-006-13 File#: Subject: SECOND QUARTER ACTIVITY REPORT- 2013 RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report ESD-006-13 be received for information. 7 Submitted b Reviewed by: -� Gord Weir, Franklin Wu, Director of Emerg cy Chief Administrative Officer Services GW/mb CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1 C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 11-1 REPORT NO.: ESD-006-13 PAGE 2 1. BACKGROUND Report ESD-006-13 covers the period of April 1 to June 30, 2013 and is intended to provide Council with relevant, timely information on the activity of the Emergency and Fire Services Department Suppression Division. 2. COMMENTS The Department responded to 857 calls during this report period. Included in this number were 11 fires with a low risk or greater. Fire damages totaled more than $201,500. Attachment# 1 provides a summary of: • fulltime suppression staffing summary— report period • call volume by station — report period • call volume — quarterly over 3 years • response type summary— report period • fire response details — report period 3. CONCURRENCE — Not Applicable CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — Not Applicable Staff Contact: Mark Berney, Deputy Fire Chief Attachments: Attachment #1 — Emergency Services Suppression Division Activity Report List of Interested Parties: None 11 -2 Attachment# 1 to Report ESD-006-13 EMERGENCY SERVICES SUPPRESSION DIVISION ACTIVITY REPORT REPORT PERIOD: APRIL 1,2013 00:00:00hrs - JUNE 30, 2013 23:59:59hrs FULLTIME SUPRESSION STAFFING SUMMARY - REPORT PERIOD THE PERCENTAGE OF TIME PUMPER TRUCKS WERE STAFFED WITH 100% 4 OR MORE FULLTIME FIREFIGHTERS CALL VOLUME BY STATION -REPORT PERIOD Station 1 430 Bowmanville Station 2 115 Newcastle Station 3 53 Orono Station 4 223 Courtice Station 5 36 Enniskillen 0 100 200 300 400 500 CALL VOLUME -QUARTERLY OVER 3 YEARS 1000 900 889 881 864 867 . 857 857 854 838 820 - 800 786 i 700 I 600 500 { Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 n2013 0 2012 2011 11-3 Attachment# 1 to Report ESD-006-13 RESPONSE TYPE SUMMARY- REPORT PERIOD 20 33 2% 4% 41 100 5% 12% 34' 1% `? 55 6% 448 52% ®FIRES ,OUTDOOR, NO LOSS FIRES ❑BURNING(controlled) D CO FALSE CALL 0 FALSE FIRE CALLS ❑MEDICAL CALLS Lj OTHER CALLS PRE-FIRE CONDITION CALLS PUBLIC HAZARD CALLS RESCUE CALLS FIRE RESPONSE DETAILS - REPORT PERIOD DATE Fire Risk Firefighters On-scene Stand-by Call-Back on 1st Truck Firefighters Firefighters Initiated Apr-02 High 6 51 18 No Apr-02 Moderate 5 28 45 No Apr-05 Moderate 5 8 23 No Apr-18 Moderate 5 20 19 No May-02 Moderate 5 25 1 No May-09 Moderate 5 16 30 No May-12 Moderate 5 23 18 No May-20 Low 5 35 19 No Jun-07 High 4 13 23 No 11-4 Clarington REPORT' CLERK'S DEPA► 1 M NT Meeting: General Purpose and Administration Committee Date: September 9, 2013 Resolution#: By-law#: Report#: CLD-024-13 File#: Subject: APPOINTMENT OF ANIMAL SERVICES OFFICER— DUNCAN ANDERSON RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that Council approve the following: 1. THAT Report CLD-024-13 be received; and 2. THAT the by-law appointing Duncan Anderson as an Animal Services Officer, attached to Report CLD-024-13, be passed. Submitted by: *attiar Reviewed by: MO Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer PLB/CAG/jeg CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1 C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 13-1 REPORT NO.: CLD-024-13 PAGE 2 1. BACKGROUND The Municipal Clerk's Department has hired an Animal Services Manager, Duncan Anderson. His duties will include enforcement of by-laws, as an Animal Services Officer, as required, Mr. Anderson began employment with the Municipality of Clarington on July 22, 2013 and has been undergoing in-service training coordinated by the Deputy Clerk to familiarize him with municipal procedures and the by-laws for which he will be responsible to enforce. 2. CONCURRENCE: Not Applicable 3. CONCLUSION: In order for Duncan Anderson to be able to perform his duties as an Animal Services Officer, it is necessary for an appointment by-law to be passed by Council. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — Not Applicable Staff Contact: Anne Greentree, Deputy Clerk Attachments: 1. By-law to appoint Duncan Anderson as an Animal Services Officer for the Municipality of Clarington. List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: None 13-2 Attachment) To Report CLD-024-13 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW NO. 2013- Being a By-law to appoint a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer WHEREAS The Police Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c.10, Section 15(1), authorizes a Council of any Municipality to appoint one or more Municipal Law Enforcement Officers, who shall be Peace Officers for the purpose of enforcing the By-laws of the Municipality; AND WHEREAS it is desirable to appoint Duncan Anderson as Municipal Law Enforcement Officer by By-law for the sole purpose of.enforcing all By-laws pertaining to Animal Services; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. THAT Duncan Anderson is hereby appointed as Municipal Law Enforcement Officer for the purpose of enforcing all By-laws pertaining to Animal Services. 2. THAT Duncan Anderson's appointment as a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer shall remain in effect for the duration of his term of employment with the Municipality of Clarington. BY-LAW passed in open session this 16th day of September,2013. Adrian Foster, Mayor Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk 13-3 Claritwa REPORT CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: September 9, 2013 Resolution#: By-law#: N/A Report#: COD-019-13 File#: Subject: CONTRACT AWARDS DURING COUNCIL RECESS RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report COD-019-13 be received. Submitted by: i ' `� -����'" Reviewed by: _4 Marie Marano, H.B.Sc., C.M.O., Franklin Wu, Director of Corporate Services Chief Administrative Officer MM/JB/br CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 14°1 REPORT NO.: COD-019-13 PAGE 2 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 During periods when Council is in recess provision has been made for the approval of contract awards in order to continue with business as usual. During the summer recess of 2013 there were seven contract awards that would normally necessitate a report to Council. 2. COMMENTS 2.1 In accordance with Purchasing By-law 2010-112, Part 2, Section 67, the following contracts were awarded during the Council Recess. CL2013-05, Wilmot Street Reconstruction CL2013-11, Highway #2 Watermain & Road Widening - Newcastle CL2013-15, Trulls Road Reconstruction CL2013-16, Construction of Artificial Turf Sports Field CL2013-17, Construction of Longworth Park— Phase 2 CL2013-19, Tooley's Mill Park CL2013-22, 2013 Sidewalk Replacement & New Construction A copy of the recommending Report Memos for the above noted projects are attached as Attachments "1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6" and 7", respectively. 3. CONCURRENCE Not applicable 4. CONCLUSION The actions taken by Staff as documented in the attached Report Memos be provided for Councils information. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — Not Applicable Staff Contact: Jerry Barber, Purchasing Manager 14-2 REPORT NO.: COD-019-13 PAGE 3 Attachments: Attachment 1 - CL2013-05, Wilmot Street Reconstruction Attachment 2 - CL2013-11, Highway #2 Watermain & Road Widening — Newcastle Attachment 3 - CL2013-15, Trulls Road Reconstruction Attachment 4 — C12013-16, Construction of Artificial Turf Sports Field Attachment 5 - CL2013-17, Construction of Longworth Park — Phase 2 Attachment 6 - CL2013-19, Tooley's Mill Park Attachment 7 - CL2013-22, 2013 Sidewalk Replacement & New Construction List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Not Applicable 14-3 Attachment 1 REPORT MEMO Leading the Way PURCHASING SERVICES Date: August 22, 2013 To: Frank Wu, Chief Administrative Officer From: Jerry Barber, Purchasing Services Report#: PS-013-13 File#: CL2013-05 Subject: TENDER CL2013-05, WILMOT STREET RECONSTRUCTION SUMMER RECESS PROCEDURE (PURCHASING BY-LAW 2010-112, S. 67) RECOMMENDATIONS It is respectfully recommended to the Chief Administrative Officer the following: 1. THAT Report PS-013-13 be received; 2. THAT Nick Carchidi Excavation Limited, Janetville, Ontario, with a total bid in the amount of $596,198.27 (net of H.S.T. Rebate), being the lowest responsible bidder meeting all terms, conditions and specifications of Tender CL2013-05 be awarded the contract for the Wilmot Street Reconstruction as required by the Municipality of Clarington, Engineering Department; 3. THAT the funds required in the amount of $393,400.00 (which includes $241,892.97 net of HST Rebate for construction, tendering, design, contract administration, other costs and contingencies) be drawn from the following account: Wilmot Street Reconstruction 110-32-330-83373-7401 (2013) ..........................................................$393,400.00 4. THAT the actions taken during the summer recess be reported to Council for information. 14-4 REPORT NO.: PS-013-13 PAGE 2 Recomm de_d b1: Jerry/' a'/ er, anager, Purchasing Services Date ( 7 Concurrence: Tony Cannella, Director of Engineering Date Nancy Taylor, Director of Finance Da e Approved by rz� _� r Frank Wu, Chief Administrative Officer Date JDB 14-5. REPORT NO.: PS-013-13 PAGE 3 BACKGROUND 1.1 Tender specifications were provided by AECOM Canada for the Wilmot Street Reconstruction. 1.2 Tender CL2013-05, Wilmot Street Reconstruction was advertised in the Daily Commercial News as well as electronically on the Municipality's website and the Ontario Public Buyer's Association website. Subsequently, tenders were received and tabulated as per Attachment 1. 1. ANALYSIS 2.1 A total of five (5) submissions were received in response to the tender call. All submissions were deemed compliant. 2.2 After further review and analysis of the bids by the Engineering Department and Purchasing, it was mutually agreed that the low bidder, Nick Carchidi Excavation Limited, Janetville, Ontario be recommended for the contract for the Wilmot Street Reconstruction project. A copy of the recommendation memo from the Engineering Department summarizing the work of the project and costs is appended as Attachment 2. 2.5 Nick Carchidi Excavation Limited has completed similar projects for the Municipality in the past and they have completed the work satisfactorily. 2.6 Queries with respect to the department needs, specifications, etc. should be referred to the Director of Engineering. 3. FINANCIAL 3.1 The total cost of project is $833,000.00 and is comprised of the following components: Proiect Cost* Construction cost (Net of HST Rebate) Clarington Portion $393,400.00 $241,892.97 Region of Durham Portion $439,600.00 $354,305.30 Total $833,000.00 $596,198.27 *The total project cost includes construction, tendering, design, contract administration, other costs and contingencies. 14-6 REPORT NO.: PS-013-13 PAGE 4 The funding and costs for this project and a summary of the work are outlined in the memo from Engineering Services (Attachment 2). 3.2 Funding for this project will be drawn from the following account: Wilmot Street Reconstruction 110-32-330-83373-7401 (2013) ..........................................................$393,400.00 4. CONCURRENCE 4.1 This report has been reviewed by Tony Cannella, Director of Engineering Services who concurs with the recommendations. 5. CONCLUSION 5.1 To award the contract to Nick Carchidi Excavation Limited, Janetville, Ontario for the Wilmot Street Reconstruction project. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — The recommendations contained in this report conform to the general intent of the following priorities of the Strategic Plan: Promoting economic development Maintaining financial stability Connecting Clarington Promoting green initiatives x Investing in infrastructure Showcasing our community Not in conformity with Strategic Plan Staff Contact: Jerry Barber, Purchasing Manager Attachments: Attachment 1 — Bid Tabulation Attachment 2- Recommendation Memo from Engineering Services 14-7 Attachment 1 MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BID SUMMARY TENDER CL2013-05 WILMOT STREET RECONSTRUCTION BIDDER TOTAL BID TOTAL BID (HST Ind) (Net of HST Rebate) Nick Carchidi Excavating Limited Janetville, ON $662,051.94* $596,198.28* Eagleson Construction Millbrook, ON . $669,205.82 $602,640.57 Bennington Construction Ltd. Stouffville, ON $675,380.55 $608,201.10 MBC Excavating Ltd. Cobourg, ON $776,768.27 $699.503.89 Elirpa Construction & Materials Ltd. Pickering, ON $901,222.83* $811,579.08* *Adjusted for arithmetic errors 14-8 Attachment 2 Lending the Wad REVISED MEMO TO: Jerry Barber, Purchasing Manager FROM: Ron Albright, Manager, Infrastructure and Capital Works DATE: August 19, 2013 RE: Wilmot Street Reconstruction, Newcastle CL2013-05 The Engineering Services Department has reviewed the submissions for CL2013-05 and offers the following comments. The limits of the project are Wilmot Street from North Street to Mill Street (Regional Road 17) in Newcastle. Prior to completing the design, a Public Information Centre was held on October 18, 2012 to review the project with the public and to get their input regarding the proposed works. Wilmot Street is currently constructed to a semi urban cross section with no sidewalks curbs or formalized storm system. Upon completion of the works, the streets will be reconstructed to an urban standard with concrete curb and gutter, sidewalks including a new sidewalk connection on the east side of North Street from Wilmot Street to the recently constructed sidewalk along the No Frills property, new road structure and street lights. The surface asphalt will be placed in 2016 under a separate contract. In addition to providing an improved road for the local residents it will also provide a safe location for pedestrians walking through the neighbourhood as well as accommodating future traffic generated by additional development in the Newcastle area. The Municipality of Clarington is working in cooperation with the Region of Durham on this project. They will be replacing the watermain and sanitary servicing on Wilmot Street. The Municipality of Clarington has worked with Nick Carchidi Excavating Limited on several projects in the past and they have completed the work satisfactorily. We recommend award of the contract to Nick Carchidi Excavating Limited in the amount of 14-9 Wilmot Street Reconstruction, Newcastle, CI-201,31-05 1.,-05 2 August 19, 201 $662,051.94, inclusive of HST, or $596,198.28 net of HST rebate, for the reconstruction of Wilmot Street. The portion of the contract that will be funded by the Region of Durham is $393,440.44, inclusive of HST, or $354,305.30 net of HST rebate, which represents the cost of the sanitary and watermain servicing and their contribution to the road related items associated with their works. Due to past experiences on similar projects, a contingency amount of 10% is carried forward. Therefore, including design and tender fees, contract administration fees, net HST costs, other costs such as permits, and contingencies, the Engineering Department advises of the following total project cost breakdown for Clarington's portion of the work. Construction (net of HST) $ 241,892.97 Based on Low Bid Design, Tendering and Contract $ 151,507.03 Administration (net of HST), Other Costs and Contingencies Total Project Value $393,400.00 Budget Amount Wilmot Street Reconstruction, 110-32-330-83373-7401 $410,000.00 Estimated Unexpended Budget $ 16,600.00 Additional Funding Required $0.00 *A detailed Cost Apportionment will be provided to Finance under separate cover. We recommend that the Purchasing Department move forward with award of the contract based on the above apportionments. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Regards, Ron Albright, P. Eng. Manager, Infrastructure and Capital Works RA/s b/d v Attachment 14-10 Willrrlc,t `✓treat Rt:corn irucfion, Ne,,tvc s'.fle; CL20 13-05 3 August 19, 2013 Pc: Nancy Taylor, Director of Finance A.S. Cannella, Director of Engineering Services RADY DF. O i ANDREWS ° gAORSw p S• ' vtiG ST � � NE.IL/ 1 1 C 1L ST 11LYAL � SNP w x w GEORGE ST V✓� zGEORGE ST E GEORGE ST Ei-- _ 3 w zo } RAHAM Cl< a z° 11111Of-�t. a U N O J � AT LEY C F:M E EST KING AVENUE WEST KIIJG AVENUE WEST KING AVENUE EAST KING AVENUE w LILLIAN CRESCENT ON N I = w HARMER DRIVE a' w EMILY STWw p EMILY STE � w w FOSTER CREEK DRIVE z w F N w 2 C z U ] N ° �: j F p Z W 0 W > ? a 3 STANFORD CAROLINE ST W AROLINE ST- o CRESCENT K w LAKING DRIVE IJ- tt U = l o° WfLMOTSTREETRECONSTRUCTION EDWARD STREET EAST 14-11 Attachment 2 ciffingoin DEPORT MEMO PURCHASING SERVICES i Date: August 9, 2013 To: Frank Wu, Chief Administrative Officer From: Jerry Barber, Purchasing Services Report#: PS-008-13 File#: CL2013-11 Subject: TENDER CL2013-11, HIGHWAY#2 WATERMAIN & ROAD WIDENING - NEWCASTLE SUMMER RECESS PROCEDURE (PURCHASING BY-LAW 2010-112, S. 67) RECOMMENDATIONS It is respectfully recommended to the Chief Administrative Officer the following: 1. THAT Report PS-008-13 be received; 2. THAT Coco Paving Inc., Bowmanville, Ontario, with a total bid in the amount of $462,880.49 (net of H.S.T. Rebate), being the lowest responsible bidder meeting all terms, conditions and specifications of Tender CL2013-11 be awarded the contract for Highway#2 Watermain and Road Widening (Newcastle), as required by the Municipality of Clarington, Engineering Department; 3. THAT the funds required in the amount of$503,600.00 (which includes $462,880.49 net of HST Rebate for construction, site inspection and material testing) be drawn from the Emergency and Fire Services Department Capital Account: Newcastle Fire Hall Construction - Highway#2 Watermain & Road Widening 110-28-370-82844-7401 (2010) ...................................................$503,600.00 and 4. THAT the actions taken during the summer recess be reported to Council for information. 14-12 REPORT NO.: PS-008-13 Page 2 Recommended by: 7 Jerry Bar er`Manager, Purchasing Services Date Concurrence: �Vwwtz�"LI �j Tony Cannella, Director of Engineering Date C 144 o r 3 G rd Weir, Director of Emergency & Date Fire Services Gtc, Nancy Taylor, Director of Finance Date Approved by: . 6 Frank Wu, Chief Administrative Officer Date JDB CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1 C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 14-13 REPORT NO.: PS-008-13 PAGE 3 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 Tender specifications-were provided by Engineering Department for the watermain installation and road widening of Highway#2 at the Newcastle Fire Hall #2 Project. 1.2 Tender CL2013-11, Highway#2 Watermain and Road Widening (Newcastle) was advertised in the Daily Commercial News as well as electronically on the Municipality's website and the Ontario Public Buyer's Association website. Subsequently, tenders were received and tabulated as per Attachment 1. 2. ANALYSIS 2.1 A total of two (2) submissions were received in response to the tender call. Both submissions were deemed compliant. 2.2 After further review and analysis of the bids by the Engineering Department and Purchasing, it was mutually agreed that the low bidder, Coco Paving Inc., Bowmanville, Ontario be recommended for the contract for the watermain and road widening of Highway #2 at Newcastle Fire Hall #2. A copy of the recommendation memo from the Engineering Department which includes details of the project is appended as Attachment 2. 2.5 Coco Paving Inc. has provided similar services to the Municipality of Clarington in the past and the level of service has been satisfactory. 2.6 Queries with respect to the department needs, specifications, etc. should be referred to the Director of Engineering. 3. FINANCIAL 3.1 The total project cost of$503,600.00 includes $462,880.49 (net of HST Rebate) for construction, site inspection and material testing. The funding and costs for this project are outlined in the memo from Engineering Services (Attachment 2) and summarized below. 3.2 Funding for this project will be drawn from the following Emergency Services 2010 Capital account: Newcastle Fire Hall #2 - Highway#2 Watermain and Road Widening 110-28-370-82844-7401 (2010) ..........................................................$503,600.00 14-14 REPORT NO.: PS-008-13 PAGE 4 4. CONCURRENCE 4.1 This report has been reviewed by Tony Cannella, Director of Engineering Services and Gord Weir, Director of Emergency and Fire Services who concur with the recommendations. 5. CONCLUSION 5.1 To award the contract to Coco Paving Inc., Bowmanville, Ontario for the Highway #2.Watermain and Road Widening project. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — The recommendations contained in this report conform to the general intent of the following priorities of the Strategic Plan: Promoting economic development Maintaining financial stability Connecting Clarington Promoting green initiatives x Investing in infrastructure Showcasing our community Not in conformity with Strategic Plan Staff Contact: Jerry Barber, Purchasing Manager Attachments: Attachment 1 — Bid Tabulation Attachment 2- Recommendation Memo from Engineering Services 14-15 Attachment 1 MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BID SUMMARY TENDER CL2013-11 HIGHWAY#2 WATERMAIN AND ROAD WIDENING (NEWCASTLE) BIDDER TOTAL BID TOTAL BID (HST (NET OF HST INCLUDED) REBATE) Coco Paving Inc. Bowmanville $514,008.41 $462,880.49 Elirpa Construction & Materials Limited Pickering $542,431.89 $488,476.72 i I 14-16 Attachment 2 I.crxlin�l thf bk'riu MEMO TO: ,Jerr y Barller, Purchasincd. hlanager FROM: Ron Albright, Manager, Infrastructure and Capital Works DATE: august g, 20'13 RE: Newcastle Fire Hall, Hwy. 2 Road Widening and Watermain Extension, CL2013-11 The Engineering Sewices Department has revia-, ed the submissions for CL2,3'13-11 and offers the followings comments. As part of the development of the fire hall site in [le-&castle at 3333 H-.,4,'. 2 the Region of Durham required turning lane improvements be made including a vest [pound left turn lane (slip around) and an eastbound right turn lane into the site. Additionally as part of the road works the shoulders will be paved in order to fit into the Region of Durham's approved Cycling Route a[ong Hwy. 2. Also required as part of the servicing of the site is the extension a 160 nim d[a. Watermain from the existing terminus east of the site across a portion of the fire hall site. Based on references checked, our past experience and ongoing %work with this contractor; &e recommend award of the contract to -Coco Paving Inc., in the amount of $6,14,008.41, inclusive of HST, or s—`62580.4g, net of HST rebate. As there is already a large contingency being carried on the overall fire hall project one has not been added specifica[ly for the road widening and v eatermain wMks. Design and tender preparation was completed by Engineering Ser,.rir_es therefore there are no fees associated -,pith this work but site inspection and material testing will be required from an outside source with Engineering Services overseeing the contract administration. Including net HST costs, inspection and materials testing, the Engineering Department advises of the following total project cost breakdo,&n. Funding for the project will came from the Newcastle Fire Hall account- 14-17 Newcastle Fire Hall, Hwy, 2 Road Widening and Watermain Extension, CL2013-11 2 August 9, 2013 Construction (net of HST) $462,880.49 Based on Low Bid Inspection and Material Testing net of HST $40,719.51 Total Project Value $503,600.00 Budget Amount Newcastle Fire Hall Construction Account 110-28-370-82844-7401 $503,600.00 Estimated.Unexpended Budget $0.00 Additional Funding Required We recommend that the Purchasing Department move forward with award of the contract based on the above apportionments. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Regards, L Ron Albright, P. Eng. Manager, Infrastructure and Capital Works RA/sb/bc Attachment Pc: Nancy Taylor, Director of Finance A.S. Cannella, Director of Engineering Services Gard Weir, Director of Emergency Services 14-18 a is', e Fi,e Ha11 .4,IVY. _ G'-riE_i'.r,,,i 1, it7:_i _iiu_1 r H�i._.i' WA NEW� �-j L i i i i F f -- i — — E S t i i s — 4 — — I 14-19 Attachment 3 Clarinoon REPORT MEMO PURCHASING SERVICES Date: August 12, 2013 To: Frank Wu, Chief Administrative Officer From:,. Jerry Barber, Purchasing Services Report#: PS-009' 13 File#: CL2013-15 Subject: TENDER CL2013-15, TRULLS ROAD RECONSTRUCTION SUMMER RECESS'PROCEDURE (PURCHASING BY-LAW 2010-112, S. 67) RECOMMENDATIONS It is respectfully recommended to the Chief Administrative Officer the following: 1. THAT Report PS-009-13 be received; 2. THAT Coco Paving Inc., Bowmanville, Ontario, with a total bid in the amount of $1,382,633;08 (net of H.S.T. Rebate), being the lowest responsible bidder meeting all terms, conditions and specifications of Tender,CL2013-15 be awarded the contract for Trulls Road Reconstruction, as required by the Municipality of Clarington, Engineering Department; 3. THAT the funds required in the amount of$1,715,387.27 (which includes $1,382,633.08 net of HST Rebate for construction, tendering, design, contract administration, other costs and contingencies) be drawn from the following accounts: Trulls Road Reconstruction 110-32-330-83410-7401......................................................................$861,500.00 Trulls Road Sidewalk . 110-32-3 31-83300-7401.........................................................:............$145,200.00 Pavement Rehabilitation 110-32-330-83212-7401 (2013) ........................................................... $30,560.05 110-32-330-83212-7401 (2012 UECF)................................................$320,862.90 110-32-330-83212-7401 (2011 UECF).............................. $225,877.05 Trulls Road Ditching 100-36-380-10240-7112....................................................................... $92,000.00 14-20 REPORT NO,: PS-009-13 Page 2 Funding From Adjacent Developers .................... $39,287.27 Total Funding Available....................................................................$1,715.287.27 4. THAT the actions taken during the summer recess be reported to Council for information. Recommended by: Jerry 8 anager, Purchasing Services ate Concurrence: / Tony Cannella, Director of Engineering bate 1 Nancy ylor, Director of Finance Date Approved by: Frank Wu, Chief Administrative Officer a Date JDB CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1 C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 14-21 REPORT NO,: PS-009-13 PAGE 3 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 Tender specifications were provided by AECOM for the Trulls Road Reconstruction Project, 1.2 Tender CL2013-15, Trulls Road Reconstruction was advertised in the Daily Commercial News as well as electronically on the Municipality's website and the Ontario Public Buyer's Association website. Subsequently, tenders were received and tabulated as per Attachment 1, 2. ANALYSIS 2.1 A total of three (3) submissions were received in response to the.tender call. All submissions were deemed compliant. 2.2 After further review and analysis of the bids by AEC.OM, the Engineering Department and..Purchasing, it was mutually agreed that the low bidder, Coco Paving Inc.., 6wmanville, Ontario be recommended for the contract for the Trulls Road Reconstruction project. A copy of the recommendation memo from the Engineering Department providing a summary of work of this project is appended as Attachment 2. 2.5 Coco Paving Inc. has provided similar services to the Municipality of Clarington in the past and the level of service has been satisfactory. 2.6 Queries with respect to the department needs, specifications, etc. should be referred to the Director of Engineering. 3. FINANCIAL 3.1 The total project cost of$1,715,387.27 includes $1,382,633.08 (net of HST Rebate) for construction, tendering, design, contract administration, other costs and contingencies. The funding and costs for this project are outlined in the memo from Engineering Services (Attachment 2) and summarized below. 3.2 Funding for this project will be drawn from the following accounts: Trulls Road Reconstruction j 110-32-330-83410-7401 .....................................................................$861,500.00 Trulls Road Sidewalk 110-32-331-83300-7401 .....................................................................$145,200.00 Pavement Rehabilitation 110-32-330-83212-7401 (2013)............................................................$30,560.05 110-32-330-83212-7401 (2012 UECF) ...............................................$320,862.90 I 14-22 REPORT NO.: PS-009-13 PAGE 4 110-32-330-83212-7401 (2011 UECF) ...............................................$225,877.05 Trulls Road Ditching 100-36-380-10240 77112 .......................................................................$92,000.00 Funding From Adjacent Developers ...................... $39,287.2 Total Funding Available.......... . .................................................... .$1,715,287.27 4. CONCURRENCE 4.1 This report has been reviewed by Tony Cannella, Director of Engineering Services who concurs with the recommendations, 5. CONCLUSION 5.1 To award the contract to Coco Paving Inc., Bowmanville, Ontario for the Trulls Road Reconstruction. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — The recommendations contained in this report conform to the general intent of the following priorities of the Strategic Plan: Promoting economic development Maintaining financial stability Connecting Clarington Promoting green initiatives x Investing in infrastructure Showcasing our community Not in conformity with Strategic Plan Staff Contact: Jerry Barber, Purchasing Manager Attachments: Attachment 1 —Bid Tabulation Attachment 2- Recommendation Memo from Engineering Services 14-23 Attachment 1 MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BID SUMMARY TENDER CL2013-15 TRULLS ROAD RECONSTRUCTION BIDDER TOTAL BID TOTAL BID HST INCLUDED NET OF HST REBATE Coco Paving Inc, Bowmanville, ON $1,535,353.15 $1,382,633.08 Dig-Con International Ltd. Bolton, ON $1,962,325.28 $1,778,328.30 Elirpa Construction & Materials Ltd. Pickering, ON $2,032,845.82 $1,830,640.62 14-24 Attachment 2 10A i • brud;Ng rNF wuy E M 0 TO: Jerry Barber, Purchasing Manager FROK Ron Albright, Manager, Infrastruoture and Capital Works [SATE_ August 8,2013 RE: Trulls Road Reconstruction, pavement Rehabllitation and Sidewalk Construction, CL2013-15 The Engineering Servioes Department has reviewed the submissions for CL2013-16 and offers the following comments, The project includes a variety of works along the length of Trulls Road from (Nash Road to Pebbleston Road, The fallowing provides a summary of the various works for the different sectlons of Trulls Road: From •To scope Nash f 6 d George Reynolds Sidewalk—East Bide Drive George Reynolds Billet Gate Full Reoonstruotion to Urban Drive_ Standard Billet Gate - Pebblestone Road Pavement Rehabili(a lon Incl. Ditching Considering some ditching improvements the Operations Department had planned on Trulls Road north of Billet Gate and the existing condition of Trulls Road in this location the Engineering Services Department evaluated their Pavement Rehabilitation Program and determined that this aection of.road would be a goad candidate for rehabilitation and that good value could be gained by grouping It with the 'Trulls.Road Reconstruction project, Based on the anticipated long time frame for development in this area, which would require addltlonal servicing and urbanization of Trulls Road, it was felt that the rehabilitation of Trulls' Road was the best option to deal with the current condition. • As Trulls Road is identified as a bike route in the Region of Durham's Cycling Plan the rehabilitation will Incorporate paved shoulders to allow for marked bike lanes. Bike lanes will also be provided on the urbanized section of the road, 14-25 I rolls Road Re(,r) s[rut,1Jon, Pauerrlent Rehabihtatiarn and Sidewalk C6nst1L1CtUn, C1-201:3.15 2 August 8, 2013 As additional sidewalks were also being planned south of the reconstruction worst it was added to this contract to minimize conflicts between different contractors and to make coordination of the various works easier. in addition to the planned municipal infrastruoture associated with the reconstruction works staff have coordinated servicing needs for adjacent development of severance lots and the needs of the proposed subdivision on the west side of Trulls Road at the location of the future Adelaide,Avenue extension. Funding for the severance lots was previously collected as part of the land division process and funds for the future subdivision needs will be collected directly from the developer by means of payment up front prior to the work being started, Payment for the work at 3301 Trulls Road will also be paid up front from the land owner, A summary for both of the regulred payments from private individuals is also attached for your reference. Based on references checked, our past experience and ongoing work with this contractor, we recommend award of the contract to Coco Paving Inc, in the amount of $1,635,363.16, inclusive of HST, or$1,382,833.08, net of HST rebate, Due to past experiences on similar projects, a contingency amount of 9% is carried forward. Therefore, including design and tender fees, contract administration fees, net HST costs, other costs such as geotechnicai investigation, permits, and contingencies, the Engineering Department advises of the following total project cost,breakdown, Funding for the project will 'come from the pavement Rehabilitation Program account Including the current funding year and unexpended funds from previous y6ars, as shown in the table below. Construction (net of HST) $1,382,633.08 ; Based on Low Bid Design, Tendering and Contract Administration (net of HST), Other Costs and Contingencies Total Project Value $1,718,287.2.7 Budget Amount Trulls Road Reconstructlon, 110-32.330-83410.7401 $861,600.00 Trulls road Sidewalk, 110-32-331-83300-7461 $145,200.00 Pavement Rehabilitation, 110-32=330-83212-7101 (2013) , $30,560,05 110-32-33083212-7401 (2012 UECF) $320,862,90 1'10-32-330-83212-7401 (2011 UBCF) $2251877.05 Trulls Load Ditching, 10036-380-102407112 $92,000,00 14-26 t Trulla Road Reconstruction,Pavement Rehabilitation aiiif Sidewalk Gnnsiruction,Cl_2p13-15 3 AuOusl 9,2013 Funding from Adjacent Developers, $39,287.27 ($8,1323.40 Severance Lots(pravlously collected) + $28,443,03 Mallory Sub, (Excl, HST) + $5,020,84 for House#3301 Trulls Road Servioin. Excl. HST Estimated unexpended Budget $0.00 Additional Funding Required $0,00 *A detailed Cost Apportionment will be provided to Finance under separate cover, We recommend the report to Counriil move forward based on the above apportionments. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Regards, Ron Albright, P. Eng, Manager, Infrastructure and Capital Works RA/sb/dv Attachment Pc; Nanoy Taylor, Director of Finance XS, Cannella, Director of Engineering �3ervlces 14-27 TrU IS Road Recortalmotlorl, PaVement Rehabilitation and Sidowalk CUnstruction, CM13-15 4 AugLIst e, 1013 t Pebblestona Road iI sherry L�t1e�M rr ' - Mr Y i rr . it r! DITCHING IMPRPVE64ENTS N (WESTSIDE)AND r ROAD REHABILITATION 1, ___.. ROACH _ RECONSTRUCTION 1 1 Y jW� � W L/ b - � � 1 11 Ge rgA Reynold$ thrive 0 M — 1. 1� w SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION (EAST SIDE) 1� 1 +Wash Raid 14-28 Attachment 4 Off K MgM11 PURCHASING SERVICES Date: August 16, 2013 To: Frank Wu, Chief Administrative Officer From: Jerry Barber, Purchasing Services Report#: PS-015-13 File#: CL2013-16 Subject: TENDER CL2013-16, CONSTRUCTION OF ARTIFICIAL TURF SPORTS FIELD SUMMER RECESS PROCEDURE (PURCHASING BY-LAW 2010-112, S. 67) RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended to the Chief Administrative Officer the following.: 1. THAT Report PS-015-13 be received; 2. THAT Worldwide Turf Inc, Barrie, Ontario, with a total bid in the amount of $1,167,591.19 (net of H.S.T. Rebate), being the lowest responsible bidder meeting all terms, conditions and specifications of Tender CL2013-16 be awarded the contract for the Construction Of Artificial Turf Sports Field as required by the Municipality of Clarington, Engineering Department; and 3. THAT the funds required in the amount of$1,440,840.00 (which includes $1,167,591.19 net of HST Rebate for construction, tendering, design, contract administration, other costs and contingencies) be drawn from the following account: South Courtice Arena Artificial Turf Sports Field 110-32-325-83405-7401 (2013) .......................................................$1,440,840.00 4. THAT the actions taken during the summer recess be reported to Council for information. 14-29 REPORT NO.: PS-015-13 PAGE 2 Recommended b : 1 Jerry, ber, Manager, Purchasing Services Ddte Concurrence: 3 o// Tony Cannella, Director of Engineering Date Reviewed by: Nancy aylor, B.B.A., C.P.A., C.A., Director of Finance Approved by: Frank Wu, Chief Administrative Officer Date JDB CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 14-30 REPORT NO.: PS-015-13 PAGE 3 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 Tender specifications were provided by the AECOM Canada for the South Courtice Arena Artificial Turf Sports Field Construction project. 1.2 The project pricing was prepared on the basis of construction of an artificial turf sports field including an extension to the existing parking lot. The parking lot was included as a provisional item in the event funding was not available. In addition, pricing was provided for additional warranty insurance on the turf. 1.3 Bidders were invited from the list of pre-qualified contractors and Tender CL2013-19, Construction of an Artificial Turf Sports Field was advertised in the Daily Commercial News as well as electronically on the Muhicipality's website and the Ontario Public Buyer's Association website for the benefit of sub-trades. Subsequently, tenders were received and tabulated as per Attachment 1. 2.0 ANALYSIS 2.1 A total of seven (7) submissions were received in response to the tender call. Six (6) bids were deemed compliant and one was rejected for failure to provide the required bid bond. 2.2 On review of the bids it was determined that the budget was insufficient to allow the inclusion of the parking lot and the warranty insurance. When evaluating the bids the deletion-of the provisional item prices was considered in arriving at the low responsible bidder. The adjusted bid amounts are noted on Attachment 1. 2.3 After further review and analysis of the bids by AECOM Canada, the Engineering Department and Purchasing, it was mutually agreed that the low bidder, Worldwide Turf Inc., Barrie, Ontario be.recommended for the contract for the South Courtice Arena Artificial Turf Sports Field Construction project. A copy of the recommendation memo from the Engineering Department summarizing the work of the project and costs is appended as Attachment 2. 2.4 Worldwide Turf Inc. has not completed any project for the Municipality of Clarington in the past; however, a review of references confirmed that they have completed similar projects for numerous agencies and the level of service and quality has been satisfactory. 2.5 With regard to the parking lot, the Engineering Department will request funding to complete the parking lot in a future report to Council or in the 2014 budget. 2.6 Queries with respect to the department needs, specifications, etc. should be referred to the Director of Engineering. 3.0 FINANCIAL DETAILS 3.1 The total project cost of$1,440,840.00 includes $1,167,591.19 (net of HST Rebate) for construction, tendering, design, contract administration, other costs 14-31 REPORT NO.: PS-015-13 PAGE 4 and contingencies. The funding and costs for this project are outlined in the memo from Engineering Services (Attachment 2). 3.2 Funding for this project will be drawn from the following account: South Courtice Arena Artificial Turf Sports Field 110-32-325-83405-7401 (2013) .......................................................$1,440,840.00 4.0 CONCURRENCE 4.1 This report has been reviewed by Tony Cannella, Director of Engineering Services who concurs with the recommendations. 5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 To award the contract to Worldwide Turf Inc., Barrie, Ontario for the construction of the South Courtice Arena Artificial Turf Sports Field, CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — The recommendations contained in this report conform to the general intent of the following priorities of the Strategic Plan: Promoting economic development Maintaining financial stability Connecting Clarington Promoting green initiatives x Investing in infrastructure Showcasing our community Not in conformity with Strategic Plan Staff Contact: Jerry Barber, Purchasing Manager Attachments: Attachment 1 — Bid Tabulation Attachment 2- Recommendation Memo from Engineering Services 14-32 Attachment 1 MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BID SUMMARY TENDER CL2013-16 SOUTH COURTICE ARENA ARTIFICIAL TURF SPORTS FIELD BIDDER TOTAL BID Total Bid TOTAL REVISED TOTAL REVISED (HST Incl.) (Net of HST BID EXCLUDING BID EXCLUDING Rebate) PROVISIONAL PROVISIONAL ITEMS ITEMS (HST Incl) (Net of HST Rebate) WorldWide Turf Inc. Barrie, ON $1,486,363.58 $1,338,516.44 $1,296,558.61 $1,167,591.19 Gateman-Milloy Inc. Kitchener, ON $1,557,310.19' $1,402,406.32* $1,420,952.78` $1,279,611.99* Rutherford Contracting Ltd. Aurora, ON $1,559,849.63* $1,404,692.90* $1,369,658.59* $1,233,419.99* Hawkins Contracting Services Limited Stouffville, ON $1,596,612.89 $1,437,799.36 $1,428,644.43 $1,286;538.56 Del Turf Restoration Ltd. Bond Head, ON $1,708,557.01 $1,538,608.50 $1,5626,5365 $1,407,218.02 Wilco Civil Inc. Oakville, ON $1,942,441.70* $1,684,102.56* $1,672,592.10* $1,506,220.99* Davan Group Inc. Puslinch, ON REJECTED REJECTED REJECTED REJECTED *Adjusted for Arithmetic errors .p i w w ® Attachment 2 IMI E, 0 Leading tote Way TO: Jerry Barber, Purchasing Manager FROM: Peter Windolf, Park Development Manager DATE: August 29, 2013 SUBJECT: South Courtice Artificial Turf Field Construction Tender CL2013-16 I have reviewed the low bid by WorldWide Turf Inc. and offer the following comments: In 2013 Council approved $1,500,000 for the construction of South Courtice Artificial Turf Field and Parking Lot Expansion.WorldWide Turf of_Barrie Ontario was one of 8 companies pre-qualified to bid on the project based on their abundant experience and good references on similar projects. The project tender also included provisional items to expand the existing parking lot and provide an insured warranty on the turf. Since the provisional items would put the project over budget I recommend that we do not include them in the contract award. RK and Associates, our artificial turf consultant, has advised me that the insured warranty is not required for the type of turf that will be used by the low bidder. Funding to complete the parking lot expansion will be requested in a future report to Council or in the 2014 budget. I recommend award of.the contract in the amount of$1,147,397 for the project. A contingency allowance of 10% including net HST rebate is carried forward. The Engineering Services Department advises the following breakdown for the above referenced project: Project Breakdown Total Project Value $1,147,397 contract award $ 114,739 contingency allowance $ 153,784 design and contract admin. 24,920 net HST $1,440,840 2013 Approved Budget Amount- South Courtice Artificial Turf Field and $1,500,000 Parking Lot Expansion 110 32 325 83405.7401 Budget over(under) ($59,160) 14-34 South Courtice Artificial Turf Field and Parking Lot Expansion CL2013-16 2 Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Regards, Peter Windolf, GALA, CSLA Manager Park Development Attachment Cc Nancy Taylor, Director of Finance Tony Cannella, Director of Engineering CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T(905)623-3379 14-35 Attachment 2 -9 Ell MW WJR SIREET L—._.._....._..,-.'..r� 6cG0.4 UE'NELL CRESCEKT BL I Nt EMAMVI G6W61f:IlEi."'r tl Jar z L`6MAGUEAVENI� WRGA6 CRE6:.FM ,� � I)� a s " HA`mN8 � 45Yt1�A7E CAEiCENt �1 S� �i AVENUE bg11HFIEtbAVENUE �.. pia 2/ SOUTH CQURTICE - ARENA l�rtsEVCnaccsN7 ARTIFICIAL,SOCCER TURF , X Wj "[ >0 �./ V R R.i CE �t 14-36 Attachment 5 ciffinglon OKO'hEPORT MEMO PURCHASING S VIC Date: July 25, 2013 To: Frank Wu, Chief Administrative Officer From: Jerry Barber, Purchasing Services Report#: PS-005-13 File#: CL2013-17 Subject: TENDER CL2013-17, CONSTRUCTION OF LONGWORTH PARK— PHASE 2 SUMMER RECESS PROCEDURE (PURCHASING BY-LAW 2010-112, S. 67) RECOMMENDATIONS It is respectfully recommended to the Chief Administrative Officer the following:. 1. THAT Report PS-005 43 be received; 2. THAT Ottavio Ciccarelli & Son Contracting Ltd., Ancaster, Ontario, with a total bid in the amount of$415,008.88 (net of H.S.T. Rebate), being the lowest responsible bidder meeting all terms, conditions and specifications of Tender CL2013-17 be awarded the contract for Construction of Longworth Park, Phase 2, as required,by the Municipality of Clarington, Engineering Department; 3. THAT the funds required in the amount of$450,000.00 (which includes $415,008.88 net of HST Rebate for construction, tendering, design, contract administration, material testing, contingencies) be,drawn from the Engineering Department Capital Account: Longworth Park Construction 110-32-325-83231-7401 (2013) ...................................................$450,000.00 and 4. THAT the actions taken during the summer recess be reported to Council for information. 14-37 REPORT NO.: PS-00543 Page 2 Recomm e ;bv=: a fJ r2 Jerry B&x er, Manager, Purchasing Services Daee Concurrence: WIAI Zd/ / �Co ny 6ny Cann 11' Dire ter of Engineering Date) / J z�)X Nancy r Tay , Direck of Finance �' Date Approved by: t Frank Wu, Chief Administrative Officer Date JDB CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6,T 905-623-3379 14-38 REPORT NO.: PS-005-13 PAGE 3 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 Tender specifications were provided by Henry Kortekass &Associates, Pickering, for the Construction of Longworth Park— Phase 2 Project 1.2 Tender CL2013-17, Longworth Park — Phase 2 Project was advertised in the Daily Commercial News as well as electronically on the Municipality's website and the Ontario Public Buyer's Association website. Subsequently, tenders were received and tabulated as per Attachment 1. 2. ANALYSIS 2.1 A total of five (5) submissions were received in response to the tender call. Four submissions were deemed compliant and one submission was rejected for failing to meet the deposit requirements. 2.2 Bids submitted,included several provisional items for consideration, budget permitting. However, on evaluation all bids exceeded the budget by a significant amount. 2.3 In order to bring the project within budget the bids were adjusted by deleting all provisional items and making minor adjustments in some line items to bring the project within budget. 2.4 After further review and analysis of the revised bids by the Engineering Department and Purchasing, it was mutually agreed that the low bidder, Ottavio Ciccarelli & Son Contracting Ltd., Ancaster, Ontario be recommended for the contract for the Construction of Longworth Park— Phase 2 Project. A copy of the recommendation memo from the Department of Engineering is appended as Attachment 2. 2.5 Ottavio Ciccarelli & Son Contracting Ltd. has not provided similar services to the Municipality of Clarington in the past; however, a check of their references indicates that they have completed similar projects for other municipalities to their satisfaction. 2.6 Queries with respect to the department needs, specifications, etc. should be referred to the Director of Engineering. 3. FINANCIAL 3.1 The total project cost of$450,00.00 includes $415,008.88 (net of HST Rebate) for construction,.tendering, design, contract administration, material testing and contingencies. The funding and costs for this project are outlined in the memo from Engineering Services (Attachment 2). 14-39 REPORT NO.: PS-005-13 PAGE 4 3.2 Funding for this project will be drawn from the following Engineering 2013 Capital account: Longworth Park Construction 110-32-325-83231-7401 (2013) ..........................................................$450,000.00 4. CONCURRENCE 4.1 This report has been reviewed by Ron Albright, Infrastructure and Capital Works Manager on behalf of Tony Cannella, Director of Engineering Services who concurs with the recommendations. 5. CONCLUSION 5.1 To award the contract to Ottavio Ciccarelli & Sons Contracting Ltd., Ancaster, Ontario for the Construction of Longworth Park — Phase 2 Project. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — The recommendations contained in this report conform to the general intent of the following priorities of the Strategic Plan: Promoting economic development Maintaining financial stability Connecting Clarington Promoting green initiatives x Investing in infrastructure Showcasing our community Not in conformity with Strategic Plan Staff Contact: .Berry Barber,. Purchasing Manager Attachments: Attachment 1 — Bid Tabulation Attachment 2- Recommendation Memo from Engineering Services 14-40 Attachment 1 MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BID SUMMARY TENDER CL2013-17 CONSTRUCTION OF LONGWORTH PARK— PHASE 2 BIDDER TOTAL BID TOTAL BID TOTAL (HST (NET OF REVISED INCLUDED) HST BID REBATE) (NET OF HST REBATE) Ottavio Ciccerelli & Son Contracting Ltd. Ancaster, ON $ 532,110.51* $479,182.00* $415,008.88* Hawkins Contracting Services Limited Stouffville, ON $ 582,419.92 $524,487.17 $445,203.91 Royal Crest Paving & Contracting Ltd, Toronto, ON $ 607,275.67* $547,466.05* $473,771.56* Cedar Spring Landscape Group Ltd. Ancaster, ON $ 625,67.1.33 $587,750.75 $482,775.39 Mopal Construction Limited Gormley, ON (REJECTED) (REJECTED) (REJECTED) *Bid corrected for minor arithmetic errors 14-41 Attachment 2 MhMobeading the Way TO: Jerry Barber, Purchasing Manager FROM: Peter Windolf, Park Development Manager DATE: July 25, 2013 SUBJECT: Longworth Park Construction Tender CL2013-17 I have reviewed the low bid by Ottavio Ciccarelli & Son Contracting Ltd. and offer the following comments: In 2013 Council approved $450,000 for the construction of Longworth Park, Ottavio Ciccarelli & Son Contracting Ltd. has never worked for the Municipality. Subject to .review of their references, 1 recommend award of the contract in the amount of$407,831 for the park development project. A contingency allowance of 4% including net HST rebate is carried forward. Construction inspection and contract administration will be done by municipal staff. The Engineering Services Department advises the following breakdown for the above referenced project: Project Breakdown Total Project Value $407,831 contract award $17,845 contingency allowance $16,850 survey, design and printing 7474 net HST $450,000 2013 Approved Budget Amount- Longworth Park Construction $450,000 110 32 325 83231 7401 Budget over(under) 0 14-42 . Langworth Park Construction CL2013-9 7 2 Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me, Regards, Peter Windolf, GALA, ' SLA Manager Park Development Attachment Cc Nancy Taylor, Director of Finance Tony Cannella,. Director of Engineering i 14-43 Attachment 6 ® REPORT MEMO Leading the Way PURCHASING SERVICES Date: August 16, 2013 To: Frank Wu, Chief Administrative Officer From: Jerry Barber, Purchasing Services Report#: PS-011-13 File#: CL2013-19 Subject: TENDER CL2013-19, TOOLEY'S MILL PARK SUMMER RECESS PROCEDURE (PURCHASING BY-LAW 2010-112, S. 67) RECOMMENDATIONS It is respectfully recommended to the Chief Administrative Officer the following: 1. THAT Report PS-011-13 be received; 2.. THAT Royalcrest Paving and Contracting Ltd, Toronto, Ontario, with a total bid in the amount of$290,618.52 (net of H.S.T. Rebate), being the lowest responsible bidder meeting all terms, conditions and specifications of Tender CL2013-19 be awarded the contract for Tooley's Mill Park as required by the Municipality of Clarington, Engineering Department; 3. THAT the funds required in the amount of$337,970.00 (which includes $290,618.52 net of HST Rebate for construction, tendering, design, contract administration, other costs and contingencies) be drawn from the following account: Tooley's Mill Park Construction 110-32-325-83404-7401 (2013) ..........................................................$337,970.00 4. THAT the actions taken during the summer recess be reported to Council for information. 14-44 REPORT NO.: PS-011-13 PAGE 2 Recommended by: Jerry 7h/e , der, Purchasing Services Date r Concurrence: Tony Cannella, Director of Engineering Date G Nancy Taylor, Director of Finance Date Approved by: ,ate 6, ( j t Frank Wu, Chief Administrative Officer Date JDB 14-45 REPORT NO.: PS-011-13 PAGE 3 BACKGROUND 1.1 Tender specifications were provided by the JVF Consultants Inc. for the Tooley's Mill Park Construction project. 1.2 The project pricing was prepared on the basis of minimum requirements for the project with provision being made for provisional items to enhance the project if funding was available. Provisional items included metal entry signage, masonry piers, a sitting wall and a metal pergola. 1.3 Tender CL2013-19, Tooley's Mill Park Construction was advertised in the Daily Commercial News as well as electronically on the Municipality's website and the Ontario Public Buyer's Association website. Subsequently, tenders were received and tabulated as per Attachment 1. 1. ANALYSIS 2.1 A total of six (6) submissions were received in response to the tender call. All submissions were deemed compliant. 2.2 On review of the bids it was determined that the budget was sufficient to allow the addition of the entry signage and the masonry piers and an increase in the number of armour stone benches to be installed. The provisional sitting wall and pergola were in excess of the budgeted amount and were not considered. When evaluating the bids the provisional item prices and the price increase for the increased number of armour stone benches applicable to all bidders were considered in arriving at the low responsible bidder. 2.2 After further review and analysis of the bids by the Engineering Department and Purchasing, it.was mutually agreed that the low bidder, Royalcrest Paving and Construction Ltd., Toronto, Oritario be recommended for the contract for the Tooley's Mill Park Construction project. A copy of the recommendation memo from the Engineering Department summarizing the work of the project and costs is appended as Attachment 2. 2.5 Royalcrest Paving and Construction Ltd. has provided similar services to the Municipality of Clarington; in the past,.the level of service and quality has been satisfactory. 2.6 Queries with respect to the department needs, specifications, etc. should be referred to the Director of Engineering. 3. FINANCIAL 3.1 The total project cost of$337,970.00 includes $290,618.52 (net of HST Rebate) for construction, tendering, design, contract administration, other costs and 14-46 REPORT NO.: PS-011-13 PAGE 4 contingencies. The funding and costs for this project are outlined in the memo from Engineering Services (Attachment 2). 3.2 Funding for this project will be drawn from the following account: Tooley's Mill Park Construction 110-32-325-83404-7401 (2013) ..........................................................$337,970.00 4. CONCURRENCE 4:1 This report has been reviewed by Tony Cannella, Director of Engineering Services who concurs with the recommendations. 5. CONCLUSION 5.1 To award the contract to Royalcrest Paving and!Construction Ltd., Toronto, Ontario for the Tooley's Mill Park Construction project. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — The recommendations contained in this report conform to the general intent of the following priorities of the Strategic Plan: Promoting economic.development Maintaining financial stability Connecting Clarington Promoting green initiatives x Investing in infrastructure Showcasing our community Not in conformity with Strategic Plan Staff Contact: Jerry Barber, Purchasing Manager Attachments: Attachment 1 — Bid Tabulation Attachment 2- Recommendation Memo from Engineering Services 14-47 coo Attachment 1 MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BID SUMMARY TENDER CL2013-19 TOOLEY'S MILL PARK CONSTRUCTION BIDDER TOTAL BID TOTAL REVISED BID TOTAL REVISED BID '(HST Incl.) INCLUDING PROVISIONAL INCLUDING PROVISIONAL ITEMS 1 & 2 ITEMS 1 & 2 (HST Incl) (Net of HST Rebate) Royalcrest Paving & Construction Ltd. $300,610.62 $322,719.07 $2901618.52 Toronto, ON Mopal Construction Ltd. $303,992.60 $349,680.76 $314,898.36 Gormley, ON Hawkins Contracting Services Limited . Stouffville, ON $317,427.62 $347,572.63 $312,999.92 GMP Contracting Toronto, ON $333,489.20 $366,500.91 $330,045.42 Aloia Bros. Concrete Contractors Ltd. Toronto, ON $340,846.91 $389,102.78 $350,400.01 Cedar Springs Landscape Group Ltd. Ancaster, ON $429,488.99 $464,744.99 $418,517.26 `Adjusted for Arithmetic errors Attachment 2 �da�e tyre IV, M' E M 0 TO; Jeny Barber, Furchasirrg Nla.nager FROM: Peter VtivindoY, Park, Developme,'t !:Mlanager DATE, August 13, 2013 UBJEGT: Tooley's N11If Dark. CiDnstruet on Tenor C1.2013-1-1 Gna,,@ re elo%N«d the (lovi bid by Royalcresd Pavin�g Lands Cortltacting W.-and offer fhe fvIlovelfhq torn rfioeglts: 11120- 1-3 CL',J'L.ncH apps owed $340,000 'Fo fl-he, G-u-mist'Uo ic-In of Tooley's N1111 Park- Rv�vtaflore k. Pa-Aing and Contracting Ud, has&-rccessMill compleWd ma-fly projf9cto for tho - miUniri� l'it;��' i lhtA. taut, uncle ding the 2,01 orrnsl.ructlon of Rosmikeell Park parking let. I �ro r n� iid 't�` r i f#Gib r:'t�tr ca In the atT� �� 7t I'$285, 92 far the park develcpnieni prgjecl. A u?or'tingency all'ovit.ance of 99* including ri'et H-ST rebate lis carb=ied far ar'd, Cotnutrucflan inns vctirn.and- cbntraut a•dmial tr-odOn WIN ba�dotia by �iunjo-iptal staff. The Engine-erin lur fne.a Departmpmt advl'*s,es 6he follovilng breakd-own ror the above referenced projeat, PLOTlect 13,reakdown To Nj I P-Tp- 9cv,ot VaIua $285,592 ccntrdct award 25,703, curaingency ia Itowan---a - 20,8310, survey, design and p-inting Taogoyl's N1111 Park Construction $340,1000 1.110 32 325 83404 7401 14-49 cl 0 pnrk Sho. old to No ve. :,g rijy q uc-5tion s, p[eais,e feel;Irea To contact me. R. cq g a r d j, Peter VVIndoff, OALAI-CM Manager Rork Devebpmpmt Alk.mv,hr-nonli r of ion ance Tony Gsrmndla-., birankir ofEnginouring 14-50 Tooley's Mill Park CL2013-19 3 WIGHWAY NO, pow VTE ul HIGHWAY 401 L_AKE ONTARIO 14-51 Attachment 7 REPORT MEMO Leading tlae Way PURCHASING SERVICES Date: August 13, 2013 To: Frank Wu, Chief Administrative Officer From: Jerry Barber, Purchasing Services Report#: PS-010-13 File#: CL2013-22 Subject: TENDER CL2013-22, 2013 SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT & NEW CONSTRUCTION SUMMER RECESS PROCEDURE (PURCHASING BY-LAW 2010-112, S. 67) RECOMMENDATIONS It is respectfully recommended to the Chief Administrative Officer the following: 1. THAT Report PS-010-13 be received; 2. THAT Bennington Construction Ltd., Stouffville, Ontario, with a total bid in the amount of$385,957.26 (net of H.S.T. Rebate), being the lowest responsible bidder meeting all terms, conditions and specifications of Tender CL2013-22 be awarded the contract for 2013 Sidewalk Replacement & New Construction as required by the Municipality of Clarington, Engineering Department; 3. THAT the funds required in the amount of $442,968.00 (which includes $385,957.26 net of HST Rebate for construction, tendering, design, contract administration, other costs and contingencies) be drawn from the following accounts: Sidewalk Replacement 110-32-331-83215-7401 (2013)..........................................................$118,900.90 110-32-331-83215-7401 (2012 UECF) .................................................$18,593.96 110-32-331-83215-7401 (2011 UECF) .................................................$80,234.02 110-32-331-83215-7401 (2009 UECF ..................................................$40,071.12 Samuel Wilmot Nature Area Trail Improvement 110-32-325-83227-7401 .........................................................................$9,700.00 Transit Bike Racks & Shelters 110-32-325-83377-7401 .......................................................................$21,568.00 14-52 REPORT NO.: PS-010-13 PAGE 2 Baseline Road Sidewalks (DC Item #4 — 2010) 110-32-331-83341-7401 ..............................................................I........$42,400.00 Courtice Road Sidewalks (DC Item #82, 2010) 110-32-331-83345-7401 ......................................................................$40,900.00 Courtice West Park Trail 110-36-325-83689-7401 .......................................................................$40,000.00 Durham Transit Bus Stops 100-xx-xxx-xxxxx-1010 ........................................................................$30,600.00 Total Funding Available........................................................................$442.968.00 4. THAT the actions taken during the summer recess be reported to Council for information. Recommended by: 2 Jer er, Manager, Purchasing Services Date Concurrence: 7 4a, Tony Cannella, Director of Engineering Da e r ) Director of Finance Uate Approved by: Frank Wu, Chief Administrative Officer Date JDB 14-53 REPORT NO.: PS-010-13 PAGE 3 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 Tender specifications were provided by the Engineering Department for the 2013 Sidewalk Replacement and New Construction. 1.2 Tender.CL2013-22, 2013 Sidewalk Replacement and New Construction was advertised in the Daily Commercial News as well as electronically on the Municipality's website and the Ontario Public Buyer's Association website. Subsequently, tenders were received and tabulated as per Attachment 1. 2. ANALYSIS 2.1 A total of three (3) submissions were received in response to the tender call. All submissions were deemed compliant. 2.2 After further review and analysis of the bids by the Engineering Department and Purchasing, it was mutually agreed that the low bidder; Bennington Construction Ltd., Stouffville, Ontario be recommended for the contract for the 2013 Sidewalk Replacement and New Construction project. A copy of the recommendation memo from the Engineering Department summarizing the work of the project and costs is appended as Attachment 2. 2.5 Bennington Construction Ltd. has not provided similar services to the Municipality of Clarington; however, a check of references indicates that Bennington Construction has performed similar services for other agencies and the level of service and quality has been satisfactory. 2.6 Queries with respect to the department needs, specifications, etc_. should be referred to the Director of Engineering. 3. FINANCIAL 3.1 The total project cost of$442,968.00 includes $385,957.26 (net of HST Rebate) for construction, tendering, design, contract administration, other costs and contingencies. The funding and costs for this project are outlined in the memo from Engineering Services (Attachment 2). 3.2 Funding for this project will be drawn from the following accounts: Sidewalk Replacement 110-32-331-83215-7401 (2013) ..........................................................$118,900.90 110-32-331-83215-7401 (2012 UECF) .................................................$18,593.96 110-32-331-83215-7401 (2011 UECF) .................................................$80,234.02 110-32-331-83215-7401 (2009 UECF...................................................$40,071.12 14-54 REPORT NO.: PS-010-13 PAGE 4 Samuel Wilmot Nature Area Trail Improvement 110-32-325-83227-7401 .........:............ .$9,700.00 .................................................. Transit Bike Racks & Shelters 110-32-325-83377-7401 .......................................................................$21,568.00 Baseline Road Sidewalks (DC Item #4 —2010) 110-32-331-83341-7401 .......................................................................$42,400.00 Courtice Road Sidewalks (DC Item #82, 2010) 110-32-331-83345=7401 .......................................................................$40,900.00 Courtice West Park Trail 110-36-325-83689-7401 .......................................................................$40,000.00 Durham Transit Bus Stops 100-xx-xxx-xxxxx-1010 .....................................................................:...$30,600.00 Total Funding Available.......................................................................$442,968.00 4. CONCURRENCE 4.1 This report has been reviewed by Tony Cannella, Director of Engineering Services who concurs with the recommendations. 5. CONCLUSION 5.1 To award the contract to Bennington Construction Ltd., Stouffville, Ontario for the 2013 Sidewalk Replacement and New Construction project. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — The recommendations contained in this report conform to the general intent of the following priorities of the Strategic Plan: Promoting economic development_ Maintaining financial stability Connecting Clarington Promoting green initiatives x Investing in infrastructure Showcasing our community Not in conformity with Strategic Plan Staff Contact: Jerry Barber, Purchasing Manager 14-55 REPORT NO.: PS-010-13 PAGE 5 Attachments: Attachment 1 — Bid Tabulation Attachment 2- Recommendation Memo from Engineering Services l I 14-56 Attachment 1 MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BID SUMMARY TENDER CL2013-22 2013 SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT AND NEW CONSTRUCTION BIDDER TOTAL BID Total Bid (HST Incl.) (Net of HST Rebate) Bennington Construction Ltd. Stouffvilie, ON $428,588.55* $385,957.26 Aloia Bros. Concrete Contractors Ltd. Toronto, ON $433,694.03 $390,554.91 Trisan Construction Schomberg, ON $572,420.71 $515,482.58 *Adjusted for Arithmetic errors i 14-57 Attachment 2 REVISED MEMOLeading the'flay TO: Jerry Barber, Purchasing Manager FROM: Ron Albright, Manager, Infrastructure and Capital Works DATE: August 12, 2013 RE: 2013 Sidewalk Replacement and New Construction CL2013-22 Tenders for the above project were opened at the Municipal Offices on Friday July 19, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. The Engineering Services Department has reviewed the submissions for CL2013-22 and offers the following comments: The scope of the project deals with sidewalk improvements throughout the Municipality, including the following: • Removal and replacement of deficient sidewalk at various locations • Construction of concrete bus stop pads for Durham Region Transit at various locations • Construction of new sidewalk on Baseline Rd. between Liberty St. and Mearns Ave. • Improvements to the Waterfront Trail alignment at Toronto St. • Construction of new sidewalk on Pethick St. from Prince William Dr. to Highway 2 • Removal and replacement of the asphalt trail in the Courtice West Park, and • Install new bike racks and bike shelters at 5 transit locations throughout the Municipality The low bidder was Bennington Construction Ltd. The Purchasing Department has confirmed that all bids are compliant and that references for Bennington were positive. The Engineering Department recommends award of the contract to Bennington Construction Ltd. in the amount of$428,588.55 inclusive of HST or $385,957.26 net of HST rebate. Due to past experiences on similar projects, a contingency amount of 10% is carried forward. The attached cost apportionment shows the total project costs including contingencies and material testing, and the budget for each site. Total project cost for each section is within the available budget. The total project cost for all sites is $442,968.00. Design, Tendering and Contract Administration for this project has and will be completed by Clarington Engineering Services staff. A detailed breakdown of Clarington's and the Region of Durham's funding is provided on the attached Cost Apportionment. The majority of funding for the project will come from the Sidewalk Replacement Program account including the current funding year and unexpended funds from previous years, as shown in the table below. Additional funding for the various added works to the tender will be funded from separate as detailed below and on the attached cost apportionment. 14-58 2013 Sidewalk Replacement and New Construction, Ct_2013-22 2 August 12,2013 Construction net of HST) Based on Low Bid $385,957.26 Design, Tendering and Contract Administration (net of HST) 57,010.74 Other Costs and Contingencies Total Project Value 442,968.00 Budget Amount Sidewalk Replacement 110-32-331-83215-7401 (2013) 118,900.90 ,110-32-331-83215-7401 (2012 UECF) 18,593.96 110-32-331-83215-7401 (2011 UECF) 80,234.02 110-32-331-83215-7401 (2009 UECF) 40,071.12 Samuel Wilmot Nature Area Trail Improvement 110-32-325-83227-7401 9,700.00 Transit Bike Racks and Shelters 110-32-325-83377-7401 21,568,00 Baseline Road Sidewalk (DC Item#4 -2010), 110-32-331-83341-7401 42,400.00 Courtice Road Sidewalk (DC Item#82-2010) 110-32-331-83345-7401 40,900.00 Courtice West Park Trail 110-36-325-83689-7401 40,000,00 Durham Transit Bus Stops 100-X-X-X-1010 30,600.00 Total Budget Amount 442,968.00 Additional Funding Required 0.00 Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Regards, !F01- 4 ' Ron Albright, P. Eng. Manager, Infrastructure and Capital Works RA/s b/dv Attachment Pc: N. Taylor, Director of Finance A. S. Cannella, Director of Engineering Services 14-59 Clarftwn REPORT CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: September 9, 2013 Resolution#: By-law#: Report#: COD-020-13 File#: Subject: CL2013-13 2013 DEVELOPMENT OF PORT DARLINGTON WATERFRONT PARK AT EAST BEACH RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report COD-020-13 be received;. 2. THAT Drain Bros. Excavating Ltd., Lakefield, Ontario, with a total bid in the amount of$2,906,853,23 (net of H.S.T. Rebate), being the lowest responsible bidder meeting all terms, conditions and specifications of Tender CL2013-13 be awarded the contract for Development of Port Darlington Waterfront Park at East Beach, as required by the Municipality of Clarington, Engineering Department; 3. THAT the funds required in the amount of$3,685,600.00 (which includes $2,906,853,23 for construction, tendering, design, contract administration, material testing, contingencies and net HST) be drawn from the following Engineering Department Capital Accounts: Port Darlington Waterfront Park 110-32-325-83406-7401 ..................................................................$3,000,000.00 Pavement Rehabilitation 110-32-330-83212-7401 ....................................................................$100,000.00 Region of Durham Contribution 110-X-X-X-1010 ..................................................................................$155,600.00 Additional Funding Required Roads and Related Development Charges Reserve Fund .................$110,000.00 Unexpended Funds from Horsey Street Construction 11-32-330-83274-7401 .......................................................................$320,000.00 Total Funding ...................................................................................$3,685,600.00 4. THAT the use of additional funds from Roads and Related Development Charges and Unexpended Funds From Horsey Street, be approved; 1.4-60 REPORT NO.: COD-020-13 PAGE 2 5. THAT all unexpended funds from the 2008 Concession Road 8 (110-32-330- 83337-7401) and Concession Road 7 (110-32-330-83339-7401) improvements, which are now complete, be transferred to the Pavement Rehabilitation account (110-32-330-83212-7401) for this and other road rehabilitation works; and 6. THAT the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary agreement. Submitted by: ) z�h f� �- :� Reviewed by: Marie Marano, H.B.Sc., Franklin Wu, Director of Corporate Services Chief Administrative Officer N ncy T� lor, B A, CFA, CA, Director of Finance/Treasurer MM\JDB\br CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 14-61 REPORT NO.: COD-020-13 PAGE 3 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 Tender specifications were provided by AECOM Canada Limited for the Development of Port Darlington Waterfront Park at East Beach, Bowmanville. 1.2 Tender CL2013-13, 2013 Development of Port Darlington Waterfront Park at East Beach was advertised in the Daily Commercial News as well as electronically on the Municipality's website and the Ontario Public Buyer's Association website. Subsequently, tenders were received and tabulated as per "Attachment 1". 1.3 A summary of the project design is provided in the Engineering Department memo appended as Attachment 2. The memo from Engineering also provides information on the process leading to the tender and the inclusion of the washroom component originally scheduled for Phase 2 of the Park development, which is partly responsible for the higher than estimated cost. 2. ANALYSIS 2.1 A total of seven (7) submissions were received in response to the tender call. Six (6) submissions were deemed compliant and one submission from Eagleson Construction was rejected for failing to meet the bonding requirements. 2.2 After further review and analysis of the compliant bids by AECOM, the Engineering Department and Purchasing, it was mutually agreed that the low bidder, Drain Bros. Excavating Ltd., Lakefield, Ontario be recommended for the contract for the Development of Port Darlington Waterfront Park at East Beach. A copy of the recommendation memo from the Department of Engineering is appended as "Attachment 2". 2.3 Attachment 2 also discusses the components that have resulted in a higher than estimated project cost and provides the source of additional funding needed to complete this high profile project. 2.4 Drain Bros. Excavating Ltd. has not provided similar services to the Municipality of Clarington in the past. However, a review of the references provided with the submission was undertaken and the results were satisfactory. 2.5 Queries with respect to the department needs, specifications, etc. should be referred to the Director of Engineering. 3. FINANCIAL 3.1 The total cost of the project is $3,685,600.00 and includes $2,906,853.23 (net of H.S.T. Rebate) for construction, tendering, design, contract administration and contingencies. The background, Clarington funding and costs for this project are outlined in the memo from Engineering Services ("Attachment 2"). 14-62 REPORT NO.: COD-020-13 PAGE 4 3.2 Funding for this project will be drawn from the following Engineering 2013 Capital accounts: Port Darlington Waterfront Park 110-32-325-83406-7401 ..................................................................$3,000,000.00 Pavement Rehabilitation 110-32-330-83212-7401 ....................................................................$100,000.00 Region of Durham Contribution 110-X-X-X-1010 ..................................................................................$155,600.00 Additional Funding Required Roads and Related Development Charges Reserve Fund .................$110,000.00 Unexpended Funds from Horsey Street Construction 110-32-330-83274-7401 .....................................................................$320,000.00 Total Funding ...................................................................................$3,685,600.00 3.3 It is recommended that the additional funds required for the completion of the project be provided from the Roads and Related Development Charges Reserve Fund in the amount of$110,000.00 and Account 110-32-330-83274-7401 in the amount of$320,000.00. 3.4 It is also recommended that all unexpended funds from the 2008 Concession Road 8 (110-32-330-83337-7401) and Concession Road 7 (110-32-330-83339- 7401) improvements, which are now complete, be transferred to the Pavement Rehabilitation account (110-32-330-83212-7401) for this and other road rehabilitation works. 4. CONCURRENCE 4.1 This report has been reviewed by Tony Cannella, Director of Engineering Services who concurs with the recommendations. 5. CONCLUSION 5.1 To award the contract to Drain Bros., Excavating Ltd., Lakefield, Ontario for the Development of Port Darlington Waterfront Park at East Beach. 14-63 REPORT NO.: COD-020-13 PAGE 5 CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — The recommendations contained in this report conform to the general intent of the following priorities of the Strategic Plan: Promoting economic development Maintaining financial stability Connecting Clarington Promoting green initiatives X Investing in infrastructure Showcasing our community Not in conformity with Strategic Plan Staff Contact: Jerry Barber, Manager of Purchasing Services Attachments: Attachment 1 —Tabulation of Bids Received Attachment 2 — Recommendation Memo from Engineering Services List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: NONE 14-64 ATTACHMENT # 1 Municipality of Clarington SUMMARY OF BID RESULTS Tender CL2013-13 DEVELOPMENT OF PORT DARLINGTON WATERFRONT PARK AT EAST BEACH BIDDER TOTAL BID Total Bid (HST Incl.) (Net of HST Rebate) Drain Bros. Excavating Ltd. Lakefield, ON $3,227,932.54 $2,906,853.23 Loc Pave Construction Limited Stouffville, ON $3,314,290.00 $2,984,620.80 TBG Landscape Inc. Whitby, ON $3,415,216.83* $3,055,242.71 Lattitude 67 Ltd. King City, ON $3,568,984.72* $3,168,927.05 Rutherford Contracting Ltd. Aurora, ON $3,698,534.57* $3,775,288.00 Gateman-Milloy Inc. Kitchener, ON $4,459,384.60* $4,013,927.83 Eagleson Construction Millbrook, ON REJECTED REJECTED *Adjusted for Arithmetic Errors 14-65 Attachment 2 M E IRWAN 0 I eading the Way TO: Jerry Barber, Purchasing Manager FROM: Ron Albright, Manager, Infrastructure and Capital Works DATE: September 4, 2013 RE: Port Darlington Waterfront Park Development, Bowmanville CL2013-13 The Engineering Services Department has reviewed the submissions for CL2013-13 and offers the following comments. The project is located at the Port Darlington East Beach in Bowmanville and includes the following 3 major components: Shoreline erosion protection Waterfront park features including splash pad, play ground, shade shelter/gazebo, parking lots, waterfront trail and washroom Relocation of East Beach Road northerly to allow for an improved park development Based on the positive references that were received, we recommend award of the contract to Drain Bros, Excavating Ltd. in the amount of$3,227,932.54, inclusive of HST, or $2,906,853.23 net of HST rebate, for the Port Darlington Waterfront Park Development. During the preparation of the capital budget item for this project it was envisioned that the park would be developed in two phases. The first phase would allow for the development of a waterfront park that would provide for an improved access to the waterfront and include for amenities that would appeal to a majority of the residents of Clarington such as a playground and splash pad and a large passive area where the public could just relax and enjoy the park and location near the lake. The second phase was envisioned as having additional amenities added such as a multiuse shelter at the waterfront, a waterfront gazebo, full urbanization of East Beach Road within the park, additional paved parking lots, a washroom/change room building, full municipal servicing and potential multi use development north of East Beach Road. 14-66 Fort Darlington Waterfrcrit <11I, Develop-)e 01.1101 -1'. 2 September 4, 20 13 A public information centre was held on January 24, 2013 in the meeting room of Bobby C's from 5 pm to 8 pm with just over 40 people attending. All were supportive of the project and opening more of the waterfront to the public. Upon completion of the preliminary design for the park it was decided that it was important to include a proper washroom facility with the first phase of development although it was originally envisioned that it would be part of the second phase of the park development. Considering the uncertainty of the timing for the second phase, the high profile nature of the park and the fact that the washroom building could also be used as a change room it was felt that it would not be appropriate.to use portable toilets for this phase of the park development. The total cost for the washroom building and holding tank is $310,000 including all design and approvals. This is additional funding that was not accounted for in the Capital Budget and is one of the contributing factors to the requirement for additional funding. One other project element that was significantly higher than anticipated was utility relocation including coordination of works between utilities. It was originally estimated to cost $50,000 for relocation of hydro, gas, telephone and cable facilities but the final detailed estimates came it at just over $117,000, $67,000 more than anticipated. Finally the other reason for the need for additional funding is due to the complexity of the project and trying to minimize the throw away costs when phase 2 is undertaken. Some features that were anticipated to be included in the future phase such as a portion of decorative street lighting, sections of storm sewers and the additional effort required to ensure these items, as well as the rest of the park,-were designed to allow for the easy development of phase 2 resulted in an additional $53,000 in project costs. One other item that needs to be addressed is that during the design process staff reached out to St. Mary's Cement to see if they would be able to assist with any of the stone required for the erosion control along the lake. Due to the type of limestone available in Bowmanville it was not suitable for the large armour stone but they were able to donate the necessary stone for the bedding under the armour stone which will be just over 1,900 tonnes and save the Municipality roughly $12,000. The Region of Durham is also participating in this project and will be funding $155,600 for the cost of a portion of the watermain improvements associated with the park development. Considering the high profile nature of this park, its importance to Clarington and it being one of the items that Clarington identified in its Strategic Plan, it is recommended that the park be constructed as tendered with no deletions. Due to past experiences on similar projects, a contingency amount of 2.5% is carried forward. Therefore, including other costs such as utility relocation, design and contract administration, material testing and permits, the Engineering Department advises of the following total project cost breakdown. 14-67 Poet Dar{ington *Eaerfroni Park Development, CI_2013-1? 3 September , 2.01:3 Construction (net of HST) $ 2,906,853.23 (Based on Low Bid) Other Costs (net of HST) and Contin encies $ 778,746.77 Total Project Value $ 3,685,600.00 Budget Amount Port Darlington Waterfront Park East Beach, 110-32-325-83406-7401 $ 3,000,000.00 Pavement Rehabilitation Program, 110-32-330-83212-7401 $ 100,000.00 Region of Durham, 110-X-X-X-1010 $ 155,600.00 Estimated Unexpended Budget $ 0.00 Additional Funding Required $ 430,000.00 It is recommended that the additional funding required for the completion of this project be provided from the following: Roads and Related Development Charges Reserve Fund $110,000.00 Unexpended Funds from Horsey Street Construction $320,000.00 (110-32-330-83274-7401) This project was identified in the Development Charges Background study as growth related so a portion of the financing has been recommended from Development Charges based on allowable financing splits. There are sufficient funds in this Reserve Fund to accommodate this. Horsey Street was completed in late 2011 with no additional costs expected and therefore it is recommended that the necessary funding noted above be release to fund the Waterfront Park. The additional funding will be directed to account 110-32-325- 83406-7401 for the park development. It.is also recommended that all unexpended funds from the 2008 Concession Road 8 (110-32-330-83337-7401) and Concession Road 7 (110-32-330-83339-7401) improvements, which are now complete, be transferred to the Pavement Rehabilitation account (110-32-330-83212-7401) for this and other road rehabilitation works. 14=68. Fort Darlmaton v/Vatedi,ont Perk Development, (.1.2013-1 ? Se.pte'mber '1, :0) We recommend that the Purchasing Department move forward with award of the contract based on the above apportionments. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Regards, , Ron Albright, P.Eng Manager, Infrastructure and Capital Works SB/sb/dv Pc: Nancy Taylor, Director of Finance A.S. Cannella, Director of Engineering Services Wk- Cove Rd F—I � � { Bast Beach Rd West Beach Ril? -L BOWMANVILLE Lake Ontario PORT DARLINGTON WATERFRONT PARK EAST BEACH PHASE 1 14-6.9 Clarington REPORT FINANCE Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: September 09, 2013 Resolution#: By-law#: Report#: FND-010-13 File#: Subject: , 2013/2014 INSURANCE PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report FND-010-13 be received; and 2. THAT the general insurance placement, in conjunction with the other member municipalities of the Durham Municipal Insurance Pool, with the Frank Cowan Company for an integrated pooling arrangement that includes integrated insurance coverages and common self retention deductible levels for the period July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014, at an approximate cost to Clarington of$994,937 be confirmed. Submitted by: >! Reviewed by: Nancy T l&,B ,C A,CA Franklin Wu, Director of Finance/Treasurer Chief Administrative Officer NT/hjl CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 15-1 REPORT NO.: FND-010-13 PAGE 2 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide an update to the General Purpose and Administration Committee regarding the status of the Municipality's insurance program. 1.2 This report also includes a review and update of the Durham Municipal Insurance Pool (DMIP), which is now entering its thirteenth year of successful operations. 1.3 Clarington is a founding member of the DMIP which was established to achieve financial savings by co-operatively purchasing insurance coverages with local and pool level deductibles and by implementing common risk management practices. The Pool protects participating municipalities from increasing insurance premium costs through an alternative risk-financing program with a higher single deductible and collectively self-insuring claims within that deductible. Clarington has held the position as Chair of the Board of the DMIP since its inception. 1.4 The Durham Municipal Insurance Pool (DMIP) was launched in July 2000 with the participation of the Town of Ajax, Town of Whitby, Municipality of Clarington, Township of Brock, Township of Scugog, Township of Uxbridge and the Region of Durham. 1.5 Member municipalities are provided with coverage in the areas of general liability, errors and omissions, auto liability and property insurance. The DMIP also provides municipal specific resources such as loss prevention programs, site audits and training. 2. 2013/2014 INSURANCE CONTRACT RENEWAL 2.1 Within the terms of the subscribers agreement, DMIP members agree to make a contribution sufficient enough to pay administration costs, expenses (including actuarial and audit), premiums, and a claim funding amount that is supported by full actuarial projections and analyses. 2.2 The DMIP has been able to position itself to minimize the impact of increases in insurance premiums paid to insurance companies related to property, casualty and liability coverages. 15-2 REPORT NO.: FND-010-13 PAGE 3 2.3 The insurance premium portion of the DMIP levy has remained stable over the last five years. By virtue of being part of an insurance pool, DMIP members avoid the unpredictable ups and downs (cycles) of the traditional insurance markets. In addition, rates, coverage and services are based solely on DMIP exposures. Industry experts anticipate that the trend is for Municipal Insurance premiums to continue to rise and experience upward pressures on rates through the remainder of 2013 and into 2014. 2.4 The increase for the 2013/2014 premium year for Clarington's contribution to the DMIP to cover insurance costs and necessary contributions to claims reserves is $120,534 or an 13.78% increase. This compares favourably to insurance cost increases facing neighbouring municipalities and Regions in the GTA in the range of 10% to 30%. 2.5 The Board of Directors of the Durham Municipal Insurance Pool (of which Clarington sits as Chair), has placed coverage with the Frank Cowan Company for an integrated pooling arrangement. 3. BENEFITS OF AN INSURANCE POOL 3.1 The main components of the structure of the DMIP arrangement are summarized as follows: • Each municipality retains their respective current local deductibles ranging from $5,000 to $100,000 (Clarington's deductibles are primarily $25,000); • The Pool self insures losses between these local deductibles and a per claim limit of$500,000 (on a group basis) for integrated coverages; • Under this structure, local municipalities are responsible for funding losses from $0 to their individual deductible amounts; • Between these local municipal deductibles and the pooled retention limit of $500,000, the seven members share the cost on a collective basis; and • Excess of a $500,000 per claim loss, the members purchase insurance from municipal insurers for protection on a collective basis against catastrophic claim losses. 15-3 REPORT NO.: FND-010-13 PAGE 4 3.2 There are a number of benefits to participation in an insurance pool including: • Control over impact of premium increases from third party insurers. Since the premiums paid to insurers form less than one-third of the total contributions paid by participating municipalities, annual percentage increases by those third party insurers are spread over a much smaller premium cost. • Since the pool self-insures a majority of claims and there is a significant time lag before claims are paid, the interest earned by DMIP holding funds that would have been paid to insurance companies upfront through premiums to cover claim costs, is retained by the DMIP rather than the insurers earning this interest. • Pool members have found that we can access risk management resources superior to those that individual municipalities could afford on their own. • The pool provides significant education and professional support to pool members. • There is greater control by DMIP member municipalities in the area of administration, governance and claims. • Members share in investment income as well as equity. The current surplus of approximately $5 million has been set aside and will be available to offset any future premium increases or fund higher deductible levels or address claims reserves. • Member municipalities no longer pay for external adjusting fees for the majority of claims. Over the past five years, approximately 3,500 pool claims did not require external adjusting fees that would have been an estimated average cost of$300 per file. • DMIP and member municipalities have instituted a proactive claims reporting process. This has resulted in early investigation of claims and establishment of reserves and can then result in an early resolution, thereby reducing overall claim costs. • Risk management services included presentations and seminars to staff of member municipalities, contract wording reviews (liability transfers, hold harmless agreements, insurance clauses in leases etc.), risk management software, and property valuations. These items come at a cost that would not normally be affordable for each individual municipality. 15-4 REPORT NO.: FND-010-13 PAGE 5 4. CONCURRENCE - Not applicable 5. CONCLUSION 5.1 Risk pooling is a long-term management strategy. It is not a "quick fix" for insurance pricing problems. The full benefits of participation in a risk pool are not fully realized for several years. The DMIP has now been in existence for a sufficient period of time that these benefits are being realized on an annual basis. 5.2 For the 2013/2014 year the Durham Municipal Insurance Pool has been successful in obtaining a reasonable insurance placement. Participation in the Durham Municipal Insurance Pool has provided a successful mechanism both to control insurance costs as well as promote risk management practices to reduce claims and protect against lawsuits. Therefore Clarington proceeded with the insurance placement in conjunction with the Durham Municipal Insurance Pool with the Frank Cowan Company, pursuant to our subscribers' agreement. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN The recommendations contained in this report conform to the general intent of the following priorities of the Strategic Plan: _ Promoting economic development X Maintaining financial stability _ Connecting Clarington Promoting green initiatives _ Investing in infrastructure Showcasing our community Not in conformity with Strategic Plan Staff Contact: Nancy Taylor, B.B.A., CPA, C.A., Director of Finance/Treasurer List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: None 15-5 Claiftymn REPORT FINANCE T Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: September 9, 2013 Resolution#: By-law#: Report#: FND-011-13 File#: Subject: TAX AREA ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report FND-011-13 be received; 2. THAT renovations to the Tax Area in the Finance Department be approved at an approximate cost of $175,000; and 3. THAT the accessibility renovations be financed from the following sources: General Municipal Reserve Fund- $100,000 General Capital Reserve- $50,000 (new); and General Capital Reserve- $25,000 (already committed). 0 1 C-0 r Submitted by: 1 �% Reviewed by: Nancy T y or, 13 PA,CA, Franklin Wu, Director of Finance/Treasurer Chief Administrative Officer NT/hjl CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 15-6 REPORT NO.: FND-011-13 PAGE 2 1. BACKGROUND 1.0 As Council has observed, the configuration of the tax area is currently based on a raised floor design with custom millwork workstations and plexi- glass/steel barriers between the public and the tax customer service staff. The existing configuration is based on an "L" shaped area with wickets wrapping around the north and east. Several of the tax customer service wickets are located behind the general customer service reception desk, creating difficulty with customer line-ups and visibility. 1.1 The tax counter had been redesigned with security in mind years prior to the current identified need to address accessibility issues. The philosophy at the time was actually extremely different due to the climate at the time whereby customer service areas dealing with a large volume of payments were designed to be imposing and to clearly separate the "cashiers" from the public. While security features are still necessary, there are other options to ensure security without sacrificing accessibility and customer service. 1.2 As Council is aware, the tax customer service area serves the greatest number of clients in the Municipal Administrative Centre and yet provides very poor visibility and accessibility to clients. Those with any physical limitations have a great deal of difficulty navigating the current setup and are in many cases, not visible to the open customer service staff. Once they have made it to the wicket, they are faced with high counters and very limited counter space to assist them in the necessary activities to transact their business with the tax staff. 1.3 Also, due to the "L" shaped design, there are often lineups at the north side and a client entering the building from the south entrance will walk directly to the first available wicket on the east side, entirely circumventing the lineup process to the great frustration of those who have patiently waited. It is very difficult for customers to determine which wicket is open. 2. OTHER CONCERNS 2.0 Because of a series of violent incidences in the Municipal tax environment province wide, the area was redesigned approximately 15 years ago. As mentioned above, the professional recommendations at the time, including architects, auditor recommendations and bank design were to incorporate height into the design to the greatest extent possible. As a result, the floor is raised, but also the individual workstations are higher than the normal work surface height and other somewhat awkward configuration exists. 2.1 As a result, there is currently a WSIB issue directly related to the poor design of the area from an ergonomic perspective. Temporary accommodation is 15-7 REPORT NO.: FND-011-13 PAGE 3 being employed but cannot reasonably be continued for an indefinite period of time due to the impact upon customer service. 2.2 The problems with the tax counter area have been more pronounced as time goes by. Also, timing with construction is a critical concern for the department. Large portions of the year are not feasible from a construction standpoint due to installment due dates. The area must be open to the public during all major due dates in order to accommodate the volume of customers served. The due dates cannot be modified to any degree as the public understanding and awareness of these dates are widespread and any deviation will cause widespread confusion and potential difficulty with late payment charges. 2.3 The most favourable construction window is October to December. The area would be completely shut down for an approximate four week window when alternate temporary relocation in the Municipal Administrative Centre will be determined. At least 10 staff would be impacted during this time period. 2.4 A proposed design and engineering drawings have been underway through a local architect as this component is well below the requirements under the purchasing by-law. The proposed design would shift the tax customer service wickets entirely to the north and the accounting workstations would be relocated to the east and south sections of the tax area. The floor would be lowered back to the normal elevation. The wickets would be designed to provide wheelchair access for the public. 3. ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS 3.1 The goal of the design is to upgrade the existing areas to provide compliance with Section 3.8 of the Ontario Building Code Act as amended January 2012 and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). The principle goal is to improve accessibility for the general public at the tax customer service counter and for staff with physical limitations. Once the drawings are available, the Accessibility Advisory Committee will undertake a review of them to ensure compliance with the AODA. 4. CONCURRENCE - Not applicable 15-8 REPORT NO.: FND-011-13 PAGE 4 5. CONCLUSION 5.1 Subject to Council's approval, a tender for the construction will be issued immediately in order to try to meet the construction window, likely November/December 2013. The estimate cost for the completion of the project is $175,000. 5.2 Approximately $25,000 is currently set aside in the General Capital Reserve that can be utilized for this project. It is recommended that an additional $50,000 of funding be provided from this reserve with the balance of the $100,000 recommended to be financed from the General Municipal Reserve Fund. 5.3 This project represents a significant opportunity to improve accessibility at the customer service area serving the greatest number of clients and the public at the Municipal Administrative Centre. It addresses significant current problems and is recommended at this time due to the difficult construction window timeframes encountered when levels of customer service must be maintained. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN The recommendations contained in this report conform to the general intent of the following priorities of the Strategic Plan: (Place an "X" in the box for all that apply) Promoting economic development Maintaining financial stability Connecting Clarington Promoting green initiatives X Investing in infrastructure Showcasing our community Not in conformity with Strategic Plan Staff Contact: Nancy Taylor, B.B.A., CPA, CA, Director of Finance/Treasurer Attachments: None List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Clarington Accessibility Advisory Committee 15-9 Clarftwn REPORT FINANCE THE Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: September 9, 2013 Resolution#: By-law#: Report#: FND-012-13 File#: Subject: FINANCIAL UPDATE AS AT JUNE 30, 2013 RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report FND-012-13 be received for information. Submitted by: ��1 G` Reviewed by: Nancy ay or, BA, CPA, CA Franklin Wu, Director of Finance/Treasurer Chief Administrative Officer NT/CC/hjl CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 15-10 REPORT NO.: FND-012-13 PAGE 2 1.0 BACKGROUND AND COMMENT 1.1 The financial update report has been designed to focus on overall budget variance reporting. 2.0 SECOND QUARTER OF 2013 RESULTS 2.1 Attachment "A", the Summary of Operating Expenditures and Revenue statement compares the Municipality's budget to actual posted expenditures as of June 30, 2013. The statement reflects the Municipality's operating budget only and excludes year to date expenditures for the consolidated hall/arena boards. Net year to date expenditures as of June 30, 2013 totaled $27,888,276, which represents 58.4% of the total 2013 budget. 2.2 Attachment "A" is intended to provide an indication of the status of the Municipality's operating accounts compared to the approved budget as at June 30, 2013. Many departments are affected by high levels of activity during specific times of the year. For example, some activities are seasonal in nature, such as ice rentals and winter control, which result in a fluctuation of the timing of recognition of revenue and expenses. The budget is allocated monthly based on the 2012 actual monthly distribution. In cases where there is no prior year history, the monthly budget allocation is divided equally over the 12 months. While this is best method available to be reflective of seasonal trends, there may be some variations from year to year. Due to these timing differences, this statement cannot be used in isolation. 2.3 As a whole, the operating budget is overall on target. As of June 30, 2013 the net year to date expenditures are at 91.7% of the second quarter budget. Some of the variances can be attributed to the timing differences in revenue and expenditures between 2013 and 2012. With the second quarter budget comparisons, revenues and expenditures tend to smooth out. However, it is best not to extrapolate the figures and percentages to future quarters. 2.4 Overall, the operating budget is on target for the Mayor and Council as well as the CAO's office. The Mayor and Council expenditures are 88.5% of second quarter 2013 budget. The CAD's office is at 95.7% of the second quarter 2013 budget. 2.5 As of June 30, the Legal net expenditures are on target at 100.4% of the second quarter 2013 budget. Planning agreement fee revenue continues to be higher than budgeted as of June 30, 2013. There is also a timing difference between recoverable expenses and invoicing for these charges. 15-11 REPORT NO.: FND-012-13 PAGE 3 2.6 Corporate Services are in line with the second quarter budget at 95.4%. As of June 30, revenues are lower than budgeted at 80.2% of the second quarter budget. However, this is due in part to a timing difference in advertising revenues when compared to 2012. In July 2013 there are significant advertising revenues posted which bring the revenue in line with the 2012 amounts. Expenditures are below the second quarter budget at 94.9%. The significant differences are related to a staff absence as well as a timing difference for IT hardware and software maintenance costs. Advertising costs are higher when compared to last year. 2.7 As of June 30, 2013, the Clerk's department net expenditures are at 110.5%. If the parking meter revenue and the transfers to the Reserve Funds are removed from the calculation, the Clerks revenue is at 57.8% of the second quarter 2013 budget and expenditures are at 83.6%. The lower revenue to budget as of the second quarter is due to the timing differences from year to year in the Wildlife Damage Compensation program. There is not a consistent trend in the claims and there can be great variation year to year. Animal licenses are below budget as of June 30 but are at 44.7% of the total budget. Overall, cemetery plot sales are over the current YTD budget as of the second quarter. There have been some savings in wages as of June 30 in Animal Services, Parking Enforcement and Municipal Law Enforcement due to parental and sick leaves as well as other staff changes. 2.8 The Finance net expenditures are at 100.1% as of the second quarter 2013 budget. The Finance revenues are higher than the second quarter budget at 122.5% as of June 30, 2013. This is due to the higher than budget amount of the fines and penalties on taxes. The year to date figure of June 30, 2013 ($746,7118) is higher than budgeted for the second quarter ($591,447) but are slightly lower than the 2012 interest and penalties ($789,952). This is a reflection of the continuing success of the collection of outstanding taxes. The increase in Unclassified Administration expenditures is due to higher insurance costs and tax write offs due to the timing of ARB decisions (multiple years) on commercial properties as noted in the first quarter report. 2.9 The Emergency Services net expenditures are within budget with the second quarter 2013 budget figures. As of June 30, 2013 year to date net expenditures represents 91.3% of the related budget. Revenues are above budget due to the timing of revenues from OPG relating to Joint Community Fire Safety as posted in the first quarter. 2.10 The Engineering Department net expenditures are 97.1% of the second quarter 2013 budget. Reduced revenues in the second quarter are due to the decrease 15-12 REPORT NO.: FND-012-13 PAGE 4 in building permit revenues compared to the same period in the previous year. Currently building permit revenue is at 47.2% of the 2013 budget. This can be attributed to a decline in residential building permits. Expenditures in the second quarter are at 102.2%. If the transfer of the Engineering and Inspection Fees are excluded from the calculation as it is ongoing transfer to the Reserve Fund, the net expenditures remain the same and the revenues and expenditures are 88.7% and 95.2% respectively. 2.11 The Operations Department net expenditures are 90.9% of the second quarter 2013 budgeted amount. The Fleet expenditures are currently below the budgeted amount. It is important to note that most adjustments to these accounts are made at year-end. As of the second quarter, Operation revenues are lower as we have only received waste transfer royalties up to March 2013. Also revenue for winter maintenance in subdivisions is comparable the same time last year at 53.8% of the total 2013, budget. However, the timing of the budget allocation is higher in the first half thereby showing a revenue budget variance. This should be smoothed out over the next quarter. Operation expenditures are in line with the second quarter budget at 92.1% which is similar to the previous year at 96.4% of the second quarter budget. 2.12 Community Services net expenditures are 86.6% of the second quarter 2013 budget. Revenues are at 103.7% and total expenditures are at 91.6% as of June 30, 2013. Overall, there is a varied increase in Community Services revenues. Similar to the first quarter, program revenues: aquatic, fitness and children's' camp, are higher than the second quarter budget amount. Rental revenues are slightly lower than previous years with the notable exception of Darlington Sports Complex ice rentals that increased over previous year. In general, the quarterly trends in budget are consistent in Community Services revenues and expenditures. Operating expenditures are at 92.1% of the second quarter budget comparable to the previous year at 91.2%. 2.13 The Planning Department net expenditures as of June 30, 2013 are 95.2% of the 2013 second quarter budget. The expenditures are in line with the budget as of June 30, 2013 at 96.3%. Overall, Planning revenue is slightly higher than the second quarter budget. The higher revenue in the first quarter (229% in the first quarterly report) has now smoothed out over the six months. Planning expenditures are generally below the second quarterly budget. There are some savings due to staffing leaves. 2.14 The Board and Agencies include the Library, Museum and Visual Arts Centre. These expenditures are in line with the budget. In the second quarter, the Library received funds for a computer system update. These funds had been set 15-13 REPORT NO.: FND-012-13 PAGE 5 aside in previous years in the Library Computer Equipment Reserve Fund. The entry is posted to the Library account and the offsetting transfer from the Reserve Fund is posted in the 05 Non-Department Accounts. 2.15 Attachment "B", Continuity of Taxes Receivable for the six months ending June 30, 2013 provides the status of the taxes billed and collected by the Municipality of Clarington during the second quarter of 2013. A total of$34,674,118 in interim tax bills and $31,022,865 in final tax bills were issued to property owners in the Municipality during this period. At the end of June 2013, a total of $12,569,751 remains unpaid compared to June 2012 taxes receivable of $14,513,651. The net balance is $1,943,900 lower or 13.4% lower than the prior year at this time. This is a significant improvement compared to the second quarter of 2012. This can be mainly attributed to the finalization of the commercial property sale in tax arrears as discussed in a previous memo in December 2012. In addition, another factor as mentioned in FND-008-13 Financial Update First Quarter 2013 is the increase in tax write offs due to the timing of ARB decisions on commercial properties in the first quarter. Ongoing collection efforts are showing success. 2.16 Attachment "C", Investments Outstanding as of June 30, 2013 provides the status of the Municipality's general, capital and reserve fund investment holdings at the end of the second quarter in 2013. The Municipality at June 30, 2013 holds $0 in general fund investments, $0 in capital fund investments, $8,674,099 in Development Charge reserve fund investments and $47,359,323.03 in reserve fund investments to fund future commitments. General fund investments are short term in nature and timed to mature when funds will be required. Investments held in the Municipality's portfolio are assessed on an ongoing basis to ensure they meet the requirements of Section 418 on the Ontario Municipal Act, Ontario Regulation 438/97 and the Municipality's investment policy. Currently, general fund investments are held in the Municipality's general bank account as the interest rate on the account is more favourable than money market instruments because of current economic conditions that are likely to continue for some time. The short-term interest rates and the current cash flow needs are reviewed on a regular basis. Added to the report are the Development Charge investments with the One Fund. The One Fund Investment Program is a pooled investment program for municipalities. It is operated by LAS and CHUMS Financing Corporation which are subsidiaries of AMO and MFOA. 2.17 Attachment "D", Debenture Repayment Schedule provides the status of the Municipality's long-term obligations as of January 1, 2013. The Municipality has $21,839,480.59 in outstanding debt as of January 1, 2013 and debt repayment obligations of$3,405,690.41 for 2013 as reflected in the 2013 budget. The 15-14 REPORT NO.: FND-012-13 PAGE 6 annual principal and interest payments required to service these liabilities are well within the annual debt repayment limits prescribed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 2.18 Attachment "E", Municipal Development Charges as of June 30, 2013 provides the total Municipal development charges collected of$3,045,252.07. In the 2010 Development Charges Background Study, it was forecasted that the municipality would be collecting approximately 854 residential units total for 2013 or approximately 71 units per month. The year to date figure for the second quarter in 2013, there were 198 units. 2.19 Analyzing the number of units issued in the second quarter of 2013, there was a decrease of 31% compared to the same quarter in 2012. Comparing the total dollars collected as of June 30, 2013 to the same time in 2012, there was a decrease of 31% in municipal development charges collected. 3.0 CONCURRENCE — not applicable 4.0 CONCLUSION 4.1 The report is provided as information to Council. Ongoing reports will be provided quarterly. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — The recommendations contained in this report conform to the general intent of the following priorities of the Strategic Plan: _ Promoting economic development X Maintaining financial stability Connecting Clarington Promoting green initiatives Investing in infrastructure _ Showcasing our community _ Not in conformity with Strategic Plan Staff Contact: Nancy Taylor, B.B.A., C.A., Director of Finance/Treasurer Attachments: Attachment "A": Summary of Operating and Expenditure and Revenue Attachment "B": Continuity of Taxes Receivable Attachment "C": Investments Outstanding Attachment "D": Debenture Repayment Schedule Attachment "E": Municipal Development Charges 15-15 THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON ATTACHMENT"A" SUMMARY OF OPERATING EXPENDITURES 8,REVENUES FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDING JUNE 30,2013 2013; 20`13i 2013 YTD 2013 YTD 2012 2012 2012 YTD 2013 Qtr 2j 2013 Qtr 2{ Quarter 2013! 2013 Budget YTD Actual YTD Unexpended($) %Expended Budget YTD Actual YTD Unexpended$ YTD Budget YTD Actuals / Expended Total Budget /of Annual _... .. __ . ......... __ . 05 NON-DEPT'L ACCTS ! Budget Spent ......_. _ .. I _ Revenue/Recoveries (2,735 721). (3,276,351) 540,630 1 119.8% (1,701,576) (3,224,132) 1,522,556 (2,690,147) (3,199 878)i 118.9% (6 894 007) 47.5 Expenditures 184,500 1 184,500 0 100.0% 184,500 184,500 0 0 _.. _. 0 0.0% 210,769 87.5 Net Expenditures (2,551221)! (3,091,851)] 540,630 121.2% ..(1,517;076) (3,039,632 1,522,556 _..__..... ..........._ ..... .___ ) (2,690,147); (3,199,878); 118.9% (6,683,238) 46.3% ..___.__....-_._._._._..._..........................._........._..... .................._..... ..................... _.__.____....;.........._._..........._......._....... ......... ........ _....................... ._.__.....'._._.__._.._...__..._........?......................................................... ........... ............ ._. ............ 10 MAYOR&COUNCIL Net Expenditures 446,182; 395,035 1 51,147 88.5% 435,002 390,088 44,914 212,124( 184,486 I 86.97% 870,733 45.4% p 13 ADMINISTRATORS OFFICE _..I{. .._.._._..._. i _._____.._ _............. Net Expenditures 295,833 1 283,152 12,681 95.7% 225,003 235,040 (10,037) 140,252; 135,827 96.8% 598,176 47.3 .._....._.. 14 LEGAL ADMIN - _.._..._.._ _.... _ _.....-.. } (19,653) - - .,..__ ..... Revenue/Recoveries (20 045) ___...__(31,267) .11,222 156 0/0„ (69,309 (69,656 11,672 ._.. ...... ) ( ) (19 016) 162.9% (128,000)1 24.4% Expenditures 247,302 259,439 ; (12,137)) 104.9% '248,049 264,149 . 16,100 146,767 152,647 104.0% 532,086 !: 48.8% _.. _ _ Net Expenditures 227,257 228,172 (915) 100.4% 158,740 244,496 (85,756) 135,095 133,631 p 98.9% 404,088 56.5 _. _ .. ...._ 16 CORPORATE SERVICES_ _....__ .___ i _._._-_..__ __._. . _ ................... ......._.. _........_.. ....._._.. .........................'_...............................:...................._...... .._ .............. .... ._.----- .................. Revendituecovenes (66579) {53,410) (13,169): 80.2% {56,497) (72,602) 16;105 (19,116)i (2350) 12.3% (96,500) 55.3% _. _. .___ _ -._.. Ex endrtures 2,238,906 2,125,387 113,519 . 94.9% 2,203,071 2,D84,637 118,434 1,105,839 1,130237.; 102.2°/ 4,366,498 48.7% P --------. ...-- -------. __.._.__..._....__..._.....__.,....._......................................__1........................__._...... Net Expenditures 2,172,327 2,071,977 100,350 954/ 2,146,574 2,012,035 134,539 1,086,7231 1,127,887 103.8% 4269998 48.5% 19 CLERKS ................................._...._.................................................._.......... ._._..__................. ....... ..... ..... ) ) RevenuelRecovenes (451 070); (302 899) {148 171) 67 2% (331,803 392,425 60,622 (188,493)] (205 315) 108.9% (738,600) 41.0% ...._._........ ... . ......._. Expenditures 1,444,766 : 1,400,568 44,198 96.9% 1,218,863 `. 1,251,573 (32,710) 762,682! 882,889 j' 115.8% 2859,195: 49.0% Net Expenditures 993,696 ! 1,097,669 (103,973)' 110.5% 887;060 859,148 : 27,912 574,189 `s 677,574± 118.0% 2,120,595 51.8 .... .... 21 FINANCE&UNCLASS.ADMIN .................. ..._...__... ..._.._.ri __ ....... ._......- ._ ... ................................................. .h......_. Revenue/Recoveries (766,783) (939,122) 172,339 122 5/ (731,106) (966,042) 234,936 (421,145): (488 999) 116.1% (1,567,000)'. 59.9% Unclassified Admin&Board of T 1,235 169 1,504,395 269,226 121.8% 748,456 1,103,153 (35 695,977 4,697) 520,091 133.8% 2,217,200 : 67.9% ....._... .... _--- --- _...... _ _ Operating Expenditures 1,132,379 1,037,426 94,953 91.6% 1,029,867 1,019,246 10,621 530,109 508,837 96.0% - ' 2,201,99-- Expenditures 2,367,548 2,541,821 (1(4273) 107.4% 47.1 177833 2;122,399 {344,076) 1,050,200 1,204,814 114.7% 4,419,193 57.5 % Net Expenditures 1,600,765 1,602,69 1,934 100.1% 1,047,217 ; 1,156,357-) (109,140) 629,055 ; 715,815 I 113.8% 2,852,193 56.2 W_..,.... _. _ __.. _. .........._. 28 EMERGENCY SERVICES-FIRE n (2q 981 1r Revenue/Recoveries (11,749): (30947)1 19,198 2634/ (10,84 ' ........� �� � 148.08% -" . ._ _ _... _.2 1,134 6,629 9 816 1 (49 000 j 63.2 Expenditures 5,413,112 4,964,752 ! 448,360 91.7% 5,108,536 4,794,677, 313,859 2,790,498 2,735333 98.02% 10,364,679 j 47.9% Net Expenditures 5,401,363 1 4,933,805 467,558 91.3% 5,097,689 4,772,696 L 3241993 2,783,869 2,725,517!; 97.90% 10,315,679 47.8% 0 D o 3 .� m -n r� Cn pD M o N W V1 1 THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON ATTACHMENT"A" SUMMARY OF OPERATING EXPENDITURES&REVENUES FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDING JUNE 30,2013 2013! 20131 2013 YTD° 2013 YTD 2012: 2032 2012 YTD 2013 Qtr 2� 2013 Qtr 2G Quarter 2013! 2013 Budget YTD' - Actual YTD Unexpended($)i' %Expended Budget YTD Actual YTO .Unexp _." g YTD Actuals %Expended Total Budged %of Annual _...__. _ ....... _ ended$ YTD Bud et _ ....._........._ _...... v__.._...._....... Budget Spent _................_.........._...._.. --- -.. .--- .... .............._.. _._.._.._ _...; --- --... .. N......._...._........_.. .__ s 32 ENGINEERING SERVICES """"'- - RevenuelRecoveries (871 542)' (1 039 488) 167,946 1 119.3/ 550,712 1,144,143 583,431 - ""' _.. .. .. ....i__ ......._.._. .. __ ( ) { ) (460,886). (710448)L..T_.._._154.1%._ _..(1,559 050) 66.7% Expenditures 3,770,078 I 3,853,438 (83,360) 102.2% 3,609,959 3,481;634. 128,325 2,890,026 i" 3,076,947' 106.5% 5,475,757, 70.4% NetExpenditures 2,898,536 2,813,950' 84,586 97.1% :3,049,247 2,337,491..: 711,758 2,429,1401 2,366,499:1 97.4% 3,916,707 71.8% t 36 OPERATIONS ....... _._.._.._.._...._. _ _..A__. .._..... ).. (116,935 180 567 . .. G - RevenuelRecoveries (286,569)1 (235,339) (51 230 82.1% ) . ( )" 3,632 (208,580) (185,319)li 88.8% (543,665): 43.3% _ __.. Operating Expenditures 7,038,365 6,617,534 420 831 94.0/ 6,591;501 6;355 915 236,385 3 617,270 i 3,697,594 102.2% 13,337,745: 49.6% - W.... _.... ._. ...__. - ,_._. .__._....._. -- ._............................. _._ __._..._ .._.._1.Fleet&Debenture Payment 605,618 307,697' 297,921 50.8% 497,327 297,412 199;915 250,196` o 32,g j 259,269+ 103.6% 935,055' Expenditures 7,643,983 i 6,925,231 718,752 90.6% 7,088"828 6,652,527 436,301 3,867,466 ; 3,956,863 s 102.3% 14,272,800 46.5° Net Expenditures 7,357,414; 6,689,892 i 667,522 90.9% 6,971,893 6,471,960;,'" 499,933 3,658,886 M1 3,771,544 103.1% 13,729,135 48.7% . ........... ... ............J................................._..... .........._ ....... ...... ...... is 42 COMMUNITY SERVICES RevenuelRecovenes (2 396 615) (2,485,893)` 89 278 1 103.7% (2,365;130) (2;321,835) ." (43,295) (805,838)1 835,039)` 103.6% (4,555,570) 54.6 Operating Expenditures 4 819 163 4 437 584.� 381,5761 92.1% 4,641;077 4,233,898 407;179 2,489,517 2 389 856 96.0%" -9,471 148 -46.9%" Annual Grants&Debenture Pa men 3,329,010 3,029,213 299,797 91.0% 3,117,005" . 3,117,005 0 60,000 ' 53,250 i 83.B% 3,329,010 91.0% Expenditures 8,148,173 7,466,797 1 681,376 91.6% 7,758,082 7,350,903 407,179 2,549,517 f 2,443,106 I 95.8% 12,800,158 58.3% l o - 60.4% Net Expenditures 5,751,558 ; 4,980,904 770,654; 86.6/ 5,392 952 5,029,068 363,884 1,743,679 1,608,067 4 92.2% 8,244,588 _..._.........._............. . ._ . _..... .... .__......_ ......._......L..:................._.................... .... ..._....... ....._._... '_......................_... ... ............._........... 50 PLANNING SERVICES - ._ .... ..__ �...__ ..__ (.. ) ( ) ( ) Revenue/Recoveries 214,668 231,466 16798 107.8/ 208,523' 349,205 140,682 167,861 (124454) 74.1% (467500). 49.5% _.. ... Ex endrtures - - _._.._ ....... - . .. _ 2,277,218 2,193,960 i 83,258 96.3% 2,297,204 2,238,344' 58,860 1,433,083 1,438,289 100.4% 3,797,152 57 8 0 NetExpenditures 2,062,550 ; 1,962,494 100,056 t 95.1% 2,088,681 1;889,139 199,542 1,265,222 I 1,313,835( 103.8% 3,329,652 58.9% li . .. ... .._....... .................�..._......... ......_.....__._...................................._.+..._..._......._... ....... ........._........_.......__�...... ..... .. BOARDS&AGENCIES __. A......_................. I: o ° Net Board&External Agencies 3,744,7651 3,920,3781 175,613•` 104.7/ 3,603,433 3,604,409 976 1,155,588'1 1,331,460) 115.2% 3,749,490' 104.6% _ ..........................._......_......_....__.._._�_.._...........................__...._.__...._........................_......... . TOTAL OPERATING: - (6,692.585 2,520, °... . .( ) _... Expend tuurresoveries 38,222,366 36 514,458 1,707 908 i ......._._.... 73 18,104,042 18,672,898 103.1% 64,316,688 56.81/6 Net Operating Expenditures 30,401,025 27,888,276 I 2,512,749 ( 91.7% 29,586,415 25,962,295:: ":3;624,120 13,123,675 12,892,264 98.241/. 47,717,796 2 of 2 Attachment "B" to Report FND-012-13 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON Continuity of Taxes Receivable for the Second Quarter of the Year 2013 March 31,2013 JUNE JUNE BEGINNING BALANCE INTEREST TAXES PAYMENTS/ 2013 2012 RECEIVABLE ADDED BILLED BALANCE ADJUST.- CURRENT YEAR TAXES . (5,364,281) 65,696,983 60,332,702 (52,396,462) 7,936,240 7,771,411 PENALTY AND INTEREST 25,926 175,044 200,970 107,029 93,941 99,393 FIRST PRIOR YEAR TAXES 4,462,498 - 4,462,498 (1,280,860) 3,181,638 4,081,032 PENALTY AND INTEREST 245,645 148,754 394,399 182,891 211,508 288,583 SECOND PRIOR YEAR TAXES 1,584,399 - 1,584,399 (749,500) 834,899 1,375,878 PENALTY AND INTEREST 166,537 45,912 212,449 127,833 84,615 143,356 THIRD&PRIOR YEARS TAXES 852,031 - 852,031 (683,104) 168,927 629,016 PENALTY AND INTEREST 248,917 15,329 - 264,246 206,263 57,983 124,983 SUB-TOTAL 2,221,671 385,039 65,696,983 68,039,447 55,527,679 12,569,751 14,513,651 ITOTAL 2,221,671 385,039 65,696,983 1 68,039,447 (55,527,679)1 12,569,751 1 14,513,651 *** Includes refunds,write-offs,357's,etc. NOTES: 2013 Interim Instalment months: February and April 2013 Final Instalment months: June and September for non-capped classes 15-18 Attachment "C" CORPORATION OF MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON to Report FND-012-13 INVESTMENTS OUTSTANDING As at June 30,2013 ORIGINAL ISSUER OF TYPE OF PURCHASE FUND COST OF INTEREST MATURITY MATURITY INVESTMENT IfNVESTMENTI DATE I I INVESTMENT I RATE DATE AMOUNT GENERALFUND TOTAL GENERAL FUND CAPITAL FUND TOTAL CAPITAL FUND NON DEV.CHARGE MONIES BNS GIC 30-Jul-09 R/F 2,060,630.00 3.10% 30-JUI-13 2,328,277.00 TD GIC 28-May-13 RJF 2,000,000.00 1.40% 26-Aug-13 2,006,904.11 RBC GIC 30-Sep-08 R/F 946,770.00 4.40% 30-Sep-13 1,174,213.00 RBC GIC 14-Oct-08 R/F 574,200.00 4.30% 15-Oct-13 598,890.60 (B) ING GIC 03-Dec-12 R/F 759,557.00 1.65% 03-Dec-13 772,089.97 BNS GIC 16-Dec-08 R/F 1,338,742.00 4.15% 16-Dec-13 1,640,564.30 BMO GIC 07-Mar-11 R/F 1,000,000.00 2.75% 09-Mar-14 1,084,790.00 RBC GIC 15-Mar-11 RIF 1,672,368.00 2.65% 17-Mar-14 1,808,875.64 (B) Laurentian GIC 02-May-12 R/F 1,000,000.00 2.15% 02-May-14 1,043,462.25 BNS GIC 17-Aug-09 R/F 1,600,000.00 3.20% 17-Aug-14 1,893,626.00 (B) BMO GIC 12-Sep-11 R/F 983,080.00 1.80% 12-Sep-14 1,037,127.61 Manulife Bank GIC 20-Sep-11 R/F 742,599.00 2.05% 22-Sep-14 789,211.47 PROV ONTARIO STRIP BOND 05-Aug-09 R/F 999,807.77 3.35% 02-Dec-14 1,191,382.00 BMO GIC 07-Dec-10 R/F 1,000,000.00 2.60% 08-Dec-14 1,013,000.00 (A) BNS GIC 01-Jun-12 R/F 1,500,632.00 2.35% 01-Jun-15 1,608,632.21 (B) BMO GIC 26-Sep-11 R/F 624,188.00 2.00% 28-Sep-15 675,641.17 RBC GIC 07-Dec-11 R/F 1,922,733.00 2.35% 07-Dec-15 2,109,941.00 RBC GIC 07-Dec-11 R/F 1,976,951.00 2.35% 07-Dec-15 2,169,438.00 BMO cou ons 15-Mar-12 R/F 176,636.37 2.54% 28-Mar-16 195,351.00 ING GIC 02-May-13 R/F 1,001,980.00 1.90% 02-May-16 1,060,184.88 Manulife Bank GIC 20-Sep-11 R/F 2,000,000.00 2.60% 20-Sep-16 2,273,876.11 BMO coupons 15-Mar-12 R/F 213,067.68 2.61% 28-Sep-16 239,375.00 ING GIC 01-Oct-12 'R/F 1,819,048.00 2.35% 03-Oct-16 1,996,160.91 Manulife Bank GIC 02-Dec-11. R/F 2,000,000.00 2.71% 02-Dec-16 2,286,091.67 Manulife Bank GIC 19-Mar-12 R/F 1,693,000.00 2.88% 19-Mar-17 1,951,224.70 BMO coupons 15-Mar-12 R/F 159,396.18 2.86% 28-Mar-17 183,615.00 RBC GIC 01-Ma -13 R/F 1,000,000.00 2.10% 01 Ma -17 1,086,683.24 BMO coupons 15-Mar-12 R/F 196,287.25 2.92% 28-Sep-17 230,141.00 CWB GIC 01-Oct-12 R/F 3,500,000.00 2.55% 01-Oct-17 3,969,596.54 BNS GIC 30-Oct-12 R/F 1,884,365.00 2.50% 30-Oct-17 2,131,986.04 HSBC GIC 21-Dec-12 R/F 1,121,354.00 2.40% 21-Dec-17 1,262,352.30 National Bank GIC 08-Jan-13 R/F 1,900,503.00 2.40% 08-Jan-18 2,139,776.15 National Bank GIC 12-Feb-13 R/F 1,927,464.00 2.45% 12-Feb-18 2,175,434.89 National Bank GIC 04-Mar-13 R/F 741,320,00 2.45% 05-Mar-18 836,748.00 ING GIC 25-Mar-13 R/F 1,254,427.00 2.40% 26-Mar-18 1,412,449.93 HSBC GIC 13-May-13 R/F 321,079.00 2.25% 14-May-18 358,862.84 BNS GIC 03-Jun-10 R/F 1,499,069.00 2.30% 03-Jun-18 1,679,576.51 Prov NB coupons 27-Jun-13 R/F 248,068.78 2.59% 03-Dec-18 285,071.00 47,359,323.03 52,700,624.04 DEV.CHARGE FUNDS BNS IGIC I 20-Dec-12 I R/F 1 3,000,000.00 T 1.50% 20-Dec-13 1 3,048,000.00 BMO IGIC I 20-Dec-12 R/F 1,645,027.00 1.451 20-Dec-13 1,668,879.89 One Fund Equity 31-Jan-07 R/F 500,000.00 500,000.00 One Fund jBond I 08-Aug-00 R/F 3,529,072.27 3,529,072.27 8,674,099.27 8,745,952.16 TOTAL INVESTMENTS $ 56 033,422.30 $ 61 446,576 20 Note that interest on GICs is annual compounding with the exception of the following. (A)Interest is paid semi-annually (B)Interest is paid annually 15-19 Attachment "D" to Report FND-012-13 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON Debenture Repayment Schedule As of January 1,2013 Year South Courtice Indoor Soccer/ RRC Newcastle Newcastle Total Arena Lacrosse CCD Space Library Aquatic 2013 1,077,778.50 335,427.00 107,074.68 104,042.98 1,781,367.25 3,405,690.41 2014 1,081,988.50 1,761,015,00 107,074.68 103,480.98 1,783,101.25 4,836,660.41 2015 1,083,940.50 107,074.68 103,677.48 1,784,674.00 3,079,366.66 2016 1,083,562.50 107,074.68 103,575.48 1,785,231.50 3,079,444.16 2017 1,080,782.50 107,074.68 104,194.48 1,785,285.25 3,077,336.91 2018 107,074.68 556,507.98 1,784,635.50 2,448,218.16 2019 107,074.68 1,784,054.75 1,891,129.43 2020 107,074.68 1,629,375.00 1,736,449.68 2021 53,537.34 1,071,000.00 1,124,537.34 2022 1,023,750.00 2023+ 5,408,052.50 2,096,442.00 910,134.78 1,075,479.38 16,212,474.50 25,702,583.16 Principal at Jan 1/2013 5,105,000.00 1,902,000.00 764,480.59 861,000.00 13,207,000.00 21,839,480.59 Principal at Jan 1/2014 4,120,000.00 1,670,000.00 695,677.76 800,000.00 12,002,000.00 19,287,677.76 Interest Rates 1.55%to 2.30% 5.25%to 5.45% 5.12% 3.9%to 5.2% 4.3%to 4.75% NOTES: (A) 2013 changed to accrual basis for interest. Total budget is$3,405,690.41+297,496.09-330,440.87=$3,372,745.64 (B) 2014 and 2018 each require renewal of debentures for a further 5 year period unless funding is available from other sources. Partial funding at those times would reduce debenture burden for following 5 year period. 15-20 Attachment "E" to Report FND-012-13 MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES MONTH OF JUNE 2013 2012 MUNICIPAL NUMBER MUNICIPAL NUMBER %CHANGE OF UNIT TYPE DEV.CHARGES PAID OF UNITS DEV. CHARGES PAID OF UNITS DEV.CHGS 2013-2012 Single/Semi- Detached -New construction $ 558,648.00 36 $ 685,980.00 47 -Additions $ - 0 $ - 0 Townhouse $ 270,340.00 20 $ 292,116.00 22 Apartment $ - 0 $ - 0 Commercial $ 50,942.18 2 $ 209,862.50 3 Agricultural $ - 0 $ - 0 Government $ - 0 $ - 0 Institutional $ - 0 $ - 0 Industrial $ - 0 $ - 0 TOTAL $ 879,930.18 58 $ 1,187,958.50 72 -25.9% MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES JANUARY TO JUNE -YEAR TO DATE 2013 2012 MUNICIPAL NUMBER MUNICIPAL NUMBER %CHANGE OF UNIT TYPE DEV, CHARGES PAID OF UNITS DEV. CHARGES PAID OF UNITS DEV.CHGS 2013-2012 Single/Semi- Detached -New construction $ 2,226,676.54 144 $ 3,582,968.00 238 -Additions $ - 0 $ - 0 Townhouse $ 635,299:00 47 $ 544,398.00 41 Apartment $ - 0 $ - 0 Commercial $ 183,171.68 6 $ 289,560.00 7 Agricultural $ - 0 $ - 0 Government $ - 0 $ - 0 Institutional $ - 0 $ - 1 Industrial 1 $ 104.85 1 $ - 1 TOTALI $ 3,045,252.07 198 $ 4,416,926.00 288 -31.1% 15-21 Clarftwn REPORT FINANCE DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: September 9, 2013 Resolution#: By-law#: Report#: FND-013-13 File#: Subject: ACCEPTING CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS FOR CEMETERY RELATED FEES RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report FND-013-13 be received; and 2. THAT Council authorizes an exception to the restricted use of credit cards as a payment method to allow the Municipal Clerk's Department to accept credit card payments to a maximum of$5,000 for cemetery fees to accommodate for legislative changes. J �i Submitted by: ;111i,/' Reviewed by(_ Nancy aylor 'BBA,CPA,CA, Franklin Wu, Director of Finance/Treasurer Chief Administrative Officer NT/hjl CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 15-22 REPORT NO.: FND-013-13 PAGE 2 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 In August 2009, Council eliminated the option of credit card payments for all non- property tax municipal fees with the exception of Community Services Department for the online payment for recreation program registration. In 2009, the estimated savings was $5,000 for the remainder of 2009, which would equate to $15,000 for the whole year. Parking tickets are also permitted but only if paid through an online provider that charges an independent administration fee. 1.2 In February 2010, credit card payments were extended by Council to advertising and sponsorship fees in order to allow for payment upfront and alleviate collection difficulties. Property tax payments have not been permitted by credit card for a number of years due to the excessive cost involved. 2.0 COMMENTS 2.1 Previously, the local funeral homes were able to sell cemetery plots and burial services on behalf of the Municipality, and then remit the funds to the Municipality. Pursuant to the Funeral, Burial and Cemetery Services Act, this practice is no longer available. The costs can amount to significant dollars for residents, often times when they are emotionally distraught. There are currently four active cemeteries, Bowmanville, Bondhead, St. George and Hampton Cemeteries. 2.2 In most circumstances, the customer does not have adequate funds available as the estates involved have not yet been resolved and CPP funds have not yet been received. In order to assist our customers in these very emotional times, it would be very beneficial for all parties if Council would lift the restriction and accept credit card payments for cemetery related costs to a maximum of$5,000. The $5,000 threshold is necessary in order to accommodate the fact that many purchase two plots, side by side. 3.0 COST IMPLICATIONS 3.1 The Municipality of Clarington is currently in the process of a Banking RFP (request for proposal) and therefore cannot divulge current rates for accepting credit cards payments. General examples however can be provided. 3.2 In 2012 there were 71 cremation interments and 76 non-cremation interments with revenues being approximately $176,000. If 50% were purchased with credit 15-23 REPORT NO.: FND-013-13 PAGE 3 cards it would result in a service charge of approximately $2,300 per year. Please see Appendix A for an excerpt from By-Law 2013-006, Cemetery Rates. 4.0 CONCURRENCE - Patti Barrie, Municipal Clerk 5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 Due to the circumstances involved and the sensitive nature of the issue, it is recommended that credit card payments be accepted by the Municipal Clerk's Department for cemetery services only, to a maximum of $5,000. This number will be indexed over time to match any percentage increases in the cemetery fee schedule as approved by Council from time to time. 5.2 There are some recent opportunities in the retail credit card market that will be explored with the potential for expanded credit card acceptance. A further report will be forthcoming to address these options. However, it was deemed necessary to address the cemetery issue in a more immediate time frame. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — Not Applicable The recommendations contained in this report conform to the general intent of the following priorities of the Strategic Plan: (Place an "X" in the box for all that apply) Promoting economic development Maintaining financial stability Connecting Clarington Promoting green initiatives Investing in infrastructure Showcasing our community Not in conformity with Strategic Plan Staff Contact: Nancy Taylor, BBA, CPA, CA, Director of Finance/Treasurer Attachments: Attachment A - Cemetery Fees List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: None 15-24 Attachment"A"to FND-013-13 Attachment No. 2 to REPORT OPD-001-13 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON SCHEDULE W TO BY-LAW 2013-006 CEMETERIES-PROPOSED TARIFF OF RATES FOR 2013 1. SALE OF PLOTS Type of Lot Dimension Dimension 40% Rate(does not include Bowmanville Bondhead Perpetual applicable taxes) Care Rate -Single 3'X 9' 3'X 9' $536.80 $1,342.01 Bab land 1-5'X 3' 1.5'X 3' $187.88 $469.71 Cremation 2'X 2' 2'X 2' $187.88 $469.71 2. SALE OF CREMATION NICHES Columbarium Niche Size 15%Perpetual Rate(does not include Care Rate applicable taxes) Single (including 12"X 12"X 12° $161.04 $1,073.60 Plaque) Double (including 12"X 12"X 12" $241.64 $1,610.41 -Plaque) 3.' INTERMENT Rate(does not include applicable taxes) Adult-Single Depth $738.11 Adult-Double Depth $925.98 Infant/Child $268.41 Cremation $268.41 Niche Wall $134.20 4. DISINTERMENT CHARGES Rate(does not include applicable taxes Disinterment(adult)including burial at another $1,222,86 location in the same cemetery Disinterment(adult)for burial at same location or $1,034.72 at different cemetery Disinterment(child)including burial at another $768.83 location in the same cemetery Disinterment(child)including burial at same $689.82 location or different cemetery Disinterment(infant/cremation)including burial $332.35 at another location in the same cemetery Disinterment(infant/cremation)including burial $227.01 at same location or different cemete ' 5. HOLIDAYAND OTHER SURCHARGES Rate(does not include applicable taxes) Interment on Saturday,Sunday and Statutory $377.51 Holidays fee is additional Disinterment for double depth burial(fee is $243.31 additional Rental for lowering Device,set up and dressing $91.56 Provincial License Fee(except for cremation $11.00 Cremation Interment on Saturday,Sunday and $134.20 Statutory Holidays fee is additional 6. MONUMENT FOUNDATIONS AND SETTING MARKERS Rate(does not include applicable taxes Monument foundation flat fee $314.82 Flat Marker Foundations flat fee $190.65 Cremation/Baby Markers flat fee $80.26 Removal of Monuments $60.22• 7. ADMINISTRATIVE Transfer Fee $21.34 Duplicate or Replacement Certificate $21.34 Third Party Sale Transfer $21.34 Transfer Back to Municipality $21.34 8. PERPETUAL CARE Rate(does not include applicable taxes) Headstone Maintenance T $100.00 Footstone Maintenance $50.00 15-25 ClarftWR LEGAL LEGAL DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: September 9, 2013 Resolution#: By-law#: Report#: LGL-006-13 File#: L2010-08-11 Subject: UPDATED SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Council authorize Staff to use the updated subdivision agreement attached to this Report (Attachment 1) as a standard agreement for all future plans of subdivision; 2. THAT the Municipal Solicitor be authorized to make minor changes to the standard subdivision agreement as the need arises; and 3. THAT Council approve the fees referenced in sections 4.3, 4.4, 4.6 and 4.8 of the updated subdivision agreement. Submitted by: Reviewed by. Andrew . Allison, B. Comm., LL.B. Franklin Wu, MAOM Municipal Solicitor Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1 3A6 T 905-623-3379 16-84 REPORT NO.: LGL-006-13 PAGE 2 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 The Municipality has been using the same form,of subdivision agreement since May 1993. It needs to be simplified and updated. 1.2 The purpose of this report is to obtain Council approval to use the subdivision agreement attached to this Report (Attachment 1) as a standard agreement for all future plans of subdivision. 1.3 Staff from Planning Services, Engineering/Building Services, Operations, Emergency & Fire Services and Finance have been involved in the preparation of the updated agreement. 2.0 DISCUSSION 2.1 The updated agreement is intended to do the following: (a) Advance 2011 - 2014 Strategic Plan objectives. One of the six priorities of the 2011 - 2014 Strategic Plan is "Promoting Economic Development". Objective #2 under this priority is to "[a]ttract new businesses and retain existing businesses to improve / increase non- residential assessment growth and employment opportunities". One of the actions identified in connection with this objective is to "[u]ndertake a review of municipal processes and regulations to identify opportunities to streamline development application approval". Updating and streamlining the Municipality's standard subdivision agreement is one way to help achieve this strategic objective. The updated agreement will also help with the strategic priority of"Maintaining Financial Stability" by increasing some fees. (b) Simplify the language and make it more user-friendly for both Staff and developers. The updated agreement is written using plain language to make it easier for all parties to understand. An effort has also been made to be as clear and concise as possible. Unnecessary clauses and inadvertent duplication have been removed. The result is a clearer document that is easier to read and use. Whereas the old subdivision agreement was well over 100 pages in length, the updated agreement is only 34 pages (including schedules). This streamlining has been achieved with no loss of Municipal authority or protection. In order to more efficiently process subdivision agreements in the future, the main body of the updated agreement has been structured to be standard for all plans of subdivision. Anything that is unique or special in 16-85 REPORT NO.: LGL-006-13 PAGE 3 terms of a particular plan of subdivision will form part of the schedules for that particular subdivision agreement. (c) Clarify processes and timelines. Over time, the manner in which Staff have administered certain aspects of the subdivision development process has changed, but the language of the subdivision agreement has not been updated to reflect those changes. This has been corrected. In addition, clearer timelines and trigger dates for each stage of the approval process have been set out in the updated agreement. (d) Add new clauses based on local experiences. Staff have encountered many specific situations that have tested (for lack of a better word) the language of the agreement. The new agreement has several small changes that are intended to address specific issues that have arisen. (e) Add new clauses based on experiences outside of Clarington. Staff have reviewed the standard subdivision agreements used in other municipalities and taken from them any provisions that we think will help protect and promote Municipal interests through our agreement. (f) Update legislative, by-law, guideline and policy references. As a housekeeping matter, all of these references have been updated. 2.2 When Staff met with representatives of the development community in April 2012 and again in August 2012 to discuss possible changes to the subdivision agreement, we were asked to look at the following specific issues: (a) high snow clearing costs; (b) pre-servicing opportunities; (c) maintenance period flexibility with large project phases; (d) an engineering drawing design checklist; and (e) the wording of the Municipality's standard letter of credit. These points are all discussed in this Report. 2.3 The updated agreement is not intended to materially change the way things have been done in the past except as noted in sections 2.4 through 2.15 below. 2.4 Well Interference (section 2.40) — Sections relating to well interference were added to Clarington's standard subdivision agreement in 1993. They attempted to put the onus on the developer to monitor neighbouring wells and provide free water service when it could be proven that the wells were negatively affected by new development. The problem with any well interference claim was (and still is) that it is almost impossible to prove whether construction has had, or will have, short term or long term impacts on existing wells. To resolve this significant problem, Durham Region decided to implement a Well Interference Policy 16-86 REPORT NO.: LGL-006-13 PAGE 4 (adopted by Regional Council on June 30, 1999). The Policy eliminated costly disputes by simply providing water service to the property without typical frontage and connection fees - no questions asked. Developers contribute to the costs of implementing the Policy through their development charges, but they save money by avoiding the need to monitor wells and hire engineers when disputes arise. Many residents have taken advantage of the Region's Well Interference Policy and hired plumbers to make lateral connections to their homes from the property line. Despite the new Regional policy, Clarington has not changed any of the clauses in its standard subdivision agreement relating to well interference. The current form of subdivision agreement still requires developers to pay for well monitoring and connection costs on private property if well interference can be proven. This has the effect of maintaining all of the problems that were purposefully eliminated by the Region's policy. Although this wording has been in the Municipal subdivision agreement since 1993, staff have no recollection of any situation in which it has ever been successfully applied. Well interference claims are simply forwarded to Durham Region for their expertise and follow up. Recognizing that the Region (a) has full jurisdiction over wells and water supply; (b) has the in-house expertise to address well-related issues; (c) has adopted a comprehensive.well interference policy; and (d) is collecting development charges to cover the costs of applying and administering that policy, the updated agreement simply states that the Regional Well Interference Policy will apply to the construction of any works that may cause interference to, or dewatering of, a private well. In other words, there is no Municipal involvement. This is the approach taken by every other local municipality in Durham. 2.5 Maintenance Period For Landscaping (clause 2.49(d)) — Our standard subdivision agreement used to have a two year maintenance period for surface works and landscaping. Approximately 15 years ago, this period was reduced to one year at the request of the development community. While a one year maintenance period is appropriate for road works, one year is not enough time to determine whether there may be problems associated with landscaping works. The updated agreement reinstates the two year maintenance period for landscaping works. 2.6 Land Use Plan (section 3.09) — This section of the agreement has been updated to reflect the changes to the New Home Sales Facilities Policy approved by Council through Report PSD-030-13 dated June 10, 2013. 2.7 Firebreaks (section 3.19) - This section is standard in many municipal subdivision agreements, but it has not previously been used in Clarington. 2.8 Street Signs (sections 3.20 and 3.21) - These sections were not in the previous agreement, but they have been a Municipal requirement for many years. 16-87 REPORT NO.: LGL-006-13 PAGE 5 2.9 Lot Identification (section 3.22) - This section was added to respond to a concern of the Emergency & Fire Services Department regarding its ability to effectively respond to calls in new subdivisions during construction. 2.10 Engineering Review Fees (sections 4.3 and 4.4) - These sections are standard in many municipal subdivision agreements, but they have not previously been used in Clarington. A lot of Staff time is spent reviewing, correcting and re- reviewing engineering drawings, and it is appropriate to have developers contribute towards the cost of these multiple but necessary reviews. Even after implementing this additional fee, the Municipality's engineering fees will still be amongst the lowest in Durham Region. 2.11 Winter Maintenance Costs (section 4.6) — Clarington recovers winter maintenance costs from developers until subdivisions are completed and all houses are built and occupied. The Staff time involved in documenting each site visit, calculating road lengths and typical costs, and then invoicing the developers can be substantial. In addition, developers have complained that some projects are slow to be fully completed and therefore invoices from the Municipality can continue in some cases for five or six years even though the development may be more than 50% occupied after 2 years. To address both of these issues, the updated agreement implements a flat rate based on typical costs for a two year period. This will eliminate administrative costs and will provide cost certainty to the developers. 2.12 Street Lighting Costs (section 4.8) —A similar process to the winter maintenance costs will be implemented. This will also eliminate some administration and provide cost certainty to the developers. 2.13 Letters of Credit (section 5.1) —We no longer insist upon unconditional letters of credit. Our letters of credit now reference particular agreements, as requested by developers and their banks. The updated subdivision agreement also makes it clear that we will accept term deposits/guaranteed investment certificates as performance security (something that some developers have requested). The letter of credit issues have therefore been addressed to the satisfaction of the development community. 2.14 Pre-servicing (section 5.1) — Many municipalities allow developers to undertake pre-servicing work (e.g. initial grading and underground work within the future road system) prior to registering a plan of subdivision and executing a subdivision agreement. Historically, the Municipality has not allowed pre- servicing. Developers advised us that they want the ability to pre-service their land for two reasons. First, they felt that it could help avoid delays in the start up of construction caused by delays in the preparation of subdivision agreements. However, they recognized that there would still be delays in the process if two separate agreements were required for the same phase of development. In fact, they acknowledged that pre-servicing agreements in some other municipalities 16-88 REPORT NO.: LGL-006-13 PAGE 6 are getting so administratively cumbersome that they now take just as long to process as the main subdivision agreements. Staff and the developers therefore agreed that it would be better to work on improvements to our standard subdivision agreement that would reduce the time required to prepare one agreement. The developers' second concern was financial. They felt that it was unnecessarily financially onerous to require security for 100% of initial subdivision work. In order to undertake subdivision work, it will often be necessary for the developer to set aside 200% of the cost of that work — 100% to pay the contractors and 100% to secure the payment. In essence, the traditional process requires the developers to double up on the financing of all subdivision agreement work. Staff recognize that from a practical perspective it is extremely unlikely that any municipality will ever draw on securities to ensure completion of initial subdivision work. The updated agreement (section 5.1) therefore only requires security for 15% of the initial work plus 120% of all remaining work. This will require developers to secure approximately 65% of the cost of all subdivision work. It will allow developers to commence construction of the subdivision works with significantly less up front security. The updated agreement technically does not allow "pre-servicing", but provides developers with a more time efficient and less financially onerous way to get construction started. Staff feel that it is progressive approach to the concerns of the development community. 2.15 Maintenance Period Flexibility (clause 5.3(b)) — Some developers have complained that even though some surface works have been completed, the Municipality won't allow partial security reductions until the subdivision is 100% completed. Staff have been flexible in some situations by allowing a single interim reduction for surface works even though the current form of agreement technically doesn't allow it until a Completion Certificate is issued for all surface works. Clause 5.3(b) of the updated agreement formally gives Staff the discretion to reduce performance securities where a major portion of the surface work has been completed. Section 2.56 also gives the Director the discretion to shift works components around which provides additional flexibility to respond to this particular developer concern. 2.16 Engineering Services has been working with some of the main consultants who work in the Municipality to develop an engineering drawing design checklist. It is expected to be finalized in the fall of this year. 2.17 Staff are of the opinion that the updated subdivision agreement attached to this Report (Attachment 1) appropriately addresses all of the Municipal objectives and developer concerns set out in sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this Report, and 16-89 REPORT NO.: LGL-006-13 PAGE 7 therefore recommend that it be used as a standard agreement for all future plans of subdivision. 2.18 Fees for municipal services provided in connection with subdivision agreements vary greatly amongst municipalities. Some have higher fees in some areas and lower (or no) fees in other areas. For example, some municipalities require developers to pay a letter of credit fee, but Clarington has never required this. Staff feel that the fees included in updated agreement (including the new fees referenced in sections 4.3, 4.4, 4.6 and 4.8) are fair and reasonable. 3.0 CONCURRENCE 3.1 The Director of Planning Services, Director of Engineering Services, Director of Operations, Director of Finance and Director of Fire & Emergency Services have all reviewed this Report and concur with its recommendations. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN The recommendations contained in this Report conform to the general intent of the following priorities of the Strategic Plan: x Promoting economic development x Maintaining financial stability Connecting Clarington Promoting green initiatives Investing in infrastructure Showcasing our community Not in conformity with Strategic Plan Attachment 1 — Updated Subdivision Agreement (September 2013) 16-90 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 TO REPORT LGL-006-13 Cl�rr��ton Page 13 Leudiug the way SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT dated 201_is made AMONG: THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON -and- [Insert name of Owner] -and- [Insert name of Chargee/Mortgagee] STANDARD SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT-SEPTEMBER 2013 16-91 Standard Subdivision Agreement Page 14 CONTENTS RECITALS........................................................................................................................—6 PART 1 -INTERPRETATION..............................................................................................6 PART2-ENGINEERING....................................................................................................7 General.........................:............................................................................................ 7 Owner's Engineer..................................................................................................... 7 Utilities...................................................................................................................... 8 Tree Preservation Plan............................................................................................. 8 LandscapingPlan.......:............................................................................................. 8 ConstructionSchedule..............................................................................................8 CostEstimates...................................................................................:...................... 9 Authorization to Commence.......................................................................1;............ 9 Construction Supervision........................................................................................ 10 General Construction Requirements...................................................................... 10 Certificates of Completion....................................................................................... 11 Maintenance of Works..................................... Existing Storm Sewers....................................:....................................................... 12 MaintenancePeriods.............................................................................................. 12 Certificates of Acceptance...................................................................................... 12 Assumption............................................................................................................. 12 WorksComponents................................................................................................ 13 PART 3-PLANNING AND FIRE........................—............................................................ 13 Architectural Design Guidelines.............................................................................. 13 Requirements for Building Permits......................................................................... 13 ModelHomes.......................................................................................................... 14 OccupancyRequirements...................................................................................... 14 LandUse Plan........................................................................................................ 14 Noticesand Warnings............................................................................................. 15 Temporary Crossing,Guards................................................................................... 15 SchoolBoard Lands............................................................................................... 15 FireRegulations...................................................................................................... 15 StreetSigns............................................................................................................ 16 LotIdentification...................................................................................................... 16 PART 4-FEES AND CHARGES...................................................................................... 16 OutstandingCharges.............................................................................................. 16 Legal Fees and Disbursements.............................................................................. 17 Engineering Review Fees........................................:................I............I................ 17 Engineering Inspection Fee.................:................................................................... 17 Winter Maintenance Costs............................:..........................................................17 StreetLighting Costs.............................................................................................. 18 HarmonizedSales Tax........................................................................................... 18 DevelopmentCharges..............................:............................................................. 18 UnpaidMonies........................................................................................................ 18 PART 5-FINANCIAL SECURITY..................................................................................... 18 Performance Guarantee......................................................................................... 18 Reduction................................................................................................................ 18 Release of Maintenance Holdbacks....................................................................... 19 LotGrading Security............................................................................................... 19 PART6-INSURANCE......................................................................................................20 CoverageRequired.................................................................................................20 Amountof Coverage................................................................::.............................20 16-92 Standard Subdivision Agreement Page s Exemption of Coverage Prohibited.........................................................................20 Term...................................................... ...............................................................21 PART 7-REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS..................................................................21 Solicitor's Certificate...............................................................................................21 Registration of Agreement......................................................................................21 Registrationof R-Plans...........................................................................................21 Transfers of Lands and Easements........................................................................21 Authorityto Update.................................................................................................21 Postponement.........................................................................................................21 Release of Inhibiting Order.....................................................................................22 Releaseof Agreement............................................................................................22 PART8-REMEDIES........................................................................................................22 Default...........................................................................................................:........22 Inspection ...............................................................................................................23 Liens....................................:............................................................—...........I.......23 Indemnity.....:.................................................................:........................................23 RemedialAction.......................................................................................................24 PART9-GENERAL........................................................................... 24 SCHEDULE 1 -DEFINITIONS..........................................................................................26 SCHEDULE 2-PLAN 40M- ...........................................................................29 SCHEDULE 3-STANDARD NOTICES AND WARNINGS..............................................30 SCHEDULE 4-SPECIAL NOTICES AND WARNINGS..*.................................................31 SCHEDULE 5-LANDS/EASEMENTS TO BE TRANSFERRED.....................................32 SCHEDULE 6-PRELIMINARY WORKS COST ESTIMATE............................................33 SCHEDULE 7-SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS....................................................34 SCHEDULE 8-AGENCY REQUIREMENTS...................................................................35 SCHEDULE 9-CONDITIONS OF DRAFT PLAN APPROVAL........................................36 I 16-93 Standard Subdivision Agreement Page 16 RECITALS A. The Owner has received approval of draft Plan of Subdivision S-C- subject to conditions, including a condition that the Owner enters into this Agreement. B. The lands shown on draft Plan of Subdivision S-C- are now shown on Plan 40M- (the"Lands"). C. The Municipality requires the Charge/Mortgage registered in favour of (the "Chargee/Mortgagee") as Instrument No. on be postponed to this Agreement. D. This Agreement is made pursuant to subsection 61(26)of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13. NOW THEREFORE the parties agree as follows: PART 1 -INTERPRETATION 1.1 The words and expressions used in this Agreement, including its recitals, have the meanings set out in Schedule 1. 1.2 This Agreement shall be read with all changes in gender or number as the context requires. 1.3 In this Agreement, unless otherwise specified, (a) a grammatical variation of a defined word or expression has a corresponding meaning; (b) references to an Act, by-law, guideline or policy shall include any amendments to or replacements of such Act,by-law,guideline or policy; (c) references to Parts, sections, subsections, clauses and Schedules are references to Parts, sections, subsections, clauses and Schedules in this Agreement; (d) references to Lots or Blocks are references to Lots or Blocks on the 40M- Plan; (e) references to any approved plan, drawing or other document shall be deemed to include any approved revisions; (f) every reference to a decision, determination, consent, approval or request shall be deemed to be qualified by the words"acting reasonably'; (g) every provision by which the Owner or the Owner's Engineer is required to act shall be deemed to include the words"at the Owner's cost, including the payment of any applicable taxes'; and (h) every obligation of the Owner's Engineer shall also be an obligation of the Owner. 1.4 The following Schedules are attached to and form part of this Agreement: Schedule 1 Definitions Schedule 2 Plan 40M- Schedule 3 Standard Notices and Warnings 16-94 Standard Subdivision Agreement Page 17 Schedule 4 Special Notices and Warnings Schedule 5 Transfers of Lands and Easements Schedule 6 Preliminary Works Cost Estimate Schedule 7 Special Terms and Conditions Schedule 8 Agency Requirements 1.5 Schedule 9 (Conditions of Draft Plan Approval) is attached to this Agreement for information purposes only. PART 2-ENGINEERING General 2.1 The Owner and the Owner's Engineer shall ensure that all Works are designed and constructed in accordance with Municipal Specifications unless otherwise approved by the Director. 2.2 The Owner and the Owner's Engineer shall ensure that all licences, permits and approvals required to construct, repair and'maintain the Works are obtained and maintained in good standing. 2.3 The Owner and the Owner's Engineer shall comply with all applicable legal requirements (including statutes, by-laws, orders and rules and regulations of every governmental.authority having jurisdiction)which relate to the design, construction, repair and maintenance of the Works including all requirements under the Occupational Health and.Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.1 and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997,S.O. 1997, c.16, Sch.A. Owner's Engineer i 2.4 The Owner's Engineer is authorized to act as the Owner's representative in all matters pertaining to the design, construction, repair and maintenance of the Works and shall co-operate with the Director to protect the interests of the Municipality and the general public in all such matters. 2.5 The Owner's Engineer shall prepare and submit for the Director's approval all engineering plans, drawings, studies, reports, estimates, calculations and documentation required by this Agreement including, (a) the Engineering Drawings, Grading and Drainage Plan and utility composite plan; (b) all traffic reports, soils reports, geotechnical reports, storm water management reports, stormwater implementation reports and other related reports; (c) the Phasing Plan; (d) the Preliminary Works Cost Estimate and Final Works Cost Estimate;and (e) all documentation required to support requests to reduce the Performance Guarantee or the Lot Grading Security. 2.6 If construction of any Works has not commenced within 2 years of the date of approval of the Engineering Drawings, the approval lapses and the Owner shall resubmit such Engineering Drawings to the Director for re-approval.. For purposes of this section, clearing or grubbing shall not be considered part of any Works. 16-95 Standard Subdivision Agreement Page 18 2.7 The approved Engineering Drawings and any other documents provided to the Director under section 2.5 may be used and/or reproduced by the Municipality without cost, and without further approval or permission from either the Owner or the Owner's Engineer, irrespective of whether the Owner's Engineer's fees and disbursements in respect of any of them have been paid. 2.8 Approval of any Engineering Drawings shall not absolve or release the Owner or the Owner's Engineer from liability for any errors or omissions in relation to the Engineering Drawings or from_any other obligation under this Agreement. 2.9 The Director shall not approve Engineering Drawings unless (a)they are consistent with the Community Theme Plan (if applicable) and the Landscaping Plan; and (b) any lands or easements required for Works on external lands have been transferred to the Municipality. Utilities 2.10 The Owner shall enter into agreements with the authorities having jurisdiction to ensure the proper design and installation of all utilities required to service the Lands including water, sanitary sewers, electrical, telecommunications and gas, and provide copies of all such agreements to the Municipality. 2.11 All utility services shall be installed in locations approved by the Director. Unless otherwise approved, all utility service lines shall be installed underground. 2.12 The Owner shall arrange with Canada Post for the provision of a mail distribution system to service the Lands in locations approved by the Director. Tree Preservation Plan 2.13 The Owner's Engineer shall ensure that all Engineering Drawings conform to the Tree Preservation Plan, unless the Directors approve otherwise. 2.14 The Owner shall preserve all trees required to be preserved in the Tree Preservation Plan and otherwise comply in all respects with the Tree Preservation Plan. Landscaping Plan 2.15 The Landscaping Plan shall be submitted to the Directors for approval. 2.16 The Owner's Engineer shall ensure that the Landscaping Plan conforms to the Municipal Specifications and is consistent with the approved Engineering Drawings. 2.17 All landscaping shall be planted in accordance with the approved Landscaping Plan. Construction Schedule 2.18 The Owner's Engineer shall submit a Construction Schedule to the Director for approval. 2.19 The Owner shall not commence placement of base•asphalt paving later than December 1st and shall not commence placement of surface asphalt paving later than November 15th. The Construction Schedule shall include a scheduling contingency period of at least 2 weeks to meet these paving deadlines. 2.20 The Owner shall proceed in good faith in a continuous manner to construct all of the Works referred to in an Authorization to Commence in accordance with the timing and sequence set out in the Construction Schedule. 16-96 Standard Subdivision Agreement Page 19 2.21 Construction of all Works authorized in an Authorization to Commence shall be commenced within 30 days of the issuance of the authorization and shall be completed within 1 year of the issuance of the authorization. 2.22 The Owner shall not place top curb or surface asphalt on any road unless the base course of asphalt has been in place for at least 2 winter/spring seasons. On rural subdivisions, the Owner shall not place surface asphalt until at least 80% of the houses have been constructed. Where required by the Director, additional securities must be provided for potential damage to surface asphalt and downstream ditch cleaning and repair. 2.23 Unless authorized by the Director, no road works shall be undertaken between December 1St and May 1St. Where the Director has authorized the construction of underground servicing between December 1St and May 1St, it shall be undertaken using effective cold-weather precautions acceptable to the Director and shall be monitored full time by a geotechnical engineer. Cost Estimates 2.24 The Owner's Engineer shall submit a Preliminary Works Cost Estimate to the Director for approval. 2.25 When the Engineering Drawings, Grading and Drainage Plan and Landscaping Plan have been approved, the Owner's Engineer shall submit a Final Works Cost Estimate to the Director for approval. Authorization to Commence 2.26 The Owner shall not commence the construction of any Works prior to the issuance of an Authorization to Commence. 2.27 An Authorization to Commence shall not be issued for any Works until, (a) the Municipality has received a letter signed by the Owner's Engineer in which the Owner's Engineer acknowledges and agrees to be bound by the requirements of Part 2(Engineering)and Part 8(Remedies); (b) all plans referred to in clause 2.5(a)have been approved; (c) the Phasing Plan has been approved (clause 2.5(c)); (d) the Municipality has received confirmation from all utilities regarding the . location of services(unless the Director deems it unnecessary); (e) the Landscape Plan has been approved(section 2.15); (f) the Construction Schedule has been approved(section 2.18); (g) all fees and contributions required to be paid to the Municipality by the Owner under this Agreement have been paid including engineering fees (sections.4.3,4.4 and 4.5), winter maintenance fees(section 4.6), and street lighting electricity costs(section 4.8); (h) the Performance Guarantee has been provided(section 5.1); (i) all policies of insurance or proof of insurance have been provided(Part 6); (j) all required lands and easements have been transferred to the Municipality (section 7.5); and 16-97 Standard Subdivision Agreement Page 110 (k) all other plans, reports, approvals and work described in Schedule 7 or Schedule 8 and specified to be pre-conditions to .the issuance of an Authorization to Commence have been provided, obtained or undertaken. 2.28 Prior to the Owner retaining a new Owner's Engineer, the Owner shall provide the Director with a letter described in clause 2.27(a)from the new Owner's Engineer. 2.29 An Authorization to Commence may be issued for portions of the Surface Works, but a Certificate of Completion can only be issued for all of the Surface Works. Construction Supervision 2.30 The Owners Engineer shall provide fully qualified, experienced supervisory layout and inspection field staff to provide quality assurance of the construction of all Works. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing,the Owner's Engineer shall, (a) continuously monitor and supervise the construction of all components of the Works to verify conformity to the approved Engineering Drawings, Municipal Specifications and all other requirements of this Agreement; (b) carry out or verify all field layout including the provision of line and grade; (c) investigate and immediately stop and/or reject any Works, procedure or material that does not comply with this Agreement and immediately notify the Director; (d) investigate and immediately report to the Director any unusual circumstances, potential problems or conflicts; (e) maintain and provide copies to the Director upon request all records, data, tests, reports, photos, approvals and orders pertaining to the Works including all information on contract, sub-contracts, suppliers, service providers, payment certificates, payment records, certificates of substantial performance, and proof of publication where required; (f) obtain all necessary field information to verify the acceptability of the Works and to prepare accurate as-constructed drawings;and (g) arrange for and supervise storm sewer cleaning and video inspections acceptable to the Director of all storm sewers, catch basin leads and,where requested,.house lateral services, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion and again prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Acceptance. 2.31 The Owner's Engineer shall arrange for and monitor all required qualitative and quantitative testing of equipment, materials and procedures to confirm compliance with specifications. 2.32 The Owner's Engineer and, where applicable, a geotechnical engineer and/or structural engineer, shall issue certificates in a form acceptable to the Director confirming that a particular portion of the Works has been constructed in accordance with specifications. 2.33 The Director may retain, at the Owner's cost, an alternate geotechnical engineer and/or structural engineer to carry out independent qualitative or quantitative tests and prepare certificates on behalf of the Municipality. General Construction Requirements 2.34 All Works shall be constructed in accordance with approved Engineering Drawings. 2.35 No deviation from the approved Engineering Drawings shall be permitted unless such deviation is authorized by the Director before it is undertaken. 16-98 Standard Subdivision Agreement Page 111 2.36 If in the Director's opinion any additional work is required to provide for the adequate operation, functioning or maintenance of any Works, the Owner shall construct such additional facilities and perform such additional work as the Director may require by notice given to the Owner. 2.37 The Owner shall obtain permission from the Director prior to carrying out any blasting. 2.38 (1) In this section, "Fill" has the meaning given to it in the Municipality's Site Alteration By-law No.2008-114. (2) The Owner shall not import or export any Fill to or from the Lands unless a permit has been issued for such Fill under the Municipality's Site Alteration By-law No.2008-114. 2.39 The Owner shall continually monitor all building construction activity and remove all construction debris and improperly stored building materials. 2.40 The Regional Well Interference Policy adopted by Regional Council on June 30, 1999 shall apply to the construction of any Works that may cause interference to or dewatering of a private well in the urban and/or rural areas. Certificates of Completion 2.41 The construction of any Works Component shall not be deemed to be complete until the Director has issued a Certificate of Completion. 2.42 A Certificate of Completion shall not be issued until, (a) the Owner's Engineer has made a written request for the certificate; (b) the Owner's Engineer has provided written confirmation that the Works covered by the certificate have been constructed in accordance with the approved Engineering Drawings and Municipal Specifications;and (c) the Works covered by the certificate have been.inspected by the Director, including any required tests or assessments, and the Director is satisfied that they have been completed as required by this Agreement. 2.43 The issuance of a Certificate of Completion for the Stormwater Management Works must coincide with the issuance of a Certificate of Completion for the Surface Works. 2.44 The issuance of a Certificate of Completion shall not absolve or release the Owner or the Owner's Engineer from liability for any errors or omissions in relation to the Works described in the certificate. Maintenance of Works 2.45 The Owner shall be fully responsible for the construction, repair and maintenance of all Works from the date that an Authorization to Commence is issued until a Certificate of Acceptance is issued for the Works. 2.46 The Owner shall monitor and maintain every road and sidewalk within the 40M-Plan and any existing public highway used to provide access to the Lands that may be adversely impacted by construction activity on the Lands in a well drained,dust and mud free condition, suitable for ordinary vehicular traffic and otherwise in accordance with the Road Condition Policy approved by Council in March, 1989 and revised in April,2003. 16-99 Standard Subdivision Agreement Page 112 2.47 The Owner shall erect and maintain signs satisfactory to the Directors at all entrances to the Lands indicating that the roads are unassumed roads that the Municipality is not required by law to repair or maintain. Existing Storm Sewers 2.48 (1) In this section, "External Sewer" means any storm sewer not on the Lands that may be adversely impacted by construction activity on the Lands. (2) The Owner shall take all steps necessary to ensure that all External Sewers are kept free of silt, mud and other debris generated through construction activity on the Lands. (3) If an External Sewer has been damaged or has not been kept free of debris as a result of the construction activity on the Lands, the Owner shall take all steps necessary to restore the External Sewer to its previous condition after receiving notice from the Director. Maintenance Periods 2.49 The minimum maintenance period applicable to each Works Component commences upon the issuance of a Certificate of Completion and ends as follows: (a) Base Works—2 years. (b) Street Lighting Works—2 years. (c) Surface Works—1 year. (d) Landscaping Works—2 years. (e) Stormwater Management Works—2 years. 2.50 Notwithstanding clause 2.49(a), the minimum maintenance period for the Base Works shall not end until a Certificate of Completion is issued for the Surface Works. Certificates of Acceptance 2.51 Following the conclusion of the applicable maintenance period, the Director may issue a Certificate of Acceptance of any Works Component provided, (a) the Owner's Engineer has made a written request for the certificate; (b) the Owner's Engineer has provided written confirmation that the Works covered by the certificate have been maintained in accordance with the approved Engineering Drawings and Municipal Specifications; (c) the Director is of the opinion that the Works have been maintained as required by this Agreement; (d) the Director has received as-constructed drawings in a form acceptable to the Director as well as the electronic files;and (e) for Surface Works, a registered Ontario Land Surveyor retained by the Owner has provided the Municipality with written confirmation that all standard iron bars shown on the 40M-Plan and all survey monuments at all block corners, the end of all curves, other than corner roundings, and all points of change in direction on roads are in place. Assumption 2.52 Following the issuance of a Certificate of Acceptance for the Surface Works and the Landscaping Works, the Director shall recommend to Council that all roads be. assumed. 16-100 Standard Subdivision Agreement Page 113 Works Components 2.53 Notwithstanding the definitions of Base Works, Landscaping Works, Stormwater Management Works, Street Lighting Works and Surface Works in Schedule 1, if the Director and the Owner agree, individual work items may be transferred from one Works Component to another Works Component, and all Authorizations to Commence, Certificates of Completion, Certificates of Acceptance . and Performance Guarantee reductions shall be based on the revised description of the Works Components. PART 3-PLANNING AND FIRE Architectural Design Guidelines 3.1 (1) In this section, "Control Architect" means an architect approved by the Municipality to provide advice on architectural designs and design themes for plans of subdivision. (2) No residential unit shall be offered for sale until the architectural design of the unit has been approved by the Director of Planning Services. (3) All dwellings erected on the Lands shall comply with the Municipality's Architectural Design Guideline approved by Council Resolution #C-121-11 on March 7, 2011 or, if applicable, any architectural design guidelines specific to the Lands. Compliance shall be determined by the Director of Planning Services. (4) All architectural control services provided by the Control Architect shall be at the expense of the Owner. (5) Only model working drawings bearing the stamp of the Control Architect shall be eligible for submission to the Municipality for building permits. Requirements for Building Permits 3.2 The Owner shall not make an application for a building permit for any building on the Lands until, (a) a Certificate of Completion has been issued for the Base Works (unless otherwise approved by the Director); (b) all services and utilities that are required to service the building have been constructed to the satisfaction of the authority having jurisdiction; (c) all necessary fire access routes have been constructed to the satisfaction of the Director of Emergency and Fire Services; (d) if the building will be on a Lot or Block that is unsuitable for building purposes, the Owner has satisfied the conditions with respect to the development of such Lot or Block; (e) the Owner has received confirmation from the Director of Planning Services that the design of the building complies with the Architectural Design Guidelines; (f) the Director has approved an individual Lot or Block grading plan; (g) Owner has deposited the Lot Grading Security for all Lots; (h) the Municipality has received confirmation from all utilities that agreements have been entered into with the Owner(section 2.10); 16-101 Standard Subdivision Agreement Page 114 (i) if applicable,an acoustic engineer has certified that the plans for the building are in accordance with the noise impact study; and 0) all other matters specified in Schedule 7 or Schedule 8 to be pre-conditions to an application for a building permit have been satisfied. Model Homes 3.3 Notwithstanding section 3.2, the Owner may apply for conditional building permits for model homes provided, (a) the applicable zoning by-law permits the model home; (b) 10% of the total number of Lots or 10 Lots (whichever is less) may be used as model homes; (c) all roads have a base course of asphalt satisfactory to the Director;and (d) the requirements of clauses 3.2(d), (e)and(f)have been met. 3.4 Where the requirement of clause 3.3(c) cannot be met, the Owner shall obtain the approval of the Directors for the proposed alternate access to the model home (which cannot be via an unpaved road). 15 Model homes shall be used for sales display purposes only. 3.6 If the Owner constructs a model home prior to the day on which watermains and fire hydrants are fully serviced and operational, the construction and use of the model home is entirely at the risk of the Owner. Occupancy Requirements 3.7 The Owner shall not apply for an occupancy permit under the Ontario,Building Code for any building on the Lands until the Street Lighting Works has been installed and energized. 3,8 The Owner shall not apply for an occupancy permit for a model home until all of the requirements of section 3.2 have been met. Land Use Plan 3.9 (1) In this section,"Land Use Plan"means a plan prepared by the Owner in the Municipality's standard form that has been approved by the Director of Planning Services showing, (a) approved Lots; (b) existing and future roads and interchanges; (c) existing and future high-tension hydro transmission towers/corridors; (d) existing and future sidewalks/bicycle paths and trails (e) existing or future large scale solar or industrial wind turbine installations; (f) railway lines; (g) existing and future transit routes; (h) community mail boxes; (i) storm water management ponds,blocks and related facilities; 0) adjacent land uses; (k) existing and future schools; (1) existing and future commercial areas; (m) existing and future parks; (n) existing and future areas of different residential densities; (o) fencing(i.e. noise attenuation,chain link,wooden); and (p) contact information for all relevant agencies. 16-102 Standard Subdivision Agreement Page 115 (2) The Owner shall erect and maintain the Land Use Plan in all sales trailers, pavilions, model homes, presentation centres, offices or other structures used to sell new homes within the 40M-Plan. (3) Any marketing material used to help sell any Lots shall include the Land Use Plan. Notices and Warnings 3.10 The Owner shall include in agreements of purchase and sale for all Lots the applicable Clarington Official Plan map which shows the long term approved land uses within 500 metres of the 40M-Plan. 3.11 The Owner shall include a clause,in agreements of purchase and sale for all Lots informing the purchaser of all applicable development charges in accordance with subsection 59(4)of the Development Charges Act, 9997, S.O. 1997,c.27. 3.12 The Owner shall ensure that the notices and warnings set out in Schedule 3 are included in agreements of purchase and sale for all Lots or Blocks. 3.13 The Owner shall ensure that the notices and warnings set out in Schedule 4 are included in agreements of purchase and sale for the Lots or Blocks to which they apply. 3.14 The Owner shall provide the Municipality with a copy of the form of agreement of purchase and sale to be used for all Lots. Temporary Crossing Guards 3.15 Where the Director of Planning Services determines that an adult crossing guard is temporarily required due to safety concerns relating to construction activity, the Owner shall reimburse the Municipality for the cost of providing such service. School Board Lands 3.16 If applicable, the Owner shall notify the Municipality if any school board that has an option to acquire any Lots or Blocks does not exercise its option. The Owner grants to the Municipality an irrevocable option to acquire such Lots or Blocks on the same terms and conditions as were available to the school board (including the consideration to be paid to the Owner)other than the date prior to which the option has to be exercised. The Municipality shall have 90 days from the date that it is notified by the Owner that the school board did not exercise its option to exercise the Municipal option hereby granted by giving notice to the Owner. Fire Regulations 3.17 The Owner shall store all combustible waste in accordance with the Ontario Fire 'Code. 3.18 The Owner shall not pen-nit any open air burning on the Lands without approval from the Director of Emergency and Fire Services. 3.19 (1) In orderto reduce the potential of large loss fires,no more than, (a) six buildings,where each building contains one dwelling unit; (b) three buildings, where each building contains more than one, but not more than four dwelling units;or (c) one building, where each building contains more than four dwelling units, 16-103 Standard Subdivision Agreement Page 116 shall be constructed adjacent to each other, at the same time, without providing for a firebreak Lot or Block. (2) . For purposes of this section, the construction of an accessory dwelling unit or accessory structure such as a detached garage or garden suite shall be considered part of the main building or dwelling unit. (3) No combustible framing above the ground subfloor level shall proceed on the designated firebreak until the exterior finish cladding or interior gypsum wall finishing and the final installation of roofing, fascia-boards, soffits, doors and windows of the immediately adjoining buildings have been completed. (4) Construction shall be permitted on a firebreak Lot or Block up to and including the ground floor subfloor level at the same time as construction proceeds on adjacent Lots or Blocks. (6) Temporary installation of plywood in door and window openings is not acceptable as a means of complying with subsection(3). (7) Minimum firebreak size between buildings(on all sides)shall be 8 metres. (8) When variations of building types are adjacent to each other, the most restrictive firebreak requirement shall apply. Street Signs 3.20 The Owner shall erect temporary street signs fastened securely to a post 2 metres above ground level at all road intersections in the 40M-Plan prior to the commencement of construction of any building or structure, and maintain such temporary street.signs until permanent signs are erected. 3.21 The Owner shall erect permanent street signs when all grading of roads and boulevards has been completed to the satisfaction of the Director and maintain such street signs until Certificates of Acceptance have been issued for the Surface Works and the Landscape Works. Lot Identification 3.22 The Owner shall place a sign on every Lot in respect of which a building permit has been issued that clearly and prominently (at least 150 mm in height) identifies the Lot according its number on the 40M-Plan and its municipal address. PART 4-FEES AND CHARGES Outstanding Charges 4.1 The Owner shall, (a) pay all municipal taxes outstanding against the Lands; (b) commute and pay all local improvement charges imposed against the Lands;and (c) commute and pay all other charges assessed against the Lands including charges under the Drainage Act, R.S.0.1990, c. D.17, Tile Drainage Act, R.S.O. 1990,c.T.8, Ontario Water Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.40 and Municipal Act, 2001. S.O.2001,c.25. 16-104 Standard Subdivision Agreement Page 117 Legal Fees and Disbursements 4.2 The Owner shall pay all legal fees and disbursements associated with preparation and registration of this Agreement, the transfers set out in Schedule 5 and all related documents in accordance with the Municipality's fees by-law(2011-118). Engineering Review Fees 4.3 The Owner shall pay to the Municipality an engineering review fee of 1.25% of the Final Works Cost Estimate or$2,000,whichever is greater. 4.4 After the Engineering Drawings have been submitted three times,there shall be an additional engineering review fee of$1,000 per subsequent submission. Engineering Inspection Fee 4.5 (1) For the purposes of this section, "Estimated Cost of Services" means the Final Works Cost Estimate and the estimated cost of Regional services. (2) The Owner shall pay to the Municipality an engineering inspection fee calculated as follows: Estimated Cost of Services Inspection Fee Less than$500,000.00 $8,000.00 or 3.5% of the Estimated Cost of Services, whichever is greater $500,000.00 to$1,000,000.00 $17,500.00 or 3.0% of the Estimated Cost of Services, whichever is greater $1,000,000.00 to$2,000,000.00 $30,000.00 or 2.5% of the Estimated Cost of Services, whichever is greater $2,000,000.00 to$3,000,000.00 $50,000.00 or 2.25% of the Estimated Cost of Services, whichever is greater $3,000,000.00 or greater $67,500.00 or 2.0% of the Estimated Cost of Services, whichever is greater Winter Maintenance Costs 4.6 Notwithstanding sections 2.45 and 2.46, the Municipality shall provide, on the Owner's behalf,winter maintenance services(snow ploughing, sanding, salting and spring clean-up)on all roads for a period of 2 years from the date of first occupancy of any building. The Owner shall pay the Municipality the flat rate set out in section 1 of Schedule 7 (which is based on an annual cost of$5,600.00 per kilometre) to cover the Municipality's costs of providing such service. After the 2 year period has expired, winter maintenance services and costs shall be the responsibility of the Municipality. 4.7 Notwithstanding section 4.6, the Owner shall be responsible for any extraordinary winter maintenance costs or repair costs (including vehicle and equipment repair) incurred as a result of improper or deficient construction of the roads or material or debris on the road. 16-105 Standard Subdivision Agreement Page 118 Street Lighting Costs 4.8 The Municipality shall pay all electricity costs for the Street Lighting Works after a Certificate of Completion has been issued for such Works. The Owner shall pay the Municipality the lump sum set out in section 2 of Schedule 7 which represents a 2 year estimate of such costs. Payment of such costs shall not relieve the Owner of the responsibility to repair and maintain the Street Lighting Works. Harmonized Sales Tax 4.9 The Owner shall pay all applicable Harmonized Sales Taxes on the fees payable under sections 4.2,4.3,4.4,4.5,4.6 and 4.8. Development Charges 4.10 The Owner shall pay the Municipal development charge for each unit at the rate in effect under the Municipality's Development Charge By-law No.2010-058 when the payment is made at the timing of building permit issuance. 4.11 The Owner acknowledges that all charges, payments,Works and other obligations of the Owner in this Agreement are characterized as, (a) local services constructed at the expense of the Owner related to or within the 40M-Plan as a condition of approval under section 51 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13;or (b) services for which the Owner is making no claim for development charge credits or seeking any other type of recovery unless the Owner is a party to a cost-sharing agreement or front-ending agreement with the Municipality which requires benefitting land owners to reimburse the Owner for a portion of such costs. Unpaid Monies 4.12 The due date of any money payable under this Agreement to the Municipality shall be 30.days after the date that the invoice is given to the Owner. Interest shall be calculated and paid by the Owner on all late payments at the rate of 1%per month as approved by Council through Report TR-86-97. PART 5-FINANCIAL SECURITY Performance Guarantee 5.1 The Owner shall deposit a Performance Guarantee with the Municipality in order to guarantee the performance of all of the Owner's obligations under this Agreement. 5.2 The Municipality may appropriate any portion of the Performance Guarantee to remedy any Default. Reduction 5.3 The Performance Guarantee may be reduced provided, (a) the Owner's Engineer has made a written request for the reduction which includes all pertinent payment information; (b) a Certificate of Completion has been issued for the Works Component in respect of which the reduction is sought (unless otherwise approved by the Director); (c) the Owner is not in Default;and 16-106 Standard Subdivision Agreement Page 119 (d) the Owner has filed a statutory declaration stating that, (i) all services and materials with respect to the construction and maintenance of the Works for which the reduction is sought have been supplied and no amounts are owing to any person in relation to such materials or services; (ii) no person has given notice of a claim for lien under the Construction Lien Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.30 against the Lands or any part thereof, and no person is entitled to make such a claim; (iii) there are no judgments or executions filed against the Owner; (iv) nothing is owed by the Owner or claimed against it for unemployment insurance deductions, income tax deductions, or premiums under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, S.O. 1997,c. 16,Sch.A; (v) the Owner has not made any assignment for the benefit of creditors, no receiving order has been made against it under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 and no petition for such an order been served upon the Owner;and (vi) 45 days have passed since the completion of the Works for Which the reduction is sought. 5.4 (1) The Performance Guarantee may be reduced to an amount equal to the sum of, (a) 15% of the value of the completed Works Component (based on the Final Works Cost Estimate);and (b) 120% of the value of all uncompleted Works (based on the Final Works Cost Estimate). (2) If the Director estimates that the cost of uncompleted Works is significantly greater than the Final Works Cost Estimate for such Works or if additional work or remedial work (including storm sewer cleaning) is noted by the Director, the amount referred to in clause (1)(b) shall be increased accordingly. Release of Maintenance Holdbacks 5.5 Following the issuance of a Certificate of Acceptance, the portion of the Performance Guarantee held as security for the Works covered by the certificate shall be released. Lot Grading Security 5.6 All Lots in urban areas shall be sodded and all Lots in rural areas shall be sodded or seeded, as required by the Director,within 1 year of occupancy. 5.7 After sodding and within 1 year of occupancy, the Owner's Engineer shall certify to the Director that the final grade of a Lot or Block for which a building permit was issued conforms to the approved individual Lot or Block grading plan. 5.8 In order to secure the obligations under sections 5.6 and 5.7, the Owner shall deposit with the Municipality cash or a Letter of Credit in the amount set out in section 3 of Schedule 7 which is based on the following scale: Level 1: 10 or fewer units $ 15,000.00 Level 2: 11 to 50 units $ 30,000.00 16-107 Standard Subdivision Agreement Page 120 Level 3: 51 to 100 units $ 45,000.00 Level 4: 101 to 250 units $ 60,000.00 Level 5: 251 to 500 units $ 90,000.00 Level 6: 500 or more units $150,000.00 5.9 The Lot Grading Security may be reduced to a lower level of security once the Owner's Engineer has provided to,the Directors a sufficient number of certified Lot grading certificates to justify the reduction. PART 6-INSURANCE Coverage Required 6.1 The Owner shall obtain and maintain insurance of the character commonly referred to as public liability and property damage with an insurance company approved by the Municipality's Director of Finance and licensed in Ontario to underwrite such insurance. Such insurance shall contain terms and conditions acceptable to the Municipality's Director of Finance and shall indemnify the Municipality against all damage or claims for, (a) any loss or damage that may happen to any of the Works; (b) any loss or damage that may happen to any of the materials or any of the equipment or any other things used to construct any of the Works or any of the utilities; (c) any injury to any person including workers employed on the Lands and the. public; (d) any loss or damage that shall or may result from the storage,use or handling of explosives; (e) any loss or damage that shall or may result from the drainage of surface waters on or from the Lands; (f) any loss or damage that may result from the disposal of effluent from any sewage disposal works;and (g) any loss or damage that may happen to any public road or to any property of the Municipality or to the property of any other person either directly or indirectly by reason of the Owner undertaking the development of the Lands. Amount of Coverage 6.2 All policies of insurance shall be issued jointly in the names of the Owner and the Municipality and shall provide minimum liability coverage of $5,000,000.00 for all damage arising out of one accident or occurrence or series of accidents or occurrences. 6.3 The issuance of any policy of insurance or the acceptance of it by the Municipality shall not relieve the Owner from responsibility for other or larger claims for which it may be held responsible. Exemption of Coverage Prohibited 6.4 No policy of insurance shall contain coverage exemptions or limitations for any, (a) shoring, underpinning, raising or demolition of any building or structure; (b) pile driving or caisson work; (c) collapse or subsidence of any building,structure or land from any cause; or 16-108 Standard Subdivision Agreement Page 121 (d) storage, handling or use of explosives in cases in which the Owner is required to obtain the Director's permission to carry out a blasting operation. Term 6.5 The term of all required insurance shall commence no later than the day on which the first Authorization to Commence is issued and shall terminate when Certificates of Acceptance have been issued for all Works. 6.6 All policies of insurance shall contain a clause providing for automatic term renewals. PART 7-REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS Solicitor's Certificate 7.1 The Owner shall provide to the Municipality a solicitor's certificate in a form acceptable to the Municipal Solicitor certifying, (a) ownership of the Lands and all encumbrances against the Lands; and (b) ownership of any land outside the limits of the 40M-Plan and all encumbrances against such land if it is to be conveyed to the Municipality or if an easement through it is to be transferred to the Municipality. Registration of Agreement 7.2 The Owner consents to the registration of an Inhibiting Order and notice of this Agreement against title to the Lands. 7.3 The Municipality may enforce the provisions of this Agreement against the Owner and, subject to the provisions of the Registry Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. R.20 and the Land Titles Act, R.S.O. 1990,c. L.5,against all subsequent owners of the Lands. Registration of R-Plans 7.4 Following the registration of the 40M-Plan and the Inhibiting Order, the Owner shall cause to be registered all draft reference plans referred to in Schedule 5. Transfers of Lands and Easements 7.5 (1) The Owner shall transfer to the Municipality all of the lands and easements described in Schedule 5 free and clear of encumbrances and restrictions. All such transfers shall be made for a nominal consideration and shall contain provisions satisfactory to the Municipal Solicitor. (2) If, subsequent to the date of this Agreement, further lands or easements through a particular Lot or Block are required for Municipal purposes related to the development of the Lands, the Owner shall transfer such lands or easements to the Municipality after notice to do so is given to the Owner by the Director and subsection (1)shall apply to any such transfer. Authority to Update 7.6 The Owner authorizes the Municipality to complete registration particulars of any instruments referred to in this Agreement as required. Postponement 7.7 (1) In this section, "Charge/Mortgage" and "Chargee/Mortgagee" mean the Charge/Mortgage and Chargee/Mortgagee referred to in recital C. 16-109 Standard Subdivision Agreement Page 122 (2) The Chargee/Mortgagee hereby postpones the Charge/Mortgage to this Agreement with the intent that this Agreement shall take effect as though dated,executed and registered prior to the Charge/Mortgage. Release of Inhibiting Order 7.8 The Municipality shall not release the Inhibiting Order until all of the transfers described in Schedule 5 and all partial discharges or postponements relating to such transfers(as described in the Inhibiting Order)have been registered. Release of Agreement 7.9 The Municipality shall prepare and register partial releases of this Agreement on a lot by lot basis provided Certificates of Acceptance have been issued for all Works, Council has assumed all of the roads and the person requesting the partial release pays all registration costs. PART 8-REMEDIES Default 8.1 The Owner shall be in default if, in the opinion of the Director, (a) the Owner is not constructing any Works so that they will be completed within the time specified in the Construction Schedule; (b) completion of the Surface Works is being unduly delayed; (c) the Works are being or have been improperly constructed; (d) the Owner neglects or refuses to complete, remove or repair any Works that have been rejected by the Director as being defective, deficient or unsuitable;or (e) the Owner is otherwise in default of any obligation under this Agreement. 8.2 (1) If the Owner is in Default and such Default has continued for a period of 10 business days(or such longer period of time as may be required in the circumstances to cure the Default)after receipt of notice from the Director setting out the particulars of the Default,the Municipality may, (a) give the Owner an order to stop construction of any Works;and/or (b) enter upon the Lands and remedy the Default at the Owner's expense, and draw upon the Performance Guarantee to purchase such services and materials as in the opinion of the Director are required for such purpose. (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), notice of Default under section 2.39 (site condition) and section 2.46 (road and sidewalk maintenance) shall be 1 business day. (3) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the Director shall not be required to give notice of Default under section 2.23 (winter construction). If there is Default under section 2.23, the Director may immediately issue a stop work order and direct that all trenches be immediately backfilled, and construction shall not recommence prior to May 1St, at which time any remedial work or tests deemed necessary by the Director shall undertaken. (4) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the Director shall not be required to give notice of Default under section 2.30 (construction supervision). If there is 16-110 Standard Subdivision Agreement Page 123 Default under section 2.30, the Director may immediately retain an independent field inspector to carry.out the supervisory duties described in section 2.30 on behalf of the Municipality at the Owner's expense. (5) Notwithstanding subsection (1), in cases of emergency or urgency, the Municipality may enter onto the Lands without notice and perform, at the Owners expense,such work as the Director deems necessary to protect the integrity of existing Municipal infrastructure or to protect the integrity and functionality of the Works. (6) The cost of any remedial work undertaken by the Municipality under this section shall include an administration fee of 30%of the contractor's charges to the Municipality(including any charges for overhead and profit)or, if such work is undertaken by the Municipality, 30% of all costs incurred by the Municipality to remedy the Default. 8.3 Every contract made by the Owner with a contractor or homebuilder to construct any Works shall require the contractor or homebuilder to comply with all of the provisions of this Agreement, including the requirement to stop work when ordered by the Director. 8.4 Construction of any Works described in a stop work order may only recommence after the Director has provided authorization to recommence. Inspection 8.5 The Municipality shall be permitted unrestricted access to the Lands at all times in order to inspect any Works. The Owner and Owner's Engineer shall cooperate fully with the Municipality in any inspection. Liens 8.6 (1) If a claim for a lien in respect of any Works is filed with the Municipality or the Municipality receives written notice of a claim of an alleged beneficiary of a statutory trust under the Construction Lien Act, R.S.O. 1990,c.C.30 and the Owner fails to discharge the lien or the claim as the case may be within 10 business days after receipt of notice from the Municipality,then the Municipality may, (a) pay the full amount of the claim and security for costs into a court of competent jurisdiction in order to obtain an order vacating such claim for lien; (b) discharge the claim in full by paying the amount claimed;or (c) draw the full amount of the claim from the Performance Guarantee and hold the cash in a deposit account of the Municipality as the security payment of the claim. (2) The Owner shall indemnify the Municipality against the costs incurred by the Municipality in making any payment pursuant to subsection (1) including the Municipality's reasonable legal costs. Indemnity 8.7 The Owner shall indemnify and save the Municipality harmless from and against all actions, claims, liabilities, losses,damages and expenses(including Municipality's reasonable legal costs)which are caused in whole or in part by the Owner's negligence or improper work completed by the Owner until all Works have been accepted, save and except for any actions, claims, liabilities, losses,damages and expenses resulting from the Municipality's negligence or the negligence of those for whom the Municipality is responsible in law. 16-111 Standard Subdivision Agreement Page 124 Remedial Action 8.8 The Owner acknowledges that the Municipality, in addition to any othor remedy it may have at law, shall also be entitled to enforce this Agreement in accordance with section 446 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O.2001, c.25. PART 9-GENERAL 9.1 The Works may be used by the Municipality and the public for any of the purposes for which they are designed, without interference by the Owner, and without the payment of any compensation to the Owner. 9.2 The Owner shall not assign this Agreement without the Municipality's consent. 9.3 No amendment to this Agreement shall be effective unless made in writing and signed by all parties. 9.4 If any provision of this Agreement is held by a court to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable,the remaining provisions shall not be affected. 9.5 This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws in force in the Province of Ontario. 9.6 Time shall be of the essence of this Agreement unless the Director authorizes otherwise. 9.7 This Agreement shall-enure to the benefit of and shall bind the parties and their respective successors and permitted assigns. 9.8 Any notice that is required to be or may be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be sent by e-mail or delivered: To the Owner: Attention: Email: To the Municipality: Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, ON L1 C 3A6 Attention: Director of Engineering Services Email:engineering(a clarin toq n net and Attention: Director of Planning Services Email:pianning(a-6clarington.net or such other e-mail address or postal address of which either party has notified the other. Any such notice shall be effective from the date that it is so emailed or delivered. 16-112 Standard Subdivision Agreement Page 125 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have signed this Agreement. THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON David Crome, Director of Planning Services Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk We have authority to bind the Corporation [Insert name of Owner] Per: Per: I/We have authority to bind the Corporation [Insert name of Mortgagee/Chargee] Per: Per: I/VVe have authority to bind the Corporation 16-113 Standard Subdivision Agreement Page 126 SCHEDULE 1 -DEFINITIONS "40M-Plan"means the Plan 40M- "Architectural Design Guidelines" means the architectural control design guidelines described in subsection 3.1(2). "assumed"means assumed by the Municipality for public use and maintenance purposes through the passage of a by-law by Council under subsection 31(4) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O.2001, c.25. "Authorization to Commence" means a certificate issued by the Director to formally authorize commencement of any Works. "Base Works" means the Storm Sewer Works, initial works within the road system including sub-grade, sub-base and base granular materials, sub-drains, base curbs, base asphalt,traffic control and temporary street name signs, installation and removal of turning circles,and noise attenuation fencing. "Certificate of Acceptance" means a certificate issued by the Director to formally accept a Works Component. "Certificate of Completion" means a certificate issued by the Director to. formally acknowledge that the construction of a Works Component has been completed. "construct"includes install. "Construction Schedule" means a.schedule which sets out the time at which, and the sequence in which, the Owner proposes to construct the Works Components other than the Surface Works. "Council"means the Council of the Municipality. "Default"means default as described in section 8.1. "Director"means the Municipality's Director of Engineering Services or a designate. "Directors"means the Director and the Director of Planning Services. "Director of Emergency and Fire Services" means the Municipality's Director of Emergency and Fire Services or a designate. "Director of Planning Services" means the Municipality's Director of Planning Services or a designate. "Engineering Drawings" means drawings and/or specifications prepared by a professional engineer respecting any Works. "Final Works Cost Estimate" means the Preliminary Works Cost Estimate as revised after the Engineering Drawings, Grading and Drainage Plan and Landscaping Plan have been approved. "Grading and Drainage Plan" means a plan showing (a) the existing and proposed drainage pattern on the Lands and all lands adjacent to the Lands; (b) the direction of all surface drainage, including water from adjacent land originally flowing through, into or over the Lands to the municipal storm sewer system or any other outlet approved by the Director; and (c)overland flow routes. "Lands"means the lands described in recital B. "Landscaping Plan" means a plan prepared by a qualified landscape architect showing the proposed landscaping for the Lands (including all boulevards, entranceways, trees, fencing, landscape strips, stormwater management facilities and parks) that meets 16-114 Standard Subdivision Agreement Page 127 Municipal Specifications, the requirements of any community theme plan approved by the Directors,and any other requirements of the Directors. "Landscaping Works" means all work described in the Landscaping Plan other than any landscaping work that'is part of the Stormwater Management Works. "Letter of Credit" means an-irrevocable and unconditional letter of credit issued by a bank listed in Schedule "I" or Schedule "II" of the Bank Act, S.C. 1991, c.46 containing terms-satisfactory to the Municipality's Director of Finance. "Lot Grading Security"means the security required under section 5.6. "Municipality" means The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington including, where appropriate, its agents, consultants, contractors, sub-contractors, employees or other persons authorized to act on its behalf. "Municipal Specifications" means the Design Guidelines and Standard Drawings prepared by the Municipality in 2004(revised in 2010). "Owner" means and includes, where appropriate, all agents, consultants, contractors, sub-contractors, suppliers, employees and other persons-for whom the Owner is in law responsible. "Owner's Engineer" means a professional engineer or a firm of professional engineers retained by the Owner to perform the engineering duties set out in this Agreement. "Performance Guarantee" means cash, a guaranteed investment certificate in favour of the Municipality, or a Letter of Credit initially in an amount equal to 15%of the value of the Base Works plus 120% the value of all other Works included in the Final Works Cost Estimate. "Phasing Plan" means a plan showing how the Works within the Lands are intended to connect to subsequent phases of development, including the provision of temporary or transitional works. "Preliminary Works Cost Estimate"means the Preliminary Works Cost Estimate set out in Schedule 6. "Region"means The Corporation of the Regional Municipality of Durham. "roads"means all road allowances, highways, streets and lanes shown on the 40M-Plan. "Storm Sewer Works" means a system for the removal of upstream storm water and storm water originating within the Lands, including storm sewer mains and connections, manholes, service connections, catch-basins and rear yard catch-basins and leads, open channels, ditches, storm outfalls and structures and any other appurtenances and over- sizing as required. "Stormwater Management Works" means a stormwater management system that is consistent with the master drainage plan for the Lands, complete with overland flow routes, detention and retention facilities, quality control devices, outlets, erosion and sedimentation control measures,and all landscaping associated with such facilities. "Street Lighting Works" means a street lighting system that provides illumination of roads and walkways to serve the Lands including all connections, energy and maintenance costs,appurtenant apparatus and equipment. "Surface Works" means top curb and gutter, surface asphalt, sidewalks, all streetscape components including street trees,boulevard topsoil and sod, driveway.aprons, permanent street name signs, fencing, walkways, and any remaining Works that are not part of the Base Works,the Stormwater Management Works or the Street Lighting Works. 16-115 Standard Subdivision Agreement Page 128 "Tree Preservation Plan" means the tree preservation plan prepared in accordance with Municipal Specifications entitled prepared by and dated "Works" means all facilities,services,works and improvements, including all connections, alterations, adjustments and transitions required to suit existing systems or lands, required for the development of the Lands including the Base Works, Stormwater Management Works, Storm Sewer Works,.Street Lighting Works, Surface Works, and all fencing, noise attenuation measures,walkways (including lighting)and other miscellaneous works shown on the Engineering Drawings, Grading and Drainage Plan, Tree Preservation Plan and Landscaping Plan. "Works Component" means the Base Works, the Landscaping Works, the Stormwater Management Works,the Street Lighting Works, or the Surface Works, or any components specified in Schedule 7. 16-116 Standard Subdivision Agreement Page 129 SCHEDULE 2-PLAN 4011- r 16-117 Standard Subdivision Agreement Page 130 SCHEDULE 3-STANDARD NOTICES AND WARNINGS Assumption of Roads —A considerable period of time may elapse before the roads in this subdivision are eligible for assumption by the Municipality. Until assumption, the developer is responsible for their maintenance. Boulevards — Nothing may be planted, constructed or installed within municipal road allowance except as permitted under the Municipality's Boulevard By-law No.2013-066. Construction—As is the case in any new subdivision, there will be ongoing construction activity that that may affect the purchasers use and enjoyment of the property including mud, dust, noise, traffic delays, and a lack of full services such as sidewalks. Drainage—Side or rear yard swales or any other drainage pattems on any lot cannot be altered except with the permission of the Municipality. Driveway Spacing— The width of driveways at the street must conform to the approved house siting plans. Future Development—Land surrounding this plan of subdivision may be rezoned to allow for future development. Grading—This lot will be graded by the builder in accordance with the plans approved by the Municipality. Such grading may accommodate drainage from surrounding lands and may include swales, s lopes and retaining walls. In some cases, existing constraints and topography may require the final grading design to vary from the Municipality's guidelines which may affect the use of certain areas of the property. Issues regarding quality or workmanship should be directed to the builder. Mail Service — Door-to-door postal service will not be available within this plan of subdivision. Instead, all mail will be delivered to community mailboxes in locations approved by Canada Post and the Municipality. Municipality's Gate Policy— No gates will be permitted in any fence required by the subdivision agreement to be located between private property and Municipal property without the approval of the Municipality's Director of Engineering. Municipal Parking Requirements — All roads in this subdivision will be subject to the Municipality's Traffic By-law No. 91-58, as amended, which may limit on-street parking, Occupancy—Occupancy of any dwelling within this subdivision is not permitted un less an occupancy permit has been issued by the Municipality. Rural Ditching— Municipal ditches are constructed for the purpose of conveying road drainage. Municipal maintenance of such ditches is limited to ditch functionality only. As a result, ditches may have tall grasses, weeds and bulrushes, or may have local areas of standing water and/or minor erosion. if the purchaser desires a higher standard of ditch maintenance and appearance, it will be the purchaser's responsibility and may require Municipal approval. Schools — Students from this area may have to attend existing schools. Although a school site has been reserved within this plan of subdivision, a school may not be built for some time, if at all, and then only if authorized by the Ministry of Education. Subdivision Agreement — The lands described in this Offer are subject to the requirements of a Subdivision Agreement between and the Municipality of Clarington dated , 201_, A copy of this Agreement is registered on title to the property. Purchasers are advised that this Subdivision Agreement authorizes the Municipality to enter onto all lands within the plan of subdivision in order to carry out various inspections. 16-118 Standard Subdivision Agreement Page 131 SCHEDULE 4-SPECIAL NOTICES AND WARNINGS Note: See Conditions of Draft Plan approval 16-119 Standard Subdivision Agreement Page 132 SCHEDULE 5-LANDS/EASEMENTS TO BE TRANSFERRED LANDS TO BE TRANSFERRED 1. Road Widenings: 2. Sight Triangles: 3. Reserves: 4. Parkland Dedications: 5. Landscaping Blocks and Walkways: 6. External Lands: 7. Other: EASEMENTS TO BE TRANSFERRED 8. Servicing Easements: 9. Temporary Turning Circles: 10. External Lands: 11. Other: 16-120 Standard Subdivision Agreement Page 133 SCHEDULE 6-PRELIMINARY WORKS COST ESTIMATE 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Sub-total: $ 5%Contingency Allowance: $ Sub-total: $ 10%Engineering Allowance: $ Sub-total: $ 13% H.S.T.Allowance: $ Total Estimated Value of the Works: $ Total Amount of Performance Guarantee: $ 16-121 Standard Subdivision Agreement Page 134 SCHEDULE 7-SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS Winter Maintenance 1. Prior to the issuance of an Authorization to Commence; the Owner shall pay the Municipality a flat rate of $ to cover the Municipality's costs of providing winter maintenance services(section 4.6). + Street Lighting 2. Prior to the issuance of an Authorization to Commence, the Owner shall pay the Municipality a lump sum of $ which represents a 2 year estimate of all electricity costs for the Street Lighting Works(section 4.8). Lot Grading Security 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the Owner shall deposit with the Municipality cash or a Letter of Credit in the amount of$ as Lot Grading Security(section 5.8). Note: Conditions of Draft Plan approval will contain additional special terms and conditions. 16-122 Standard Subdivision Agreement P age 135. SCHEDULE 8-AGENCY REQUIREMENTS Note: See Conditions of Draft Plan approval 16-123 Standard Subdivision Agreement Page 136 SCHEDULE 9-CONDITIONS OF DRAFT PLAN APPROVAL I i I i 16-124 ClarbgtOR LEGAL REPORT LEGAL DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: September 9, 2013 Resolution#: By-law#: Report#: LGL-007-13 File#: A09.GE and L2030-01-09 Subject: CODE OF CONDUCT— INVESTIGATION AND ENFORCEMENT RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report LGL-007-13 be received for information. Submitted by: Reviewed by f-�--- Andrew C. Allison, B. Comm., LL.B. Franklin Wu, MAOM Municipal Solicitor Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 16-125 REPORT NO.: LGL-007-13 PAGE 2 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 At its meeting on June 17, 2013, Council passed the following resolution (#C- 225-13): THAT a review of the code of conduct be undertaken to address issues of investigation and enforcement of the code. 1.2 The Municipal Act, 2001 does not obligate municipalities to establish a code of conduct, but it does empower them. This was done in response to concerns expressed to the Province that what was appropriate for some municipalities may not be appropriate for all municipalities. The Province therefore chose to leave it to the discretion of each municipality to determine whether it was appropriate to regulate the conduct of its members and how the conduct should be regulated. In November 2009 (By-law 2009-163), Clarington Council adopted a Code of Conduct for its members (the "Code"). A copy of the Code is attached to this Report (Attachment No. 1). 1.3 All of the background reports that provided the basis for Council's decision to adopt the Code were referred to in Report CAO-005-13 dated May 6, 2013. 2.0 DISCUSSION 2.1 The Code has the following provision (section 3): Enforcement The onus of compliance of (sic) the Code is on the individual member of council. In addition, the provisions of various statutes pertaining to the roles, responsibilities, actions and behaviours governing members of council apply to instances of improper conduct. 2.2 Enforcement of the Code is therefore achieved in two ways - self regulation and through other provincial and federal legislation that regulates the conduct of council members. The "various statutes pertaining to the roles, responsibilities, actions and behaviours governing members of council" could include the following: (a) Municipal Conflict of Interest Act; (b) Criminal Code; (c) Municipal Elections Act; (d) Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; (e) Ontario Human Rights Code; and 16-126 REPORT NO.: LGL-007-13 PAGE 3 (f) Occupational Health and Safety Act. 2.3 There are no provisions in the Code respecting investigations into alleged contraventions. Given the position adopted by Council respecting enforcement, there was no need for any investigation provisions. 2.4 To the extent that any municipal code of conduct attempts to prohibit matters that could be contraventions under federal or provincial legislation, it will be unenforceable (see section 223.8 of the Municipal Act, 2001). Therefore several parts of Clarington's Code are, or could be, unenforceable (as Code contraventions) for the following reasons: (a) Section 2a) - "breach the public trust or misappropriate public funds and/or resources." These are criminal matters under sections 122 and 123 of the Criminal Code. (b) Sections 2c) and 2d) — "benefit from the use of information relating to the affairs of the corporation" and "benefit from the use of information acquired during the course of official duties which is generally not available to the public." Depending on the specific "information" and the specific "benefit" derived (i.e. financial), these are matters that could be contraventions of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, the Criminal Code, or the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. (c) Section 2e) - "sell goods or services to the Municipality or have a direct or indirect interest in a company or own a company which sells goods or services to the Municipality." These are matters that could be contraventions of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. (d) Sections 2g) and 2h) — "bid on the sale of goods except those disposed by public auction" and "use Municipal buying power for personal gain or benefit". Depending on what has been alleged, these matters could be contraventions of Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. 2.5 As a stand-alone document, the Code therefore has very little that can be enforced. This does not mean that alleged contraventions of the Code cannot be investigated or enforced. It simply means that for those matters that could be contraventions of an existing provincial or federal or provincial statute, the investigation and enforcement provisions of the applicable statute will govern. 16-127 REPORT NO.: LGL-007-13 PAGE 4 2.6 The few prohibitions in the Code that are enforceable have no specified sanctions. 2.7 If Council wishes to move beyond self-regulation and reliance upon other provincial or federal legislation, several things must be considered including the following: (a) What specific conduct should be prohibited? The regulated conduct must be conduct that is properly included in a municipal code. Attached to this Report (Attachment 2) is a copy of the "Model Form of Code of Conduct For Members of Council" prepared in July 2011 for the Municipal Integrity Commissioners Association of Ontario. It contains several examples of the types of conduct that can be regulated through a municipal code of conduct established under the authority of subsection 223.2(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001. (b) How should the Code be enforced? If it is to be enforced by an Integrity Commissioner, what investigative powers should the Commissioner have? Should he or she have additional responsibilities? How should complaints be processed? Few municipalities have appointed an Integrity Commissioner. On the City of Brampton's website, it is stated that "[t]here are 445 municipalities in Ontario and fewer than 10 have an established Code of Conduct and an Integrity Commissioner". According to the Province's Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, 28 municipalities have appointed an Integrity Commissioner. Those municipalities that have appointed an Integrity Commissioner will typically also have passed a by-law that sets out the powers and duties that have been assigned to the Commissioner by the municipality and a complaint protocol that will describe the process to be followed when someone alleges that there has been a contravention of the code. An example of a complaint protocol (from Toronto) is attached to this Report (Attachment 3). (c) What sanctions should be imposed if there has been a violation of the Code? A municipal code of conduct cannot provide that a member who contravenes it is guilty of an offence (subsection 223.2(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001). Subsection 223.3(5) states that a municipality may impose either of the following penalties on a member of council or of a local board if an Integrity Commissioner reports to the municipality that, in his or her opinion, the member has contravened the code of conduct: 1. A reprimand. 16-128 REPORT NO.: LGL-007-13 PAGE 5 2. Suspension of the remuneration paid to the member in respect of his or her services as a member of council or of the local board, as the case may be, for a period of up to 90 days. The "Model Form of Code of Conduct For Members of Council" (Attachment 2) contains examples of other types of sanctions that have been included in some municipal codes of conduct. The Divisional Court in Magder v. Ford, 2013 ONSC 263 upheld the ability of municipalities to provide "remedial measures" in municipal codes of conduct provided they do not amount to "penalties". 2.8 Staff will require further direction if there is a desire to amend Council's position respecting what conduct is to be regulated and how the Code is to be enforced. 3.0 CONCURRENCE 3.1 The Municipal Clerk concurs with the recommendation in this Report. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — Not applicable. Attachment 1: Code of Conduct— Members of Council (November 2009) Attachment 2: Model Form of Code of Conduct For Members of Council Attachment 3: Toronto's Code of Conduct Complaint Protocol 16-129 ATTACHMENT NO, 1 TO REPORT LGL-007-13 r Schedule A to By-law 2009-j,0 Code of Conduct--Members of Council 1. Purpose The Code of Conduct for members of council serves as a guide to members of council in the individual conduct of their official duties. The Code represents general standards. It does not replace council member's roles, responsibilities, actions and behaviours required by various statutes. 2. Conduct Members of council shall not: a) breach the public trust or misappropriate public funds and/or resources. b) use Municipal property, equipment, supplies or services of consequence for activities not associated with the disdharge of official duties. c) benefit from the use of information relating to the affairs of the Municipality, d) benefit from the use of information acquired during the course of official duties which is not generally available to the public. e) sell goods or services to the Municipality or have a direct or indirect Interest in a company or own a company which sells goods or services to the Municipality. f) conduct their work activities in a manner which may cause personal injury to themselves or others or damage to equipment or property of the Municipality. g) bid on the sale of goods except those disposed by public auction. h) use Municipal buying power for personal gain or benefit. 3. Enforcement The onus of compliance of the Code is on the individual member of council, In addition, the provisions of various statutes pertaining to the roles, responsibilities, actions and behaviours governing members of council apply to instances of improper conduct. ATTACHMENT NO. 2 TO REPORT LGL-007-13 Ontario Municipal Act MODEL FORM OF CODE OF COIF DUCT FOR MEMBERS OF COUNCIL I. PRINCIPLES UPON WHICH THIS CODE IS BASED Improving the quality of municipal administration and governance can best be achieved by encouraging high standards of conduct on the part of all municipal officials.In particular,the public is entitled to expect the highest standards of conduct from the members that it elects to local government. In turn, adherence to these standards will protect and maintain the municipality's reputation and integrity. Key statements of principle that underline this Code of Conduct are as follows: • Members of Council must serve and be seen to serve their constituents in a consci- entious and diligent manner; • Members of Council mustbe committed to performing theirfunctions withintegrity, avoiding the improper use of the influence of their office,and conflicts of interest, both apparent and real; Members of Council are expected to perform their duties in office and arrange their private affairs, in a manner that promotes public confidence and will bear close public scrutiny; • Members of Council must recognize and act upon the principle that democracy is best achieved when the operation of government is made as transparent and ac- countable to members of the public as possible;and • Members of Council shall seek to serve the public interest by upholding both the letter and spirit of the laws of Parliament and the Ontario Legislature,as well as the laws and policies adopted by the municipal council. II. APPLICATION OF THIS CORE This Code of Conduct applies to every member of the Council. III. DEFINITIONS In this Code of Conduct: "child"means a child born within or outside marriage and.includes an adopted child and a person whom a member has demonstrated a settled intention to treat as a child of his or her family; "Council"means the Council of the[name of the municipality to be inserted here]; "information"includes a record or document; "member"means a member of the Council, unless the context otherwise requires;"parent" means a person who has demonstrated a settled intention to treat a child as a part of his or her family whether or not that person is the natural parent of the child; COC-2 16-131 'A Code of Conduct for Members of Council "person"includes a corporation,partnership,association and any other entity,as the context allows;and "spouse"means a person to whom a person is married or with whom the person is living in a conjugal relationship outside marriage. IV, COMPLIANCE WITH DECLARATION OIL OFFICE Every member shall act in accordance with his or her declaration of office. V. ADHERENCE TO COUNCIL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Every member of Council shall observe and comply with every provision of this Code of Conduct, as well as all other policies and procedures adopted or established by Council affecting the Councillor,acting in his or her capacity as a member of Council. VI. CONDUCT AT MEETINGS Every member shall conduct himself or herself properly and in a civil manner at Council, committee and other meetings,and in accordance with the provisions of the Procedure By-. law,this Code of Conduct,and other applicable law. VII. CONDUCT RESPECTING OTHERS Every member of Council has the duty and responsibility to treat members-of the public,one another and staff appropriately and without abuse, bullying or intimidation, and to ensure that the municipal work environment is free from discrimination and'harassment. A member shall not use indecent,abusive or insulting words or expressions toward any other member,any member of staff or any member of the public. A member shall not speak in a manner that is discriminatory to any individual,based on that person's race,ancestry,place of origin,creed,gender,sexual orientation,age,colour,marital status,or disability. VIII. CONDUCT RESPECTING STAFF Under the direction of the senior municipal administration, and in accordance with the decisions of Council, municipal staff are required to serve the municipal corporation as a 4 whole,. Every member shall be respectful of the role of staff to provide advice based on political neutrality and objectivity and without undue influence from any member or faction of the Council. Accordingly, no member shall maliciously or falsely injure or impugn the professional or ethical reputation of any member of staff.Every member shall show respect for staff,and for their professional capacities and responsibilities. No member shall compel any member of staff to engage in partisan political activities, or subject any member of staff to threat or discrimination for refusing to engage in any such activity. No member shall use or attempt to further his or her authority or influence by COC-3 16-132 Ontario Municipal Act — intimidating,threatening,coercing,commanding or influencing improperly any staff member or interfering with that person's duties,including the duty to disclose improper activity. — IX. GIFTS AND BENEFITS u � For the purposes of this Code,a gift or benefit provided,with the member's knowledge,to a member's spouse;child or parent,or to his or her staff,that is connected directly or indirectly to the performance of the member's duties,is deemed to be a gift or benefit to that member. — No member shall accept a fee,advance,gift or personal benefit that is connected directly or indirectly with the performance of his or her duties of office,unless permitted under one or _ r more of the exceptions listed below. 11 Each of the following is recognized as an exception: (a) compensation authorized by law; - I (b) a gift or benefit of the kind that normally accompanies the responsibilities of office and is received as an incident of protocol or social obligation; (c) a political contribution otherwise authorized and reported as required by law,in the — case of a member running for office; (d) services provided without compensation by a person volunteering his or her time; (e) a suitable memento of a function honouring the.member; (f) food,lodging,transportation or entertainment lawfully provided by any Provincial, regional or local government or board or political subdivisions of any of them,by 6 1 the Federal government,a foreign government,or by those organizing a conference, seminar or event where the member is speaking or attending in an official capacity; i (g) food and beverages consumed at a banquet,reception or similar event,if: (i) attendance by the member is for a legitimate municipal purpose; ..J 1 (ii) the person extending the invitation, or a representative of the organization holding the event,is in attendance;and (iii) the value is reasonable; (h) communications to the office of a member,including subscriptions to newspapers _ and periodicals;and (i) a sponsorship or donation for a community event organized or run by a member,or a third party on behalf of a member,subject to the limitations set out in any applicable municipal policy. Except for exception (c) (political contributions allowable by law),these exceptions do not apply where a gift or benefit is provided by a lobbyist or a lobbyist's client or employer.In this provision,a lobbyist is an individual,organization or business who or that: (a) lobbies,or causes the lobbying of,any public office holder of the municipality,the municipal council or corporation,or a local board; COC-4 16-133 Code of Conduct for Members of Council (b) the member knows is attempting or intending to lobby the member or any of the public persons or bodies listed in paragraph(a);or (c) is maintaining an active lobbyist registration with the municipality,whether or not with respect to any specific or current subject-matter. In the case of any of the recognized exceptions(b),(e),(f),(h)and(i),if the value of the gift or benefit exceeds$300.00, or if the total value of gifts or benefits received from any one source during the course of a calendar year exceeds $300.00, the member shall file,within 30 days of receipt of the gift or benefit,or of reaching the annual limit,a disclosure statement with the municipality[or with its Integrity Commissioner]. The disclosure statement must set out: 1 the nature of every gift or benefit received; 2 its source and date of receipt; 3 the circumstances under which it was given and received; ' 4 its estimated value; 5 what the recipient intends to do with any gift;and 6 whether any gift will at some point be provided to the municipality. Every disclosure statement filed under this Code shall be made a public record. Upon receiving a disclosure statement, the Integrity Commissioner, or other responsible municipal official,shall examine it to ascertain whether the receipt of the gift or benefit might, in his or her opinion, constitute a contravention of this Code or create a conflict between a private interest and the public duty or responsibilities of the member.In the event that the Integrity Commissioner makes such a determination,he or she shall call upon the member to justify receipt of the gift or benefit. Should the Integrity Commissioner or other municipal official determine that receipt of any gift or benefit was inappropriate,he or she may direct the member to return the gift,reimburse the donor for the value of any gift or benefit already consumed,forfeit the gift or remit the value of any gift or benefit already consumed,to the municipality. Except in the case of exceptions(a),(c),(f)and(i),no member shall accept a gift or benefit worth in excess of$500.00,or gifts or benefits from one source during a calendar year which together are worth in excess of$500.00. X. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION In this Code, "confidential information"includes any information in the possession of, or received in confidence by,the municipality that the municipality is prohibited from disclosing, or has decided to refuse to disclose, under the Municipal Freedom of Information,and Protection of Privacy Act,or any other law. "Confidential information"also includes infor- mation of a corporate,commercial,scientific or technical nature received in confidence from third parties;personal information; information that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; information that concerns any confidential matters pertaining to personnel,labour relations, litigation, property acquisition, the security of the property of the municipality or a local board; and any other information lawfully determined by the Council to be confidential,or required to remain or be kept confidential by legislation or order. COC-5 16-134 Ontario Municipal Act No member shall disclose,release or publish by any means to any person or to the public any confidential information acquired by virtue of his or her office, in any form, except when required or authorized by Council or otherwise by law to do so. No member shall use confidential information for personal or private gain or benefit,or for the personal or private gain or benefit of any other person or body. R ' ' r A matter, the substance of a matter, and information pertaining to a matter, that has been debated or discussed at a meeting closed to the public, shall be maintained.as confidential, ' unless authorized by the Council or legislation to be released,generally or subject to condi- tions,and such are complied with,No information pertaining to such a matter,the manner in which it was dealt with at the meeting, or any part or description of the debate, shall be _ disclosed unless authorized by the Council or otherwise by law. A member may disclose the content of an matter referred to in the receding paragraph or c -I Y Y P P g P the subject-matter of deliberations,at an in camera meeting,only after the Council or com- mittee lawfully and knowingly discusses the information at a meeting that is open to the c public or releases the information to the public. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing,no member shall,without lawful authority, disclose,or make personal use of,any of the following types of confidential information: P� • .information concerning litigation,negotiation or personnel matters; • information the publication of which may infringe on the rights of any person(e.g. r-- source of a complaint where the identity of a complainant is given in confidence); _J ._ • price schedules in any contract,tender or proposal document while such remains a confidential document; • information deemed to be"personal information"under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act;and • any other information or statistical data required by law not to be released. No member of Council shall obtain access, or attempt to gain access, to confidential infor- mation in the custody of the municipality except to the extent that such access is necessary for the performance of his or her duties and such access is not prohibited by Council or otherwise by law. M. USE OF CITY PROPERTY,SERVICES AND OTHER RESOURCES No member of Council shall use,or permit the use of,municipal land,facilities,equipment, supplies, services, staff or other resource, including any municipally-owned information, -. website, Council transportation delivery service or funds allocated for member of Council expenses,for any purpose or activity other than the lawful business of the municipal corpo- ration.No member shall seek or acquire any personal financial gain from the use or sale of confidential information, or of any municipally-owned intellectual property including any - invention,creative writing or drawing,computer program,technical innovation,or any other information or item capable of being patented or copyrighted, of which property remains exclusively that of the municipality. COC-6 _L- 16-135 Code of Conduct for Members of Council JX3. CONDUCT OF ELECTION CAMPAIGN Every member shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.No member shall use confidential information,facilities,equipment,supplies,services or other resources of the municipality,including any Councillor newsletter or website linked through the municipality's website,for any election campaign or campaign-related activity. No member shall undertake campaign-related activities on City property during regular staff worsting hours unless authorized by the municipality.No member shall use the services of any person for election-related purposes during hours in which that person receives any compensation from the municipality. XIJI. NO IMPROPER USE OF INFLUENCE No member of Council shall use the influence of his or her office for any purpose other than for the lawful exercise of his or her official duties and for municipal purposes. No member of Council shall use his or her office or position to influence or attempt to influence the decision of any other person,for the member's private advantage or that of the member's parent,child,spouse,staff member,friend or associate,business or otherwise.No member shall attempt to secure preferential treatment beyond activities in which members normally engage on behalf of their constituents as part of their official duties.No member shall hold out the prospect or promise of future advantage through the member's supposed influence within-Council,in return for any action or inaction. For the purposes of this provision,"private advantage"does not include a matter: (a) that is of general application; (b) that affects a member of Council,his or her parents/children or spouse,staff mem- bers,friends or associates,business or otherwise,as one of a broad class of persons; or (c) that concerns the remuneration or benefits of a member of Council. This provision does not prevent a member of Council from requesting that Council grant a lawful exemption from a policy. JU v'. NON-CONI L ANCE VVITH TES CODE OF CONDUCT—SANCTIONS A member found by Council to have contravened any provision of this Code,is subject to one or more of the following consequences imposed by Council,as referred to in the following two paragraphs: The Municipal Act,2001 authorizes the Council,where it has received a repQrtby its Integrity Commissioner that,in his or her opinion,there has been a violation of the Code of Conduct, to impose upon the offending member of Council- 1 ' a reprimand; 2 suspension of the remuneration paid to the member in respect of his or her services as a member of Council or a local board,as the case may be,for a period of up to 90 days. COC-7 16-136 Ontario Municipal Act The Integrity Commissioner may also recommend that Council or a local board take one or more of the following actions: 1 removal from membership on a committee or local board; 2 removal as chair of a committee or local board; 3 repayment or reimbursement of monies received; 4 return of property or reimbursement of its value; 5 request an apology to Council,the complainant,or both;or 6 any other or additional action deemed by Council to be appropriate, and which is within its power to take. XV. NO REPRISAL OR OBSTRUCTION IN THE APPLICATIOi i OR ENFORCE- 11.NT OF THIS CODE Every member of Council must respect the integrity of the Code of Conduct and inquiries and investigations conducted under it,and shall co-operate in every way possible in securing compliance with its application and enforcement.Any reprisal or threat of reprisal against a complainant or any other person for providing relevant information to the Integrity Commis- sioner or any other person is prohibited. It is also a violation of the Code of Conduct to obstruct the Integrity Commissioner,or any other municipal official involved in applying or furthering the objectives or requirements of this Code,in the carrying out of such responsi- bilities,or pursuing any such objective. XV3. STATUTES REGULATING THE CONDUCT OF COUNCILLORS In addition to this Code of Conduct,the following Ontario legislation also governs the conduct of members of Council: • the Municipal Act,2001,as amended; • the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act; • the Municipal Elections Act,1996;and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The Criminal Code of Canada also governs the conduct of members of Council. A member may become disqualified and lose his or her seat by operation of law,including being convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada or being found to have failed to comply with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act,whether or not the conduct in question involves contravention of this Code of Conduct. In the case of any inconsistency between this Code and a Federal or Provincial statute or regulation;the statute or regulation shall prevail. COC-8 16-137 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 TO REPORT LGL-007-13 TOROW CODE OF CONDUCT COMPLAINT PROTOCOL FOR - MEMBERS OF COUNCIL AUTHORITY: Historic (1) Clause No.4 of Report No.2 of the Policy and Finance Committee,March 1, 2 and 3,2004 as amended by: (a) Clause No.I of Report No.3 of the Policy and Finance Committee, held on April 25, 26 and 27, 2006; Item CC2.5 as adopted and amended by Council at its meeting held on February 5, 6, 7 and 8, 2007; Item CC11.8 as adopted by Council at its meeting held on July 16, 17, 18 and 19, 2007; and (b) Notice of Motion M148, as adopted by Council at its meeting held on October 22 and 23, 2007. (2) This Complaint Protocol for Members of Local Boards (Restricted Definition), Including Adjudicative Boards, was amended and adopted by City Council on July 15, 16 and 17, 2008 (2008 EX22.6, as amended by Council), as amended by. (a) Item EX40.2, as adopted by Council at its meeting held on February 22 and 23, 2010. Current (3) This Code of Conduct Complaint Protocol for Members of Council, was amended and adopted by City Council on October 2,3 and 4,2012: Item CC26.4 as adopted by Council to reflect amendments to the Public Inquiries Act, 2009, S.O. 2009, c. 33, Sch. 6 and to reflect Council Amendments to the Constituency Services and Office Budget Policy (formerly the "Councillor Expense Policy") made on July 11, 12 and 13,2012(Item EX21.9). PART A: INFORMAL COMPLAINT PROCEDURE Individuals [for example, City employees, members of the public, members of Council or local boards (restricted definition)], or organizations [including local boards (restricted definition)] who have identified or witnessed behaviour or an activity by a member of Council that they believe is in contravention of the Code of Conduct for Members of 1 16-138 Council (the "Code of Conduct") may wish to address the prohibited behaviour or activity themselves as follows: (1) advise the member that the behaviour or activity contravenes the Code of Conduct; (2) encourage the member to stop the prohibited behaviour or activity; (3) keep a written record of the incidents including dates, times, locations, other persons present, and any other relevant information; (4) tell someone else (for example, a senior staff member or an officer of the organization) about your concerns, your comments to the member and the response of the member; (5) if applicable, confirm to the member your satisfaction with the response of the member; or, if applicable, advise the member of your dissatisfaction with the response; and (6) consider the need to pursue the matter in accordance with the formal complaint procedure outlined in Part B, or in accordance with another applicable judicial or quasi-judicial process or complaint procedure. Individuals and organizations are encouraged to initially pursue this informal complaint procedure as a means of stopping and remedying a behaviour or activity that is prohibited by the Code of Conduct. With the consent of the complaining individual or organization and the member, the Integrity Commissioner may be part of any informal process. However, it is not a precondition or a prerequisite that those complaining pursue the informal complaint procedure before pursuing the Formal Complaint Procedure in Part B. Municipal pre-election period limitation If an informal complaint is brought to the.attention of the Integrity Commissioner during the pre-election period described in subsection 1(6) of Part B, the Integrity Commissioner may only participate in the informal process after the pre-election period has ended. PART B: FORMAL COMPLAINT PROCEDURE: Integrity Commissioner Statutory Authority: Under section 160 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, City Council ("Council"), a member of council or a member of the public may request the Integrity Commissioner to conduct an inquiry about whether a member of council or of a local board (restricted definition) has contravened the Code of Conduct for Members of Council and Local Boards (Restricted Definition) (the"Code of Conduct"). Requests for Inquiries s.1 Complaint 1. (1) A request for an investigation of a complaint that a member has contravened the Code of Conduct (the "complaint") shall be in writing. 2 16-139 (2) All complaints shall be signed by an identifiable individual (which includes the authorized signing officer of an organization). (3) A complaint shall set out reasonable and probable grounds for the allegation that the member has contravened the Code of Conduct and include a supporting affidavit that sets out the evidence in support of the complaint. For example, the complaint and supporting affidavit should include the name of the alleged violator, the provision allegedly contravened, facts `constituting the alleged contravention, the names and contact information of witnesses, and contact information for the complainant during normal business hours. (4) Staff of the City Clerk's division, who are commissioners for taking affidavits, are authorized to take the supporting affidavit. (5) Despite subsection (3), the Integrity Commissioner may waive the requirement for an affidavit when the request for an inquiry is from Council or a local board (restricted definition). Municipal (6) In a municipal election year, a code of conduct Pre-election Period complaint respecting a member who is seeking re- Limitation election may not be filed with the City Clerk during the period starting on Civic Monday(August 1 in 2010) and ending when a new City Council is deemed organized under section 185 of the City of Toronto Act 2006. 1Note:Deemed organization 185. A new city council is deemed to be organized after a regular election or after a by-election under section 211 when the declarations of office under section 186 have been made by a sufficient number of members to form a quorum.] Initial Classification by Integrity Commissioner s.2 File with Clerk 2. (1) The request shall be filed with the City Clerk who shall forward the matter to the Integrity Commissioner for initial classification to determine if the matter is, on its face, a complaint with respect to non-compliance with the Code of Conduct and not covered by other legislation 3 16-140 or other Council policies as described in subsection(3). Deferral (2) If the complaint does not include a supporting affidavit, the Integrity Commissioner may defer the classification until an affidavit is received. No Jurisdiction (3)If the complaint, including any supporting affidavit, is not, on its face, a complaint with respect to non- compliance with the Code of Conduct or the complaint is covered by other legislation or a complaint procedure under. another Council policy, the Integrity Commissioner shall instruct the City Clerk to advise the complainant in writing as follows: (a) if the complaint on its face is an allegation of a criminal nature consistent with the Criminal Code of Canada, the complainant shall be advised that if the complainant wishes to pursue any such allegation, the complainant must pursue it with the appropriate police force; (b) if the complaint on its face is with respect to non- compliance with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, the complainant shall be advised to review the matter with the complainant's own legal counsel; (c) if the complaint on its face is with respect to non- compliance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the complainant shall be advised that the matter will be referred for review to the City's Director of the Corporate Access and Privacy office; (d) if the complaint on its face is with respect to non- compliance with a more specific Council policy with a separate complaint procedure, the complainant shall be advised that the matter will be processed under that procedure; and (e) in other cases,the complainant shall be advised that the matter, or part of the matter, is not within the jurisdiction of the Integrity Commissioner to process, with any additional reasons and referrals as the Integrity Commissioner considers appropriate. Reports (4) The Integrity Commissioner may report to Council that a 4 16-141 specific complaint is not within the jurisdiction of the Integrity Commissioner. (5) The Integrity Commissioner shall report annually to Council on complaints not within the jurisdiction of the Integrity Commissioner, but shall not disclose information that could identify a person concerned. Integrity Commissioner Investigation ss. 3 —9 Refusal to Conduct 3. (1) If the Integrity Commissioner is of the opinion that the Investigation referral of a matter to him or her is frivolous,vexatious or not made in good faith, or that there are no grounds or insufficient grounds for an investigation, the Integrity Commissioner shall not conduct an investigation, or, where that becomes apparent in the course of an investigation, terminate the investigation. (2) Other than in exceptional circumstances, the Integrity Commissioner will not report to Council on any complaint described in subsection (1) except as part of an annual or other periodic report. Investigation & 4. (1) If a complaint has been classified as being within the Settlement Integrity Commissioner's jurisdiction and not rejected under section 3, the Commissioner shall investigate and may attempt to settle the complaint. Public Inquiries Act (2) Under subsection 160(2) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, the Integrity Commissioner may elect to investigate a complaint by exercise of the powers of a commission under sections 33 and 34 of the Public Inquiries Act. (3) When the Public Inquiries Act applies to an investigation of a complaint, the Integrity Commissioner shall comply with the procedures specified in that Act and this Complaint Protocol, but, if there is a conflict between a provision of the Complaint Protocol and a provision of the Public Inquiries Act, the provision of the Public Inquiries Act prevails. 5. (l) The Integrity Commissioner will proceed as follows, except where otherwise.required by the Public Inquiries Act: (a) serve the complaint and supporting material upon 5 16-142 the member whose conduct is in question with a request that a written response to the allegation by way of affidavit or otherwise be filed within ten days; and (b) serve a copy of the response provided upon the complainant with a request for a written reply within ten days. Access (2) If necessary, after reviewing the written materials, the Integrity Commissioner may speak to anyone relevant to the complaint, access and examine any of the information described in subsections 160(3) and (4) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, and may enter any City work location relevant to the complaint for the purposes of investigation and settlement. Opportunity to (3) The Integrity Commissioner shall not issue a report Comment finding a violation of the Code of Conduct on the part of any member unless the member has had reasonable notice of the basis for the proposed finding and any recommended sanction and an opportunity either in person or in writing to comment on the proposed finding and any recommended sanction. Interim Reports (4) The Integrity Commissioner may make interim reports to Council where necessary and as required to address any instances of interference, obstruction or retaliation encountered during the investigation. Final Report 6. (1) The Integrity Commissioner shall report to the complainant and the member generally no later than 90 days after the making of the complaint. (2) Where the complaint is sustained in whole or in part, the Integrity Commissioner shall also report to Council outlining the findings, the terms of any settlement, or recommended corrective action. (3) Where the complaint is dismissed, other than in exceptional circumstances, the Integrity Commissioner shall not report to Council except as part of an annual or other periodic report. Lawful (4) Any recommended corrective action must be permitted in Recommendations law and shall be designed to ensure that the inappropriate. 6 16-143 behaviour or activity does not continue. Member not 7. If the Integrity Commissioner determines that there has Blameworthy been no contravention of the Code of Conduct or that a contravention occurred although the member took all reasonable measures to prevent it, or that a contravention occurred that was trivial or committed through inadvertence or an error of judgement made in good faith, the Integrity Commissioner shall so state in the report and shall recommend that no penalty be imposed. Copies 8. The City Clerk shall give a copy of the report to the complainant and the member whose conduct is concerned. Report to Council 9. The City Clerk shall process the report for the next meeting of Council Council Review; Costs ss. 10—12 Duty of Council 10.(1) Council shall consider and respond to the report within 90 days after the day the report is laid before it. (2) In responding to the report, Council may vary a recommendation that it impose a penalty, subject to subsection 160(5) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, but shall not refer the recommendation other than back to the Integrity Commissioner. Payment of Costs 11.(1) Subject to this section and Council's policy on office expense budget use, claims for reimbursement by a member of Council for costs under this section shall be processed under the Indemnification Policy for Members of Council. (2)A complainant and a member who are parties to a complaint under this procedure shall each be reimbursed for actual and reasonable legal and related expenses up to a maximum of- (a) $5,000; or (b) $20,000, if the Integrity Commissioner has elected to investigate the complaint by exercise of the powers of a commission under Parts I and lI of the Public Inquiries Act. 7 16-144 (3) In the case of an application under the Judicial Review Procedure Act for judicial review of actions taken on a complaint against a member of council by the Integrity Commissioner, Council : (a) where a member made the judicial review application, the member is eligible for reimbursement of legal costs, including additional legal costs in a successful application, that are not covered by the costs awarded by the court, up to a maximum of$20,000. (b) a member may apply for reimbursement of the legal costs of intervention in a judicial review application where the member's interests are at stake, up to a maximum of$20,000. (4) Council may consider the reimbursement of costs above the limit in subsections (2) and (3) on a case by case basis. (5) Costs may be provided in advance in an investigation,-if the Integrity Commissioner is of the opinion that the use of a lawyer by one or more of the.parties would facilitate the carrying out of the investigation, and subsections (6) and (7) do not apply to the advance costs paid under this subsection. (6) Costs shall only be reimbursed under this section to the complainant, if the Integrity Commissioner concludes that the complaint is not frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith and the Integrity Commissioner's conclusion is not overturned on judicial review. (7) Costs shall only be reimbursed under this section to the member: (a) if the Integrity Commissioner concludes that there has been no contravention of the Code of Conduct by the member or that the member is not blameworthy as described in section 7, and the Integrity Commissioner's conclusion is not overturned on judicial review; or (b) where Council receives the Integrity Commissioner's report on a violation and 8 16-145 determines that it should not take any action. (8) Any award of costs under subsection (7) shall be contingent on a report from the City Solicitor in consultation with the Integrity Commissioner. Confidentiality 12.(1)A complaint will be processed in compliance with the confidentiality requirements in sections 161 and 162 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, which are summarized in the following subsections. (2) The Integrity Commissioner and every person acting under her or his instructions shall preserve secrecy with respect to all matters that come to his or her knowledge in the course of any investigation except as required by law in a criminal proceeding or in accordance with the provisions of Part V of the City of Toronto Act, 2006. (3)All reports from the Integrity Commissioner to Council will be made available to the public. (4)Any references by the Integrity Commissioner in an annual or other periodic report to a complaint or an investigation shall not disclose confidential information that could identify a person concerned. (5) The Integrity Commissioner in a report to Council on whether a member has violated the Code of Conduct shall only disclose such matters as in the Integrity Commissioner's opinion are necessary for the purposes of the report. 9 16-146 ClariflgtOR LEGAL REPORT LEGAL DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: September 9, 2013 Resolution#: By-law#: Report#: LGL-008-13 File#: L1000-10 Subject: POSSIBLE AMENDMENT TO FORTIFICATION BY-LAW NO. 2011-091 RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report LGL-008-13 be received for information. Submitted by: Reviewed by: Andrew C. Allison, B. Comm., LL.B. Franklin Wu, MAOM Municipal Solicitor Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 16-147 REPORT NO.: LGL-008-13 PAGE'2 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 At its meeting on June 24, 2013, the General Purpose and Administration Committee passed the following resolution (#GPA-401-13): THAT the matter of an amendment to Section 9(2)(c) of Fortification By-law 2011-091, respecting video surveillance equipment which would prevent homeowners from using video equipment to capture images of neighbouring properties, be referred to Staff for a report. 1.2 A copy of Fortification By-law 2011-091 is attached to this Report (Attachment 1). Also attached is a copy of Report CLD-026-11 (without attachment). 2.0 DISCUSSION 2.1 Subsections 9(1) and 9(2) of the Fortification By-law read, in part, as follows: 9(1) No person shall construct excessive protective elements on land. 9(2) In this section, excessive protection elements includes, (c) visual surveillance equipment, including video cameras, night visions systems, or electronic surveillance devices capable of permitting either stationary or scanned viewing or listening beyond the perimeter of the land. 2.2 As stated in Report CLD-026-11, the Fortification By-law is not intended "to apply to regular security precautions that many homeowners have taken to protect their property. It addresses "excessive" measures ...". 2.3 A concern has arisen over the ability of the Municipality to enforce the prohibition on "excessive" protection in situations where one private property owner has installed video surveillance equipment that may be capturing views beyond the limits of the land being monitored by the equipment. 2.4 In the two years that the Fortification By-law has been in place, the Municipality has received a total of 4 formal complaints from residents who have alleged that their neighbour's video surveillance equipment is "excessive" because it is recording activity on their property. Without access to the dwelling where the equipment has been installed, it is not possible to determine precisely what is being visually surveyed. 2.5 One possible way to avoid the potential problem is to amend the by-law to require that surveillance equipment installed in a residential area be pointed inwards towards the owner's residence. However, this could present some practical challenges to home owners, particularly in front yards and it could also mar the streetscape, leave areas of a person's property exposed (not under surveillance), and make the cameras more susceptible to vandalism. Another 16-148 REPORT NO.: LGL-008-13 PAGE 3 possible way to avoid the potential problem is to require homeowners to obtain a permit as a condition of installing surveillance equipment. In the opinion of Staff, this is an administratively cumbersome approach to an issue that only arises once or twice a year. 2.6 In the opinion of Staff, the best approach is to leave the wording of the by-law the way that it is but, when necessary, step up the enforcement effort. Clause 9(2)(c) of the by-law is enforceable, but it may require that more aggressive enforcements steps be taken to ensure compliance. In situations where it is unclear whether surveillance equipment is "excessive" because it may be recording activity on neighbouring property, Municipal By-Law Enforcement Officers can ask the home owner who has installed the equipment for permission to enter the home in order to confirm what is being visually surveyed. (Under section 437 of the Municipal Act, 2001, Officers do not have the ability to enter a person's dwelling unless the person consents, a court order or warrant is obtained, there is a situation of immediate danger, or the entry is otherwise authorized under the Act). If the home owner does not consent to the entry, then the Officer can seek to obtain a court order pursuant to subsection 438(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001 which provides as follows: Order (2) A provincial judge or justice of the peace may issue an order authorizing the municipality to enter on land for the purpose of carrying out an inspection for a purpose described in subsection 436(1) and to exercise powers described in clauses 436(2)(x) to (d) as specified in the order if he or she is satisfied by evidence under oath, (a) that the circumstances of the inspection are provided for in a by-law under subsection (1); (b) that the inspection is reasonably necessary; and (c) that one of the following conditions exists: (i) where there is no by-law under section 436 which provides for inspections in such circumstances, the municipality has made a reasonable attempt to obtain the occupier's consent for the inspection, (ii) where there is a by-law under section 436 which provides for inspections in such circumstances, the municipality has been prevented or is likely to be prevented from doing anything set out in subsection 436(1) or(2). 2.7 All four of the formal complaints received in relation to the Fortification By-law have been investigated and compliance confirmed to the satisfaction of the 16-149 REPORT NO.: LGL-008-13 PAGE 4 municipal by-law enforcement officers. On the first complaint, a visual inspection by an officer confirmed that the surveillance equipment could not be capturing images beyond the perimeter of the person's residential property. The second complainant advised an officer on a recent (August 2013) follow-up investigation that things were fine and therefore there was no need for the officer to request permission to enter the home with the surveillance cameras. The third complaint was resolved when the home owner with the surveillance equipment allowed officers to enter the home and confirm that the surveillance cameras were not capturing images beyond the perimeter of the property. The fourth complaint was resolved through a visual inspection of the monitor. The bottom line is that municipal by-law enforcement officers have been able to effectively enforce subsections 9(1) and 9(2) of the Fortification By-law using existing powers, and therefore no change is recommended to the By-law. 3.0 CONCURRENCE 3.1 The Municipal Clerk concurs with the recommendation in this Report. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — Not applicable. Attachment 1: Fortification By-law 2011-091 Attachment 2: Report CLD-026-11 (without attachment) 16-150 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 TO REPORT LGL-008-13 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON . BY-LAW NUMBER 2011-091 A by-law to prohibit the excessive barricading or fortification of land within the Municipality of Clarington WHEREAS section 133 of the Municipal Act, 2001 authorizes a municipality that is responsible for the enforcement of the Building Code Act, 1992 to regulate of the fortification of and protective elements applied to land in relation to the use of land and to prohibit excessive fortification; NOW THEREFORE the'Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: Part 1 —INTERPRETATION Definitions 1. In this by-law, "building"has the same meaning as in the Building Code Act, 1992; "Building Code Act, 1992"means the Building Code Act, 1992, S.0. 1992, c.23; "Chief Building Official"has the same meaning as in the Building Code Act, 1992; "Committee"means the General Purpose and Administration Committee of Council; "construct" has the same meaning as in the Building Code Act, 1992; "Council"means the Council of the Municipality; "fortification"means the construction of devices, barriers or materials in a manner designed to strengthen or provide defensive works to land; "land"has the same meaning as in subsection 133(2)of the Municipal Act, 2001; "Municipality"means The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington or the geographic area of Clarington,as the context requires; "Municipal Act, 2001"means the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O.2001, c.25; "person"includes a corporation and the heirs,executors, administrators or other legal representatives of a person to whom the context can apply according to law; and "protective elements"includes surveillance equipment. References 2. In this by-law, reference to any Act is reference to that Act as it is amended or re-enacted from time to time. 16-151 Fortification By-law 2011-091 Page 2 3. Unless otherwise specified, references in this by-law to sections and subsections are references to sections and subsections in this by-law. Word Usage 4. This by-law shall be read with all changes in gender or number as the context may require. 5. A grammatical variation of a word or expression defined has a corresponding meaning. Conflict 1 6. If a provision of this by-law conflicts with a provision of the Building Code under the Building Code Act, 9992,the Building Code prevails. Application 7. This by-law applies to all land within the Municipality unless specifically exempted by this By-law. Part 2-PROHIBITIONS Fortification 8. (1) No person shall construct any excessive fortification on land. (2) In this section, "excessive fortification"includes the construction of, (a) steel plates,steel bars,bullet-resistant shutters, laminated glass or heavy gauge wire mesh to a window, door or any other opening on any level of any building or structure other than the basement level of such building; (b) concrete block, brick, or other masonry or similar product to partially or completely obstruct or seal any window,door or other exterior entrance or egress to land; (c) steel sheeting or plates or other similar products to the interior or exterior walls of a building such as to reinforce walls or create a secondary wall such as to protect against firearms, artillery,explosives,vehicle contact, shock,and any . other similar intrusions; (d) armour plated or reinforced doors,whether exterior or interior,designed to resist against impact of firearms artillery, explosives, battering rams,shock or vehicle contact; (e) pillars, cones or barriers constructed of concrete,steel, or any other material that are designed to obstruct, hinder, restrict, or deny access to land by conventional means of access or modes of transportation; and (f) an observation tower designed to enable a visual observation of surrounding areas beyond the perimeter of the land whether the tower is occupied by an individual or a surveillance camera or like equipment. Protective Elements 9. (1) No person shall construct excessive protective elements on land. 16-152 Fortification By-law 2011-091 Page 3 (2) In this section,"excessive protective elements"includes, (a) perimeter warning devices such as"laser eyes"or other types of advanced warning systems designed to forewarn of the encroachment onto the perimeter of land from adjoining lands or roadways but excluding similar constructions to forewarn of entry into a building on land; (b) electrified fencing or other similar barrier including hidden traps, electrified doors or windows, land mines or other explosive devices or any weapon or thing that may cause injury or death when triggered or activated;and (c) visual surveillance equipment, including video cameras, night vision systems, or electronic surveillance devices capable of permitting either stationary or scanned viewing or listening beyond the perimeter of the land. Part 3 -EXEMPTIONS Exempt Users 10. Sections 8 and 9 do not apply to any land solely occupied by, (a) a'financial institution"as defined in section 2 of the Bank Act, S.C. 1991, c.46; (b) a detention centre zoned for such use and otherwise permitted by law; (c) a"police service"as defined in section 2 of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15 (d) the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; (e) the federal Department of National Defence; (f) the Ministry of the Attorney General for Ontario for the purpose of a courthouse; (g) a"school'as defined in subsection 1(1)of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2; or (h) a"day nursery"as defined in subsection 1(1)of the Day Nurseries Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D.2. Exempt Uses 11. Sections 8 and 9 do not prohibit, (a) the use or construction of commercially marketed security devices designed and applied to provide reasonable protection from theft or other criminal activity against a person or property of a person; (b) the reasonable use of protective elements such as a"laser eye"or other advance warning devices on windows or doors of a dwelling for the purpose of providing a warning to an occupant of the dwelling or of dispatching emergency services personnel where an entry into a dwelling has occurred; or 16-153 Fortification By-law 2011-091 Page 4 (c) a"normal farm practice"as defined in subsection 1(1)of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 9998, S.O. 1998, c.1. Application for Exemption 12. Any person wishing to obtain a partial or complete exemption from the provisions of this by-law must file with the Chief Building Official a written application requesting an exemption which contains the following information: (a) date of construction; (b) proof that the applicant is the sole owner of the land or, alternatively, each owner's written authorization to submit the application; (c) legal description and municipal address of the land; (d) particulars of the existing use(s)of the land, and of the intended use(s)if any change in use is anticipated; (e) a sketch or survey of the land and all buildings on the land; (f) particulars of all existing and proposed fortification and protective elements including the date or dates of construction of existing fortification and protective elements; and (g) particulars of each exemption requested including the reasons for requesting the exemption. 13. The Chief Building Official shall review the actual or proposed construction and,for that purpose, may make any further inquiries of any person, agency,board,department,ministry or public body that he deems necessary and,further, may require the submission of additional information and documents'at the applicant's expense. 14. In considering an exemption application,the Chief Building Official shall have regard for, (a) the provisions of any applicable site plan agreement; (b) special circumstances or conditions applying to the land or the use referred to in the application; (c) whether strict application of the provisions of this by-law would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary and unusual hardship for the applicant that would be inconsistent with the objectives of this by-law; (d) whether such special circumstances or conditions are existing and not created by the applicant;and (e) whether the general intent and purpose of this by-law is maintained. 15. The Chief Building Official may approve or refuse any exemption application and may impose any conditions upon an approval as he determines to be appropriate. 16-154 Fortification By-law 2011-091 Page 5 16. No person shall make a false or intentionally misleading recital of fact statement or representation in any application or other document required by this by-law. Part 4—ENFORCEMENT Definition 17. In this section,"Officer'means any employee, officer or agent of the Municipality whose duties include the enforcement of this by-law and any police officer as defined in section 2 of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. P.15; Inspections 18. An Officer may, at any reasonable time, enter upon any land for the purpose of carrying out an inspection to determine whether or not the provisions of this by-law have been complied with. 19. No person shall prevent hinder or interfere or attempt to prevent hinder or interfere with an inspection undertaken'by an Officer. Order to Comply 20. (1) Where an Officer is satisfied that there has been a contravention of any provision of this by-law,the Officer may issue an order requiring the owner of the land on which the contravention has occurred to correct the contravention by removing all or some of the fortification or protective elements. (2) An order shall set out, (a) reasonable particulars of the contravention; (b) the location of the land; (c) the general nature of,the work required to be done to correct the contravention; and (d) the date by which the work must be done. (3) An order may be served by, (a) personally delivering it to the owner; (b) sending it by registered mail to the owner at the address of the owner shown on the last revised assessment roll for the property or the last known address of the owner; or (c) sending it by registered mail to the owner at the last known address of the owner. (4) If the address of an owner is unknown or the Municipality is unable to effect service on an owner in accordance with subsection (3), a placard setting out the terms of the order may be placed in a conspicuous place on or near the owner's land. (5) Service of an order under this section shall be deemed to have been effected on the date that it is delivered personally 3 days after it was mailed or the date that it is posted on the property as the case may be. 16-155 Fortification By-law 2011-091 Page 6 Existing Fortifications 21. If an order is issued under section 20 with respect to fortifications or protective elements that were present on the land on the day this by-law is passed, such order shall give not less than three months to complete the work. Failure to Comply 21 No person shall fail to comply with an order issued under this by-law. Remedial Action 23. (1) Where an order has been issued and compliance has not been achieved by the date specified in the order,the Municipality may cause the work set out in the order to be done. l (2) The Municipality may-recover all costs of doing any work undertaken pursuant to subsection(1)together with an administration charge equal to 25%of such costs from the owner by adding the costs to the tax roll for the land and collecting them in the same manner as property taxes. Offences and Penalties 24. Every person who contravenes any provision of this by-law guilty of an offence upon conviction is liable to a fine pursuant to the provisions of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33. Part 5-GENERAL Short Title 25. This by-law may be cited as the"Fortification By-law". Effective Date 26. This by-law comes into effect on the date of its passing. rd By-law approved this3 day ofoct6ber 2011. Ma Brian Foster atti L Barrie unicipal Clerk 16-156 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 TO REPORT LGL-008-13 REPORT CLERK'S DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: September 26, 2011 Resolution#: 6 0,#-5M# By-law#: Report#: CLD-026-11 File#: Subject: PROPOSED FORTIFICATION BY-LAW RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report CLD-026-11 be received; 2: THAT the By-law attached to Report CLD-026-11 be approved; and 3. THAT all interested parties listed in Report CLD-026-11 advised of Council's decision. Submitted by: Reviewed by: p tfi L.113 rri C Franklin Wu, Municipal Clerk Chief Administrative Officer PLB/LDC CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 16-157 REPORT NO.: CLD-026-11 PAGE 2 1. BACKGROUND In the course of their duties, members of the Clarington Fire and Emergency Services, the Ambulance service and the Durham Regional Police must often enter homes quickly. This can be inhibited by excessive security fortifications which some property owners have incorporated into their buildings. The Durham Regional Police have asked for the Municipality's assistance to avoid delays of entry which may compromise the safety of all parties involved. Staff are therefore recommending the implementation of a Fortification By-law. The by-law will not apply to regular security precautions that many homeowners have taken to protect their property. It addresses "excessive" measures which some residents have taken to fortify their buildings. 2. COMMENTS Personal security is a large concern for many people. Fears about the safety of family members in the home have driven security equipment into a major industry. Staff recognize this and are sensitive to those legitimate concerns. The proposed by-law is directed to those situations where a residence has been turned into a fortress with locks, bars and security devices which would prevent Police, Fire or Ambulance attendants from entering a building if needed. The proposed by-law is similar to by-laws already in force in Oshawa, Whitby, Ajax and Pickering. These by- laws have proven successful in assisting the emergency services in those municipalities. Since many of these fortifications require structural addition or alteration to the existing . building it will be the responsibility of the Chief Building Official to administer the provisions of the by-law. Enforcement of matters under the by-law will be undertaken in cooperation with the Durham Regional Police and the Municipal Law Enforcement Division. The by-law will apply to all properties within the Municipality. In the case of buildings with pre-existing fortifications the owner may make an application for an exemption in order to keep the existing elements. This will be reviewed by staff and alterations may be required before approval is granted. The by-law will also provide an exemption for those buildings and businesses which, by virtue of their business require extra security, for example financial institutions, schools, and police stations are all exempt. 16-158 REPORT NO.: CLD-026-11 PAGE 3 3. PARTICULARS OF RESTRICTIONS As stated above it is not the intent of the by-law to restrict any and all security measures, only those which are excessive in the given situations. While fences with barbed wire and watch towers may be normal and necessary for a correctional institution, they are not needed for a private residence. The by-law will not apply to commercially marketed devices and equipment intended to provide a reasonable level of protection to the homeowner. Anything designed or intended to restrict or impede entry into a building could be considered excessive. The installation of steel plates, bullet proof glass, or heavy gauge wire mesh on the doors or windows of a private residence would be examples of excessive fortifications added to a building. The use of electrification on doors, windows or fencing would also be considered excessive along with surveillance equipment which is set to monitor the area beyond the yard or the perimeter of the property. Where there is a legitimate need for the addition of fortification elements to a building the owner may make application for an exemption to allow the work to be done. The Chief Building Official may make such enquiries as required to determine if an exemption will be granted. 4. CONCURRENCE This report has been reviewed by Tony Cannella, Director of Engineering Services, Gord Weir, Director of Emergency and Fire Services and the Municipal Solicitor who concur with the recommendations. A copy of the Report and the By-law have been forwarded to the Durham Regional Police for their information. 5. CONCLUSION The passage of a by-law to regulate and prohibit excessive fortifications of buildings within the Municipality will assist emergency services staff in performing their duties. Staff therefore respectfully recommend that Committee approve this Report and the attached by-law and forward them to Council for passage. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — Not Applicable Staff Contact: Len Creamer, Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Inspector Chris Ostler, Durham Regional Police Region of Durham, Emergency Medical Services 16-159 g. ,-to i i, LEGAL REPORT LEGAL DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: September 9, 2013 Resolution#: By-lave#: Report#: LGL-005-13 File#: L2030-01-10 Subject: GOVERNANCE ISSUES IN "REPORT OF THE MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY - UPDATING THE ETHICAL INFRASTRUCTURE" RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report LGL-005-13 be received for information. Submitted by: �- Reviewed by AndrevJ C. Allison, B. Comm., LL.B. Franklin Wu, MAOM Municipal Solicitor Chief Administrative Officer ACA/ib CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 16-1 REPORT NO.: LGL-005-13 PAGE 2 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 At its meeting on November 7, 2011, Council approved the following Resolution (#GPA-630-11): "That Staff be requested to report on any governance issues brought forward in Justice Cunningham's Report ("Report of the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry: Updating the Ethical Infrastructure") from the City of Mississauga." 1.2 At the June 24, 2013 General Purpose and Administration Committee meeting, staff were requested to only report on the reference in Justice Cunningham's Report to meetings taking place "at the edges of a council meeting". 1.3 Broader issues relating to other aspects of the Inquiry (for example issues relating to the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act) are currently being examined by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. 2.0 DISCUSSION 2.1 In November 2001, Mississauga City Council adopted a resolution requesting that a judge be appointed to conduct an inquiry pursuant to section 274 of the Municipal Act, 2001. The Honourable J. Douglas Cunningham was appointed Commissioner for the Inquiry. 2.2 The Inquiry looked into two areas. The first area concerned issues in connection with a shareholders' agreement for Enersource Hydro Mississauga — the second largest electricity supplier in Ontario. The second area related to the acquisition by the City of approximately 8.5 acres of land in the city centre. 2.3 In October 2011, Justice Cunningham submitted his Report of the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. He titled the Report "Updating the Ethical Infrastructure". The Report is 381 pages in length. The Executive Summary of the Report is 42 pages. The Executive Summary is attached to this Report (Attachment 1). 2.4 The specific passage that deals with meetings "at the edges of a council meeting" can be found in Phase I of the full Report which focused on issues relating to the Enersource shareholders' agreement. It reads as follows (pages 29 — 30): "Throughout the process, Mr. O'Brien [Mississauga's CAO] explained, he kept the mayor and council apprised of developments in two ways. First, there would be formal in camera meetings. Second, there would be "briefing sessions" which Mr. O'Brien described as "gatherings of Council to just talk about issues as they move[d] forward." Mr. O'Brien stated that these briefing sessions were very common in the municipal world at the time, although they are less common now. Often these meetings would 16-2 REPORT NO.: LCL-005-13 PAGE 3 take place "at the edges of a council meeting"; that is, Mr. O'Brien would brief the councillors before or after a formal council meeting. If and when it was necessary to advise council on an urgent matter, Mr. O'Brien would ask his assistant or the city clerk to arrange for the councillors to attend at a convenient time, often 9:00 a.m. or 4:00 p.m." 2.5 A copy of the portion of the transcript of Mr. O'Brien's testimony where he talked about the practice of what he called informal "briefing sessions" is attached to this Report as Attachment 2. 2.6 Justice Cunningham commented as follows in relation to Mississauga's practice of informal briefing sessions (page 57 of the Report): "I recognize that in any legislative body there will always be informal meetings among smaller groups of legislators. In his evidence, Mr. O'Brien described scenarios in which councillors might receive briefings on substantial and confidential matters outside the council chamber and its protections. This practice should be discouraged. This kind of informality can only lead to difficulty, and it is evident that in this instance it led to confusion surrounding who (if anyone) was advised of the Borealis veto, and in what setting. I note that informal meetings are not permitted under the Municipal Act, 2001." 2.7 He made the following formal recommendation (Recommendation 1 for Phase 1) "I recommend that no informal meetings of city council be allowed. For clarity, I do not think it appropriate for city business, including briefings from officials that would otherwise be discussed at a council meeting, to be discussed in an informal setting." 2.8 1 have been advised by Mississauga's in-house counsel that the practice of informal meetings in the City of Mississauga ceased long before Mr. Justice Cunningham issued his Report. 2.9 As Justice Cunningham pointed out, informal meetings are not allowed under the Municipal Act, 2001. Subsection 239(1) states that "except as provided in this section, all meetings shall be open to the public". A similar prohibition was contained in the old Municipal Act. 2.10 Sections 239.1 and 239.2 were added to the Municipal Act, 2001 in 2006. Section 239.1 provides individuals with the ability to request an investigation of whether a municipality has complied with the open meeting requirement of section 239. Section 239.2 allows municipalities to appoint an investigator. In November 2007, Clarington Council appointed Local'Authority Services Ltd. for such purpose. 16-3 REPORT NO.: LGL-005-13 PAGE 4 2.11 An issue that sometimes arises in connection with the open meeting requirement of the Municipal Act, 2001 is whether a "meeting" has taken place or is going to take place. 2.12 The courts have developed what is sometimes referred to as the "Vanderkloet rule" in relation to open meetings. The rule comes from a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal (Vanderkloet v. Leeds & Grenville (County) Board of Education (1985), 51 0.R. (2d) 577, leave to appeal refused (1986), 54 0.R. 2d) 352n (S.C.C.)). Essentially the rule recognizes that the open meeting requirement does not preclude informal discussions among members of council, either alone or with the assistance of staff, but it does prohibit members from meeting, however informally, in order to have the business of council move procedurally towards a final council decision. One case applied the rule to prohibit "meetings" that were intended to materially advance the business of council (Southam Inc. v. Ottawa (City) (1991), 5 0.R. (3d) 726 (Ont. Div. Ct.)) unless the public was notified and given the opportunity to be heard. In that case, the "meeting" was a council retreat. 2.13 More recently (2008), the Provincial Ombudsman reported on an investigation into an alleged violation of the open meeting requirement of the Municipal Act, 2001 by the City of Greater Sudbury Council. Appended to that investigation report is a Legal Analysis of"The Importance of Open Meetings", "Determining Contravention of the Act: Defining "Meeting", and Defining "Exercise of Political Power". The portion of the analysis that considered the definition of"meeting" is instructive. A copy of the entire report is attached to this Report (Attachment 3). The Ombudsman interpreted "meeting" under the Municipal Act, 2001 as follows: "Members of council or a committee must come together for the purpose of exercising the power or authority of the council or committee or for the purpose of doing the groundwork necessary to exercise that authority." 2.14 Staff are not aware of any Municipal practice that is inconsistent with the recommendation of Justice Cunningham respecting informal meetings or the legislative requirement to have open meetings. The Municipal Clerk and the Deputy Clerk have been and will continue to be diligent in their efforts to assist Council to fully comply with the open meeting requirement of the Municipal Act, 2001. 3.0 CONCURRENCE 3.1 The Municipal Clerk concurs with the recommendation in this Report. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — Not Applicable, Attachment 1 — Executive Summary of the "Report of the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry: Updating the Ethical Infrastructure" Attachment 2 — Extract from the Transcript of Evidence Mississauga's CAO Attachment 3 — Ombudsman Investigation Report dated April 25, 2008 16-4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 TO REPORT LGL-005-13 Q issisit T•ttit!!f .�� , ,, L :r._:r• ;= _ r _ cA c }F}. ?r {. r:. {�a {.. v �. I y, r}� - } i�`}�ti✓ k}S153-i l "S ilS�r l f Z 5 ttifi 3 lil r� 5 41F{f�� ri i� tS��I�C {a3 �5 3 S 1 i >� t 4 ',R �. S ',<. 3 Y to f 1 \ ,.SM i .ti tl ' F 1 Wt i +1'�S nx7 `r..r.�l.!&G.,:1.., 16-5 �g51SS{G�p . r.� City of Mississauga Judicial In The Honourable J, gouglas Cunningham,Commissibner October 3,.2011 C Her Worship Mayor:Hazel McCallion and Members of City Council City of Mississauga 300 City Centre Drive Mississauga,QN L.58 3CJ. Dear Madam Mayor and Councillors; Re; Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Pursuantba a resolution adopted by the Council-of The CorPorationofthe City of Mississauga dated November 11,2009,1 respectfully submit my report on the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. Yo. Wpay, J.Do s Cunningham Commissioner 2600-13()•Adeiaide-Street West,Toronto,ON M6H:3P5 T,416-865-9500F:4i6-8659010 info @mississaugainquiryca 16-6 Copyright©2ou City of Mississauga LIBRARY AND ARCHIVES CANADA CATALOGUING IN PUBLICATION Mississauga Judicial Inquiry(Ont.) Updaring the erhical infrasrructure:executive summary J.Douglas Cunningham,commissioner. Reporc of the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. Available also on the Inrernet. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-0-9878012-2-7 1,Mississauga Judicial Injury(Ont.). 2.Conflict of interests—Ontario— Mississauga. 3.Governmental investigations—Ontario—Mississauga. 4.Municipal government—Ontario—Mississauga. I.Cunningham,J.Douglas II.Title. JL269.5 c6 M57 ton, 353,4'6309'713 c2ou-9o9o54-6 Copies of this publication are available at the ' Office of the City Clerk Ciry of Mississauga Soo City Centre Drive Mississauga,ON L5B 30 and online at wwwmississaugainquiryca 16-7 Updating the Ethical Infrastructure Executive Summary 76-8 REPORT OF THE MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL I QUI Y Updating the t ica l Infrastructu Executive Summary Te Honourable J. Douglas Cunningham Commissioner 16-9 Viii CONTENTS Chain of Command:David O'Brien's Dual Role and the Lack of a City Solicitor / 9 Certification of Documents / 9 In Camera Minutes / io SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PHASE I / II Informal Meetings of Council / II Minutes of In Camera:Meetings / II Importance of Involvement of City Solicitor / II Certification of Personal Familiarity / II PHASE II — CITY CENTRE LAND AND WORLD CLASS DEVELOPMENTS Background / 13 City Centre Land Owners / 14 Co-owners'Objectives / 14 , World Class Developments / 15 WCD and the Hotel/Condominium Project / 15 Agreement of Purchase and Sale / 16 WCD Site Plan Application and Fees / 17 Actions of City Staff / i8 Failure to Lift the H Designation / i8 Difficulty Meeting the Hotel Condition / i9 Termination of the APS / 20 Sheridan College's Interest in the City Centre Land / 21 Peter McCallion's Involvement in WCD Revealed / 22 Settlement of the WCD Litigation / 23 Peter McCallions Interest in WCD / 25 The Mayor's Knowledge and Role / 26 The Mayor and City Staff / 26 The May 21,2oo8,Meeting Minutes / 27 The Mayor's Involvement / 27 Interventions with the Co-owners on WCD's Behalf / 27 Involvement in WCD's Internal Affairs / 28 16-10 CONTENTS iX A Mayor's Duties in a Conflict of Interest Situation J 28 Mr.O'Brien and Conflict of Interest / 2,9 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PHASE II / 31 Recommended Amendments to the Municipal Act,coos / 31 Recommended Amendments to the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act / 32. Create*a Preamble / 32 Clarify Scope of Act / 33 Beyond Pecuniary Interests / 33 Clarify Types of Meetings Captured by the MCIA / 33 The Need for Lesser Sanctions / 34 Standing to Pursue Claims / 34 The MCIA and the Integrity Commissioner / 34 Coordination with Municipal Codes of Conduct / 35 Recommended Amendments to the Mississauga Code of Conduct / 35 Preamble / 35 Changes to the Conflict Rules / 35 Integrity Commissioner / 36 Improper Use of Influence,Gifts,and Benefits / 37 Lobbyists / 37 Procedural Fairness / 37 Office of the Integrity Commissioner / 38 Lobbyists / 39 'Additional Considerations / 39 Publication of All Known Conflicts of Interest / 39 Comfort Letters / 40 The Municipal Councillor's Guide / 40 CONCLUSION / 41 16-11 OVERVIEW On November is, 2009, Mississauga City Council adopted a resolution requesting that the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice appoint a judge to conduct an inquiry pursuant to section 274 of the Municipal Act,2001. As is required by that section, a judge must be provided, and I was invited to assume the role of Commissioner. The Inquiry was asked to look into two broad areas. the first concerned issues in connection with the December 2000 Enersource Hydro Mississauga shareholders'agreement,to which the city was a party. Earlier that same year, Hydro Mississauga had been newly incorporated and commercially restruc- tured to become Enersource Hydro Mississauga (Enersource), the second largest electricity supplier in Ontario. The second area involved the acquisition by the City of Mississauga of approximately 8.5 acres of land in the city centre(the City Centre Land).This acquisition followed a failed transaction in which a company by the name of World Class Developments Limited (WCD) intended to build a hotel, con- vention centre, and condominiums.Peter McCallion,the son of Mayor Hazel McCallion, was a shareholder in WCD and its real estate agent. Commission counsel and I determined that, for reasons of efficiency, the Inquiry would examine the Enersource questions in Phase I of the Inquiry and the City Centre Land questions in Phase II. The evidence revealed that errors were made in relation to the Enersource I 16-12 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AIM Alberta Investment Management Corporation APS agreement of purchase and sale H designation term used to signify a holding on land HMC Hydro Mississauga Corporation ISF infrastructure stimulus fund MCIA Municipal Conflict of Interest Act MEUS municipal electric utilities OBCA Ontario Business Corporations Act OEB Ontario Energy Board OMB Ontario Municipal Board OMERS Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System RFP request for proposal WCD World Class Developments x 16-13 2 UPDATING THE ETHICAL INFRASTRUCTURE - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY transaction. City manager David O'Brien failed to discharge his duty 'to communicate a significant change in the terms of the city's transaction with Borealis Energy Corporation (Borealis). to Mayor McCallion and members of city council. I conclude that, although some limited changes to the city's practices need to be implemented,it is not necessary to make extensive recom- mendations in relation to the good governance of Mississauga. I have found that the actions of the mayor in relation to the City Centre Land and the wCD project raise significant concerns and require substantial recommendations. I make these findings with a measure of regret, having regard to the mayor's unique history of public service to Mississauga and to Canada. The Inquiry revealed that substantive legislative reforms are necessary at the provincial level.The Report also proposes changes to the Mississauga Code of Conduct and makes an attempt to define a role for an integrity commissioner in Mississauga. t 16-14 PHASE I The Enersource Transaction* Background In Phase I of the Inquiry, the Terms of Reference required me to investigate how Borealis came to have a veto over decisions of the board of directors of Enersource without Mississauga City Council being made aware of the veto before the closing of the transaction between Borealis and the city.The background facts surround- ing this issue can be summarized under the headings that follow. Change in Structure of Provincial Energy Utilities In 1995 the Ontario government authorized an advisory committee to study the province's energy structure and to assess the options for phasing compe- tition into Ontario's electricity system. At the time, municipal utilities were publicly owned,not-for-profit organizations established by local governments. The advisory committee, chaired by the Honourable Donald S. Macdonald, issued a report recommending that municipal utilities be restructured in a way that privatized the sale of electricity and made it competitive, but, at the same time,left the distribution of electricity as a publicly owned monopoly. Request for Proposals At that time the City of Mississauga operated Mississauga Hydro,which was a model utility.Although it was not the largest utility in Ontario,it was consid- 3 16-15 4 UPI5ATING THE ETHICAL INPRASTRUCTURE.- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ered the most efficiently run.Mississauga began considering options in accor- dance with the new mandate to restructure. In due course it made a public request for proposals from those interested in acquiring,leasing,or partnering with Hydro Mississauga. The successful bid came from Borealis,a division of the giant pension fund Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement,System (OMERS). Borealis pro- posed to create a strategic alliance with the City of Mississauga which would bring together other municipal electric utilities in the "9o5 region," an area within the 9o5 telephone area code in southern Ontario,and ultimately create a large utility owned by a number of municipalities. As new municipalities joined, Borealis would continue to make equity contributions to enable it to maintain a io per cent stake in the utility. Negotiation with Borealis The Put Once its. proposal was chosen by the city, Borealis and the city entered into negotiations regarding the precise terms of the deal.One of the issues addressed was the possibility of a`put" — the right to sell an asset at a fixed price for a fixed period. Although Borealis proposed purchasing only io per cent of Hydro Mississauga, a put would have entitled the city to require Borealis to purchase the remaining 90 per cent of shares before a set deadline if the eity so desired.This arrangement would protect the city against a declining market for municipal utilities,without raising any immediate political issues by selling. At some point during negotiations, the city proposed the option of a put. Although Borealis was initially opposed to the put, it ultimately granted the city a put option that would last for six months after the closing of the deal. The Strategic Alliance Agreement On April 12,2,000,city council instructed Mayor McCallion and the city clerk to execute the strategic alliance agreement with Borealis on behalf of the city. The strategic alliance agreement set out the nature of the new corporation and the principal agreement.Further details still had to be negotiated. Governance of the New Corporation With respect to the governance of the new corporation, the shareholders' agreement attached to the strategic alliance agreement provided that major 16-16 PHASE I —THE BNERsouRCE TRANSACTION 5 decisions required the approval of at least 75 per cent of the board of directors at a properly constituted meeting.A quorum was defined as 77 per cent of the total number of directors, provided that at least two of those present were appointees of Borealis,Because six of the directors would be nominees of the city and only two would be nominees of Borealis,this definition meant the city would retain a veto over all major decisions of the newly formed corporation. Bill ioo In June 2000 the Ontario government introduced Bill ioo, which stated, among other things,that in setting distribution rates,a municipality could not pass on costs arising out of interest or dividend payments to its customers. Given that a fundamental aspect of the strategic alliance agreement had been the recapitalization of Hydro Mississauga, this bill significantly undermined the vision of the strategic alliance between Borealis and the city, Mississauga could not pass any transition costs on to its consumers, The introduction of Bill ioo had a chilling effect on joint ventures involving municipal electric utilities.Although ultimately it was not passed into law,the main thrust of Bill ioo was adopted by the Ontario Energy Board through a minister's directive.Thereafter,it was no longer attractive for other 9o5 muni- cipalities to join the strategic alliance.There was concern among those negoti- ating with Borealis on behalf of the city that the strategic alliance with Borealis would not close. Final Negotiations The chronology of the final negotiations of the strategic alliance agreement, during which the Borealis veto was added, can be summarized as follows: November 29, 2,000 • The draft of the final agreement was reviewed with city council. At this point no change had been made to article z.i5,the provision into which the Borealis veto was ultimately inserted. • City council passed By-law o600-2000 authorizing Mayor McCallion and the city clerk to execute all documents necessary to effect the closing of the strategic alliance agreement. 16-17 6 UPDATING THE ETHICAL INFRASTRUCTURE - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY December 4,2000 + Michael Nobrega (then CEO of Borealis) and David Lever of McCarthy Tetrault LLP (solicitors for Borealis) agreed they would take some time to review each draft agreement carefully and to share their thoughts. + Mr.Nobrega and Mr.Lever agreed three changes were necessary,the most important of which was the insertion of the stipulation into article 2.15 of the shareholders'agreement that at least one of the Borealis directors had to be among the 75 per cent of directors required to approve a major decision. In effect, then, Borealis would have a veto with respect to major decisions of the corporation. Because the amount that OMERS would be required to pay if the city exercised the put would far exceed the value of the business, given the minister's directive, Mr. Nobrega and Mr. Lever both felt that OMERS / Borealis was in a situation where it bore all the risk of owning Hydro Mississauga.OMERS,therefore,wanted protection against decisions that could harm the value of the corporation. + Mr. Nobrega discussed the changes with David O'Brien. Mr. O'Brien was at the time transitioning from his role as city manager of Mississauga to.CEO of Enersource, but was nevertheless negotiating with Borealis on behalf of the city. + Mr.O'Brien discussed the changes with Mr.Nobrega and then advised the city's outside counsel,William Houston of Fraser Milner Casgram LLP. + Counsel for Borealis prepared blacklined agreements with the changes and forwarded them to Mr.Houston. + On receiving the blacklined agreements, Mr. Houston spoke with Mr. O'Brien, who confirmed he had reached an agreement with Mr.Nobrega about the changes contained in the shareholders'agreement. December 6,2000 + A very short city council meeting was held in the morning.The sole issue discussed was the interim tax levy for 2oo1. + The strategic alliance agreement,which now included the Borealis veto,was executed by the mayor and the city cleric later in the day. + Among the documents signed by the mayor was a certificate of familiarity with the strategic alliance agreement. 16-18 / r PHASE I-THE ENERSOURCE TRANSAC'T'ION 7 Summary of Main Conclusions Pursuant to the Terms of Reference,I was required to make findings regarding i whether the Borealis veto was a reasonable term of the agreement; a whether council should have been advised of the Borealis veto before the execution of the strategic alliance agreement; 3 if so,whether council was so advised;and 4 if council was not advised,whether there were any factors that contributed to a breakdown in communication. A summary of my conclusions is set out under the headings that follow. The Borealis Veto The inclusion of the Borealis veto made good sense once the deal became a bilateral deal, and there were sound business reasons for it. First, given the value of the put'and the ease with which the city could have required Borealis to purchase the city's shares for $36o million, it was reasonable for Borealis to ensure that the city could not make decisions without the approval of at least one Borealis director. In addition, Borealis was committing to purchase all Hydro Mississauga's debt, while the city was benefiting substantially from the money Borealis was investing. Mr.Nobrega raised the veto late in the negotiations because, strategically, it was more likely to be accepted by Mississauga at that time,when agreement had been•reached on virtually all the other points.I emphasize.that proceeding in this manner is not in any way unfair in commercial negotiations between sophisticated parties. Council and the Addition of the Borealis Veto Council should have been advised that the Borealis veto had been inserted into the transaction.The veto was a major change that should have been discussed with council at a special meeting called for that purpose and with the involve- ment of solicitors acting for Mississauga. Mr. O'Brien conceded that it was his duty as city manager, responsible for carriage of the negotiations, to ensure that he understood the full import of major changes to the deal. It was his duty to ensure that council and the 16-19 8 UPDATING THE ETHICAL INFRASTRUCTURE - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY mayor were fully briefed about the major change after November 29.This duty existed even though Mr.O'Brien was by then acting as the cEo of Enersource. Council Not Advised of the Borealis Veto Mr. O'Brien failed in his obligation to draw the veto to the attention of the mayor and council.No member of council, including the mayor, was advised of the Borealis veto. the weight of the evidence precludes any other finding. Although Mr. O'Brien believed he had made council aware of the Borealis veto at some point on December 6, he was not able to say it was"more likely than not" that he did so. Mr. O'Brien testified that it was"very probable" he spoke with the mayor about the veto,but the mayor's evidence that she was not advised of the change was more persuasive.According to the mayor, had she been told about the veto, she would have insisted council be informed of this major change,and she would have asked Mr.Houston to take council through the pros and cons of the amendment.The mayor believes members of council would have approved the change had they been properly advised. Mr. Houston-did not provide any evidence to the Inquiry as to whether council was advised of the December q., 2000, change. Although he had a vague recollection of an in camera meeting just before the December 6, 2000, meeting, Mary Ellen Bench, the Mississauga city solicitor, told him that such a meeting had not taken place,and he accepted that statement.Ms.Bench also explained to the Inquiry that a city by-law prohibits council from meeting to transact business or make decisions without following the appropriate proce- dures for calling meetings. Councillors George Carlson,Carmen Corbasson,Nando Iannicca,Patricia Mullin, and Maya Prentice swore affidavits that they did not recall any meet- ing or briefing on or around December 6, 2000, at which the shareholders' agreement was discussed. Councillor Iannicca added in his affidavit that he did recall a meeting with Mr.O'Brien and council members,which he said was held in the caucus room,where the put option and veto clause were discussed. However, he was certain this meeting did not occur before the shareholders' agreement was signed on December 6,2000. Councillor Katie Mahoney recalled a meeting in the caucus room where Mr. O'Brien outlined the veto and explained to the councillors that there was one addition to the agreement we've agreed to:' She told the Inquiry that a brief discussion followed Mr. O'Brien's statement and that Mr. O'Brien sat 16-20 PHASE I -THE E'NSRSOURCH TRANSACTION 9. in the chair usually occupied'by the mayor, a detail that suggests the mayor was not in attendance. Although she believes this meeting was held before the December 6 closing of the deal, Councillor Mahoney could not assist the Inquiry in determining exactly when the meeting tools place. The weight of evidence persuades me that council was not advised of the Borealis veto before the execution of the agreement.Councillor Mahoney was alone in her recollection that council was told of the veto in advance of the closing of the deal. . Chain of Command: David O'Brien's Dual Role and the Lack of a City Solicitor At the time the Borealis veto was added to the shareholders'agreement, David O'Brien was acting both as city manager and as a member of the board of directors of Enersource.The difficulties associated with communications and approvals were exacerbated by Mr.O'Brien's dual responsibilities as Enersource began operations and by the failure of the city to appoint a city solicitor to oversee the legal work for the largest transaction it had ever entered into. It is imperative that large municipalities have a city solicitor involved in major transactions on an ongoing basis. The city solicitor,should have suffi- cient information in order to brief the mayor and the city manager at regular intervals and particularly whenever there are major developments in a transac- tion. Although the city manager may well be the point of contact with out- side counsel in such transactions,it is important that the city solicitor be kept informed of these discussions to ensure that members of council,including the mayor,are able to receive timely internal legal advice: A proper chain of command in Mississauga would likely have ensured that the information about the Borealis veto was shared with council. Certification of Documents In executing the documents on December 6, a000, the mayor was required to certify that she was familiar with all the terms of the agreement. The mayor advised the Inquiry that this was the on1X time during her tenure as mayor that she had ever been asked to'sign such a document.It was unreasonable to require the mayor to certify personal familiarity when she, quite understand- ably, relied On her staff to review the provisions of the agreement in detail. 16-21 IO UPDATING THE ETHICAL INFRASTRUCTURE - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Quite simply, the mayor's certification must be taken to mean something. She was not expected to review the shareholders'agreement dealing with the shareholdings, with governance, and with all the various complexities.At the same time,the mayor should have declined to certify her familiarity unless she had taken the time to conduct such a review. Ms.Bench testified that city council now has a procedure in place whereby the legal department stamps agreements as `approved as to form' before the mayor and the city clerk sign them,so that the mayor and the clerk know the documents have been vetted through the appropriate channels.Ms.Bench told the Inquiry that the current procedure would have ensured that the version of the agreement with the blacklined changes would not have been signed with- out council's approval. In Camera Minutes In the evidence presented at the Inquiry, intelligent and well-meaning wit- nesses could not agree as to what had been discussed at in camera meetings. Much of the cost of Phase I of the Inquiry could have been saved had minutes been kept.Minutes should be kept,and their distribution should be controlled to protect confidentiality. Before this Inquiry,city council and Borealis were close to reaching an inde- pendent resolution of the outstanding issue. City council had passed a reso- lution indicating that it wished to purchase Borealis's interest in Enersource. However,attendees at a public meeting held to discuss Enersource subsequently indicated a strong preference for keeping Borealis as a io per cent shareholder- . of the utility.A negotiating-committee was then formed by council to negotiate amendments to the shareholders'agreement with Borealis. By early October 2oo9 Borealis and the negotiating committee were close to reaching a new agreement that would have,among other things,eliminated the Borealis veto. However, before approval of the newly negotiated agree- ment,council passed a resolution calling for this Inquiry.Mr.Nobrega did not think it would be appropriate to sign the new agreement until the Inquiry was completed.Accordingly,no deal was reached. 16-22 PHASE I -THE ENERSouRCE TRANSACTION II Summary of Recommendations for Phase I A.brief summary of my recommendations in relation to Phase I of the Inquiry follows udder the headings below. Informal Meetings of Council No informal meetings of city council should be allowed. For clarity, it is not appropriate for city business, including briefings from Officials which would otherwise be discussed at a council meeting, to be discussed in an informal setting. [Recommendation i,page 57*1 Minutes of In Camera Meetings Minutes should be kept of any in camera meetings, and in paper form only, To protect confidentiality, distribution of those minutes should be controlled through bar coding or numbered copies. [Recommendation 2,page 581 Importance of Involvement of City Solicitor The city solicitor should be involved in negotiations between the city and third parties from the outset and should be kept informed.at all stages, [Recommendation 3,page 591 Certification of Personal Familiarity Public officials should not certify personal familiarity with any document unless the statement is true in all respects, [Recommendation 4,page 591 * References are to the full recommendations found in the Report. 16-23 PRASE II City Centre Land and World Mass Developments Background. The City of Mississauga is one of Canada's great urban success stories.It grew out of farmers'.fields and has become a thriving regional economy, hosting more than 6o Fortune 500 companies.As a merger of smaller towns,however, Mississauga has had something of a void at its present core and has seemed -to lack a centre or a soul.For much of its history an enormous shopping mall, Square One,has by default provided Mississauga with a city centre. The city's current Official Plan envisions a robust,pedestrian friendly,tradi- tional downtown consisting of offices,housing,and retail development.Since the early 199os,the city hoped that a hotel and convention centre could be built next to Square One and the Living Arts Centre to support this vision of a mixed-use, vibrant core. A complex of this kind would attract tourists, meet the needs of the business community; make the city an attractive locale for conferences and conventions,and generate substantial property tax revenue for the city. Hazel McCallion has been mayor of Mississauga since 1978 and has long intended to bring a four- or five-star hotel and convention centre to the downtown area. The quality of the hotel was important if the city hoped to attract foreign investment and corporate headquarters to the core. Although Mississauga is home to hundreds of companies, their visiting executives are often accommodated in luxury hotels located in Toronto. 13 16-24 14. UPDATING THE ETHICAL INFRASTRUCTURE - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In Phase II of the Inquiry, the Terms of Reference required me to investi- gate whether Mayor McCallion had a conflict of interest in relation to a deal between the owners of the City Centre Land — the land adjacent to Square One and the Living Arts Centre — and World Class Developments (wCD), a company formed by her son, Peter McCallion, to buy and develop land in the city centre for the purpose of developing an upscale hotel and several condo- minium buildings on it. I have found that the mayor promoted the interests of wCD throughout the City Centre Land deal, and to a limited extent after its termination. She did so knowing that Peter McCallion had a pecuniary interest in relation to wCD. She ought to have known that his interest extended beyond acting as a real estate agent.Given the mayor's knowledge of her son's pecuniary interest, I find that her actions in promoting wCD amounted to a conflict of interest, both real and apparent. City Centre Land Owners Most land in the city centre,including the City Centre Land;is owned jointly by two Canadian pension giants. Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (oMERS) and Alberta Investment Management Corporation (AIM). oMERS is a large pension plan dealing with investment activities and the provi- sion of pension services to plan members and employees.Similarly, AIM is an Alberta crown corporation responsible for pension and endowment assets for the Province of Alberta.Together they shared an equal partnership with respect to the City Centre Land.Oxford Properties(Oxford),a major investment divi- sion of oMERS,was responsible for the day-to-day property and development management of this land for both OMERS and AIM (the co-owners). Co-owners'Objectives Although the co-owners were not initially interested in selling the land, they were well aware of the city's desire to develop a traditional downtown core rather than merely to extend the existing suburban environment. They knew the City Centre Land was integral to that development and,given the amount of property and assets they owned in Mississauga, they understood it was in their interests to foster and maintain good relations with the mayor and the 16-25 PHASE II = CITY CENTRE LAND AND WORLD CLASS DEVELOPMENTS 15 city staff.They quite sensibly regarded it as`good business"to assist the mayor and the city to achieve certain development goals. For the co-owners of the City Centre Land,their primary consideration in any sale was to ensure that a complementary use was made of the land.The sale price itself was of secondary importance.The co-owners also jointly own Square One,a major investment.Rather than leaving the land vacant,it was in their commercial interests to develop the City Centre Land, but only in a way that would enhance'the value of Square One.From a business perspective,this goal was entirely reasonable. World Class Developments The Terms of Reference require me to make findings about the relationship between Mayor McCallion and various participants in the WCD transaction. Accordingly,I reviewed the evidence relating to the nature and extent of Peter McCallions involvement in WCD.Although Mr. McCallion held himself out simply as a real estate agent through most of the period 2oO5-2009, I have found, based on the evidence presented at the Inquiry, that he was, and knew that he was,a principal O£WCD. WCD and the Hotel / Condominium.Project In late 2004 Mr. McCallion approached Murray Cook, a developer and fam- ily friend, about the possibility of making a proposal to the co-owners for a hotel/ condominium project on the City Centre Land.Mr.McCallion's expe- rience was strictly as a real estate agent, and he had never put a development project together.Mr.McCallion wanted to involve Mr.Cook to lend credibility to the project and to negotiate the agreement of purchase and sale of the City Centre Land with the co-owners. In 2005 Mr. Cook made an initial presentation to Oxford representatives regarding the proposal.He later attended a number of meetings and presented the project to the city. On February 22, 2oo5,Mr.McCallion instructed his solicitors to form the company that would become *WCD with a view to facilitating the project. By 2oo6 he was aware that his potential investors were not prepared to invest in the project until he could confirm he had secured the City Centre Land. He 16-26 IS UPDATING THE ETHICAL INFRASTRUCTURE - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY therefore approached a friend, Leo Couprie, about the project and explained he was looking for an investor to provide the deposit money for the purchase of the land.Mr.Couprie's understanding was that, once,the land was secured, Mr. McCallion would find a larger developer to take over the project. Given that Mr. Couprie was the person with the money, Mr. McCallion instructed his lawyers to change the directors,officers,and shareholders of WCD to reflect Mr.Couprie as principal.Mr.Couprie agreed to invest$750,000 in the project on the understanding that he would be repaid $i,5 million once a developer was found. When Mr. Cook learned that Mr. McCallion intended to become the sell-, ing agent for the condominiums, he advised him it would be difficult to find an investor if the selling agent had been engaged in advance, Most investors and developers have teams in place with whom they prefer to work.Mr.Cook and Mr, McCallion disagreed on this point, and, in the summer of 2007, Mr, McCallion invited another friend,Tony DeCicco, to join WCD.Mr. DeCicco is a businessman with experience in residential subdivision and condominium development, but he had no prior experience with a project of this magni- tude. Mr.McCallion, however, believed Mr. DeCicco had both the resources to finance the project and the experience to bring it to fruition. Accordingly, he asked Mr. DeCicco to take over the lead role and to manage WCD — to deal with the co-owners,the consultants, and the city.Mr. DeCicco thereafter assumed day-to-day control over the company. Mr.McCallion also made a personal financial commitment to the project, wCD's financial records reveal that, on a number of occasions, Mr.McCallion put money into,and received money from,the company.As he admitted at the Inquiry,these were unusual steps for a real estate agent to take. Agreement of Purchase and Sale The agreement of purchase and sale (a.PS) between the co-owners (vendors) and WCD'(purchaser) was executed on January 31, 2007 The original offer involved the purchase.of three parcels of land, of which one was to be dedi- cated to the development of a five-star hotel. Over time this purchase turned into two parcels of land— Block 9 and Block 29.— and merely a four'-star hotel. However, the hotel remained a key requirement for all stakeholders through- out the process. The negotiations regarding the APS were protracted.The most significant 16-27 PHASE II - CITX CENTRE LAND AND WORLD CLASS DEVELOPMENTS 17 sticking points revolved around assurances that the hotel would be built and that various zoning approvals would be granted. Ultimately, the co-owners' concerns were addressed in the APs by a number of conditions intended to ensure that an appropriate four-star hotel would be built.Although the agree- ment allowed for extensions of time to satisfy conditions relating to such things as site plan approval, unavoidable delays, and any related court applica- tions,the condition requiring evidence of a hotel management agreement was not subject to an extension. wCD Site Plan-Application and Fees Site plan application fees are used to cover the operating costs a city incurs in dealing with the site plan application. In Mississauga they are set out on an annual basis through a broad by-law that covers many sets of fees across the city.The amount of the fee depends on whether the development is residential or non-residential and on the size of the property in question. The wcD project was a complex one with eight or nine buildings covering a large portion of downtown Mississauga.A hotel would be constructed ini- tially,followed by eight condominiums. Although application fees were not typically charged before the approval of detailed site plans,it was felt,given the scale of the wcD project,that some ini- tial fees were reasonable.Staff in the City Planning and Building Department (the planning department)ultimately decided to charge wCD io per cent of the overall application fee at the time it submitted its master site plan application. wCD made an initial payment of$52,000, as well as $3,240 to lift the H des- ignation (a term used to signify a holding on land), but it made no further payments toward the site plan application fee. At the time wCD's site plan application was pending, there was an increase in regional development charges. These fees are levied by municipal govern- ments to support infrastructure, such as water supply facilities, water treat- ment plans, regional roads,and police services.Regional development charges are due at the time a building permit is issued. In zoos the Region of Peel introduced transition provisions to the development charges by-laws which allowed existing applications to be grandfathered into the old regime. WCD'S site plan was appropriately grandfathered under the transition provisions of the Peel development charges by-law. Although this status meant that WCD was entitled to pay the lesser Peel 16-28 IS UPDATING THE ETHICAL INFRASTRUCTURE — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY development charges,it also meant that WCD's site plan application fee was due and payable. Despite assurances from WCD through its consultants, N. Barry Lyon Consultants Ltd., this fee was never paid.In fact,Mr.DeCicco admitted he had never intended to pay any such fees but had not conveyed this informa- tion to WCD's consultants. Actions of City Staff One of the subsidiary issues in the Inquiry was how and why it came about that city staff continued to work on the wCD project, notwithstanding the fact that wCD's site plan application fee was never paid. The Inquiry process revealed that the decision to continue work on the WCD project was made independently by city staff:It was not the result of influence by Mr.McCallion or the mayor,or because of their relationship to the WCD project. The decision was made out of concern that city staff might be short of time to complete the necessary planning steps. However, the fact that WCD did not pay the application fee put city staff in a difficult position, given the mayor's ongoing promotion of the project.Mr.DeCicco took advantage of the good faith of city staff..It was most unfortunate that he relied on the excellent reputation of WCD's consultants and the trust of city staff in order to avoid paying fees. Failure to Lift the H Designation, The H designation must be"lifted"before development can take place.For the H to be lifted,a development agreement and servicing agreement with the city must be executed.The matter then proceeds to the Planning and Development Committee of council and, finally, to city council. Council must approve the development and servicing agreement and must authorize the lifting of the H designation before development may proceed on the site. The WCD project,along with the lifting of the H designation,was put on the council agenda on April 23 and again on April 30, ?008.This item had to be removed from the agenda at the last minute on both occasions owing to W CD's failure to pay various outstanding fees,including the site plan application fee, and to execute the necessary agreements. i I 16-29 PHASE II - CITY CENTRE LAND AND WORLD CLASS DEVELOPMENTS 19 Difficulty Meeting the Hotel Condition Despite the clear provisions in the APs requiring a four-star hotel, by the end of January 2oo8 WCD's plans for the City Centre Land were scaled back signifi- cantly.Meeting the hotel requirement in the APS was proving to be difficult.A study conducted at the beginning of the WCD project revealed that a five-star hotel was not tenable, but that a four-star hotel might be possible. However, WCD had difficulty finding anyone interested in running even a four-star hotel on the City Centre Land. Suresh (Steve) Gupta, the CEO of Easton's Group of Hotels, a company involved in the development and management of hotels,testified that a four- star hotel requires 24-hour room and concierge service as well as a large lobby. In his view,the high room rates required to sustain such a facility could not be achieved, given the less-expensive hotels in the vicinity and the proximity of other four-star hotels both near the airport and in downtown Toronto. When WCD could not meet the hotel requirements in the APs on time,Mr. DeCicco, who had by now assumed control Of WCD, sought to have the hotel condition waived entirely.The vendors were not keen to do so.Although they gave WeD a number of extensions with respect to the hotel condition,they ulti- mately required some written evidence of WCD's efforts to secure a four-star or better hotel operator for the site before any further extensions would be granted. It was in this context that Mr.DeCicco asked Mr.Gupta for a letter confirming that he had been involved in negotiations to manage a hotel for WCD.Mr.Gupta and Mr. DeCicco finally signed three documents on December 15, 2008. First, they signed a very brief letter confirm*ing negotiations between WCD and EastotA Group. Second, they executed a management agreement. However, given that there was no assurance of when or if the hotel would be built,Mr.Gupta asked Mr.DeCicco to add a provision that allowed for termination of the management agreement on seven days'notice.A third letter(the"side letter")was then drafted by WCD's lawyer,Emilio Bisceglia.It read: Further to our discussions and negotiation over the last year,we confirm the following; I. The parties are not obligated to take any steps with respect to the terms and conditions of the Management Agreement executed between our- selves dated December 15,2008 until the transaction between World Class Developments Limited and Omers Realty Management Corp. closes, or such further and other date as the parties may agree in writing. 16-30 20 UPDATING THE ETHICAL INFRASTRUCTURE - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2. Either party shall have the option to terminate the Management Agreement by providing one week's written notice. Upon delivery of the Notice of Termination,both parties will be released of all of their obligations under the Management Agreement. The side letter was never produced to the vendors, and its existence was not known to anyone other than Mr.Gupta and WCD until late in the proceedings of this Inquiry. The vendors regarded the brief letter confirming negotiations between WCD and Easton's Group as weak evidence of any actual steps taken toward a viable four-star hotel.They wanted evidence of a signed management agreement. The APS was terminated on January 9, 2oo9.Sometime thereafter,the ven- dors commenced litigation against wCD. Although the management agreement was produced as part of Mr.DeCicco's and Mr. Gupta's affidavits in wCD'S counter-application against the vendors (discussed below),the side letter did not form any part of either affidavit.The failure to include the side letter as part of these two affidavits was said to be an oversight. However, the side letter clearly undermined the strength of the management agreement, making it effectively meaningless. Had the vendors been made aware of the side letter,it is likely that the APS would have been ter- minated even sooner, on December 15, 2oo8. Furthermore,had the side letter formed part of Mr.DeCiccds or Mr.Gupta's affidavit,the litigation settlement would likely have been quite different. Termination of the APS On July 9, 2oo9, the co-owners commenced an application in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) to confirm that'the APS with WCD had been terminated on January 9, 2oo9, and that WCD had no further rights pursuant to that agreement. On August 28, 2009, WCD filed a counter-application against the vendors seeking, among other things, a declaration that the APS between the vendors and WCD remained in effect.In its counter-application,WCD sought only Mon- etary relief.It did not seek,any relief that would tie up the City Centre Land. Tony DeCicco,Steve Gupta, and Peter McCallion swore affidavits in support of the counter-application. 16-31 PHASE II - CITY CENTRE LAND AND WORLD CLASS DEVELOPMENTS 2I Sheridan College's Interest in the City Centre Land In -,00g Sheridan College.(Sheridan) requested significant financial support from the city in exchange for establishing a campus in Mississauga.Instead of providing the funds,the city decided to purchase the now vacant City Centre Land and lease it to Sheridan at a nominal rate.On July 2o,2oog,an agreement of purchase and sale was entered into between the co-owners and the city. Out,of concern for any potential claims arising from the terminated agree- ment with WCD, the city and Sheridan entered into an indemnification and hold-harmless agreement(the indemnification agreement)with the co-owners. It provided that the co-owners would assume all responsibility for defending any action brought by WCD and would reimburse the city or Sheridan,or both, for all reasonable legal costs incurred up to a maximum aggregate amount of $5oo,000,As further protection,the city entered into a release agreement with Sheridan in which Sheridan acknowledged the possibility of a claim by WCD and released the city from any responsibility. On September 8, 2oo9,City Solicitor Mary Ellen Bench recommended to city council that the city proceed to close the transaction with the co-owners on September z7,2oo9.In her Report to Council of that date,Ms.Bench referred to the outstanding litigation between the co-owners and WCD in relation to the same land and noted that,in support of its counter-application,WCD relied on the following: evidence provided through affidavits of two of its principals, namely Peter McCallion and Tony DeCicco,as well as an affidavit from Steve Gupta,of the Eastons Group of Hotels Inc. These affidavits reference meetings with City Staff and Mayor McCallion to discuss the hotel.Again,there are no allegations or suggestions of impropriety on the part of the City,its sraff or elected officials, in the materials filed by wcD. This report was likely the first time that most members of city council became aware of Mr. McCallion's interest in WCD. Indeed, the city solicitor became aware of Mr.McCallion's interest only when she personally reviewed his affi- davit on the counter-application. 16-32 22 UPDATING THE ETHICAL INFRASTRUCTURE - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Peter McCalliods Involvement in WCD Revealed The affidavit of Peter McCallion sworn on August 24., 2009 (the August 24. affidavit) may be regarded as the seed that sprouted this Inquiry. In the first paragraph Mr. McCallion states:"I am one of the principals of World Class Developments:'The August 24. affidavit was drafted by WCD's litigation coun- sel on Mr. McCallion's behalf. However, it was reviewed with Mr. McCallion by Emilio Bisceglia,WCD's solicitor.It seems apparent that Mr.McCallion was chosen as an affiant because his evidence would put pressure on the co-owners (or at least OMERS) to resolve the litigation,particularly given the inclusion of paragraphs in other affidavits describing meetings with the mayor. Mr.McCallion requested several revisions to the first draft of the August 24. affidavit, none of which dealt with the statement that he was a principal of WCD.When Mr.Bisceglia asked Mr.McCallion to come to his office to swear the affidavit,Mr.McCallion advised him he would do so after his mother and Mr.DeCicco had a chance to discuss it. Mr.McCallion told the Inquiry that he mentioned he was swearing an affi- davit to his mother, but he did not discuss the contents with her before he'did so.Mr.McCallion also said that sometime after the city solicitor's September 8, 2oo9, Report to Council, the mayor called him to ask why he had referred to himself as a`principal" Mr. McCallion claimed he did not believe he was a principal of WCD and had simply overlooked this statement in his affidavit.Mr. McCallion thereupon advised Mr. Bisceglia's office that the statement in the affidavit needed to be changed.When Mr.Bisceglia heard about the requested change,he was concerned. He instructed his staff not to commission the affi- davit because he knew Mr. McCallion was indeed a principal of WCD. Mr. Bisceglia was not only WCD's lawyer but an investor as well. It appears that the second affidavit,which purported to"delete"any reference to Peter McCallion being a principal of WCD,was drafted by Mr.Bisceglia's staff before he instructed them that such an affidavit should not be commissioned. Mr. McCallion ultimately took the second affidavit to the mayor's personal solicitors, Danson Schwarz Recht LLP, to be sworn on September ii, 2oo9. Sometime thereafter, Ms.Bench received Mr.McCallion's second affidavit by .fax,without a covering letter or any explanation of the changes. A third affidavit was sworn a few days later,on September 15,2oo9.This affi- davit stated that Peter McCallion was not a principal of WCD.Mr.McCallion said he swore this third affidavit on the advice of his mother,who felt that the 16-33 PHASE II — CITY CENTRE LAND AND WORLD CLASS DEVELOPMENTS 23 second affidavit was not sufficiently clear.By contrast,Mayor McCallion testi- fied that she had never seen or heard about the third affidavit. The weight of the evidence presented at the Inquiry is quite compelling. - Peter McCallion was clearly a principal in wCD.Furthermore,he knew he was a principal, and he ought not to have sworn his second and third affidavits suggesting otherwise.Although Mr.McCallion swore the third affidavit at the instance of his mother, it is probable the mayor did not fully appreciate her son's precise interest in WCD. It is therefore most unfortunate that she urged him to change his sworn testimony without ensuring that all the facts were on the table. Settlement Of the wcD Litigation The APS was terminated on January 9,2oo9.On April 30,2009,Michael Kitt, on behalf of OMERS / Oxford,sent a letter to Mr.DeCicco indicating that the co-owners were in negotiation with another potential purchaser for the City Centre Land. At the TAcc (Developments) golf tournament dinner in July 2oo9,Mayor McCallion raised with former city manager David O'Brien her concerns about difficulties in closing the Sheridan deal.Her main concern, according to Mr. O'Brien,related to contamination found on the City Centre Land.She was also worried that the outstanding litigation between wcD and the co-owners might have an impact on the deal. The mayor suggested that Mr. O'Brien become familiar with the issues.Later that same evening,Mr.O'Brien suggested to Mr. McCallion that they meet to discuss the possibility of a settlement. Mr.O'Brien insisted in his testimony that the mayor had not explicitly asked him to become involved in the resolution of the wCD litigation.Likewise,Mayor McCallion denied asking Mr. O'Brien to negotiate a settlement with wCD. Nevertheless, the mayor and Mr. O'Brien had worked closely together over a number of years,and it is evident that Mr.O'Brien understood from his conver- sation with the mayor at the golf tournament dinner that he was to do whatever he could to resolve the litigation.He immediately set out to do just that. On July 16, 2oo9, Mr. O'Brien met with Mr. DeCicco and Mr.McCallion at a Sunset Grill in Mississauga to discuss settlement of weD's litigation with OMERS.Mr.O'Brien told Mr.DeCicco that,weD had no case,but Mr.DeCicco was adamant that weD held a legitimate interest in the land and declined to discuss a settlement. 16-34 24 UPDATING THE ETHICAL INFRASTRUCTURE - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On September 7,20'09,Michael Nobtega,the current CEO Of OMERS,met with Mr. O'Brien befor a meeting of the OMERS investment committee.Mr. Nobrega asked Mr. O'Brien to explore with Mr. DeCicco a monetary range for possible settlement with WCD.Mr.Nobrega testified that he had concerns regarding OMERS'liability pursuant to the indemnification.agreement which the co-owners had executed in favour of the city, He said he believed the indemnification agreement resulted in some sort of open-ended liability for the co-owners in favour of the city and Sheridan. On review, it is clear that the indemnity exposed the co-owners to no such liability beyond the damages being sought by WCD.None of the lawyers involved(Borden Ladner Gervais LLP acting on behalf of Sheridan;Thornton Grout Finnigan LLP on behalf of OMERS;or City Solicitor Ms,Bench)thought there was any legal risk arising from the indemnification agreement. Mr.Nobrega nevertheless believed there was a business risk that was com- pletely divorced from any notion of legal risk. He was without question well aware of the political dimensions in Mississauga of the WCD counterclaim.On August 2,7,2oog,Mr.O'Brien had emailed Mr.Nobrega the following message: Can we talk sometime today.Hazel called me concerning the Oxford issue with Mississauga.She is quite concerned.Could be political issues. By this point Mr.O'Brien had seen the affidavit Mr.McCallion had sworn in which he described himself as a principal of WCD.Mr.O'Brien quite accu- rately anticipated that the exposure of Peter McCallion as a principal of WCD would raise political issues. It is more than probable that Mr. Nobrega also recognized that,whatever legal risks there might have been,the WCD litigation had the potential to become much messier once Mr. McCallion's interest in WCD had been disclosed. A second meeting tools place involving Mr. O'Brien, Mr. DeCicco, and Mr. McCallion on September zo, 2oog, at:the Delta Meadowvale Hotel in Mississauga.By all accounts Mr. McCallion was silent throughout the meet- ing. After a couple of hours of negotiation between Mr. O'Brien and Mr. DeCicco,the meeting ended without resolution.About half an hour later,Mr. DeCicco called Mr. O'Brien to 'suggest that an offer of$5 million from the co-owners would be acceptable to WCD.After brief further negotiations, they agreed on$4 million.Although Mr.DeCicco's testimony differed as to how the 16-35 PHASE II— CITY CENTRE LAND AND WORLD CLASS DEVELOPMENTS 25 negotiations proceeded,all witnesses agree the ultimate settlement was$4 mil- lion.To conclude the settlement, on September 11, zoo9,Mr. Bisceglia served a formal offer to settle on behalf of WCD with the co-owners for $4 million. The evidence was clear that Peter McCallion did not receive any of the $4 million settlement..He was not the only investor Tony DeCicco failed to repay.John Di Poce, a prominent businessman and at the time a friend of Mr. DeCicco, invested $992,753 in WCD, which included a payment of $392,753.71 for WCD's outstanding bills when he exited the deal at the end of April Zoos. The Inquiry heard no evidence of any repayment to Mr. Di Poce, and it seems he has received nothing for his investment. It would appear that all the equity partners, except Mr.McCallion and Mr.Di Poce, were repaid. Mr. Bisceglia received his and his family's entire investment ($61,000). Mr. DeCicco and his companies got approximately $2.2 million. Mr. Couprie was repaid his initial $750,000 investment in three instal- ments, but he did not receive the additional $750,00o he was to get when WCD found a developer. Peter McCallion's Interest in WCD Mr.McCallion owned 16 per cent of the equity of WCD. He understood at all material times that he had a significant ownership interest in WCD but may not,at all times,have had a precise understanding of the nature Of that interest. Although Mr.McCallion minimized his role with WCD in his testimony, a review of his association with WCD reveals that he was responsible for several important decisions made on behalf of WCD and that he took a number of active steps to further the WCD project: + Mr.McCallion lent money to WCD to meet its financial obligations to keep the deal alive, and, on occasion, he received money from WCD for his per- sonal living expenses. + Mr.McCallion advanced WCD's interests with the co-owners. + Mr.McCallion was named as an owner of WCD in a marketing.document circulated by Ernst&Young on WCD's behalf + Mr.McCallion was the guarantor of a loan from Leo Couprie to WCD. + Pursuant to a declaration of trust,Mr.Couprie held shares in WCD in trust 16-36 26 UPDATING THE ETHICAL INFRASTRUCTURE - ExECUTIVE SUMMARY for the benefit of Mr.McCallion,and no steps'were ever taken to terminate this trust. + Mr. McCallion carried "World Class Group" business cards bearing his name. The Mayor's Knowledge and Role On January 29, 2oo7, at Pier 4 Storehouse Restaurant in Toronto, Mayor McCallion witnessed the signatures of Peter McCallion and Leo Couprie on both a loan agreement involving WCD and a declaration of trust making Peter McCallioh the beneficiary of WCD shares.In her testimony at the Inquiry,the mayor insisted she had not read either of those documents before she signed them.When they were produced for her signature at the restaurant,they were described to her as agreements to protect her son's and Mr.Couprie's interests in case something happened to them while they were travelling abroad. From even a brief review of these documents, however, Mayor McCallion must have known'that her son was involved in the WCD transaction in some way beyond acting as a real estate agent. She knew that the documents she was being asked to sign were business documents and that they bore the sig- natures of her son and Leo Couprie. She also knew that Mr. McCallion had been involved in the wCD transaction for some time and that Mr.Couprie was an investor in WCD. Given her intention to advocate for the WCD project, she ought to have asked more questions before, and even after, witnessing these signatures. To the extent that Mayor McCallion acted in her official capacity in rela- tion to the City Centre Land deal,a real conflict of interest existed as a result of Peter McCallion's pecuniary interest in WCD.The mayor knew of her son's pecuniary interest from the outset. The Mayor and City Staff There is no evidence that Mayor McCallion interacted with city staff in rela- tion to the WCD project before the termination of the APs. Nor is there any evidence that she was involved with city staff with respect to the amount or timing of WCD'S site plan application fee, or with the city planning depart- ment's decision to process the application notwithstanding the non-payment of fees. 16-37 PHASE II — CITY CENTRE LAND AND WORLD CLASS DEVELOPMENTS 27 The May 22, 2oo8, Meeting Minutes The minutes of the May 21, 2oo8, Mississauga City Council meeting reflect that Mayor McCallion declared a conflict that day with respect to WCD. A review of the video footage of that council meeting revealed,however, that no such declaration was made.The reason for this discrepancy became an issue in this Inquiry. The Inquiry revealed that the mayor had declared a conflict of interest on a prior occasion, when the wCD matter was first brought before council. It is most likely that Mayor McCallion simply forgot to do so again on May 21, 2008, the date to which the matter had been deferred and on which, as it turned out,the WCD project was only briefly before council. I have accepted the evidence of Shalini Alleluia, the council meeting coor- dinator at the time of the May 21, 2oo8, council meeting, that she has never been asked by the mayor or any other councillor either to insert or to delete anything from council minutes. I note that in the wake of the discovery of this discrepancy,a new procedure was established for Mississauga City Council meetings requiring the city clerk or the deputy clerk to review the draft minutes to ensure the proper recording of conflicts of interest. The Mayor's Involvement Interventions with the Co-owners on WCD's Behalf The evidence established the following facts regarding Mayor McCallions interventions with the co-owners on behalf of WCD: + The mayor convinced the co-owners to negotiate with WCD regarding the sale of their land despite their concerns about the viability of the proposed transaction. + Once the APs between WCD and the co-owners was signed,the mayor con- tinued to involve herself by advancing WCD's requests that the hotel condi- tions be relaxed and that WCD be given more time to meet its obligations under the APs. + It was the mayor and not WCD who almost single-handedly promoted the project and kept the deal alive throughout 2oo8. 16-38 28 UPDATING THE ETHICAL INFRASTRUCTURE - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY + The mayor gave assurances to the co-owners regarding the ability of Murray Cook, and later Tony DeCicco,to complete the project. There is no doubt that the mayor's interest in the wCD project was driven S principally by her desire for a four- or five-star hotel in Mississauga, and not simply by a desire to assist her son. However, the mayor knowingly used her public office and her relationship with oMERS to influence the co-owners to agree to concessions that benefited wCD. She knew her son Peter McCallion stood to gain financially if the deal succeeded. For.this reason, the exercise of influence put her in a position of conflict, both real and apparent. Involvement in WCD's Internal Affairs In addition to her interactions with the co-owners, Mayor McCallion met at various times with Mr. Cook and Mr. DeCicco regarding the WCD project. Her involvement continued throughout the project's life. Numerous docu- ments entered as exhibits reflected the mayor's involvement in resolving mat- ters between Mr. DeCicco and Mr. Cook after Mr. DeCicco joined the WCD project. During the period when Mr. DeCicco wanted to terminate a put and call agreement that would allow Mr. Cook to exit WCD at any time, the mayor arranged a meeting at her house at which she attempted to mediate the dif-. ferences between thetas. There are numerous telephone messages from Mr. DeCicco suggesting that he kept the mayor apprised of every development regarding his dispute with Mr.Cook. A Mayor's Duties in a Conflict of Interest Situation In the face of this conflict of interest, Mayor McCallion had the following duties: + Obligation to make reasonable inquiries A mayor,like any member of coun- cil, has an obligation to make reasonable inquiries when there is reason to believe that a relative's involvement in a project may place the elected offi- cial in a real or apparent conflict of interest.Even if Mayor McCallion did not understand the extent of Peter McCallions interest in WCD, she knew 16-39 PHASE II - CITY CENTRE LAND AND WORLD CLASS DEVELOPMENTS 29 her son stood to benefit financially if the WCD transaction was success- fully completed.She should have made further inquiries of her son to fully understand the nature of his interests before advocating On behalf of WCD, + Responsibility to keep council informed A mayor has an obligation to keep council informed of actions taken in the discharge of office. City council does not appear to have been aware of Mayor McCallion's private interven- tions on WCD's behalf, and she should have been more transparent about her interventions. She should have identified and disclosed to council the nature and extent of her son's interest in WCD. + Duty to refrain from 6fficial action where conflict exists A mayor should refuse involvement in any activity once he or she becomes aware of a real or appar- ent conflict of interest.Mayor McCallion actively pushed WCD's interests at many different stages of the transaction even though.she knew her son had a pecuniary interest in the project.In advocating for WCD's interests,and by extension Peter McCallion's, the mayor acted in the face of a clear conflict of interest and used the influence of her office in her executive,rather than legislative, role. The mayor's involvement created uncertainty for the ven- dots and ultimately led to unnecessary costs. But for the mayor's involve- ment, the APS between the vendors and WCD likely would not have been executed and numerous extensions to time requirements in the APS would not have been provided.It is no answer for the mayor to say that her actions were done for the benefit of the City of Mississauga,when her son stood to make millions of dollars if the deal was concluded.Once the mayor learned of her son's pecuniary interest in WCD (which she knew from the outset), she should have refrained from A further involvement in the transaction, and not simply withdrawn from her legislative role. Mar. O'Brien and Conflict of Interest The Terms of Reference require me to"inquire into whether any existing or former elected or administrative representatives of... the City of Mississauga had a direct or indirect personal economic interest,or other conflict of interest.' David O'Brien was a former`administrative representative"of the city during his involvement in events considered in Phase II of the Inquiry.I have found 16-40 30 UPDATING THE ETHICAL INPRASTRUCTURE - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY that he faced several discrete conflicts of interest while making inquiries on behalf of Mayor McCallion and by negotiating with WCD.Mr. O'Brien was a former Mississauga city manager and a trustee of the mayor's family trust.He was also a former member of the board of Sheridan College as well as a current member of the OMERs board of directors.Mr. O'Brien owed a fiduciary duty to OMERS, and also owed fiduciary duties to the mayor's children, including Peter McCallion. He had owed a fiduciary,duty to the city in the past as its most senior public servant. Because of her relationship with Mr. O'Brien and the fact that he was on the OMERs board, Mayor McCallion expected him to resolve any problems she brought to his attention in relation to the WCD project, but she did not expect him to report back to her on the negotiations.At the time Mr. O'Brien sought to resolve the outstanding litigation between WCD and the vendors at the mayor's instance,the city had an indemnity agreement with the vendors to the effect that it would not be responsible for the payment of any settlement funds to WCD. On the one hand, OMERS wanted to settle.the litigation for as little money as possible. On the other hand, the mayor and the city wanted the litigation resolved and had no concern about the amount of money paid to WCD. The mayor testified that her desire to put an end to the litigation was moti- vated by her concern that the litigation might have a negative impact on the Sheridan College deal.I have found that Mayor McCallion was undoubtedly also concerned about the political issues"that could have arisen from litigation involving a company in which her son was a principal.All these competing fac- tors put Mr.O'Brien in an impossible position in seeking to resolve the matter. 16-41 PHASE II- CITY CENTRE LAND AND WORLD CLASS DEVELOPMENTS 31 Summary of Recommendations for Phase II A culture of accountability that pervades municipal government is essential to any effective municipal accountability regime. That culture cannot simply be imposed top-down through legislation; it requires strong leadership from various municipal stakeholders.A balance must be struck that provides consis- tency,predictability,coherence, fairness, and transparency, as well as sufficient flexibility. In the recommendations section of Phase II of the Report, I have consid- ered the existing framework of accountability for conflicts of interest in both Ontario and Mississauga and made recommendations regarding amend- ments to the Municipal Act, Zoos,the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, and the Mississauga Code of Conduct. I have also made recommendations in regard to strengthening the office of the integrity commissioner. Finally, I have sug- gested other measures that might prevent circumstances such as those giving rise to this Inquiry from happening in the future.I have-suggested a practice of providing comfort letters to aid third parties in negotiating with the city, the introduction of a lobbyist code of conduct,and amendments to the Municipal Councillor's Guide. A summary of my recommendations arising out of Phase II of the Inquiry is set out under the headings below. Recommended Amendments to the Municipal Act, 2ooz The wording of section z23.3 of the Municipal Act, tool, appears to place responsibility for maintaining personal impartiality entirely on the integrity commissioner.This assignment of responsibility is wholly unsatisfactory. + Additional statutory safeguards should be added to the office of the integ- rity commissioner in the Municipal Act, Zoos,including • a minimum term of appointment to provide security of tenure; and • a requirement that municipalities indemnify the integrity commissioner. [Recommendation 5,page 165*1 * References are to the full recommendations found in the Report. 16-42 32 UPDATING THE ETHICAL INFRASTRUCTURE - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Section 223.8 of the Municipal Act, 200i, should also be amended to prevent conflict between an investigation by an integrity commissioner and a court. + Section 223.8 of the Municipal Act, 2001, should be amended to require explicitly that an integrity commissioner suspend his or her investigation or proceedings relating to a matter which is the subject of proceedings before a court of competent jurisdiction. [Recommendation 6,page 1661 Recommended Amendments to the.Municipal Conflict of Interest Act The followingpoints summarize my.recommendations as to how the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act(MCIA) could be improved through amendment. Create a Preamble + A preamble should be added to the MCIA setting out broad overarching principles.It would be appropriate to include a preamble similar to the one found in the Members'.Integrity Act, 19.94,which provides as follows; It is desirable to provide greater certainty in the reconciliation of the private interests and public duties of members of the Legislative Assembly,recognizing the following principles- i. The Assembly as a whole can represent the people of Ontario most effectively if its members have experience and knowledge in relation to many aspects of life in Ontario and if they can continue to be active in their own communities, whether in business,in the practice of a profession or otherwise. z. Members' duty to represent their constituents includes broadly representing their constituents'interests in the Assembly and to the Government of Ontario. 3. Members are expected to perform their duties of office and arrange their pri- vate affairs in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of each member, maintains the Assembly's dignity and justifies the respect in which society,holds the Assembly and its members. q.. Members are expected to act with integrity and impartiality that will bear the closest scrutiny. [Recommendation 7,page 1671 I 16-43 PHASE H - CITY CENTRE LAND AND WORLD CLASS DEVELOPMENTS 33 Clarify Scope of Act + A statement should be added within the MCIA that the interests of spouses, parents, children, siblings, and other relatives are deemed also to be the interests of the member. [Recommendation 8,page 169] Beyond Pecuniary Interests + The MCIA should be extended to include private interests more broadly. The MCIA currently applies only to a`pecuniary interest." Depending on the scope of amendments to the MCIA, the wording "pecuniary interest" should be replaced with `private interest," although such a change would likely require an explicit materiality threshold so that insignificant private interests are not caught. [Recommendation 9(a),page 1701 This extension of what constitutes a conflict of interest should be accomplished through the inclusion of a provision similar to section 5 of the Members'Integrity Act, 1994,which provides that: This Act does not prohibit the activities in which members of the Assembly normally engage on behalf of constituents in accordance with Ontario par- liamentary convention. [Recommendation 9(b),page 1701 Clarify Types of Meetings Captured by the MCIA The MCIA should apply to matters beyond the deliberative and legislative func- tions of municipal council. Subsection 5(1) of the MCIA should be clarified and amended in this regard. Clear guidelines are essential in deciding what meetings are caught by the sweep of the MCIA. The MCIA should be read as requiring the member not only to declare a conflict of interest but to specify the nature and extent of the interest. + Although some courts have found that section 5 of the MCIA applies to committee meetings,the statute should be amended so that it clearly applies to all meetings attended by members of'council in their official capacities. [Recommendation 1o,page 171] 16-44 34 UPDATING THE ETHICAL INFRASTRUCTURE — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Need for Lesser Sanctions + The existing sanctions in the MCIA should remain in place; however,none should be mandatory, and lesser sanctions should be made available. The following specific measures should be implemented: Subsection I0(3) should be repealed, and these lesser sanctions should be made available where a judge finds contravention of the MCIA: • suspension of the member for a period of up to Ito days; • a form of probation of the member,with oversight by the integrity com- missioner or auditor, • removal from membership of a committee of council; + removal as chair of a committee of council; + a reprimand publicly administered by the judge;and + a formal apology by-the member. [Recommendation ii(a),page 1721 Section 13 of the MCIA dealing with remedies should be amended to provide only for declaring a seat vacant. [Recommendation 11(b),page 1721 Should the available sanctions under the MCIA be broadened, section 15, which provides that the MCIA prevails over other conflicting statutory provi- sions,might be repealed. Standing to Pursue Claims + Electors, as well as individuals or organizations that are demonstrably act- ing in the public interest, should be able to bring applications under the MCIA.The mischief addressed by the MCIA is of such gravity that section 9 should be amended to allow the Attorney.General to bring applications as well. [Recommendation 12,page 1721 The MCIA and the Integrity Commissioner The powers of integrity commissioners are already recognized in the Municipal .Act, 2ooi,but not in the MCIA. 16-45 PHASE II - CITY CENTRE LAND AND WORLD CLASS DEVELOPMENTS 35 + The MCIA should be amended to recognize the role of the integrity com- missioner to investigate and to report on matters that are covered by the MCIA. [Recommendation 13,page 1731 Coordination with Municipal Codes of Conduct + The MCIA should be amended to include a provision stating explicitly that nothing in the Act prevents a member of council from making submissions regarding a finding in a report by the integrity commissioner or regard- ing the imposition of a penalty under a municipal code of conduct. It is important that members of council are afforded procedural fairness under municipal codes of conduct. [Recommendation 14,page 1731 Recommended Arimendrnents to the Mississauga Code of Conduct Preamble The focus of the Mississauga Code of Conduct should be on the spirit,prin- ciples,and goals underlying its creation.The Code is not intended to be strictly interpreted. + The preamble to the Mississauga Code of Conduct (Mississauga Code) should be revised to identify clearly'the values that underlie it and the mischief the scheme is set up to address. It may be counterproductive for the city to adopt a strict rules-based approach to the Code. Instead, the Mississauga Code should set out strong value statements, followed by a small number of general rules and more detailed commentary about those rules. [Recommendation 15,page 174] Changes to the Conflict Rules + The Mississauga Code should be strengthened by replacing the prohibition against real and apparent conflicts of interest in Rule No,i(b) with the two following stand-alone rules: 16-46 36 UPDATING THE ETHICAL'INPRASTRUCTURE - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Members of Council should be committed to performing their func- tions with integrity.Members shall avoid the improper use of the influ- ence of their office and shall avoid conflicts of interest,both apparent and real [emphasis added]. Members of Council shall not extend in the discharge of their official duties preferential treatment to any individual or organization if a rea- sonably well-informed person would conclude that the preferential treatment was advancing a private interest [emphasis added]. [Recommendation 16,page 1751 Mississauga City Council should include a commentary following these two stand-alone rules: For greater clarity, this Code does not prohibit members of Council from properly using their influence on behalf of constituents. Instead of-taking the form of stand-alone rules, Rules No.1(d), (e), (f), and (g) of the Mississauga Code should form a commentary following the new Rule No. i(b). That way, they will clearly fall under the statement in the"Framework and Interpretation"section of the Mississauga Code,which provides that"[c]mmmentary and examples used in this Code of Conduct are illustrative and not exhaustive." [Recommendation 17,page 1761 . Integrity Commissioner • The Mississauga Code should clarify further that the McIA takes prece- dence over the Mississauga Code only when an actual complaint is made under the MCIA involving the very same matter. [Recommendation 18,page 176] • When a proceeding under the MCIA has been commenced with respect to the same matter, the Mississauga Code should contain a provision requiring the integrity commissioner to suspend his or her own investiga- tion or proceedings until the process under the MCIA has been completed. [Recommendation 19,page 1771 16-47 PHASE II - CITY CENTRE LAND AND WORLD CLASS DEVELOPMENTS 37 Improper Use of Influence, Gifts,and Benefits + An overarching principle should be articulated in the Mississauga Code to the effect that no inappropriate gifts are allowed"that would to a rea- sonable member of the public appear to be in gratitude for influence, to induce influence, or otherwise to go beyond the necessary and appropriate public functions involved:'The simplicity of such a rule is attractive, and it could be supplemented with a detailed commentary as well as future cases" decided by the integrity commissioner. [Recommendation 2o,page 1771 + . The commentary to Rule No.7 of the Mississauga Code should be expanded to say that members of council cannot make submissions to a municipal adjudicative body, such as a licensing tribunal, on behalf of a member of their ward. [Recommendation 21,page I77} Lobbyists + The Mississauga Code should be amended to include clear guidelines set- ting out how municipal politicians may deal with lobbyists. [Recommendation 22,page 178] Procedural Fairness As noted, the MCIA should include a provision explicitly stating that noth- ing in 'the i CIA prevents a member of council from making submissions regarding a finding in a report of the integrity commissioner or regarding the imposition of a penalty under a municipal code of conduct.Members of council should be afforded procedural fairness; particularly where they are concerned that a report critical of them may be adopted or.that a penalty may be imposed as a matter of political expediency.Specifically, a member of a municipal council should have the opportunity to respond at council to a damning report or to a recommendation that a penalty be imposed under a municipal code of conduct. + The procedure for making a complaint should be set out in the Mississauga Code. In the interest of independence, complaints made under the 16-48 38 UPDATING THE ETHICAL INFRASTRUCTURE - EXECUTTVE SUMMARY Mississauga Code should be submitted directly to the integrity commis- sioner instead of through the civic administration. [Recommendation 23(a);page i79] The current Rule No.iS of the Mississauga Code should be revised to rec- ognize explicitly the need to hear from a member before a critical report is adopted or a penalty is imposed by city council. [Recommendation 23(b),page 1791 Office of the Integrity Commissioner The most well-intentioned municipal code of conduct and legislative enact- ments governing municipal officials will not be effective without a proper enforcement regime. An integrity commissioner can play a vital role in this regard. + Mississauga should create a permanent office of the integrity commissioner, responsible for receiving, investigating, and reporting on formal and infor- mal complaints. '[Recommendation 24,page 181] To enhance impartiality, an integrity commissioner should not be an employee of the*municipality. An integrity commissioner not only should be independent from municipal council, but should also be seen to be indepen- dent. The appointment process for an integrity commissioner should be fair and transparent. . An integrity commissioner's tenure should be fixed in length,non-renewable, and reasonably long.A term of five to seven years — organized on a part-time or a half-time basis, depending on the size of the municipality — would be appropriate. To avoid concerns about undue influence, the remuneration of an integrity commissioner should also be fixed at a reasonable level.Resources permitting, an integrity commissioner should also conduct educational out- reach work with the public and,in particular,the development industry so that they understand the municipal accountability regime. An integrity commissioner should report publicly on complaints received as well as on advice provided.To encourage members of council and municipal 16-49 PHASE II - CITY CENTRE LAND AND WORLD CLASS DEVELOPMENTS 39 staff to seek advice from the integrity commissioner,the names of those request- ing advice should be removed from.the published version of any such report. • The Ontario legislature should require that,where a municipality has created the office of integrity commissioner,the municipality is required to identify a source for funding in the event an inquiry is called by the commissioner. [Recommendation 25,page i8i1 • In order to assist smaller municipalities in avoiding the costs of maintain- ing their own offices of integrity commissioners, a roster of integrity com- missioners should be created through the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. Integrity commissioners on this roster would be available on an on-call basis,and they would be funded accordingly. [Recommendation 26,page 1821 Lobbyists Given the costs involved, Mississauga should not create a lobbyist registry at this time.'However,the creation of a clear and straightforward lobbyist code of conduct could help increase transparency for commercial developers and other third parties that deal with the municipality. + Mississauga should create a concise lobbyist code of conduct,The integrity commissioner should be given responsibility for overseeing the lobbyist code-and educating third parties about it. [Recommendation z7,page 182] .Additional Considerations Publication of All Known Conflicts of Interest The city clerles office should consider the feasibility of creating a searchable database containing a list of all declared or known conflicts of interest.The list could then be posted on the city's website. 16-50 40 UPDATING THE ETHICAL INFRASTRUCTURE - EXECUTIVE'SUMMARY Comfort Letters The city solicitor or the city clerk,in some cases involving input from the integ- rity commissioner,should provide`comfort letters"*to third parties in negotia- tions with the city.These comfort letters should detail any known or declared conflicts of interest or findings of improper influence*made in relation to a transaction.There might be a concern that, by issuing comfort letters, the city could expose itself to liability, but that should be tempered by the moderate level of investigation undertaken by the municipality and the inclusion of plain language limitation of liability clauses. Providing comfort letters to private entities would not be an onerous process because it would not require rigorous investigation or due diligence — and it may very well prevent circumstances such as those that have led to this Inquiry, The Municipal Councillor's Guide The Municipal Councillor's Guide,published by Ontario's Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing,contains an unduly restricted review of conflicts of inter- est affecting municipal politicians.As discussed in the Report,the McIA is not a complete code in respect of the conflicts of interest of municipal politicans. * A comfort letter in this context refers to a letter written by the city to give assurance to the party involved in business dealings with it that there are no known conilicrs of interest which could call into question the integrity of the transaction. s 16-51 CONCLUSION In this Report I have answered the questions identified for consideration by the Terms of Reference.As I said at the outset, the issues related to the 2000 Enersource Hydro Mississauga shareholders'agreement discussed in Phase I give rise to fewer concerns than the issues surrounding the City Centre Land transaction which I reviewed in Phase II. Mississauga was fortunate that the errors in relation to Enersource and the instances of conflict of interest in relation to the City Centre Land did not injure the city in a material way. OMERS /Borealis never exercised its power of veto.Although the World Class Developments hotel / convention centre transaction failed to materialize on the City Centre Land,another opportunity emerged.The city will now enjoy the benefits of.a thriving campus of Sheridan College at the city core. Whether public confidence in city institutions was damaged is more dif- ficult to measure. A review of the interaction between the mayor and vari- ous players in relation to the WCD deal suggests that those who are fortunate enough to enjoy friendships with the mayor have derived benefits from those relationships.Although in some communities this situation would garner con- troversy, this appears not to have been the case in Mississauga. The business community has had the benefit of many years of stable leadership and a mayor who understands business. Mayor Hazel McCallion enjoys a considerable measure of public trust,as demonstrated by her history of electoral success. 41 16-52 42 UPDATING THE ETHICAL INFRASTRUCTURE - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Nevertheless,it is clear that Mississauga, and indeed all Ontario munici- palities, requires a better. ethical infrastructure. Members of the public have the expectation that mayors,other members of council,and public officials will conform to ethical standards.Amending the Municipal Act,2001,the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, and the Mississauga Code of Conduct will promote clarity in those standards. It is fundamental that members of the public do not have to depend only on the personal ethical standards of elected officials.I have laid out the framework for the changes I believe are required. I believe as well that adoption of my recommendations will serve to create greater transparency as to the nature of the public and private interests which may influence official decisions. Economic transparency will promote public trust.This transparency will also serve to protect the public interest by remov- ing possibilities for members of council to discharge their public offices in their pursuit of private interests. 16-53 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 TO REPORT LGL-005-13 445 1 would be a formal in camera meeting, such as what is on 2 the screen now, or there would be briefing sessions, 3 which are not formal meetings but are gatherings of 4 council just to talk about issues as they move forward. 5 That was quite common in those days in the 6 municipal world, to have briefing sessions. They're 7 probably less common now, ten (10) , twelve (12) years 8 later. Individually meeting with them, some -- I would 9 get a question from them saying, You said at this meeting 10 -- as an example, this in camera meeting you said 11 something, and I don't understand it. Could you come and 12 explain it to me? Or could -- would you mind discussing 13 it with me? 14 Q: Right. 15 A: So it's -- the -- the discussion is 16 both formal and a little more fluid. 17 Q: Right. Now my understanding has 18 always been that there's a bright line rule in the 19 Municipal Act that you can't obviously conduct formal 20 business except at a properly constituted meeting of 21 council. 22 So you can't -- you can't go over to your 23 place for a barbecue and pass a resolution. You have to 24 do that a little -- 25 A: Right. 446 1 Q: -- more formally than that? 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: But you used to have informal 4 briefings, what, on the edges of council meetings, where 5 everyone happened to be together, or. . . 6 A: Yes, usually before or --- or after a 7 council meeting we would sit down and I'd brief them. 8 This is just one (1) example of something I'd brief them 9 on. it could be anything. 10 Q: Right. 11 A: Okay. 12 Q: And would those discussions tend to 13 be on days when there were otherwise council meetings? 14 A: Not necessarily, but usually. 15 Sometimes if there was an urgent matter we would ask them 16 if they could join us at, say, nine o'clock in the 17 morning or something, or 4:00 in the afternoon, or 18 whatever, whatever was convenient, but usually at a 19 council meeting, but not always. 20 Q: Who would circle the councillors up 21 for you? 22 A: My assistant. Maybe the clerk. 23 Q: So the clerk back in -- in 2000 was 24 who, Crystal Greer or. . . 25 A: I -- I want to say Arthur Granham. I 16-54 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 TO REPORT LGL-005-13 0 Ombudsman "Don't Let the Sun Go Down on Me: Opening the Door on the Elton John Ticket Scandal" Investigation into City of Greater Sudbury Council Closed Meeting of February 20, 2008 Andre Marin Ombudsman of Ontario April 25, 2008 16-55 Table of Contents Introduction.......................................................................................................................1 TheComplaint and Background Facts...........................................................................I InvestigativeProcess.........................................................................................................4 "Meeting" the Legal Test.................................................................................................5 Whenis a Meeting Not a "Meeting"? .............................................................................7 Nota"Meeting," But ......................................................................................................8 Opinion............................................................................................................................ 10 Appendix: Legal Analysis .............................................................................................. 11 TheImportance of Open Meetings.........................................................................................11 Open Meetings and the Ombudsman.....................................................................................12 Forcing Doors Open: Our Commitment to Open Meetings 12 Determining Contravention of the Act: Defining"Meeting".........................................:.....14 Which Meetings May Be Closed?.............................:...........................................................14 Whatis a"Meeting„?................................I............................................................................. WhatConstitutes a"Meeting„?.............................................................................................17 What Was the Purpose of the Meeting?.................................................................................19 Defining"Exercise of Political Power"..................................................................................20 Is the Body Making Decisions?.............................................................................................21 Is the Body Acting Within its Jurisdiction?...........................................................................25 Is the Body Exercising a Policy-Making Function?..............................................................26 16-56 Introduction 1 Ontario entered a brave new world on New Year's Day, 2008. As of that date, citizens have the right to request an investigation into whether a municipality has improperly closed its meeting room doors. Under section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001,municipalities are required to open their council and committee meetings to the public unless they fall within prescribed exceptions. This has been the law for years,but this year marks the debut of the public complaints and investigation process. 2 New amendments to the Act designate my Office as the investigator of such complaints for all Ontario municipalities,unless they appoint their own investigator for this task. On November 14, 2007, the City of Greater Sudbury chose,through a council vote, to use my Office as its investigator for public complaints about closed meetings. At present, my Office is the investigator for some 200 municipalities across Ontario. 3 Open meeting legislation is intended to ensure that the exercise of political power is exposed to the light of day. In the U.S., where similar statutes are commonplace, they are called"sunshine laws." The term is particularly apt for this closed meeting complaint, since it arises from the ticket scandal surrounding Sudbury's Elton John concert on March 2, 2008. Elton John, after all, famously sang'Don't Let the Sun Go Down On Me, and that is the very complaint here— that councillors closed the door and left the rest of us in the dark about what they had discussed. The Complaint and Background Facts 4 Sudbury is not a normal concert tour stop for megastars. Yet it snagged an Elton John concert,and this generated the kind of excitement one might expect. The Sudbury Community Arena would be packed to the rafters, and still there would be many fans who could not get in. On February 1, 2008,just over 6,000 concert tickets went on sale to the public. The public was advised to buy tickets online rather than line up at the box office in the dead of winter,but many still did just that—some 200 people, all but 50 of whom would walk away disappointed. Their hopes of securing tickets were dashed not only by the speed of electronic commerce, but also by the fact that a considerable number of tickets were held back by the promoter and the arena manager. More than 200 were designated for 1 ® Investigation into City of Greater Sudbury City Council Closed Meeting of February 20, 2008® n b U d s 1a Tabled:April 25, 2008 16-57 use by arena staff and the 13 members of City Council,with elected officials having first dibs on 120 of them. 5 To be clear, this privilege was not initiated by the politicians. The concert promoter explained to our investigators that setting aside tickets for arena staff and local politicians was standard practice,just as it was standard practice to reserve some for media and entertainment industry representatives and others of the promoter's choice. In the case of elected officials,the promoter explained that such arrangements were made not with them directly,but with the arena manager, a municipal bureaucrat who ordinarily distributed them. In this case, a more senior bureaucrat—one of the city's general managers—co-ordinated distribution of the tickets to councillors. This unusual step was taken,we were told,because of the high volume of anticipated requests. Still, it was the Mayor who decided how many tickets each councillor would be entitled to purchase—a maximum of eight each. The Mayor had chosen this number because it was his understanding that each member of the public would also be entitled to purchase eight tickets, and another Ontario city on this same Elton John tour—Kitchener—had allowed its councillors that number(including one freebie). Ultimately,though, Sudbury council members stretched their limit somewhat— 120 tickets for 13 councillors actually works out to 9.23 tickets each, indicating that some clearly obtained more than their allotment of eight. 6 It should be stressed that these tickets were not gifts. Sudbury officials paid for them with their own money. However,that did not excuse them in the minds of the public. The tickets were made available to municipal politicians by virtue of their offices, while members of the public had to line up, either in Internet queues or outside an arena, and risk ending up empty-handed. 7 It is always worrisome when elected officials appear to be gaining personally from their positions, or when they appear to prefer their own self-interest to that of the people they serve. Municipal councillors hold positions of trust. They are elected to wield significant power and it is expected by the public that they will use their positions in the public interest,not to benefit themselves. This expectation applies not just to such blatant things as contract kickbacks or expensive gifts from suppliers—any perk derived from elected office may be viewed with suspicion. The dollar amount at stake may be small,but the concern is not. That is why,when the Mayor confirmed to the local newspaper—the Sudbury Star—that council members had indeed scooped up priority concert tickets, it was a"stop the presses"moment. It became a hot topic of media and water-cooler conversation. As the controversy grew, so did the public backlash against councillors. Several of them told us they faced a barrage of angry calls, letters and public catcalls in the wake of this revelation. 2 ® Investigation into City of Greater Sudbury City Council Closed Meeting of February 20, 2008 Ombudsman Tabled:April 25, 2008 16-58 8 By February 13,2008,the matter had become an issue for council. At that night's council meeting, the Mayor requested permission to address the public. He apologized for the ticket controversy and stated that the purchase of the tickets by council members was in keeping with"long-standing"practice,but he vowed to have this practice reviewed and a formal policy adopted by council. 9 This promise did not stop the story's momentum. On February 16, 2008, the Sudbury Star reported that the concert could be in jeopardy as a result of the ticket scandal, This notion was denied outright by the promoter in a subsequent article. Yet four days later, evidently concerned about the public outcry,the promoter contacted the arena manager and asked for 60-70 tickets to be returned so they could be made available to the public in a lottery. The arena manager pushed the matter up to the Mayor's office. As a result of discussing the situation with the promoter,the Mayor undertook to obtain the tickets and assigned the General Manager(the same one who had distributed them)the task of administering their return. The Mayor then spoke to several of the councillors individually, and then met with as many as six of them informally in his office. He told them he was returning his 11 tickets and they would have to return some of theirs as soon as possible. 10 This about-face no doubt proved embarrassing for those councillors who would have to try to take back tickets they had obtained for others. It also presented logistical concerns: How many tickets would each councillor have to give back? How would they be refunded? What if they had paid by credit card? And so on. Evidently there was work to be done in administering the Mayor's request. 11 On February 20,2008,the councillors attended a scheduled meeting of the Priorities Committee—a so-called"committee of the whole"which comprises the fall membership of council. As is customary, several of them shared a supper in the council lounge beforehand and at least a few discussed the issue of the concert tickets and how many could be retrieved from friends and family. After the Priorities Committee meeting ended, 10 councillors retired to the lounge in preparation for their departure, and a discussion surrounding the tickets began in earnest. 12 The councillors in attendance were: Jacques Barbeau, Claude Berthiaume, Frances Caldarelli, Joe Cimino,Doug Craig,Ron Dupuis, Evelyn Dutrisac, Janet Gasparini,Joscelyne Landry-Altmann, and Russ Thompson. Although there was some evidence that an 11th councillor,Andre Rivest,was in the lounge for a very brief period,he was adamant that he did not take part in the ticket discussion, and I accept his account. Mayor John Rodriguez did not attend,nor did Councillor Ted Callaghan, who was on vacation,nor Chief Administrative Officer Mark 3 0 Investigation into City of Greater Sudbury City Ombudsman U d S I�11 a n Council Closed Meeting of February 20, 2008 f`rl Tabled:April 25, 2008 16-59 Mieto. Municipal staff who had remained behind to clean up the lounge were asked to leave because,we were told,the councillors were concerned about recent leaks of information to the media. Catherine Matheson, General Manager of Community Development, was summoned to the lounge to answer councillors' questions. According to our interviews,the meeting lasted for about 10 minutes and the discussion focused on calculating how many tickets each councillor could return, as well as questions about how those who used various credit cards to pay for their tickets would be reimbursed. Ms.Matheson explained to them how this could be done. 13 City administrators later proceeded to obtain legal and communications advice from external contractors on how to deal with media Freedom of Information requests and public opinion. We were told this was done in part because some regular staff were away, and because of a need for specialized advice. In any event,this decision was an administrative one,well within the bailiwick of city staff. 14 In the end, council members returned 71 tickets. The promoter added these tickets to some that he had placed on hold and, on February 24, 2008,made them available to the public through a lottery. 15 That proved not to be the end of what the local paper called"Ticketgate,"but rather the beginning. Rumours concerning the councillors' closed-door meeting then began to circulate in the community, culminating in the complaint to my Office on February 26, 2008. After conducting preliminary inquiries and making efforts to contact a few witnesses who were temporarily unavailable, I launched an official investigation on March 26, 2008. Investigative Process 16 A four-member investigative team interviewed 17 individuals, including all 13 members of the City of Greater Sudbury Council, as well as various municipal staff. Documents obtained from the municipality were reviewed, including agendas and minutes for 2008 City Council and Priorities Committee meetings, emails,memoranda and councillors' personal notes. The investigation also involved extensive legal research, covering case law on open meetings in Ontario and other jurisdictions. 17 Prior to January 2008, Ontarians who wanted to challenge a closed municipal meeting would have had no recourse but to go to court. Today, they can complain 4 OInvestigation into City of Greater Sudbury City Ombudsman Council Closed Meeting of February 20, 2008 Tabled:April 25, 2008 16-60 to my Office or their municipality's designated investigator,under a brand-new system of enforcement through investigation. It is so new, in fact, that this is only the second such full investigation my Office has conducted, and understandably few municipal officials or members of the public have had a chance to become familiar with the process. Under the circumstances,I have chosen to include an Appendix to this report that analyses legal issues concerning open meetings in considerable detail. I trust that this will provide guidance to municipal officials in the future with regard to their open-meeting obligations. "Meeting" the Legal Test 18 When I investigate a complaint about a closed municipal meeting, I must consider whether the municipality has complied with the requirements of section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as well as the procedure bylaw the municipality is required to pass under subsection 238(2) of the Act. 19 The Act provides a list of exceptions permitting municipalities to hold closed meetings if they are dealing with certain limited subjects, such as personnel matters or litigation. The subject of concert tickets for councillors clearly does not fall within these exceptions. Therefore,the critical issue in this case is whether the February 20, 2008 meeting in the Sudbury council lounge was a "meeting" as defined under the Act. 20 The Municipal Act, 2001 defines a"meeting" as"any regular, special or other meeting of a council, of a local board or of a committee of either of them." This definition, which has also essentially been adopted by the City of Greater Sudbury in its procedure bylaw, is not particularly illuminating. In fact, it is infuriatingly circular: A meeting is a meeting is a meeting. 21 The question here is whether what happened in the council lounge on February 20, 2008 was a"meeting"subject to the open meeting requirements—or was it an informal discussion falling outside of the Act? 22 Certainly,those in attendance did not think it was a"meeting" subject to the Act. The General Manager told us: Personally, I don't think it was a meeting at all. It was an informal discussion and a normal process that happens after Council and people leaving get their coats. So,was there a decision made? No. Was there an explanation to a few politicians about how to return their tickets? Yes. 5 0 Investigation into City of Greater Sudbury City Council Closed Meeting of February 20, 2008 Ombudsman Tabled.-April 25, 2008 16-61 23 One councillor described it this way: The decision [to return tickets] was not recorded, as it was not something that we voted on. In my mind, it was never a council decision. This was not city taxpayers' money. This wasn't a policy issue. This had nothing to do with the business of council, really. It had to do with us taking advantage of what had been a long-standing practice,which now needs a policy. 24 At the risk of sounding legalistic,not all meetings are"meetings"for the purposes of this law. While any gathering of individuals having a.discussion might be considered a meeting in the colloquial sense of the word, in order to constitute a "meeting" subject to the Act, something more is needed. 25 The Supreme Court of Canada has recently noted that Ontario's open meeting legislation was "intended to increase public confidence in the integrity of local government by ensuring the open and transparent exercise of municipal power." It serves two important purposes: The pursuit of effective democracy, and the preservation of the appearance of integrity in the exercise of political power. 26 The political power held by councils and committees is, in the main, a policy- making power. Mayors and municipal councillors represent the public by holding delegated authority to pass bylaws and determine broad questions of policy, including the allocation of municipal programs and services. They also establish and oversee administrative policies,practices and programs that are required to implement the decisions of council. 27 By contrast, councillors are not given the power to do the hands-on administration of a municipality; it is the officers and employees of the municipality who implement or administer council's policies and program choices and carry out the duties assigned by a municipality. Naturally,politicians interact with administrators on behalf of their constituents, or to ensure that existing policies are properly implemented, but when doing so they are not exercising power in a way that requires "sunshine laws." They are managing existing policies or otherwise engaged in administration. It would not be feasible or desirable to require every such get-together to be held openly and with notice. 28 The Greater Sudbury Council's procedure bylaw reflects this, and attempts to distinguish between the role of council and the administration,noting in its Schedule C that"one of the principal distinctions of a council as opposed to the administration is council's mandate to establish the policies of the organization." 6 0 Investigation into City of Greater Sudbury City m b u d s m a n Council Closed Meeting of February 20, 2008 Tabled.April 25, 2008 16-62 29 Taking into consideration the court decisions on open meeting requirements (referred to in detail in the Appendix to this report),I have concluded that the legal definition of when a meeting is a"meeting"under the Act should be interpreted as follows: Members of council(or a committee)must come together for the purpose of exercising the power or authority of the council (or committee), or for the purpose of doing the.groundwork necessary to exercise that power or authority. When is a Meeting Not a "Meeting"? 30 So, was the meeting in the Sudbury council lounge a"meeting"that should have been open to the public, according to the law? 31 Looking at the first part of the above definition, the answer isles, council members clearly"came together," even though it was after the formal meeting of the Priorities Committee had been adjourned. Ten members of a powerful political body convened—albeit without the usual formal trappings of a council meeting—to discuss and settle matters on a topic of common concern. They summoned the General Manager. They had quorum and therefore the legal authority to make decisions. This was a meeting of the council,period. 32 However—and this is where it gets tricky—that does not necessarily mean the open meeting obligations of the Act apply. It ultimately depends on what the council was doing and why. The"coming together"must be for the purpose of exercising the power or authority of the council or for the purpose of doing the groundwork necessary to exercise that power or authority. And here, based on my review of all the evidence, the answer is no, the 10 councillors were not meeting for this purpose. 33 They came together to determine who should give tickets back,how many, and to learn about the mechanics of doing so. They were engaged in the face-saving surrender of tickets. This was not a policy matter that invoked council's political power. It related to the administration of the ticket returns. Those present did not deliberate on any matter that would involve the use of council's political authority. They were not equipping themselves for a later political decision. They just wanted to sort out what to do with the tickets. 7 0 Investigation into City of Greater Sudbury City t'Yl b u d s t11 a n Council Closed Meeting of February 20, 2008 Tabled:April 25, 2008 16-63 Not a "Meeting,"' But ... 34 Now here comes the "but." There was a policy matter lurking beneath the surface. Indeed,it was precisely the kind of policy matter that the public would be interested in, and the type of thing that open meeting legislation is all about— namely, the question of whether councillors should have ticket priority over their constituents. Certainly, when perks come from the city budget, they are matters that are dealt with in open council meetings,with good reason. The Toronto news media recently buzzed over the decision by councillors in that city—made and debated in public—to maintain their free taxi rides and passes for city golf courses,the zoo and public transit. The public is entitled to know that these kinds of self-serving benefits are being claimed by elected officials,not only because it is public money,but because it says something relevant about the use of power. 35 Mercifully, Sudbury's Elton John ticket scandal did not involve public funds,but it did involve benefits coming to elected officials by virtue of their office. While the preferential ticket acquisition practice had never in the past been treated as a matter for council,the fallout turned it into one. The Mayor used a council meeting to make a public statement about the scandal, and then, on April 2,2008, at Priorities Committee, a new policy was proposed and discussed to cover the advance sale and distribution of tickets for events at the Sudbury Community Arena. Staff recommended that council members and the city's arena staff be given the opportunity to purchase a maximum of two tickets each before they become publicly available. But council was split on whether to endorse any priority ticket plan. The vote at that meeting was tied 6-6, so no decision was. reached until April 9,2008,when the Mayor cast the deciding vote. Council ultimately decided 7-6 to adopt a policy eliminating the"long-standing practice" that had sparked so much trouble: City councillors and employees can no longer obtain tickets to events at the Sudbury Community Arena in advance of the general public. 36 It is worth noting that,had the conversations and discussions between councillors in that crucial 10 minutes behind closed doors on February 20,2008 been only marginally different, section 239 would have kicked in. Had there been a discussion where councillors agreed, as a matter of policy, that they deserved ticket priority over their constituents,it could have been deemed an' illegal meeting. If they had talked about making the issue the subject of a formal policy at council, or if the General Manager had been directed to look into the question of whether this should have happened, section 239 would have applied. 37 I am satisfied from their evidence,however,that councillors did not engage in these kinds of discussions, and therefore their lounge meeting was in compliance 8 ® Investigation into City of Greater Sudbury City Council Closed Meeting of February 20, 2008 Ombudsman Tabled:April 25, 2008 16-64 with the law—but only barely so. This case perfectly illustrates the principle that open meetings engender public trust, while closed meetings breed suspicion. Municipal councillors, in the heat of a scandal in which they were believed to have used their positions as public officials to gain an advantage over the citizens they represent,waited for the public to clear out of a public meeting, asked staff to leave, and closed the door to talk about the very tickets that had sparked the controversy. No wonder there was so much backlash against them in the community—and enough distrust to inspire a complaint to my Office. 38 As one Ontario judge cautioned in an open-meeting case,the actions of public officials "must not only be above board, but should appear to be above board." What took place on February 20, 2008 did not appear to be above board. All that saves council's actions from censure in this case is that the meeting did not involve the exercise of municipal power. 39 If Sudbury council is getting off the legal hook here, it is not because it acted wisely or respected the important principle of the appearance of acting above board. It is because of the kind of reasons that tend to resonate with lawyers: Contrary to common sense, sometimes a meeting is not a"meeting." 9 ® Investigation into City of Greater Sudbury City Ombudsman Council Closed Meeting of February 20, 2008 Tabled:April 25, 2008 16-65 Opinion 40 This is not a case where vindication should be claimed. It is a case where councillors should reflect on their actions from the vantage point of the ordinary constituent, and ask themselves whether, in the throes of a controversy such as this one, they should have closed the door. 41 It is not my place to comment on the fairness,reasonableness or even the wisdom of councillors receiving preference over their constituents by virtue of their office. The public outcry in this case has admirably filled that role. It is,however,my job to comment on the issue of municipal officials holding closed meetings, and in this I am in agreement with the Ontario judge who remarked a few years ago: "Given the legislative prohibition contained in the Municipal Act, [holding closed meetings] is a highly dangerous practice." In other words, even in matters that do not formally fall within the requirements of section 239, local politicians should think long and hard before closing the doors and letting the sun go down. i Andre Marin Ombudsman of Ontario 10 ® Investigation into City of Greater Sudbury City Ombudsman Council Closed Meeting of February 20, 2008 Tabled:April 25, 2008 16-66 Appendix: Legal Analysis The Importance of Open Meetings 42 As stated in the attached report, Ontario has only had a public complaints mechanism for closed municipal meetings for a few months. However, the legislation requiring open meetings has been in place since the 1990s, and has been the subject of numerous court decisions, as well as various proposed amendments. In forging a path for enforcement of the law through investigation, a thorough review and analysis of relevant case law—both in Ontario and in other jurisdictions where so-called"sunshine laws"have been well tested—is in order. My hope is that this analysis will help guide municipal officials and their legal advisors in future as they deal with the issue of closed meetings. 43 In London (City) v RSJHoldings Inc.1, the Supreme Court of Canada described how the impetus for the initial round of open meeting reforms in Ontario in the 1990s was "to foster ... democratic values and respond ... to the public's demand for more accountable municipal government. ,2 In the Court's words,open meetings are required if there is to be"robust democratic legitimacy."3 This is because effective democracy requires more than the people having a chance to vote in periodic elections. The people must also have knowledge of elected officials' actions so they can cast their votes intelligently, and they must have the ability to have ongoing input while political decisions are underway.4 Closing the door stifles this. 44 In that same case,the Supreme Court of Canada also said the province's Municipal Act, 2001 had an additional role in fostering public trust. It observed that section 239 "was intended to increase public confidence in the integrity of local government by ensuring the open and transparent exercise of municipal power."In other words, open meetings can increase public trust,while closed meetings do the opposite. Or, as a Florida judge so colourfully put it back in 1969, "[t]erms such as ... secret meetings, closed records, executive sessions and study sessions have become synonymous with `hanky panky' in the minds of public-spirited citizens." States like Florida had passed"sunshine laws,"he said, "to maintain the faith of the public in governmental agencies.i5 1 [2007]S.C.J.No.29[London(City)v.RSJHoldings Inc.]. 2 Ibid. at para. 18. 31bid. atpara. 38. 4 Ibid. 5 Broward County v.Doran,224 So.2d 693 (Fla. 1969). 11 ® Investigation into City of Greater Sudbury City Council Closed Meeting of February 20, 2008® l b U d 5Ya Tabled:April 25, 2008 16-67 Open Meetings and the Ombudsman 45 In 2007,the Municipal Act, 2001 was amended to provide for Ombudsman investigation into closed meeting complaints. This was a sage development. As many of the legal cases I discuss here disclose,in the past,closed meeting complaints tended to be brought in court by individuals or organizations as a means to argue that bylaws they opposed were"illegal"because they were passed in contravention of the open meeting obligation in section 239 of the statute. Ombudsmanry provides a complaint process that is readily available to concerned citizens who may not have a financial or personal stake in the matter but who understand the importance of the open meeting principle to democracy. It is an inexpensive, efficient way of vindicating the democratic principles advanced by open government. 46 Unfortunately, the mandate of the Ombudsman of Ontario to accept a complaint depends upon a municipality not appointing its own"investigator"under s.239.2(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001. In November 2006,while the amendments to the Act(in the form of Bill 130,which became the Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act, 2006)were still under review by the Standing Committee on General Government,I appeared before the committee and furnished a written position paper on why this was a bad idea. Those municipalities that take this route must pay the costs of an investigator out of their own budgets. More _importantly from a public interest perspective,the statute does not adequately insure that these investigators will have the independence or the investigative powers that my Office holds. There is therefore every reason to believe that internally appointed investigators will be ill-suited to effectively protect the important principles at stake. 47 The kind of jurisdiction the Ombudsman exercises in this context is unique in the . sense that my Office's mandate does not extend, as it ordinarily does,to a broader evaluation of questions of basic fairness or reasonableness. My authority is only to investigate"whether a municipality or local board has complied with section 239 or a procedure bylaw under subsection 238(2) in respect of a meeting or part of a meeting that was closed to the public." These are ultimately legal questions requiring a proper interpretation of the requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001 and the procedure bylaw of the municipality in question. Forcing Doors Open: Our Commitment to Open Meetings 48 Prior to the enactment of specific legislation, it was left entirely up to the political process to force the doors open at local government meetings in Ontario: "[T]he 12 ® Investigation into City of Greater Sudbury City ®I'1'1 b u d s 11"1 a r1 Council Closed Meeting of February 20, 2008 Tabled-April 25, 2008 16-68 public had no right of access to deliberations of council or its committees which were free to hold meetings in camera.s6 The effect of leaving it up to officials, many of whom would naturally prize their own political survival ahead of openness, transparency and accountability,was predictable. The 1984 Report of the Provincial/Municipal Working Committee on Open Meetings and Access to Information found that"some municipal councils employ lengthy, in-camera, special and committee meetings to discuss matters under debate, and then ratify their decision in full council in a few minutes,with minimal discussion."' The result of this and other corroborating studies$was the passage of the Planning and Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act 1994, S.O. 1994, c.23,which adopted the open meeting provisions now found in section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001. 49 The importance that has now been given to the open meeting law is evident in the structure of section 239. Subject to designated exceptions, it declares "all meetings shall be open to the public." As the Supreme Court of Canada observed, the imperative"shall""demonstrates that, in the normal business of municipal government,meetings will be transparent and accessible to the public."9 By contrast, eight of the nine exceptions to that rule are permissive—in other words, even if the municipal council or committee can legally close the doors,the Government of Ontario leaves them the flexibility, in the interests of transparency and accountability, to refrain from doing so. The Act is a strong endorsement of the open'meeting principle. 50 _ This strong legal commitment to open meetings has produced two important rules relating to how open meeting complaints are to be approached. First, "open meeting statutes are enacted for the public benefit and are to be construed most favourably to the public."10 The relevant terms of the statute should not be read or understood or applied in a way that narrows or weakens the open meeting obligation. They should be interpreted and used in a way that makes open meetings the norm rather than the exception, and so that exceptions to the open meeting rule are circumscribed. As the Ontario Court of Appeal has observed, "the clear legislative purpose informing section 239 is to maximize the 6 Southam Inc. v.Hamilton-Wentworth(Regional Municipality)Economic Development Committee, [1988] O.J.No. 1684 at para.22(Ont.C.A.),per Lacourciere J.A.,dissenting[Hamilton-Wentworth]. 7 Ontario.Report of the Provincial/Municipal Working Committee on Open Meetings and Access to Information, Toronto:The Committee(July 1984)at 2. 8 See,for example,Ontario.The Commission on Freedom of Information and Individual Privacy ("Williams Commission")Public Government for Private People. Toronto:The Commission,(1980),and Ontario.Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Open Local Government. Toronto:Queen's Printer, 1992 at 2,3 and 31. 9 Supra note 1 at para.22. io St. Cloud Newspapers,Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty.Schs.,332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983)[St. Cloud Newspapers]. 13 ® Investigation into City of Greater Sudbury City Council Closed Meeting of February 20, 2008 Ombudsman Tabled:April 25,•2008 16-69 transparency of municipal governance so far as that is possible in the circumstances."1 51 Second,when an open meeting complaint is made, the onus is on the politicians to demonstrate that they have not breached their statutory obligation. In Southam Inc., Eade and Aubry v. Council of the Corp. of the City of Ottawa et al.,the Court held that the onus is on elected officials to make sufficient disclosure about what happened behind closed doors to demonstrate compliance.12 The reason for this is obvious. With the doors shut, only those in attendance know whether what took place constituted a"meeting"within the meaning of the legislation, or fit within an exception. If they do not explain why the doors were closed, in a way that demonstrates compliance with the statute, &violation of the open meeting requirement is apt to be found. 52 Ultimately,my determination of whether the open meeting requirements have been respected depends not on my own sense of what I think is reasonable. The question is a legal one, taking into account the interpretation of the Municipal Act, 2001 and the relevant procedure bylaw. Determining Contravention of the Act: Defining "Meeting" Which Meetings May Be Closed? 53 Municipalities may rely on s.239(2)to close meetings involving the security of municipal property(s.239(2)(a)),personal matters about an identifiable individual (s.239(2)(b)),proposed land acquisition or disposal(s.239(2)(c)), a labour or employee negotiation(s.239(2)(d)), litigation or potential litigation(s.239(2)(e)), advice subject to solicitor-client privilege (s.239(2)(f)), or a matter that can be closed under the authority of some other enactment(s.239(2)(g)). "Education or training" sessions may also be exempt under the new exception in s.239(3.1). However,municipalities may choose to hold meetings concerning these subjects in open session. The only circumstances in which a closed meeting is required is when the municipal body as the "head of an institution"is considering a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. 1 Farber v.Kingston(City), [2007]O.J.No.919 at para. 19(Ont.C.A.). 12 Southam Inc.,Eade and Aubiy v. Council of the Corp. of the City of Ottawa et al.,[1991]O.J.No. 3659 (Ont.Div. Ct.)[Southam Inc. v. Ottawa Council],and see Hamilton-Wentworth,supra note 6 at para. 11. 14 0 Investigation into City of Greater Sudbury City m b u d s m a n Council Closed Meeting of February 20, 2008 Tabled,April 25, 2008 16-70 What is a "Meeting"? 54 The current definition of"meeting" offered in s. 23 8(l) of the Municipal Act, 2001 is virtually useless because it is entirely circular. As one judge commented, , it does not"advance the matter"of determining when a gathering is subject to the legislation.13 It says only that a"meeting"means any"regular,special or other meeting of a council, of a local board or of a committee of either of them." As a definition, it offers no criteria for decision-making. Under the guise of defining"meeting" it really avoids telling us what a"meeting"is,resting content to define only whose meetings are caught. 55 When the Information and Privacy Commissioner issued her 2003 paper, Making Municipal Government More Accountable: The Need for an Open Meetings Law in Ontario, she commented on the need for a clear,precise and practical definition of"meeting." She described the then existing definition(which is almost identical 14) as being insufficient and imprecise.15 On October 13,2004, Private Member's Bill 123, Transparency in Public Matters Act, 2004, offered a three- part definition that found the support of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. It read: (1) A meeting of a designated public body occurs for the purposes of this Act if the following conditions apply: 1. The meeting is one which the entire membership of the body is entitled to attend or which a specified number of members is entitled to attend, such as the meeting of a committee or other designated division of the body. 2. The purpose of the meeting is to deliberate on or do anything within the jurisdiction or terms of reference of the body, committee or other division. 13 Southam Inc. v. Ottawa Council, ibid. 14 The then existing definition described"meeting"as"any regular,special committee or other meeting of a council or local board." is A.Cavoukian,"Making Municipal Government More Accountable:The Need for an Open Meetings Law in Ontario"(2003),online:Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario <http://www.ipc,on.ea/images/Resources/open-mtg_pdf>(date accessed: 14 April 2008). 15 Investigation into City of Greater Sudbury City Ombudsman Council Closed Meeting of February 20, 2008 Tabled:April 25, 2008 16-71 3. The number of members in attendance constitutes a quorum or, in the absence of a quorum requirement in the rules or terms of reference to the body, committee or other division, a majority. (2) A meeting includes an electronic or telephone meeting to which the conditions described in subsection(1) apply.16 56 Unfortunately,when Bill 130, the Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act, 2006, was passed, amending the Municipal Act, 2001, it did not incorporate these suggestions, instead maintaining the same circular"a meeting is a meeting" language.17 57 The failure to offer a precise definition does not mean that a legislative body has abdicated its legislative role by leaving matters for courts to settle. Most often terms are left without fixed definition when there is a desire not to unduly limit the operation of the enactment. This is how the Supreme Court of Canada saw things in the London (City)v RSJHoldings Inc. case,when it said(of the pre- 2007 definition)that"the words `committee' and `meeting' are broadly defined in s.238(1)of the Municipal Act, 2001."18 Since the current definition is substantially,the same as the one the Court had before it,the London (City) v RSJ Holdings Inc. case offers a clear mandate to those who apply this provision to give the word"meeting"broad compass. 58 This does not mean,however, that the word"meeting" is to be given the broadest linguistic interpretation it can bear. The term must be interpreted using the approach required for all statutory provisions according to the Supreme Court of Canada's Bell ExpressVu standard: "There is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament."19 The word"meeting"must therefore be understood in light not only of its ordinary sense,but according to the way it is used, and in light of the objectives of open meeting legislation. This is why a meeting is not always a"meeting"for the purposes of the statute. 59 This universal rule of interpretation has yet to yield a generic definition. While judges have offered various descriptions of when a"get-together"is a"meeting," 16 Bill 123, Transparency in Public Matters Act,2004, 1st Sess.,38`h Leg.,Ontario,2004,s. 3 (151 reading 13 October 2004). 17 Bill 130,Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act,2006,2d Sess.,381h Leg.,Ontario,2006(assented to 20 December 2006),S.O.2006,c.32. "Supra note 1 at para.23. 19 Bell Express Vu Limited Partnership v.Rex, [2002]2 S.C.R. 559 at para.26. 16 ® Investigation into City of Greater Sudbury City uncil Closed Meeting of February 20, 2008® 1 b U d s 7a n Tabled-April 25, 2008 16-72 the descriptions offered tend to relate to the facts before the court. Taking those decisions together in light of the purpose of the legislation, a fair definition that brings together the various strands of authority would be as follows: For a meeting to occur, members of council or a committee must come together for the purpose of exercising the power or authority of the council or committee or for the purpose of doing the groundwork necessary to exercise that power or authority. 60 There are essentially two components to this definition: It must be a meeting of the council or committee, and it must be for the purpose of exercising the power or authority of the council or committee or for the purpose of doing the groundwork necessary to exercise that power or authority. What Constitutes a ""Meeting"? 61 As indicated, applying ordinary principles of interpretation,the term"meeting" has to be understood in the context in which it is being used. On its face,the relevant provision, section 239(1), is apparently limitless. It provides: (1) Except as provided in this section, all meetings shall be open to the public. 62 The term"meeting"is defined in the statute,however, in a way that imposes limits on whose meetings are caught; it is confined to those of"council,"or a "local board," or a"committee of either of them." 63 There are cases where it is obvious that a get-together is being undertaken by a council or a committee in its capacity as such. This will ordinarily be obvious because of the formal trappings surrounding the event, such as where the event in issue is a regularly scheduled meeting, or where actions consistent with the conduct of meetings by that body, such as singing O Canada, or taking minutes, or appointing a chair,have been complied with. In the Southam Inc. v. Ottawa Council case, in finding that a meeting of council had occurred,the Court, observed that councillors had met"to discuss [matters] in a structured way. ,20 Similarly, in City of Yellowknife Property Owners Assn. v. Yellowknife (City),21 the decision that weekly"briefing sessions"conducted by council were actually subject to open meeting legislation was aided by the fact that there were agendas, 20 Southain Inc. v. Ottawa Council,supra note 12 at para.15. 21 City of Yellowknife Property Owners Assn.v. Yellowknife(City), [1998]N.W.T.J.No.74 at para. 12 (N.W.T.S.C.)[City of Yellowknife]. 17 Investigation into City of Greater Sudbury City ncil Closed Meeting of Februaiy 20, 2008 Ombudsman Tabled.April 25, 2008 16-73 there was someone to serve as meeting chair,minutes were taken, as were straw polls and show-of-hands votes. The meetings were structured in the way the body would ordinarily be expected to act as a body, making the finding that they were "meetings" subject to open meeting legislation easier. 64 In Hamilton-Wentworth, Justice Grange relied on the fact that members of council were summoned formally to find that it was a meeting of a municipal council. He observed that"when all members [of a committee] are summoned to a regularly scheduled meeting and there attempt to proceed in camera, they are defeating the intent and purpose of[secret meeting rules.] ,22 It was in this context that Justice Grange suggested that a meeting is "a gathering to which all [committee members] are invited, ,23 65 But if the legislation is to be applied effectively, the formality of an invitation cannot be a necessary condition. To so hold would exempt impromptu gatherings by the relevant body, such as a spontaneous decision to deal with business not revealed on a formal agenda after the public leaves. The defect in Justice Grange's insistence on the formality of invitation was recognized by the Divisional Court in Southam Inc. v. Ottawa Council.24 There,the definition offered by the majority,of the court provided that a meeting could be held in the absence of a request,where councillors or committee members do attend without summons.25 As the Court made clear,"it is not a question of whether ... the ritual trappings of a formal meeting of council are observed."" 66 Perhaps the main reason why a meeting must be"a meeting of the council or a committee"to qualify has to do with the purposes of the open meeting provisions, which I discuss in detail below. These provisions deal with the exercise of political power. For this reason,many U.S.jurisdictions do as was attempted in Ontario's Private Member's Bill 123 and deal with this question by examining when the relevant body would be empowered to act in the capacity of a body, or qua body. For this reason they include a quorum requirement; since a body cannot act without a quorum, the relevant body is not legally authorized to have a "meeting"unless there is a quorum present. 67 In general, this approach commends itself to me. There must be one caveat applied,however. Even if a quorum of members is not present,those who attend 22 Supra note 6 at para. 12. 23 Supra note 6 at para. 9. 24 Southam Inc. v. Ottawa Council, supra note 12. 21 Southam Inc.v. Ottawa Council,supra note 12 at para. 12. 26 Ibid. 18 ® Investigation into City of Greater Sudbury City Council Closed Meeting of February 20, 2008 Ombudsman Tabled:April 25, 2008 16-74 might still begin to do the groundwork necessary to exercise the body's power once enough members show up. In that case, a "meeting"will have taken place. So,too, arguably, will a"meeting"have taken place if a body engages in serial meetings, in small groups, where the body's business is effectively conducted in secret. 68 In sum, a meeting will only be caught by section 239(1)when it is a meeting of a council or committee. If the assembly conducts itself in a structured fashion reminiscent of that used in its ordinary meetings,then the body is meeting. But even in the absence of the formal trappings of a meeting,where a quorum of council or committee members meet,the assembly will be a"meeting." And even in the absence of a quorum, where members meet in the expectation that a quorum will attend or engage in serial meetings to enable council or committee business to be undertaken, the first requirement will likely be met—the result will be a"meeting." Whether a meeting must be open under section 239(1),however, depends ultimately upon its purpose. What Was the Purpose of the Meeting? 69 As indicated, for a"meeting"to occur within the meaning of s.239(1),that meeting must be for the purpose of exercising the power or authority of the council or committee or for the purpose of doing the groundwork necessary to exercise that power or authority. Essentially,there are two purposes served by this open meeting legislation—the pursuit of effective democracy, and the preservation of the appearance of integrity in the exercise of political power. 70 In London (City) v RSJHoldings Inc.,27 the Supreme Court of Canada observed that"democratic legitimacy of municipal decisions does not spring solely from periodic elections,but also from a decision-making process that is transparent, accessible to the public, and mandated by law. ,21 71 To put things in perspective, open-meeting guarantees share the same function as access-to-information legislation, the"open court principle"(that enables the public to witness what happens in courts of justice) and the constitutionally protected value of freedom of the press. Together, these tools assure that the public, to whom the government belongs and in whose best interest decisions must be made and power used,has what 19th-century political philosopher James Mill described as "the means of removing the defects of vicious government." 27 Supra note 1. 28 Supra note 1 at para. 38. 19 0 Investigation into City of Greater Sudbury City Council Closed Meeting of February 20, 2008 Ombudsman Tabled:April 25, 2008 16-75 The"means"Mill was speaking about was access to information—information to enable the public to express discontent and to challenge what he called "misgovernment." He was responding to the widely understood fact that mismanagement, sloth and even dishonesty can thrive behind closed doors,but in a democracy, cannot survive the sanitizing light of day. A Minnesota judge echoed this when describing that state's open meeting legislation: It exists,he said, "to prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed concerning board decisions or to detect improper influences.,,29 Or, as one American author put it, openness produces"better government programs,more efficiency in government and government more responsive to public interest and less susceptible to corruption."30 72 There is another important function served by open meeting laws: Open meetings foster public trust. As noted above, in the London (City)v. RSJHoldings Inc. case, the Supreme Court of Canada said that the open meeting provision in section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001 "was intended to increase public confidence in the integrity of local government by ensuring the open and transparent exercise of municipal power."31 Defining "Exercise of Political Power" 73 Since the purposes behind the open meeting provision relate to controlling the use of power by elected officials, any definition of"meeting" should be broad enough to encompass the exercise of power,but narrow enough to avoid including conduct unrelated to the exercise of power. The importance of a meeting's purpose can be seen in two Canadian cases. In Southam Inc. v. Ottawa Council, the court precised a more formal definition for its purposes by saying, "[i]n other words, is the public being deprived of the opportunity to observe a material part of the decision-making process?" And in Niagara-on-the-Lake Conservancy Society v. Niagara-on-the-Lake (Town),32 an Ontario judge supported his conclusion that there was no open-meeting violation by observing that there had not been any suggestion that"anyone who supported the decision had an improper 29 Lindahl v.Independent School District No. 306,270 Minn. 164, 167, 133 N.W.2d 23,26(1965). 30 Little&Tompkins,Open Government Laws:An Insider's View,53 N.C.L.Rev.451,475(1974),quoted with approval in St. Cloud Newspapers,supra note 10. 31 Supra note 1 at para. 19. 32 Niagara-on-the-Lake Conservancy Society v.Niagara-on-the-Lake(Town), [2000]O.J.No.3480(Ont. S.C.J.). 20 0 Investigation into City of Greater Sudbury City Ombudsman Council Closed Meeting of February 20, 2008 Tabled.-April 25, 2008 16-76 motive or a conflict of interest.i33 In essence, there was, in the judge's evaluation,no reason in the case to worry about the appearance of integrity in the exercise of political power. 74 A review of judicial opinion on determining whether a gathering is a"meeting" reveals three lines of inquiry. There are cases that ask(a)whether the body is making decisions; (b)whether the relevant body is acting within its jurisdiction; and(c)whether the body is exercising a policy-making function. Is the Body Making Decisions? 75 Councils and committees are decision-making bodies, and that is where their power comes from. For this reason, if those who have assembled have taken decisions as a body using that power, a"meeting"has obviously occurred. In Southam Inc. v. Ottawa Council, the Court held that the fact that the council made the"action-taking decision"of appointing a committee to investigate and report on pay for committee heads helped support the finding that a"meeting"had occurred in spite of the council's claim that it had merely been a"retreat."34 76 Unfortunately, there are some who link open meeting provisions in whole or in part to whether decisions have been reached. This approach finds its genesis in Ontario in the decision in Vanderkloet et al. v Leeds& Grenville County Board of Education.35 In that case,the Ontario Court of Appeal was determining whether a school board had breached administrative law requirements of procedural fairness. The Court ultimately held that the school board did not breach administrative law standards when it held an informal in-camera meeting prior to an"open"council meeting(held without notice)where the vote was taken. Central to the decision was the fact that the school board had reopened the issue after objection was raised and it held a full, with-notice meeting where the initial decision was ultimately reaffirmed,with reasons. In other words,the fact that no ultimate decisions were made during the earlier sessions and the end result was a decision of integrity taken in a public meeting satisfied the demands of procedural fairness. 77 The transferability of the Vanderkloet approach to open meeting cases is questionable. The Vanderkloet Court did not have to contend with a statutory 33 Ibid. at para. 18. 34 Southam Inc. v. Ottawa Council,supra note 12 at para. 15. 35 Vanderkloet v.Leeds&Grenville County Board of Education(1985), 51 O.R.(2d)577(C.A.) [Vanderkloet]. 21 ® Investigation into City of Greater Sudbury City Council Closed Meeting of February 20, 2008 Ombudsman Tabled:April 25, 2008 16-77 provision giving obvious legal priority and heightened importance to the open meeting principle. Moreover,the ultimate issue was different. The Court was not focused on whether the open meeting principle had been respected; it was asking the broader question of whether the initial failure to conduct an open meeting so undermined the fairness of the process that a school board decision should be invalidated. In spite of this,the influence of the Vanderkloet thinking can be seen in open meeting authority. In 3714683 Canada Inc. v. Parry Sound(Town),36 for example, a developer seeking a zoning change to facilitate a development met with the council behind closed doors. The Court held that this meeting did not violate the open meeting provisions because there was only an"exchange of information" and no decisions were made regarding the proposed zoning changes. As a result,no meetings were found to have occurred.37 78 With respect, the Parry Sound case actually serves as a clear example of why arriving at a decision should not be a necessary hallmark of a"meeting." Bear in mind that in the Parry Sound case, some members of the public were opposed to the developer's request. Permitting the developer to have a"secret information session"with council prior to its public meeting left the public in the dark about what had been considered or what influence may have been exerted by the developer behind closed doors. The secret meeting only served to weaken the appearance of integrity in the exercise of political power that the open meeting provisions are intended to secure. To be clear,this was not a case of councillors as individuals meeting with the developer as one of their constituents. It was a democratic deliberative body,a municipal council,meeting with the developer who had an interest in the matter under consideration and who was offering information for use in a matter that the council would be called upon to decide. With respect, the decision that this was not a meeting is unpersuasive. 79 In fairness to the Court that decided Parry Sound, it did distinguish another case, Aitken v Lambton Kent District School Board,38 because the meetings at issue in that case had"materially advanced the [relevant] cause," such that the"heart of the matter"had been decided in the in-camera proceeding.39 This is similar to the standard endorsed in Southam Inc. v. Ottawa Council.40 In that case,the Court held that a"meeting" can occur without decisions being arrived at—if matters requiring deliberation and decision"materially move along." This is in keeping with many American jurisdictions,which define"meeting" as including the 36 3714683 Canada Inc. v. Parry Sound(Town), [2004] O.J.No. 561 (Ont.S.C.J.) [Parry Sound]. 37 Ibid. at para.67. 38 Aitken v. Lambton Kent District School Board, [2002]O.J.No.3026(Ont.Div. Ct.). 39 Parry Sound,supra note 36 at para.66. 40 Southam Inc. v. Ottawa Council,supra note 12. 22 0 Investigation into City of Greater Sudbury City Ombudsman Council Closed Meeting of February 20, 2008 Tabled:April 25, 2008 16-78 deliberations of a public body leading up to a decision, even if no formal action occurs.41 80 In my opinion, even this approach—which requires proof that matters have "materially moved along,"or that there were deliberations leading up to a decision—does not fully catch the purpose behind the legislation. Guidance can be found, ironically, in the dissenting judgment of Justice Lacourciere in Hamilton-Wentworth, where he looked not at the result of the meeting,but at its purpose. He referred with approval to the definition from Black's Law Dictionary, defining"meeting"as "a coming together of persons ... for the purpose of discussing and acting upon such matter or matters in which they have a common interest."42 I take from this statement the wisdom that a meeting does not cease to be a"meeting"because the parties cannot reach a consensus or make progress. What matters is that they met for a purpose that engages the democratic process, namely,by working towards the possible application of their political power. 81 1 do not think,however,that a"meeting" occurs only where the purpose of getting together is to"discuss and act upon"a matter. Either can suffice. The approach implicit in the majority descision in Hamilton-Wentworth(and taken expressly in the Supreme Court of Minnesota case of St. Cloud Newspapers) seems to me to be correct in law. In that case, the Court endorsed the view that open meeting legislation was intended to catch every step of the decision-making process, including the collective inquiry and discussion stages;even where the"coming together"is not for the 4purpose of acting upon a matter—because that action is expected to come later. 3 Where material information is furnished, not for the kinds of general educational or informational purposes contemplated by the new exception in section 239(3.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, but instead as specific fodder for pending or expected decision-making,the open meeting provision should apply. 82 At first blush,this approach may appear to be at odds with the body of law that permits councillors and committee members to receive information or engage in informal discussion without the ballyhoo of the open meeting legislation. The most frequently cited dictum used to support exempting mere discussions is,not surprisingly,Justice Dubin's comment in the administrative law case of Panderkloet: "I do not think that the requirement that meetings ... should be open 41 See,for example,Arizona,Texas,Oregon,West Virginia and Idaho. 42 Supra note 6 at para.31. Justice Lacourciere dissented because he felt that the impugned meeting was simply a"workshop"where information was exchanged,but effort was not made to work towards particular decisions. 43 St. Cloud Newspapers,supra note 10. 23 ® Investigation into City of Greater Sudbury City Council Closed Meeting of February 20, 2008 Ombudsman Tabled:April 25, 2008 16-79 to the public precludes informal discussions among ... members, either alone or with the assistance of their staff."44 83 Justice Dubin was speaking in a distinguishable context,but there is obvious wisdom in what he is saying. It is a healthy thing in a democracy for elected officials to share information and to get the lay of the land through informal discussions with others before making policy decisions. As Justice Simonett of Minnesota observed, citing a proposed model law, "nothing ... should make illegal informal discussions, either personally or telephonically,between members of public bodies for the purpose of obtaining facts and opinions...."45 He remarked that"[t]o say ... that a board member may never talk to another board member outside of a duly called [public] meeting ... is unrealistic and chills speech unnecessarily... A6 84 All of this is true. Still, if the purpose of the open meeting provisions is to be respected, care has to be taken not to allow this "informal discussion" concept to swallow up the open meeting principle. Justice Grange in Hamilton-Wentworth was obviously right when he cautioned that a committee that is bound to hold meetings in public cannot convert a meeting into an informal discussion and thereby defeat the purpose of"open meeting"legislation.47 In my opinion, the way to prevent open-meeting rules from losing their sense in this way is to recognize that when elected politicians are not working together as a group,the democratic authority they are provided is not engaged. By contrast, it would be perilous to the purposes underlying the open meeting provisions to accept that a body can convene in secret as a body, and acquire information relating to a. pending or expected decision that may influence the points of view of the participants. Where councillors or committee members come together in order to work towards the ultimate resolution of a matter that requires the exercise of their power, even if they do so only to secure the data needed to make decisions,the open meeting provisions should apply. 85 In sum, it is clear that each of these approaches—the "arriving at a decision" approach; the"materially moving matters along"approach; and the assessment of whether the protagonists have come together for the purpose of working towards the ultimate resolution of a matter that requires the exercise of their power— derive from a purposive examination of the legislation. These are examples of democratic bodies engaged at various stages in the exercise of the very kinds of 44 yanderkloet,supra note 35 at para.,33. 41St. Cloud Newspapers,supra note 10,per Simonett J.,concurring in part and dissenting in part. 46lbid. 47 Hamilton-Wentworth,supra note 6 at para. 12. See also City of Yellowknife,supra note 21. 24 ® Investigation into City of Greater Sudbury City i1'1 b U d s 111 a n Council Closed Meeting of February 20, 2008 Tabled:April 25, 2008 16-80 power that the voters have a legitimate expectation of having input into, and where the appearance of integrity in the exercise of political power can be affected. The first two approaches are under-inclusive, for the principles can be engaged even without decisions being arrived at or deliberations being productive. I have therefore used these cases as inspiration given that they purport to embrace a principled approach,however imperfectly,but have restyled their standards by examining the broader question of whether the participants have come together for the purpose of exercising the power or authority of the council or committee or for the purpose of doing the groundwork necessary to exercise that power or authority. Is the Body Acting Within its Jurisdiction? 86 A common component offered when"meeting"is defined in the cases is the requirement that the gathering must be to deal with matters falling within the body's authority. In Hamilton-Wentworth, Justice Grange said that"in the context of a statutory committee, `meeting' should be interpreted as any gathering to which all members of the committee are invited to discuss matters within their jurisdiction."48 In Southam Inc. v. Ottawa Council,49 the Court also asked whether the actors were engaged"in a function at which matters which ordinarily form the basis of Council's business are dealt with in such a way as to move them materially along the way in the overall spectrum of a Council decision. ,50 87 Certainly, an important clue to whether or not a body is"meeting"would be that the body is doing the kind of stuff that the body is established to do. Still, it is my opinion that this should not be an essential condition before a breach of the open meeting provisions occurs.. That would exempt from the protection of the legislation those occasions when the body purports to use the powers it possesses as a body but is in fact performing ultra vices or illegally. At an intuitive level, it cannot be that a council or a committee can escape open-meeting scrutiny by exceeding its authority. In my opinion, so long as the participants have come together for the purpose of exercising the power or authority of the council or committee,the fact they are not acting within their jurisdiction should be irrelevant. 48 Supra note 6 at para.9. 49 Southam Inc, v. Ottawa Council,supra note 12 at para.12. '0 Ibid. 25 ® Investigation into City of Greater Sudbury City b d s t�1 a Council Closed Meeting of February 20, 2008 Tabled:April 25, 2008 16-81 Is the Body Exercising a Policy-Making Function? 88 In the case of Board of County Commissioners v. Costilla County Conservancy District, the Colorado Supreme Court said of that state's open meeting legislation: (1) [W]e hold that a local public body such as the Board is required to give public notice of any meeting attended or expected to be attended by a quorum of the public body when the meeting is part of the policy-making process. A meeting is part of the policy-snaking process when the meeting is held for the purpose of discussing or undertaking a rule,regulation, ordinance, or formal action. If the record supports the conclusion that the meeting is rationally connected to the policy-making responsibilities of the public body holding or attending the meeting, then the meeting is subject to [the legislation]."51 89 Although the decision is American, it forms the clearest articulation of an undercurrent also found in Canada,namely,whether the kind of issue being addressed at a meeting is a policy issue or otherwise. 90 The question of whether the body is working on or towards an issue of policy is an attractive one because the open meeting provisions are concerned with the exercise of political power,and the political power held by councils and committees is mainly a policy-making power. Here in Ontario, elected municipal officials have the authority to pass bylaws and determine broader questions of policy,including the allocation of municipal programs and services. They also establish and oversee administrative policies,practices and programs that are required to implement the decisions of council. But they are not given the power to do the hands-on administration of a municipality; it is the officers and employees of the municipality who implement or administer council's policies and program choices and carry out the duties assigned by a municipality.52 Municipal politicians do interact with administrators, of course,but when doing so they are not exercising power in a way that requires "sunshine laws."They are managing existing policies or otherwise engaged in administration. 91 Asking whether a body is making or working towards policy decisions can operate as a useful check on whether s.239(1) should apply. Still,looking only at whether or not a decision is one of policy risks an under-inclusive approach. For example,the decision identified in the Southam Inc. v. Ottawa Council case—to commission a study—was less a policy decision than a prelude to a potential "Board of County Commissioners v. Costilla County Conservancy District,88 P.3d 1188(Colo.2004). 52 See Municipal Act,2001,S.O. 2001,c.25,ss.224-229. 26 ® Investigation into City of Greater Sudbury City Council Closed Meeting of February 20, 2008 Ombudsman Tabled:April 25, 2008 16-82 policy choice. Moreover,where a committee has the task of rendering an administrative decision, it stretches the concept to describe that as a policy decision,but certainly those proceedings should be open. For this reason, identifying that there is a policy at stake is a strong indicator that a meeting is occurring,but finding there is not a general policy under consideration may not be a reason for finding that there is no open meeting obligation. 92 Hence, we arrive at the last piece of what I believe is a useful and workable set of criteria for a"meeting"to be deemed to have occurred within the meaning of s.239(1): Members of council or a committee must come together for the purpose of exercising the power or authority of the council or committee or for the ' purpose of doing the groundwork necessary to exercise that power or authority. I 27 Investi g ation into City of Greater Sudbu rJ City Councl Closed Meeting oFebruay 20, 2008 Ombudsman Tabled:April 25, 2008 16-83 U Zti. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT CHIEF Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: September 9, 2013 Resolution #: By-law#: Report#: CAO-008-1'3 File M Subject: CUSTOMER SERVICE SURVEY: RESULTS RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report CAO-008-13 be received for information. Submitted by: Franklin Wu, M.A.O.M. Chief Administrative Officer CC:FW CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 17-1 REPORT NO.: CAO- 008-13 PAGE 2 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to provide the results of the Municipality of Clarington customer service survey. These are shown in the attachment. 2. WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE SURVEY? 2.1 On May 6th, the General Purpose and Administration Committee received Report CAO-004-13 outlining of the scope, methodology, and timing of the customer service survey. The survey questionnaire itself was distributed to Council by the CAO shortly thereafter. 2.2 The survey was designed by Staff and focused on citizen views about both (a) the importance of 33 existing Municipality of Clarington services and (b) satisfaction with these services. Respondents were also asked to assess a recent customer service experience of their choice. And they were asked on what matters they wish to receive communications and their preferred means of receiving these. 3. HOW DID WE COLLECT CUSTOMER'S OPINIONS? 3.1 Clarington residents were asked to complete an on-line survey or complete the survey in paper form that was available at municipal facilities, including libraries. The on-line survey was open and paper copies received between Wednesday May 22nd and Friday June 14th. (This included an extension of one week to encourage participation.) 3.2 The survey was promoted through newspaper advertising, frequent Facebook and Twitter postings, a notice.on the Municipal website, by the Mayor in an announcement at a Council meeting and in an article he wrote for the Orono Times and through email contact with various residents who had provided us their email address over time, e.g., as community advisory committee members or as participants in the development of the Strategic Plan. Staff were also interviewed by a local radio station and used the opportunity to encourage residents to provide us their feedback. 4. WHAT WAS THE RESPONSE RATE? 4.1 It was intended, as reported to Council in May, that responses from 430 residents would be received. This would generate the generally accepted polling statistical result of 95% confidence that the results are within a margin of error of 4.7 percentage points, i.e., reported results are within 4.7 percentage points (plus or minus) of what is reported. 17-2 REPORT NO.: CAO- 008-13 PAGE 3 4.2 In spite of all efforts to promote the survey, we heard from 355 residents. While the overall response rate was below our target, nonetheless it gives us 95% confidence and a margin of error of 5.19 percentage points. 4.3 Since not all respondents answered all questions or indicated "don't know", there are a few questions where there was an insufficient sample size to provide any valid information. This is particularly found in responses to the question rating level of satisfaction with each of the 33 services. For 24 of the services, %to of respondents choose "don't know" when asked to rate their level of satisfaction, leaving only sufficient responses on nine of the services. This is found at Question #2 of the attached survey report. (Note also that not all respondents answered all questions. As an example, only 300 of the 355 identified what area of Clarington they reside in.) 5. WHO DID WE HEAR FROM? 5.1 The share of each (geographic) community's population within Clarington is about equal to that community's response rate (e.g., Newcastle's,share of the population is 9.52% whereas 10% of the survey respondents indicated they reside in Newcastle). 5.2 However, the actual share of our population under age 18 and the share of our population who commute to Oshawa was significantly lower than the response rate of those two groups, i.e., 1/4 of our population is under 18 years of age and none responded to the survey (although responses from this demographic are generally not included in a polling firm's survey) and 28.3% of the labour force population of our residents work in Oshawa, but only 13% of the respondents to the survey identify as such. This does not affect the validity or reliability of the results at the "whole of Clarington" level. 6. WHAT DID WE HEAR? HIGHLIGHTS: 6.1 The views of our customers are shown in the attached survey results which are generated through FluidSurveys, the survey software. There is a lot of data there. Three of the key findings are outlined below in 6.2 to 6.4. 6.2 Below is the percentage of residents who indicated satisfaction with the nine services where sufficient data is available listed by view of importance with the corresponding satisfaction rating. 17-3 REPORT NO.: CAO- 000-13 PAGE 4 Service % ranking the service % indicating as important satisfaction with the service Public parks 91% 77% Road/sidewalk 91% 75% maintenance other than winter maintenance Winter road maintenance 90% 80% Preservation of the 90% 59% natural environment Beaches/waterfront 88% 43% Streetlights 88% 80% Library services 87% 82% Trails and paths 86% 68% Swimming facilities 83% 71% 6.3 Residents were asked to think about a recent service experience with the Municipality and to indicate their level of satisfaction on six matters. Their responses are summarized below: Customer Service attribute % indicating satisfaction with the attribute Overall quality of service delivery 71% Timeliness 72% Treated fairly 81% Staff were knowledgeable and competent 80% Able to get through without difficulty 80% Staff went the extra mile 67% 17-4 REPORT NO.: CAO- 008-13 PAGE 5 Residents were also asked in relation to this experience, "In the end, did you get what you needed?" 57% indicated they got what they needed, 25% indicated they got part of what they needed and 18% indicated they did not get what they needed. 6.4 How residents want their Municipality to provide information to them shows that when residents were given a menu of 13 different ways to receive information: 0 62% of residents chose municipal website as an effective or very effective means 0 59% chose an insert in the tax bill 0 58% chose Email for Recreation program users 0 57% chose a notice or ad in Clarington This Week newspaper. On the other hand, only 0 10% chose "Announcement at Council Meeting" 0 14% chose "Cable TV broadcast of Council meeting" . About 30% choose social media although more than 40% chose these options as not effective. 7. WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS? 7.1 The key next steps include the following: 1. share these results by posting this report on our website 2. review the customer service data to develop an action plan to reflect the opinions of residents 3. review the data on municipal communications and develop a Municipal Communications Strategy to reflect the opinions of residents 4. use the data as an input to the 2014 Budget and the 2015-19 Strategic Plan. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN —The recommendations contained in this report conform to the following priorities of the Strategic Plan: Promoting economic development X Maintaining financial stability X Connecting Clarington X Promoting green initiatives X Investing in infrastructure Showcasing our community Not in conformity with Strategic Plan Staff Contact: Curry Clifford, MPA, CMO, Corporate Initiatives Officer Attachment: FluidSurveys Customer Service Survey results 17-5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 TO REPORT CAO-008-13 FluidSurvcys 2013 C1arington Customer Service Survey Summary -Report Note: 355 responses were received to host, but not all questions. In what area'of Clarington do you reside? Response Chart Percentage Count Bowmanville 46% 138 Clarke 1% 4 Courtice 25% 75 Darlington 0% 1 Enniskillen 1% 3 Hampton 2% 5 Haydon 0% 1 Kendal 1% 2 Kirby 0% 1 Maple Grove 0% 1 Mitchell Comers 1% 2 Newcastle 10% 30 Newtonville I% 2 Orono 6% 17 Tyrone 2% 5 Wilmot Creek 1% 2 I reside on a farm 2% 7 Other,please specify... 1% 4 Total Responses 300 17-6 Please.select your age range: 51-64-96(32 —65-75-37(12%) 75 and over-5 ON Prefer not to ans%,,vpr-:3 xh under 18-1 (0%) f`-=18-34-39(13%) 35-50 -115 Please tell us the location of your work/business/school. other Durharn Region community-13(4%) - - _-� - Taronta 27(0%) Whitby-24(a%�--_ - I Other,{Tease specify...- Oshawa-37(13%)-- � 45(15%) Clarington-147(50%----=-- —— — - I 17-7 I 1. Please rate how IMPORTANT it is that the Municipality of Clarington provide the following services,using a five point scale,where 1 means NOT at.all important and 5 means VERY important. You also have the option of checking "Don't Know". Ratings below show the percentage of respondents who ranked any of the 33 services a 3,4 or 5 in importance,e.g.,91%of respondents ranked public parks a 3,4 or 5 on a 1 to 5 scale.(Note that"Don't Know"responses here ranged from 3% (swimming facilities)to 8%(plauming).) public parks:91% rbad/sidewalk maint.other than winter:91% winter road maintenance:90% preservation of natural enviromnent:90% beaches/waterfront:88% streetlights:88% firefighting response:87% library services:87% trails and paths:86% fire prevention/public educ.:85% snow clearing for seniors and disabled:85% builduig'inspection:85% reviewing subdivision zoning proposals:84% land use planning:83% recreation programs-youth:83% swimming facilities:83% public swimming:81% preservation of heritage buildings/sites:80% older adults facilities:80% older adults programs:79% tourism promotion:79% adult recreation programs:78% public skating:77% swimming lessons:77% museum/heritage sites:76% support for local arts culture events:74% -animal services:74% youth day camps:74% Fitness facilities:75% Fitness programs:72% ice rentals:71% banquet hall/meeting facilities:69% indoor soccer rentals:65% 17-8 2. Please rate your level of SATISFACTION with the following Municipality of Clarington services, using a five point scale where 1 means NOT very satisfied and 5 means VERY satisfied. You also have the option of checking "Don't Know". Large numbers of respondents(%to%z)choose"Don't Know"when asked to rate their satisfaction with 24 of the 33 services. The satisfaction ratings(those who marked a score of 3,4 or 5)amongst the remaining nine services where data is sufficient were: library services:82% street lighting:80% winter road maintenance:80% public parks:77% road sidewalk maintenance other.than winter:75% swimming facilities:71% trails and paths:68% preservation of natural environment:59%beaches/waterfront:43% 3. Have you contacted the Municipality about any service in the last two years? _ ------tile- 137(39%) • 1 1� #es-210(61 17-9 4. For which one service have you contacted the Municipality of Clarington most recently? 222 respondents indicated here a specific service that they had contacted the Municipality about. Five of these noted multiple services.(An additional 25 completed the questions that followed that asked about their customer service experience.)Ilere are the services that the 222 respondents referenced: Planning and planning related:28 Animal Services: 16 Roads: 16 Rec Programs: 16 Snow clearance: 11 Building Inspection:11 Garbage collection: 10 Enforcement: 10 Taxes:9 Tree:9 Swimming:8 Streetlights:5 Sidewalk:4 Ice rentals:4 Facility Rental:4 Fire Services:4 Library:3 Tourism:3 Park Maintenance:3 Note:27 other services were mentioned just once,e.g.,"photocopying","Admin","comrnunity Christmas Tree". 5. Thinking about this service in question#4,using a five point scale where 1 means NOT very satisfied and 5 means VERY satisfied: go 80 77(32%) 81(34%) 70 60 57(24% 51(22%x) 04 43(18%) 48(20%) ry 1 40 (15%) F 37(16%) M 2 30 Xd rl 3 20 4 10 t ; €�5 How satisfied were you With the How satisfied were you with the overall duality ofsewice delivery? anioutit ofthrte ittool(to getthe Service? I 17-10 6. Thinking about your experience with the delivery of this service(Question#4),please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the four statements using a five point scale where 1 means STRONGLY DISAGREE and 5 means STRONGLY AGREE J&22 �J 10%) I was treated fairy 422(17%) 46(15a�J - - las(457a) Staff were knowledgeable and 23(10%) competent 44(1s55J 48 i2045J 101(42%) 3 127(11%) was able to get through to.staff 2V f�s�) . 35(15%) � 5 WithoLit ditfiiculty 55(28%) ---- 102(420 55(23%) Staff went the eytra mile to make -25(11%) sure I got what I needed 43(la�J 35(15%) EO(34".0) Q -10 210 30 iO 50 60 h 80 r.�J(l 160 1.10 128 7. In the end, did you get what you needed?Would you say: You did notgetWhatyou_— needed-42(18%) You got laait ofwhatyou needed-58(25%) I • J - I You gotwhatyou needed-135(57%) — -•-_—_ 8. What is the most effective way for your municipality-to provide information to you:? °-o- - -: 59(19°f°) NoticefAd in the C(arington 70(22%) This Week sa(a145) °�) 5 t2%] 82(26%) 137(4445) Notice/Ad in the Orono 34(11%) Weekly Times 4o(18V.) 34(110/5) 64(21°1°) ;=G2 (20%j' 1F5(53%) Notice/Ad in SNAP C:larington .5) o)(11%) 19(6 32(1045) 165(21%) C:ornrnunity Recreation& 93(30%) Leisure Guide —80(26%) 59(19%) 12(4%) i _ 192(62� Ann0uncementatCouncil - 54(17%) - -- Meeting 23(7%) 100%) 31(10°.5) 1174(56%) Cable TV broadcast of yl- a 57(18%) -- - - - - Council Meeting 24 tsr°) 19(s A) 35(11%) -- -_ 14S(4845) Not Very Effective C:larington Twitter Post 42(14%) m Somewhat Effect (@GlaringtonoN) 40(13 °) - GA Effective 84(114b) 44(14%) '-- Very Effective —._ - 139(49%) IOn t ,I'14 t 45(1545) Oiarington Facebook Post 56(18%) 39(13%) 36(12%) 56(10%) CFlarington Website Post 48 t1s%) 122(394'°) (v,r%kw.clarington.neQ 71(2 .A) 14(5%) 61(20°C°) Brochures,Pamphlets at 9300%) (Municipal Facilities 44(14%) 94(30%) =20(s%) Public Inforrnation Centres a7(28%) 91(29%) or Open Houses 47(15%) 24(M-0 17-12 Email for Recreation ��4a(13%) Program Users 83(27%)95(310 4) 48(16%) 46(15%) 68(20%) Insert in Tax Notices 111112M 89(29%) 93 24(6%) 0 2O 4tJ 60 8'0 16060 1�O 1 i0 -160 160 '260 2207 17-13 9. What type of municipal information are you looking to be provided and how would prefer it be provided? Have little interest In the matter and not likely to seek information about it ®Interested in the matter and will contactth e..Municipality or browse its website if need information about it Fi Would like the Information Pushed outto rile,e.g.,in a Notice/Ad in the newspaper or sentte me Don't knout - - - — 129(417a) Animal Services - — --- -- -- 130(42°,x) _ _ 31(12%) 17(595p BeachesfWaterfront - =- - ;197(44%) 12(4%) -- 121(33%) 114(37 9A) T -_-- - - Building Inspection Services - al(7%) - 150(48%) 27(9%) Facilities-Banquet HalliMeeting 108(35%)-T --- 154(49%) Facilities 83(11%) 10(6%) _ 82(2G%) Facilities-Fitness 154(51%) 54(17%) .Ln _� Yz2y _r 136(44%) Facilities-Ice Rentals — 127(41r) 16(5%) - ° - _157(Sella) Facilities-Indoor Soccer Rentals -12r,(G9.0 111ota5b�)is(6%) -90( 9°ia) Facilities-Swinunrng 155(50%) — 151(1C 50 16(5%) Ul(199/4) Fire Prevention &Public Education — - - _ - -- 76(24 A) 12(C%) 52(1791°} Firefighting Response - - - 165(54Q) 69(22%! 23(1°.5) _ - -- _. --- 72123%) Fitness Progratmu - n 160(51%) 61(20!°) 67(2201.) Land Use Planning — - -�123(40%) _ -97(ul% ) 22(7%) GLr q f q l �PT�LFS� 49(16°1) 175(57N) 17-14 LllJl dl}� CIY76.Ca} 71(23°I°) .. .... 1 14(5%) 3 f29%) re1L13eUnI(Herlt3ge Sit83 j --- -- — - ----1145(47%) r 153U9%) 1G(5°,5) 132(43°Ia) Older Adult Facilities - 121(39%) 39(13.0) 17(635) Older Adults Programs --- - -- -- - :7119(3835) 44(14;5) 1G(535) lao(220,'.) Preservation of Heritage I 35.r -- - - -- _-- --.7141(4555) Buildings/Sites — 55(18%) 14(50l°) Preservation ofNatural I ---_ �o(lr,°°) -- �- 14G(47%) Environment ) --- -- - 1100(3235) 13(4%) --13 L7%) Public Parks - - - . 1178(5704 `MM 93(31910 13(4%) _ -100(33%) Public Skating _- - - -- 189(45%) 53(17%) 15(535) 72(23°l°) Public Swimming 159(5135) G2(2055) 109(36%) Recreation Programs-Youth ( -- — - ------- - 19,0(43%) 18(G%) Recreation Programs-ArJult 1159(5135) 60(19%) 1G(5%) Reviewing Subdivision and - 111(35%) Zoning Proposals RIMEM 100(32.35) 14(G%) ,�- RoadlSidewalk M 45 1;15°.a) aintenance- .153(51%) SpringISurnmer/Fall 91(29%) 38(1250 Road(Maintenance-Winter � 155(50/5) (Plowing;Sanding;Salting) *' 101(33%) 15(5%) 1110(86%) Snow Clearing for Seniors and '_ - - 3.25(41%) Disabled % 52(17%) 21(79A) 76(25%) Street Lighting IG4(53 35) 17 035) 1 - - 68(29%) Supportfor Local Aris&Cultural r-- —_—__-- --_ 129(42%) I 17-15 18(6%) 3 w. 119(39%) Swimming Lessons — 129(ales) 43(1690) 16(5%a) — - 38(2245) Tourisni Promotion = -_� - - - 120(39%) 7 83(27%) 7.9(695) J_ Trails and Baths — - 41(13°,u) ---- -- --- -110-1(33n•S) 7149(4-1%) 14(5%) 139(46%) Youth Day CamraG t 36{].295) 1$(M) 0 20 4Q EQ 60 1 QO 1 Z(] 1�0 160 160 �C 17-16 10. Would you like your municipality to communicate information about the following'to you and if so how would you like it communicated to you? G Have little interest in the matter and not likely to seek information about it ■Interested in the matter and will contact the Municipality or browse its website if I need info rrnation about it w Would like the information pushed out to rna,e.g.,in a Notice/Ad in the newspaper or sent to me Don't kno-vv Key(natters that are before - 94(also) Council to decide 187(6235) 3 Key decisions ofrnunicipal a9(30%) Coun 198(6635) s(135) Comiiurnity eventsfhappenings 90(30%) - Volunteer and coninilitee 120(4035) opportunities 143(48%) 6(2%) 2(1%) L�' Proposals concerning hove 21(7%) specific land in the Municipality lag(34%u) could be uses! 4(15r°) - - - B` 28 OSO Howto prepare for an emergency 131(44%)136(45.4) 5(2%) j 124(41%) What pets are available for 128(43%) adoption 41(145S) 8(3%) ..�:-' 35(12%) Municipal financial information 94(31%) 164(5435) 7(2%) Service interruptions 80(2735 — — 205(6,9%) 512',Q 0 20 0 dO 80 100 120 1410 160 180 200 220 i 17-17 11. Have you visited the Municipality's website(www.clarington.net)? t No-32(11 .i' >P Yes-267 12.If you answered yes in Q#11,please indicate the number of times you visited in the last year. 6(2%) 46(17%) r°j Evetyday ao t'os�) w once a Meek Pi 2 to 3 times a month 52(19%) once a i-nonth ®Less than once a month 67(92%) 0 •10 26 30 40 5b 60 A Eta a 1O0 • I 17-18 13.If you answered yes to Q#11,please indicate the extent of your agreement.to the following statements using a five point scale where 1 means STRONGLY DISAGREE and 5 means STRONGLY AGREE. 10(4%) The website is a central 14('°�7_ source for custoizjpr -- �_!--- ------J55(c15t°) 85(32%) servicelservice delivery. - _ ------__-- —�as(3a%) It(15W 51(19°'5) I gLflckly found what I was - ---- -- ---- - 72(27%) looking for on the website 2c( 2s•5) I SG(13%) S - 22(8%) 45(17%) 192 The website is easy to so(30%) tj 3 navigate 84(31%) 31(1255) 4 7(355) a 0 Dona Know 29(11%) 38(14%) Overall I arty satisfied with the 71(26%) look and feel of the website 90(Saar.) 32(12%) 15(G%) 40(15%) The website had all the ffAMI&A 77(2955) information I needed 90(33%) 36(13%) 712(4%) g 10 20 30 40 60 60 70 00 100 14. Please add any comments that would help us improve our website. 58 respondents provided comments about the website in this open ended question,including: 22:concerns with look and feel and professionalism of website 8:concerns with navigation 6:concerns with search ability of website 6:seeking additional content:econ develop;all things Clarington; protecting our natural environment;history of Clarington; councillor's positions on issues;area to post questions and comments for councillors;built in blog for users to post info 5:expressed satisfaction with website And one comment each on 11 other items,e.g.,make website font friendlier for older adults. 17-19 15. Overall, what actions could the Municipality of Clarington take to improve its communication with you? 82 respondents provided comments on actions to improve communications,including: -establishing email newsletter or email notification of significant matters: 27 -pleased with existing communications:6 -improve the website:4 -improve engagement with the community:3 -stop sending published material:3 -return phone calls,emails:2 -establish complaint follow up system:2 -use newspapers more to communicate:2 -use social media more selectively:2 37 other actions were suggested once,including:24/7 call in service;arrange to have all council meetings on TV;stop holding "in camera"meetings;reply to all job applications Concluding Question: Again, the purpose of this survey is to learn your opinion about the services and communications that your municipality provides. Your input will help the Municipality of Clarington to best meet your expectations and identify areas that may need conversation.Please use this space in the event there is anything else that you wish to tell us that can assist with this purpose and help meet your expectations. 83 respondents provided feedback here on this open ended question.There were a wide range of continents made on a wide range of subjects,with only four subjects commented on four or more times: -Praise for staff.7 -Need for more community engagement:5 -Need to increase service level in parks:5 -Need for more commercial servicbs in Courtice:4 The other 62 comments ranged from the need for modernization of the website to opportunities to seize economic opportunities offered through bicycle/walking paths to concern that survey would be ignored to providing info on the cost of the EFW plant.While many comments were general with no specific request,the few responses requesting specific action have been provided to the respective Department Head for follow-up. 17-20. Clarftma REPORT CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: September 9, 2013 Resolution #: By-law#: Report#: CAO-009-13 File #: Subject: MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON'S COMMENTS ON THE REVIEW OF ONTARIO'S LONG TERM ENERGY PLAN (LTEP) RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended to the General Purpose and Administration Committee: 1. THAT the submission as set out in Report CAO-009-13 be approved as the Municipality's comments on the review of Ontario's long term energy plan. Submitted by: Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer CC:FW CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 17-21 REPORT NO.: CAO-009-13 PAGE 2 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to set out the Municipality's comments on the review of Ontario's longterm energy plan. 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 The Province is receiving comments until September 16th on the review of the 2010 Long-Term Energy Plan (LTEP). It has issued a 32 page Discussion Guide titled "Making Choices" to enable a discussion to determine what updates should be made to the plan including the role of nuclear energy. 2.2 The review of the 2010 plan is in large part prompted by the fact that overall energy demand is lower than forecasted in 2010. This is because the economy has not recovered to the extent forecasted, major energy users experienced business challenges and conservation increased. Peak demand by 2030 is now forecasted at about 30,000 MW, down from 2010 forecast of about 33,000 MW, although a "low growth" scenario could see this as low as 22,000 MW which is lower than actual demand today. 2.3 The Municipality therefore needs to make a convincing case that the 2010 Plan - which envisioned the Darlington refurbishment and New Build proceeding - should be implemented. 2.4 With the Clarington Board of Trade, staff has studied the experts' review of the supply and demand scenarios, attending a number of technical briefings sponsored by the ministry and the OPA. Listening to these officials and discussing with them has helped to build the Municipality's understanding of how the government is viewing this complex subject, What is important to them and how to frame the Municipality's submission effectively. We then meet with experts in the nuclear industry and distilled their many contributions to bring forward what it we have learned to be the relevant facts and arguments in a, language that will be effective in this particular context. 2.5 We also helped co-host a meeting of the Nuclear Technology Mayors' Council, co-chaired by Mayor Foster with Oakville Mayor Rob Burton to learn more about the perspectives of leaders of communities in the nuclear supply chain. 2.6 The Municipality also needs to build an effective relationship with this particular ministry as its decisions have significant impacts on the community. It has started that with two meetings with senior staff of the Ministry and the Minister's staff. At the AMO conference, this included a meeting with the Minister himself. 17-22 REPORT NO.: CAO-009-13 PAGE 3 This meeting included the Mayor and Councillors Hooper, Novak, Partner and Woo. This too has assisted with understanding how the ministry views the issues and how the Municipality can best assist the ministry to arrive at a mutually beneficial decision. 3. CONCLUSION The attached submission seeks to put forward Clarington's position on matters that are important to the Municipality and relevant to the Ministry. The deadline for submissions is September 16th, and Council does not meet again until the evening of the 16th thus GPA is asked to accept this report as Council's position. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — The recommendations contained in this report conform to the following priorities of the Strategic Plan: X Promoting economic development Maintaining financial stability Connecting Clarington Promoting green initiatives Investing in infrastructure X Showcasing our community Not in conformity with Strategic Plan Staff Contact: Curry Clifford, MPA, CMO, Corporate Initiatives Officer Attachment: Municipality of Clarington comments on the review of Ontario's long-term energy plan 17-23 ATTACHMENT NO.1 TO REPORT CAO-009-13 lya * gtoit September 2013 Julie Green Senior Policy Advisor Ministry of Energy Municipality of Clarington's comments on the review of Ontario's Long Term Energy Plan- EBR Registry number 011-9490 Dear Ms. Green: Please accept this as the Municipality of Clarington's comments on the review of Ontario's Long Term Energy Plan- EBR Registry number 011-9490. This submission has been endorsed by our Council. Please note that a parallel submission will follow from the Clarington Board of Trade (CBOT). Listening This submission has the advantage of being informed by two recent meetings afforded Clarington's elected and appointed officials with the Minister, his staff and Ministry staff. We are grateful for the time provided Clarington for discussing the Long Term Energy Plan (LTEP) and its importance to our community and our Province. We hope that is the start of a productive relationship between the ministry and the municipality. We also much appreciate the ministry's willingness to agree to Mayor Foster's request to add a meeting in our area to the province-wide consultation on the LTEP. This September 12th meeting affords an accessible opportunity for our residents, businesses and institutions to be heard. Conservation At the outset, we want to note our strong endorsement for the statement in the LTEP discussion paper Making Choices that "the government is putting conservation first in our planning". We couldn't agree more. Clarington's Council in the last year agreed to: invest $480,000 in energy conservation retrofits of our own facilities that will return our investment within five years; encouraging energy conservation in new residential construction in an innovative pilot study funded by the MOE and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities; formed the Sustainable Clarington Community Advisory Committee. Ministry setting the record straight on nuclear Second, Clarington wants to make clear that we appreciate the ministry helping to set the record -1- 17-24 straight about the benefits of nuclear by leading your section on Nuclear in Making Choices with the statement: "Because of its reliability, safety and zero GHG emissions, the government is committed to ensuring that nuclear energy provides a significant portion of Ontario's electricity generation." Answering your questions Third, we wish to answer the questions you've posed about nuclear"Nuclear power provides over half of Ontario's generation. What are your views on refurbishing existing nuclear units? How should we proceed with nuclear new build?" Clarington shares the views of others who have looked closely at the demand and supply scenarios and concluded that the plans for nuclear refurbishments and nuclear replacement build in the 2010 Long Term Energy Plan were well founded and should continue to be implemented. Please note, we suggest that it is more accurate to refer to "new build" as "replacement build" as the proposal to build two reactors at Darlington would replace the supply provided by Pickering Nuclear Station that is being decommissioned in the not too distant future. The ministry has the benefit of witnessing what can happen when demand for public infrastructure is underestimated or decisions put off, whether it is in power supply in other jurisdictions, e.g., California, or in other public infrastructure in Ontario. As community leaders and infrastructure planners, we've learned that best value comes from taking an investment and longer-term perspective when making choices for future generations. We would urge that here. Now. Importance of Nuclear to Clarington and Ontario Fourth, it is critical that government know that the LTEP and the prominent role that nuclear energy needs to play in it are very important to our community. And they are each very important to Ontario's success. You will hear this from a diverse range of people, including: mayors representing communities across Ontario who have come together to create the Nuclear Technology Mayors' Council under the co-chairmanship of Clarington Mayor Adrian Foster and Oakville Mayor Rob Burton ® women who have brought their talent, care and dedication to the nuclear industry and are represented through the organization Women in Nuclear ® academic institutions that are working with the nuclear industry to create well trained professionals and continue Ontario's international leadership in this vital field • large energy consumers - and job creators - represented by Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters • the nuclear industry, represented by the Organization of Canadian Nuclear Industries (OCI) as well as by the Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA). The Nuclear Advantage From these many different interests the Ministry will have heard that nuclear is the cheaper, cleaner,jobs creating choice for Ontario. The OCI put numbers to this: "Continued investment in base-load nuclear generation will result in the best outcome for Ontario's economy (up to 20% lower electricity prices, 100,000 more jobs and $60B economic benefit) and the environment (100,000 MT less GHG emissions). -2- 17-25 The detailed studies on these subjects are convincing and we encourage all who care about Ontario's future to review and discuss these by contacting these organizations. Community Support in Clarington for Nuclear What the ministry may not hear as much about from these organizations is the depth and breadth of community support here in Clarington for nuclear. It is part of the fabric of our community. It has been for more than a generation —the atomic energy sign is in fact in our Coat of Arms. Successive municipal councils have supported nuclear to our community and before federal and provincial regulatory bodies. There are well established, effective mechanisms in place to resolve any issues including the Darlington Community Advisory Committee and the Durham Nuclear Health Committee. In fact Mayor Foster has been asked to advise other municipalities on how to develop effective community engagement on nuclear projects. And in another part of our municipality- Port Granby -we are involved with the federal government in supporting a low level nuclear waste project. There is a very strong and productive relationship between our Municipality and the OPG in all aspects of municipal administration -financial, planning, service delivery, e.g., joint fire services and emergency preparedness training. We've taken that experience into our leadership in the Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities and in the Nuclear Technology Mayors' Council. And the Clarington Board of Trade (CBOT) is actively involved with CNSC hearings, CNA, the Darlington Community Advisory Committee and the nuclear supply chain to support industry. The CBOT hosts an annual Energy Summit each fall to educate and foster collaboration with the nuclear industry and have invited the Minister and Ministry to participate on November 7m The University of Ontario'Institute Technology (UOIT) and Durham College have developed educational programs directly related to nuclear and energy systems. We are also working to build an understanding of the significant opportunities to optimize the OPG Training Centre to showcase and train the world. Summary and Conclusion The dialogue to date with the ministry is appreciated and helps to builds a strong future for Clarington and Ontario. It has assisted us to see the alignment of our shared interests around conservation and the benefits of nuclear. And it has helped us to better understand the supply and demand scenarios, confirming for us that the plans for nuclear refurbishments and nuclear replacement build in the 2010 Long Term Energy Plan were well founded and should continue to be implemented. We owe it to future generations to take this long-term perspective. Dialogue with a wide range of people makes clear that nuclear is the cheaper, cleaner,jobs creating choice for Ontario. Clarington is the place where this choice can be optimized. There is wide and deep community support for nuclear. It is woven into the fabric of our community. This contrasts sharply with what the government has experienced in many parts of Ontario with other energy supply choices. Clarington and Ontario would be well served by sticking with the 2010 plans for nuclear at Darlington. -3- 17-26 COMMUNICATIONS ITEM 20(a) Planit Connections Consulting Services Inc. ' R w.'v j�0 Y w 0 COUHML �3 Li'�G�IL ❑ FILE August 29, 2013 DIRER 1 icrt N C0F Y'TC7: i Leslie Kerrigan ;Es ,'�YOR r,Es E s c� cElo 9015 Mosport Road, ? OF ''`''`SQL ' Orono ON CC:'riMPAITf G cr,h:'C;PRE Q EMERCENCY i SERI `Eiill�tS StfiUIf,E$ LOB 1MO ❑ EiIUiF!`l'I.i':if L }I,''GiYAL n f,'PERi1iIC IS; f i U PL�301'i'G rt EOL GITOR C] TREASURY i Ms. Leslie Kerrigan, SEq S z . RE: ZBA-2013-0016 Part Lot 1, Concession 8 ` y� MUNICIPAL CLERKS FILE I am pleased to provide you with a planning opinion regarding the property at Part Lot 1, Concession 8 in the Municipality of Clarington.This letter provides an overview of the planning policy conformity issues associated with this application in regard to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP),the Region of Durham Official Plan, and the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The proposed temporary land use would consist of outdoor camping, parking and portable washroom facilities associated with two annual entertainment events on agricultural lands. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan is the guiding land use policy document in regard to this proposed use. It is a prescriptive provincial plan, it is not interpreted like an Official Plan, as a result planning decisions are generally conservative as,the language and policies regarding permitted uses is specific.The policies of the municipality must conform to the ORMCP, implementing plans such as the Municipality of Clarington's Official Plan, 2005-109 can be more but not less restrictive. After an analysis of the permitted uses within agricultural areas and a review of the policy on low intensity recreational uses permitted on the Oak Ridges Moraine, it is my opinion that the land uses proposed in this application do not conform to the policies in the ORMCP and other relevant policy documents. I would recommend you provide this opinion for consideration by the Mayor and Council. An overview of my analysis follows. Summary of Planning Opinion Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) When considering applications for uses within the Oak Ridges Moraine Plan area is it important to review the objectives of the Plan.The objectives are to protect the ecological and hydrological functions of the Oak Ridges Moraine,by ensuring that only land uses that maintain, improve or restore the ecological and hydrological function of the Oak Ridges Moraine are permitted.... The proposed lands are within the Natural Linkage area of the ORMCP. The Municipality of Clarington has amended its Official Plan to conform to the ORMCP, under By-law 2005-109.The property under consideration is identified as agricultural and Natural Linkage on map E4, By-law 2005-109. 20-1 The primary use of the property is currently agriculture.The ORMCP identifies agricultural related uses as commercial or industrial uses that are, small scale, directly related to the farm operation and required in close proximity to the farm operation.The proposed use is not farming related. According to the application,the applicant is proposing a temporary use; overnight camping with temporary washrooms and parking facilities which is identified in a letter from the applicants planner as an accessory use.The ORMCP does not identify temporary uses nor does this application meet the requirements of an accessory use. The applicant considers the use to be consistent with a low intensity recreational use. The ORMCP specifically identifies what use(s) can be considered a low intensity recreational use in Sec. 37(1). Low intensity recreational uses are recreational uses that have minimal impact on the natural environment and require very little terrain or vegetation modification, and few if any buildings or structures, including but not limited to the following: 1. Non-motorized trail uses 2. Natural heritage appreciation 3. Unserviced camping on public or institutional land. 4. Accessory uses. The proposed use in this temporary zoning by-law amendment is unserviced camping on private lands which is not identified as a permitted use.-Further,the use proposed by the applicant, an unserviced campground is not related to'the principal use, agriculture and therefore is not consistent with the permitted accessory uses under Sec 37 in the ORMCP. Commercial uses are a permitted use within Countryside areas under specific conditions, not within a Natural Linkage area. Region of Durham Official Plan The Regional Official Plan identifies the proposed parcel as Natural Linkage.The parcel adjacent to the proposed use, Mosport Park is identified on Schedule A, Map 5 as an existing regional node. The Region of Durham Official Plan has updated their plan to conform to the Greenbelt Plan. Policy 9 C. 2.1.states, "In the preparation of area municipal official plans,Councils of the area municipalities shall include provisions to complement the intent of this Plan and the provisions of this Section regarding the development of Regional Nodes." The development of the Regional Node includes the lands within the mapped Mosporf Park area and does not appear to be applicable to lands adjacent to Mosport Park.The regional official plan and local official plan must conform to the ORMCP.Any request to make changes to the ORMCP should be made at the time of the ORMCP review in 2015. Municipality of Clarington Official Plan The subject lands are currently zoned agricultural and are identified in the Municipality of Clarington's Official Plan as General Agricultural Area. The goals within the agricultural area are to encourage and support the agricultural industry as an important part of the municipality's economic base.The objectives are to: preserve high quality 20-2 agricultural lands for farming purposes,to promote stewardship of agricultural lands for future generations and1he direct non-farm uses to settlement areas.The plan states the uses shall be predominantly used for farm and farm related uses, or farm-related industrial commercial uses, home based occupations, riding and boarding stables, dog kennels,fur farms, sod farms,farm produce outlets and other similar uses provides such uses.are compatible with the existing and/or designated land uses in the surrounding area and do not generate excessive amounts of odour, traffic and other nuisances, etc. An unserviced commercial campground may not be compatible with the existing land uses in the agricultural area as the use may generate excessive amounts of traffic, noise and nuisances. The Municipal Official Plan is clear in its goals and objectives of supporting agricultural uses. As the proposed use is not consistent with the goals and objectives of this plan, it is my opinion that it does not meet the requirements identified in the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan. Municipality of Clarington Zoning BVlaw,Section 5,Special Land Use Provisions The applicant is requesting a temporary use consisting of an unserviced campground for a maximum of two weeks during August for the next three years.The current provisions in the Municipality of Clarington special events provisions in the zoning bylaw(Sec 5.11.1) define temporary as the combined total duration of all special events on one lot, which shall not exceed 7 days in a calendar year. For events which produce excessive noise,such an event may be held for a duration of no longer than three days on a lot in a calendar year. Further,Section 5.11.4 defines where a special event is permitted, on any lot or street owned by a public authority, a private school, a place of worship, or any lot owned privately providing it is commercially or industrial zoned. As the parcel in question is zoned agricultural, not commercial or industrial, the use is not permitted according to the by-law. The proposed use is not consistent with the definition of temporary and the zoning is not consistent with the requirements in the Municipality of Clarington Zoning By-law. It is my opinion as a professional planner that the proposed use is not permitted as it does not conform to the policies in the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, nor is it consistent with the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, the Region of Durham Official Plan or the Municipality of Clarington Zoning By- law. Respectfully Submitted by, Susan Lloyd Swail, MES PI. Principal, Planit Connections Consulting Services www.planitconnections.ca 23 Kinsley St, Nobleton, On LOG 1NO 20-3 • a�111 11 MEMO (iLeading the IVuy CLERK'S DEPARTMENT To: Mayor Foster and Members of Council From: Anne Greentree, Deputy Clerk Date: September 6, 2013 Subject: GENERAL PURPOSE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA — SEPTEMBER 9, 2013 — UPDATE File: C05.GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION Please be advised of the following amendments to the GPA agenda for the meeting to be held on Monday, September 9, 2013: 6. DELEGATIONS See attached Final List. (Attachment#1) 20. COMMUNICATIONS (b) Correspondence from Rick Rondeau, Fourteen Estates Limited, Regarding the Public Meeting (Agenda Item 5(a)), Regarding an Application for a Temporary Use By-Law to Allow Camping and Ancillary Uses, Report PSD-045-13 (Attachment#2) n r reeritree, eputy Clerk AG/jeg cc: F. Wu, Chief Administrative Officer Department Heads CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 F 905-623-6506 Attachment #1 of Update Memo FINAL LIST OF DELEGATIONS GPA Meeting: September 9, 2013 (a) Fred Brumwell Regarding Report EGD-030-13, Trudeau Walkway (b) Shirley Crago Regarding Street Name Request for Crago Road (c) Kenneth Kerrigan Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival (d) Leslie Kerrigan Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival (e) Shannon McNevan, Republic Live, Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival (f) Brian Crow, Executive Producer, Republic Live, Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival (g) Chris Paterson, Republic Live, Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival (h) Adam Breitkreuz, Republic Live, Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival (i) Laura Kennedy, Republic Live, Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival (j) Brad Black, Black's Water Supply Inc., Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival (k) Justin Oliver Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival (1) Barbara Sarginson Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival (m) Kevin Anyan Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival (n) Tom Woods Regarding Report EGD-030-13, Trudeau Walkway (o) Gary Peters Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival (p) Adrienne Vogel, Promotions Manager, KX96, Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival (q) Amy Terrill, Vice President, Music Canada, Regarding Boots & Hearts Music Festival (r) Nik Papanikolas Regarding Report EGD-030-13, Trudeau Walkway i FOURTEEN ATTACHMENT# TO ESTAT E S September 3, 2013 Anne Taylor Scott, Planner II Development Review Branch Planning Services Department Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6 Dear Ms. Taylor Scott Re: Application for a Temporary Use By-law ZBA 2013-016 Darclarke Properties Corp. 5216 Darlington-Clarke Townline Road, Part Lot 1, Concession 8 Fourteen Estates Ltd., under the operating name of 1829963 Ontario Inc., wishes to offer its support in principle for the proposed temporary use by-law application to permit outdoor camping, parking and washroom facilities for the above noted land. As a neighbouring landowner to the west, we consider the proposed temporary use on the subject property well suited given the adjacent Canadian Tire Motorsport Park development with its associated annual music festivals. The music festivals generate considerable demand for camping and this application will help to accommodate the demand without impact on the agricultural use of the land or on our property. As such, please take into account this support in your consideration of the application. Yours truly Fourteen Estates Limited Rick Rondeau cc Carolyn Molinari, CM Planning Inc. Valerie Cranmer, Valerie Cranmer&Associates 513 Westney Road South, Unit 4, Ajax, Ontario LIS 6W8 tel. 905.427.0390 fax. 905.427.0265 www.f'ourteenestates.com • Leading the Way MEMO CLERK ' S DEPARTMENT To : Mayor Foster and Members of Council From : Anne Greentree , Deputy Clerk Date : September 9 , 2013 Subject: GENERAL PURPOSE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA — SEPTEMBER 9, 2013 — UPDATE File : C05 , GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION Please be advised of the following amendments to the GPA agenda for the meeting to be held on Monday, September 9 , 2013 : 20 . COMMUNICATIONS (c) Correspondence from Rick James , President , James Printing and Signs , Regarding the Public Meeting (Agenda Item 5 (a) ) , Regarding an Application for a Temporary Use By- Law to Allow Camping and Ancillary Uses , Report PSD�045- 13 (Attachment # ? ) i Mne Gr en`free , eputy Clerk AGljeg cc: F . Wu , Chief Administrative Officer Department Heads CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE , ONTARIO L 'IC 3A6 T 905 -623-3379 F 905- 623-6506 ATTACHMENT TA Front : Rick James Senn Friday, September 6, 2013 10 :02 PM To : MayorsExternalMailGroup Cc. Novak, Mary; Woo, Willie; Neal, Joe; Hooper, Ron; Traill, Corinna; Partner, Wendy; CAO External Address; Barrie, Patti ; Adam Breitkreuz; Myles Brandt Subject: Republic Live Application Dear Mayor Adrian Foster and Council Members: Re : Republic Live's Application for a Temporary Use By-law My apologies for contacting you on short notice and by email. I was planning to attend September 9th' s public and GPA meetings but my work schedule has changed significantly and I won't be able to leave the office Monday. We had a small electrical fire in one of our key machines today and it's being repaired on Monday . For the last two years, we have supplied printing and signage products to Republic Live and wish to offer our support for the application. As a long time business operating in Clarington we rely on large events like Boots and Hearts for our financial success which in turn allows us to give back to the community through sponsorship of local youth teams and donations to public facilities such as arenas and community centres. Although the application is for Republic LIve, we are also a major supplier to Canadian Tire Motorsport Park. We have been very fortunate to have both companies use our services and fully support their initiatives in creating such a major tourism facility in our community. The investment at CTMP has made it a world class facility and is certainly something Clarington needs to support to further that development. I understand there may be concerns expressed by local residents but I'm sure those issues can be resolved through dialogue and cooperation. Clarington needs tourism events like Boots and Hearts and the ongoing economic contribution Republic Live and CTMP make to our tax base and local businesses. We certainly wouldn't want either the event or the facility to leave Clarington. Again, my apologies for not being able to attend in person on Monday. Please do not hesitate to contact me by phone (905. 440 -5978 ) or email if you require clarification or have any questions . Sincerely, Rick James President James Printing and Signs Celebrating Our 160th Year of Business in 2014 . i r 0 Application By. jeftLRepublic Live Inc. M Am A An application temporary use by- law to allow camping and ancillary uses — ZBA 2013 -0016 � Popes Location Map(CIrke) IV k i �\ a . REGIONAL- _ � m#_��« SuMed Si t . mI Canadian Tire % Moorport PEk z Subject Site § k � $ ® LU ` § a .�_a ! § � .. . . g . { ~ . � f- & , Pam e 2 ® Parcel ® Owners: Canadian Moor rvdurs ; Parcel 1, DammreProperties Corp ^a [ Parcel 2, RyemdFrm I Parcel$ R eland Farm ac roun 4• ,Z. r . i s.i.2.v. _ rr Event Area Subject Lands •yt•.• aV • Feed ba c k Comments from Public NOTICE • PROPOSED ZONING M-L A A)F\D4H\ T A J e n c y Darclarke Propatics Corµhas submitted an application Ibr a temporary use M-Ian (masinum J.years)to permit outdnor eampina. parking and Fsashrown facilities associared e0 so( annual music k'stisals on adjacent Canadian Tire I L Park l ands"c o m m e n t s FILE:Z BA? OUI6 For lurnxr infwmatinn cr In royuani nrntm iwtirkrnf;e,pc®w mmuen V @ldC M1E • Staff ��.��_ i a. comments Ko- 1 fAR 0 Lan s adjacent to � 4 SPECIAL KIR L Tourism Node w R • Lands desi gnated °R°N°URB A AN ARE ISEE MAP A5) r�1 I General Agricultural , Natural Linkage, _ R Environmental �5 s.Ab� APE44f ��fIIAE( Prote c t i o n NEW TEE I MEw ONVILLR URB.A REA - SEE A4 • Clarington Official Plan R - - LAFONTARIO p olices do not permit _- —URBAN BOUNDARY _'EHNRCYJMEMAL -GENERAL � requested temporary --Y —1— AGGREGATE N EKIHACTION AREA —GRM BOUNppRY ®CORE PREA �SEONWi9Y SCE10GL uRESN RESIOENrIAL WITURAL j —LIC MAP Al(CLARKE) NNKAOE MEA ELEMFHrun SCHOOL LAND USE �• use caunsrrtY RESOBAmu :.:::::.:ssREGIAi RGLOCV AREA WATER ROM GREENwnr CLARKE RURAL AREA HAMLET RESIOENnAL ol—T PARK OFFICIAL PLAN ® RURPl ® HA�+LET PAR,e y� �� MUNICIPALITY OP CLAR A WON RFSIOELrtui ausrER �F A<�sT.m,o PRIME o IILILITY o GBIGULTNBALAREA • GGLFC9VRSE �� N� Property Location Map(Clarke) k. Z REGIONAL-RD 20 CONCESSION RD-10 Subject Site �.: Canadian Tire Parcel 1 Motorsport Park Z Subject Site - Z o � o * t o w 1Y 2 GONCE5810 RD-8 k k' O w m o - Parcel2 r f Parcel s Owners: Canadian Motors po rt Ventures Parcel 1, Darclarke Properties Corp a , Parcel 2, Ryeland Farms e Parcel 3, Ryeland Farms Municipality of 0 Clarington Zoning By- law Amendment 2013 - 0016 PRESENTATION BY : SUSAN LLOYD SWAIL , MES PL . What is the proposed use ? To permit outdoor camping, parking and portable washroom facilities associated a with two annual music festivals on agricultural land over a period of three years Unserviced campground on private land Located in Natural Linkage and Countryside area in ORMCP, General Agricultural in Official Plan Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Provincial Plan — prevailing policy, guides land use planning across the moraine . OP's and decisions of Council must conform to the plan . Prescriptive Plan - specifies permitted uses, not interpreted like an Official Plan . Objectives of Plan .. . . only land uses that maintain, improve or restore the ecological and hydrological function of the ORM are permitted .. . . What is an unserviced campground in the ORMCP ➢The ORMCP permits unserviced campgrounds under Sec. 37 on public and institutional land, not on private lands (commercial use ) . Other permitted uses under low intensity recreational uses: non-motorized trail uses, natural heritage appreciation and accessories such as picnic tables, fences. Municipality of Clarington Official Plan Agricultural General Objectives are to preserve agricultural lands for farming purposes., to promote stewardship of lands for future generations and direct non-farm related uses to settlement areas . Other similar uses .. . . providing "such uses are compatible with the existing and/or designated land uses in the surrounding area and do not generate excessive amounts of odour, traffic and other nuisances " Municipality of Clarington Zoning By-law Section 5 , Special Land Use Provisions Sec 5 . 11 . 1 Temporary uses- combined total duration on one lot shall not exceed 7 days in a calendar year. For events which produce excessive noise such an event may be held for a duration of no longer than 3 days . Sec 5 . 11 .4- Special events are permitted on any lot or street owned by a public authority, a private school, place of worship, or a private lot that is zoned commercial or industrial . Does the proposed use conform to the policy context? Should it be permitted ? The land use proposed in this application does not appear to conform to the policies in the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan., nor is it consistent with the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan uses for General Agricultural or the provisions in the zoning by-law for special events . Further, there appear to be compatibility issues with the existing surrounding land uses, noise, nuisance, etc. An appropriate time to review the land use on this property would be during the 2015 provincial review of the ORMCP. Say " No" to Camping 1s; Respect the integrity of the Moraine Act What is Camping Ever ythi . . . . enjoy the great . . . . See deals i .,w Camping Explore outdoor camping in Canada with your family. Canadian Tire has all the camping gear you need for a comfortable family camping vacation or a weekend of roughing it in the bush. This Canadian Tire ad leads us to believe... Camping = Respecting & Enjoying Nature with our family e w 6 t. Rt� u = 5 •rr _ Camping during the Boots Hearts Festiva I t '� High Density No privacy. Tenters and cars piled on top • each other s. s Washroom facilities were provided but NOT l ' v s _ ■ - � apt.• ,�+.y I• * / � i€ �i� Lam.. Garbage �t z - I a F P Garbage Receptacles NOT Enough Mdihik& AIL— v � v. r w. ( � � � - � - � �\ 2 - � � � e $ ■ � l a. y ti J rIT While the crowds cheered them on w - . � ■ ^^` : \� ■ . . � . ■ 1 Age � The Soils of the Moraine were . a damaged 4 � m _ s The Province of B.C. has taken a firm stand on mud bogging, which is an activity where people drive around on Crown land in an off-road utility vehicle. This once recreational pastime, is now considered a crime in B.C. and those who are caught breaking the law can face penalties, including a $575 fine, a vehicle tow or impoundment, expenses related to habitat restoration or even jail time. The Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations says mud bogging disrupts the ecological foundations of B.C:s natural areas and, in sensitive sites, the damage can be catastrophic. Minister Steve Thomson says "everyone is encouraged to enjoy public forests and range lands but to stay safe a tread lightly. Most people who use Crown land act responsibly, but the damage caused by mud bogging is not only ugly, it has negative effects on previous fish and wildlife habitat." • • ,o„t r1 'f I r ��I ' .. a. ,r '4 : y e� • • '.• `6 0 Jc: u 4-J 3 r �• �_� k �e p Y They are Not condusive of our conception of camping li 77 �- enjoys the great autdoor� s 5 j 9 + r i M O N Q m N b�A c6 .- cn O � ca O to O FM O O � O 4-' z O Z •- M c� s E FM LU LU .j r Application By: Claret Investments Limited & 361189 Ontario Limited Applications to amend a draft approved plan of subdivision and to amend the zoning by- law 18T-94027 ZBA 2013 -0018 Claringmn Planning Services Department 9�Y �9 , �.. quxw "f •, �i' 't• * fit' ell vlF , ' '= i Subject Property T r ,Y, s 4—g qO a • �4 GEO.1,GE HEYNC7LDS L)k r i r w ` � TAB R A.% ,-.-..._.. 1 i N PdASH.R AR.- ZBA 2013 - 0018 Property Location Map (Courtice) w Courtice _ Urban Boundary Subject Site _ — A HOLYROD DRIVE OLRS o GEORGE REYNOLDS DRIVE DRIVE U I `SKINN ER CT ❑ u} ::.•::':::...-;_:r::`.;: U ':;:.., :; ::..::,,:.:,. O � U1 GLENVILW ELMER ADAMS DRIVE ,..` :;::' 3 r Ro 0 3 a o a nVn..) +3 wZ (9 BROOMEAV LLI U W '] O — fo L H r O ♦I'1 d WILBERT HOAR CTj LTABB AV _ Q V LLJ '7� 33'� ESTMORE ST .3 NASH ROAD U ELMER ADAMS DRIVE W a O -� as N OC �J-;i a Rezonin Subject to Lands Sub j 9 Application ® Lands Subject to Subdivision Application 'vc'�.., �_,3 J,y j��1�:r'�,�J�a>w3'a,?�a+�'?],3•�''��.��]3�J3 .)'y:BCD�x,71 J,,}�,a�l�,a'�,3 +�. j j � C">'a�� ��3��� �a Lots Registered as Plan 40M-2496 X a �.;?,)Envrronmental P,rotectlon Areaa LLI ✓�.a�,3�,+�`,73,a��r'�y,a�,a�J;7��3:+],a�++y�✓y�,3,3.���a.]J�7 .}.a,`rt=,� i,73� ,��}3 �'�a3��'�,37,����'a�J:+�,3,�3a�,a.1��,ay+��3�J�3,aaJ.3�,��;;J _,�,.� } •,3 ,7 J��J 3J 3�.'+�,7,3>�,]J��]3,�a�3�3,?�,±3�' 3�J.1��3�?+�a,3 � '.:,.✓ N72*4'30'F 132,940 N72"'30'E 139.586 -Y72'4aa'f _ck t21 -RVI 86 ------------ ICI A M li 346m ILE ci ---------T------ ------- ------------ Z 24 N O o6 B 77 A 79 KEYPLAN w A Kt o w L 2. ------- CT-14-54�- 20 3 M,9 --d od Ei 4 E, ------- --------- T 7r� A 4 A q 76 T. -_q_ < E, --------- -—---- LL 5 A . � -A� . + Ia 'a 1-}T 2 W"- I C! Z 1 1. 111, 'a 6 0 1 AREA TABLE �7 -VT Dr-ga— 1 z 6 7 A RESIDENTIAL SINGLES 3.6401.956 56m ELMER RESIDENMALSEMIQETACHED 2.240 0.2315 W N4"E*—Ok B FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 0.025 -,P-JjDj_ 7 BA M ROAD V41DEN14G 0.0" LU a 'a 2C.. RESERVES Q-47 E5 i I Iq PARK 0.180- --- W, 0 ROADS 3,474 nsm 32.9 TOTAL ILZM;hat -- --- ----------- 8,7 92 2,191 ha Si Si S! S 30.9 13 ROADS --------- ------------- I: �9 i S i 91 !� C �4� --,,----l-l' - *-W A, 1 S, E V88 0 u — R 1.040 Cn Cr :2 TOTAL 3473 W ------- --z -7-1 i ;, 4 k I , I l !qo12A A 1 (44, n m I I m -&U 12 E 1 121 UNIT COUNT -;V- 1 8 1:2 - ..q 1 Ia. 2. 20 1 3 24m WIDE SHALLORISING611M,16.SINGLES *LAI 6 20 0. 12.SINGLES 73 21 4 9.SEMI-DETACHED 72 8 TOTAL 161..I -------- 324, S—TREETB ELMER ADAMS DRIVE m �7jx 0 49 - Sz 12 2 jl� 11 :12 20 10,01 12 12 15 11J" m ----- 20 N51 313 -p- -P, A Ka 2 E Qj (,j 131 6A zt.s Ll 'D 3URVMRS GERMICATE W C C 141 7A mo c c r 18 LEGEND Nfig'4�'TE-­ -T23,126 2.7 SEE ORIGINAL SUBMWICIN Nrg'43'0'E 12a.1/J A BLOCK 116 .1 1 q ------J— z 34 Zb iI --- - ------------------------- I : NOTES OWNIERSAL!"HORIZATION BLOCK 117 FUTURL A?, -- -- 25 26 1 ;J620' jCLARE7 INVESTMENTS LIMITED& L-7--- RQ&Q ------ 1361189 ONI UMrI D 0.056 1 0.029 HA 2-4 KE ------- HA z 3,6 n 5 '. Alaft mwjwm granµ,n or:umm r,ramo�wal. .1 3333 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION UP h. REQUIRED UNDER WON 51117) 17 2 1 SEE ORIGINAL SUBMWION ---------d 13 OF THE P�N ING 2 ------ SEE ORIGINAL SUBMISSION 03 i---------------------------- ------------------- ------------------- 151'a 4 LOCK 3 R6 REVISED DRAFT PLAN OF ROPOSED SUBDIMSION PART OF LOT 28,CONCESSION 3 --------- Now MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON ------------V-------17�--7---------------- REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM -------- -------------- ------ ---------- BOUSFIELDs INC. 1.79D April 23 P63 Yll2=l L • Feedback NOTICE from Public -'��"s, PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO DRAFT APPROVED PLAN ' OF SUBDIVISION&PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE CLARET INVESTMENTS LTD&1361'1890NTARIOLTO • HAVE SUBMI APPLICATION ISETH ORAFTAPPROVEDPLA NOFSUI VS1ONBYAOUS Aa e n c y TI THE LOTTINGPATTERNRESULTINGFROMDECREASING ROAD WIDTHS&REMOVAL OFTHEPARKETTE BLOCK. THE REVISIONS RESULT IN AN ADDITIONAL 10 comments o RESIDENTIAL UNITS THE PROPLACELANDS INAPPROPRIATE ZONES WOULD REFLECTINTOAMENDSIETBACK&LOT COVE AGE REGULAT qNS IN THE SUBDIVISION. a • Staff P � FILES.IBT•9Q0�7 gp 2013 0018 & allan please c°nta�t . r.n. a �ryerinl°rm, F°f� Of Clanng�an Planning Sery MQpgrtajnentat9A562S-33F comments �� y= �R Property Location Map (Courtice) w Courtice _ Urban Boundary Subject Site _ — A HOLYROD DRIVE OLRS o GEORGE REYNOLDS DRIVE DRIVE U I `SKINN ER CT ❑ u} ::.•::':::...-;_:r::`.;: U ':;:.., :; ::..::,,:.:,. O � U1 GLENVILW ELMER ADAMS DRIVE ,..` :;::' 3 r Ro 0 3 a o a nVn..) +3 wZ (9 BROOMEAV LLI U W '] O — fo L H r O ♦I'1 d WILBERT HOAR CTj LTABB AV _ Q V LLJ '7� 33'� ESTMORE ST .3 NASH ROAD U ELMER ADAMS DRIVE W a O -� as N OC �J-;i a Rezonin Subject to Lands Sub j 9 Application ® Lands Subject to Subdivision Application 'vc'�.., �_,3 J,y j��1�:r'�,�J�a>w3'a,?�a+�'?],3•�''��.��]3�J3 .)'y:BCD�x,71 J,,}�,a�l�,a'�,3 +�. j j � C">'a�� ��3��� �a Lots Registered as Plan 40M-2496 X a �.;?,)Envrronmental P,rotectlon Areaa LLI ✓�.a�,3�,+�`,73,a��r'�y,a�,a�J;7��3:+],a�++y�✓y�,3,3.���a.]J�7 .}.a,`rt=,� i,73� ,��}3 �'�a3��'�,37,����'a�J:+�,3,�3a�,a.1��,ay+��3�J�3,aaJ.3�,��;;J _,�,.� } •,3 ,7 J��J 3J 3�.'+�,7,3>�,]J��]3,�a�3�3,?�,±3�' 3�J.1��3�?+�a,3 � '.:,.✓ 1 y r� { Y t �1 f • 1 � �Z� ^ilH o.45..�wr�t a - Boots and Hearts JF Rumours to t ....,..-. r s. ..... _74 Excerpts from Clarington This Week Aug 71" by Jennifer O'Meara CLARINGTON -- While a larger crowd of country fans rocked out at this year's Boots and Hearts music festival, there weren't any major safety issues . "It was a bit busier. So with more people you expect a few more calls but nothing that over-taxed us," said Clarington Fire Chief Gord Weir. Chief Weir said local firefighters did have to remind some campers that camp fires weren't allowed. On Aug. 3, when the temperature dropped, a half dozen small fires were put out by campers at the firefighters' request. "We didn't want any small camp fires and we did find afew," said Chief Weir. Firefighters did help with some medical calls, and a few people had to be taken out of the festival. Chief Weir said he wasn't aware of any big medical emergencies occurring during the festival. "A few people that didn't appear to get enough sleep, or alcohol related, and passed out ... A few bumps and bruises," said Chief Weir. Durham Region Police spokeswoman Jodi MacLean said nothing happened at Boots and Hearts that warranted a press release from police . "Just seemed like the normal things when you have a big crowd. Not anything major, that I'm aware of," said Ms. MacLean. Excerpts from Clarington this Week August Stn Boots and Hearts 2013 was a party There were complaints that people couldn't access the premium parking they had paid for McNevan vowed to "make it right. " Wild rumours to the contrary, and we both heard them, it seems there were no serious issues on the grounds as far as people's personal safety was concerned. McNevan separated the entertainment part of the festival from the rain and other issues. . Comments to Clarington This Week Aug 7th by Jennifer O'Meara By Martha I AUGUST 07, 2013 03:19 PM Many complaints were received by the security and the police about the drunk driving, yet nothing was done. In meadows west on Saturday and Sunday night there was only one patrol per afternoon but none at night when the drunk driving was heavy. There was also a large fire on the sunclay night in the meadows, it was a pile of garbage that could been seen and smelt on the otbPr Pnd of the mp-idomfc. This event needs some serious police presence due to the idiots who think it is ok to drink and drive. In addtion, the fields looked like a city dump, people left their garbage all over the place, it was disgusting and I am pretty sure could hear mother nature crying. What they do not mention in this article is the copious amounts of drunk driving that happened right next to other campers tents, while the campers were in their tents, lives were in danger. They also forget to mention that there was at least one serious car accident on the tractor path (vehicles were not supposed to be there in the first place) where a drunk driver slammed his truck into a tree while mud bogging and wrote it off, he fled the scene with his ID and license plates, and all along that path there are grills, bumpers etc. It was suggested to the police and security on Saturday that the path be blocked to all users to stop the mud bogging and the accidents, nothing was done. Beer Funnelling An alcohol and drug education at the Festival center in Australia warns that beer funnels only encourage dangerous and irresponsible behavior. The sole purpose of using this contraption is to drink quickly, and consume as 6 much alcohol as possible. a . Injecting alcohol into the r ` system so rapidly raises the risk of developing alcohol `y poisoning, which, the Western `r Region Alcohol and Drug Centre (WRAD) suggests, "can result in blackouts, seizures a and hypothermia. People in these cases can pass out choke on their own vomit and potentially die." Read more: http://www.ehow.com/list 57 93832 dangers-beer- funnels .html#ixzz2dYuM26uj t, I r{ N F i G ` Ilk- 4C JM i Facebook Posts on Boots and Hearts I was at the 2012 and 2013 event and I have a few concerns with this event. For one think I needed an ambulance while on the grounds and when calling 911 they had no idea how to find me. Maps need to be handed out when entering the event . Second the drinking and driving while on the grounds needs to be put under control . There needs to be ride programs set up within the grounds to prevent this. And now there selling tickets just a few weeks after the last event before they even think about refunding money to those who where turned away . This event is a money grab somebody is making lots of interest off this money your paying out a year in advance. Boots and Hearts should be ashamed of how they run this event , and should care more for the safety of the public. HOW QUICKLY WILL THEY DELETE THIS MESSAGE. This was one of the most dangerous situations I have ever seen , if there was ever a problem in the crowd no one would be able to get in or get out , saw very few security staff around the music area. Anyone with any brains sat up on the hill at least you could get out if need be. Far to many drunk young people , not saying you shouldn't have fun but drinking needs to be regualted for safety sake. Security was more worried about me taking in a small container if watermellon, instead they missed several people with full 24oz fo whiskey. Hoping B&H listens to the complaints and fixes something it could be a great More Facebook Posts FI was in ga camping and no heavy handed security were there, would have been nice to have had more security ...guys I was with pulled a drunk on an air mattress off the road after he almost was hit several times by the kids with their trucks. Any security we met were very nice and just keeping an eye out for any disturbances...which is their job. Yet some people were positive ! :For all of you people complaining about the drunkenness I just want to let you know that the guy who started this festival went to Bonaroo in the states and based Boots and Hearts on that... which if you havent heard... is a PARTY! if you dont want to go to a concert where there is drunk people in the attendance... well good luck... but try a smaller venue you would prolly enjoy it better. More Facebook Posts I have seen a lot of people complaining about the drinking????? Ok just so it clear to those people if they didn't sell beer/cooler there would be no music! ! ! ! NO money to pay for the acts and 90% less attendance. ... Drinking is part of the deal, for those that don't drink(that's fine) but you can't really expect Boots and Hearts to be everyones MOMMY. Actually, we can ! Special Event Licencing 18. (1) A permit holder shall not engage in or allow practices which may tend to encourage the immoderate consumption of liquor by a person attending the event. O. Reg. 389/91, s. 18 (l). 22. (1) The permit holder shall provide security sufficient to ensure that unauthorized persons do not attend the event and to ensure that the conditions of the permit and requirements of the Act are observed. O. Reg. 389/91, s. 22 (1). Allowing beer funnelling and drunken driving are violations of the Liquor Licence Act Getting a Drunk is Requirement By the time Dean Brody and then the night's headliner, Jason Aldean, took the stage, the main stage field had a big crowd stretching up to the hill overlooking the area. "Everybody having a good time at Boots and Hearts yet?" Aldean asked, adding "are you drunk yet?" "You might want to get drunk `cause we have a long night ahead of us." quote from Clarington This Week Aug 3/13 Rainy start for Clarington's Boots and Hearts � t _ a And important to Miss Boots and Hearts The 22 year old, a Bachelor of Bio-Resource Management student, confirmed she really does live on the second floor of a barn. And after the contest she was in a celebratory mood. "I'm just ready to go out and drink and party," she said in an interview. Clarington This Week Aug 4/13 Niagara's Mia Tiidus is Miss Boots and Hearts 2013 More Violations (2) Except for public service advertising, the permit holder may advertise or promote liquor or the availability of liquor only if the advertising, a is consistent with the principle of depicting responsibility in use or service of liquor; (b) promotes a general brand or type of liquor and not the consumption of liquor in gPnPrAl- (c) does not imply that consumption of liquor is required in obtaining or enhancing, i social, protessional or personal success, (ii) athletic prowess, (iii) sexual prowess, opportunity or appeal, (iv) enjoyment of any activity, (v) fulfilment of any goal, or (vi) resolution of social, physical or personal problems; (d) does not appeal, either directly or indirectly, to persons under the legal drinking age or is not placed in media that are targeted specifically at people under that age; (e) does not associate consumption of liquor with driving a motorized vehicle, or with any other activity that requires care and skill or has elements of physical danger; (f) does not depict motorized vehicles in motion in advertising showing the consumption of liquor, unless the motorized vehicle is a form of public transportation; (g) does not suggest any illegal sale, illegal purchase, illegal gift, illegal handling or illegal consumption of liquor; and (h) is in compliance with guidelines related to advertising issued by the Registrar. O. Reg. 182/11, s. 5 (1). (3) Despite subsection (2), a permit holder for a private event described in paragraph 1 of section 3 shall not advertise or promote liquor or the availability of liquor. O. Reg. 182/11, s. 5. Conclusion Dangerous activity did occur at Boots and Hearts . Camp Fires Intoxication ( and the encoureagement of) Dangerous possibly Drunk Driving The public should have been informed WHY were we not ? On a personal note, aggressive festival goers came to my door to request parking. No was not an exceptable answer from some. I felt endangered. Cancelled family gathering as a result. BOOTS AND HEARTS 2013 SUMMARY Presented to: Municipality of Clarington Date: September 9t", 2013 "Ontario is home to a wealth of talent — from the artist to the industry. Our government is a proud partner of our music sector, working in concert with stakeholders like Music Canada to identify key priorities to further enhance the vitality and vibrancy of music in Ontario. Together, we are working in concert to develop a Live Music Strategy for Ontario that will firmly place our province on the map as a premier destination for live music on the international stage. " Michael Chan, Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport B -ITs . $&R Economic Impact • Spending in Ontario by arts and culture tourists totalled $4. 1 billion in 2010 — representing 36% of spending by all overnight tourists in the province that year. • The live music sector generates an estimated $455 million in revenues and contributes $252 million to the Canadian economy. • The recording sector alone generates more than $300 million in economic impact in Ontario which accounts for 81 % of total activity across Canada. • According to a report by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the Canadian live music market has grown at an annual average rate of 6.4% since 2010. *Source: Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, January 2013 Economic Impact Cont . The Ontario Government recently created the Ontario Music Fund to accelerate the growth of music in the province as as Ontario's music industry is one of the most robust and diversified in North America. As noted by Music Canada, live music is a critical importance to this, both as key aspects for Ontario's competitive advantage and as a source of income for artists and musicians. Music Canada tabled a report in June 2013, identifying programs and public policies to stimulate the development of Canada's commercial music sector. The Next Big Bang: A New Direction for Music in Canada proposes a renewed industrial strategy for music and pinpoints key recommendations in the following areas: music education, digital innovation, music tourism, export expansion and interconnected tax credits. TS Economic Impact Tourism The Ontario Ministry of Tourism & Culture's Tourism Regional Economic Impact Model ("TREIM") estimates that Boots and Hearts contributed $6.8M to the local economy, in term's of GDP, employment and taxes generated in 2013. Boots and Hearts attracts a global audience to Clarington as the 2013 exit surveys found that: 52% of attendees travelled >101 km 27% of attendees travelled 41 -100km 21 % of attendees travelled <40km Promotion of Clarington Ticket buyers for Boots and Hearts included representation from all provinces and territories in Canada, 23 states in the US and 4 foreign countries. Clarington featured prominently in all press releases issued to national and international media with total coverage for Boots and Hearts exceeding 23 billion in audience impressions, and more than 90% of articles listed the location of the event — including key pieces on Global News, CTV News, CP24, Wall Street Journal, Toronto Star, Toronto Sun , Fox News Vegas, NOW Magazine, and many more. Social media followings on Facebook exceed 30,000 fans and Twitter exceed 9,000 fans. ,T S Local Investments & Businesses Republic Live worked with as many local suppliers as possible for Boots and Hearts including the following: Apple Blossom Shop Blacks Water Boston Pizza Canadian Tire Motorsport Park Canadian Tire Coffee and Cakes Darclarke Properties Corp Durham Region EMS Durham Regional Police Services Holiday Inn and Suites Home Depot James Printing Kings Court Catering Loblaws Masters Golf Carts Mito Sushi Pizza Pizza Ryeland Farms Subway Tim Horton's Zante Restaurant Investment in these organizations exceeded: $1,200,000 'T S Local Investments & Businesses Cont. In addition to our suppliers, many local businesses further benefitted from the presence of Boots and Hearts for the duration of the weekend through not only our economic footprint, but also as on-site vendors at the event. ,T S Local Community Engagement Boots and Hearts worked closely with Tourism Clarington and Jennifer Cooke and are very grateful for the support we received . Tourism Clarington engaged with more than 35 volunteers to manage and support the Guest Services aspect on-site at the Festival and this could not have been done without the leadership from Jen Cooke and Jen Stycuk and the support of their many volunteers. Boots and Hearts provided more than $32,000 in complimentary tickets to residents within a 2 km radius of Canadian Tire Motorsport Park. ,T S Local Community Engagement As part of our charitable efforts, we also supported the following local organizations with more than $18,000 in ticket donations to help raise money for Clarington charities: Bethesda House Big Brothers Big Sisters of Clarington Clarington Board of Trade for Memorial Hospital Foundation Community Living Oshawa/Clarington Fall Harvest Ball for the Memorial Hospital Foundation For the Love of Art Mayor's Charity Golf Classic* United Way Durham/Clarington* Youth and Community Leaders Dinner & Auction- Sponsored by the Rotary Club of Courtice and the Clarington Older Adult Association ,T S Local Community Engagement Boots and Hearts has also committed to the following charitable donations: O.V.E.R.T. Rotary Lion's Club MusiCounts in support of dedicated Clarington music program An additional $20,000 has been earmarked for a local charitable donations Total Investment to Come: $40,000+ T!, Looking Forward Boots and Hearts intends to continue to utilize local suppliers, partner with local organizations, support local charities and positively promote the region of Clarington to country music fans across North America. Countryside Discussion Paper -60 i S Planning Services Department OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW Compass to our Future Countryside Discussion Paper Next Public Information Session Wednesday, September 11, 2013 4� . Tyrone Community Centre 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. �- 2716 Concession Rd. 7 �Lear�ngton Leading the Way Countryside Discussion Paper -60 i S Planning Services Department OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW Compass to our Future Environment Places to• Greenbelt Other Official Grow Durham Region Social Economic Plan Clarington Official Plan Planning is the balancing Clarington's Official Plan has to be in of environmental, social Conformity with the Provincial Policy and economic factors in a Statement, other provincial land use sustainable relationship. Plans and Acts and the Durham Region Official Plan. -Aularin, n Leading the Way Countryside Discussion Paper -60 i S Planning Services Department OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW J Compass to our future 4- E >- ao _ C = ao - o i v ++ _ +' v ++ = v 'v O Q d = O d Q c% d � V U O Population & Employment Projections Employment Lands Intensification Growth Management - Phasing Fall February 2014 2013 Natural Heritage Parks, Open Space And Trails Countryside NOW NOW Courtice Main Street OPA 77 (Bill 51 +) VadR2WR Leading the Way Countryside Discussion Planning Services Department OFFICIAL PLAN 4rREVIEW Compass • our Role • Rural , i eed -Clar Leading the Way • Countryside Discussion Paper -60 i S Planning Services Department OFFICIAL Agricultural PLAN Uses REVIEW Compass to our Future Agriculture and agriculture-related uses on land designated "agriculture" include the use of land, buildings and structures for nurseries, the growing of crops and the raising of livestock. Prime Agricultural Prime Area Agricultural R R Area • • • • iii • • General i • Agricultural• Area Urban i' Urban- • Area Area i • • i •� i' • i • i Existing Official Plan Designations Proposed For Discussion Designations -Aultyin, R Leading the Way go Countryside Discussion Paper i S Planning Services Department OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW Accessory & Secondary Uses Compass to our Future • Agriculture-related accessory uses and secondary uses are allowed on agricultural lands provided they are accessory /secondary to the i f agricultural operation. Secondary uses may require a zoning amendment. _- • Non-agricultural related uses are not permitted on agriculture designated lands. • o • Discussion on whether there are = x additional agri-related and non-agri _ �.. EJAI related uses that can co-exist in the Countryside. -Aulffin, on Leading the Way Countryside Discussion Paper i S Planning Services Department PLAN OFFICIAL Major Recreational Uses PLAN J Compass to our Future i 3„ Golf Courses have advanced in design, development and maintenance, they are allowed by OP and Zoning amendment in Greenspace and Waterfront Greenway, they could also be allowed in the Countryside designation of the Oak Ridges Moraine. =CLearw Leading the Way Countryside Discussion Paper i S Planning Services Department OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW Rural Settlements and Housin Compass to our Future 9 Percentof Rural Population 70000 78% 60000 50000 40000 68% 30000 ss% 20000 53% 53% 3x% x656 24% xx% x0% 47% 47% 44% 10000 Countryside Residential Subdivisions are no longer 0 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 permitted. ■Urban Population 16998 17169 19118 33613 44856 52781 60781 67561 ■Rural Population 14,930 15,060 14,955 15,866 15,159 17,053 17,039 16,987 140 120 100 IF #of Building 80 °Hamlets Permits Issued 60 Clarke aDarlington 40 20 ti 0 Minor Hamlet rounding out may 1994199519961997199819992000200120C2200320042C052006200720062009201020112012 be approved as part of this Year l�r'n n Official Plan Review. SEE UUJ[JL Leading the Way Countryside Discussion Paper i S Planning Services Department OFFICIAL PLAN UrbanlRural Fringe P REVIEW Compass to our Future and Whitebelt hands S ;'T - . I �41 5J1 r larington Leading the Way Countryside Discussion Paper -60 i S Planning Services Department OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW Potential Future Growth Areas Compass to our Future aA; i i EXHIBIT 10 TO REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0.128 OFFICIAL.PLAN OF THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OFDURHAM SCHEDULE`F' SPECIFIC POLICY AREA D, ,4 2141 _ � POTENTIAL FUTURE GROWTH AREAS +; +�e• LEGEND -,■.a ...a LAO—A{Mf. YYWU to€€N■€lx Ep'17+t1I6AV y4 ■ IIIIII� FLRARF{LAPIS NxE• MK WPM Wgw K ■ r,nuec xwntrnaFwx AnFw Y t 9 ®.e P ■ 7 Ed _ ■ Y + � SCHEDULE DELETED THROUGH SETTLEMENT + + ■ ■ i f r ■ +.i �hl"lI1 11 . Leading the Way ♦ ° • ♦r 11+♦ r i r°°ii'��I♦♦♦ • y'1��r., �7� 70 70 C ♦ • • ♦ °♦♦ ♦ ♦ ' • C C D r • _ AIDNE , , r rf r •.N ♦ ♦ ♦ . u �°°�• + °�rjrf♦ r ♦ C III �. , M♦♦ r.. , ♦ ♦ + + LAM ;r ROAD Q L _�. t. R PROVIC3ENCE 4 J IQKARD RAGG ROAD I ' _ _._ , t .ROAD r w REGI f r W Q m ®IBSON ROAD _ zz cn t ' } •♦cn ,? (n - F I OLLA @ { ROAD r, r O °C C T fZOAD SQUAIR ROAD ry 0) h HIGHWAY 351115 ♦ r rF ♦� ♦♦,S w••wr♦w♦Iw~ sK �?�r> w r FIT + rm _ .. i U3 STREET ARTHUR SET �` > BUCKLEY `z ROAD — _ Y • ROAD MOFI AT ROAlj (D LAWRENCE ROAD w 4 ROAD Countryside Discussion Paper -60 i S Planning Services Department OFFICIAL Next Steps PLAN REVIEW Compass to our Future • Comments on the Discussion Paper will be received until September 30, 2013 www.clarington . net\ourplan I I I1, A i N, Next Steps include the drafting of an Official Plan Amendment to include the proposed policy recommendations. Fall 2013 . L Ala —1 HERS I- Leading the Way