The Corporation of the Town of Ajax GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday October 13, 2020 Open Meeting at 1:00 p.m. Electronic Meeting 65 Harwood Avenue South Confirmed by: ____

AGENDA Alternative formats available upon request by contacting: [email protected] or 905-619-2529 ext. 3347

Electronic Meeting: Due to the COVID-19 emergency and requirements for physical distancing, in- person attendance is not permitted at this meeting of the General Government Committee. This meeting will be live streamed for viewing at www.ajax.ca/live. Electronic participation is permitted pursuant to Council's Procedure By-law.

Online Agenda Anything in blue denotes an attachment/link. By clicking the links on the agenda page, you can jump directly to that section of the agenda.

R. Tyler Morin, Chair A. Khan, Vice Chair

Open Meeting

1. Call To Order

2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest

3. Adoption of Minutes

3.1 Regular Minutes – September 14, 2020 ...... 3

3.2 Closed Session Minutes – September 14, 2020 ...... circulated separately  Any discussion will be held in the Closed Session

4. Consent Agenda – Considered to be routine, these items may be approved by one motion. Items may be separated and referred to the Discussion Agenda

4.1 Residential Boulevard Encroachments, S. Baker, Chief Administrative Officer / K. Cruciano, Grants & Strategic Initiatives Coordinator ...... 10

4.2 AMO 2020 Debrief, S. Baker, Chief Administrative Officer / R. Matheson, Senior Communications Officer – Government Relations ...... 42 4.3 Insurance Renewal – July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021, D. Valentim, Director of Finance/Treasurer / K. McGibbon, Insurance & Risk Management Coordinator ...... 68

4.4 2021 User Fees & Charges, A. Harras, Acting Director of Legislative & Information Services/Clerk / S. Moore, Acting Manager of Legislative Services/Deputy Clerk ...... 73

4.5 Municipal Elections Contribution Rebate Program Review: Public Consultation Results, A. Harras, Acting Director of Legislative & Information Services/Clerk / S. Moore, Acting Manager of Legislative Services/Deputy Clerk ...... 117

4.6 Contract Award – Delivery of Winter Control Services, D. Meredith, Director of Operations & Environmental Services / D. Smith, Manager of Operations & Fleet Services ...... 162

4.7 Final Report – Westney Storm Sewer Outlet Retrofit, G. Romanowski, Director of Planning & Development Services / S. Ruddy, Stormwater Engineer ...... 167

4.8 Renaming of Graf Spee Lane, G. Romanowski, Director of Planning & Development Services / M. Sawchuck, Senior Planner ...... 174

5. Discussion

None.

6. Presentations

6.1 2020 Traffic Calming Warrant Update, G. Romanowski, Director of Planning & Development Services / J. Grieve, Supervisor of Transportation ...... 178

6.2 Traffic Calming Implementation Plan, G. Romanowski, Director of Planning & Development Services / J. Grieve, Supervisor of Transportation ...... 228

7. Closed Session

None.

None8. 8. Adjournment Minutes of the General Government Committee Meeting Held Electronically At 1:00 p.m. on September 14, 2020

Alternative formats available upon request by contacting: [email protected] or 905-619-2529 ext. 3347

______

Present: Chair - Councillor L. Bower, Chair Regional Councillors M. Crawford S. Lee J. Dies Councillors R. Tyler Morin A. Khan Mayor S. Collier (entered at 1:35 p.m.)

1. Call to Order

Chair Bower called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. and provided an overview of the electronic meeting format. Chair Bower welcomed Dianne Valentim as the new Director of Finance/Treasurer. Chair Bower noted it was the final public meeting attended by Tracey Vaughan, Director of Recreation, Culture & Community Development, before her departure, and thanked Ms. Vaughan for her contribution to the Town.

2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest

There were no disclosures of pecuniary interests.

3. Adoption of Minutes

3.1 Regular Meeting – June 8, 2020

Moved by: M. Crawford

That the Minutes of the electronic meeting of the General Government Committee held on June 8, 2020 be adopted. CARRIED

3.2 Closed Session – June 8, 2020

Moved by: R. Tyler Morin

That the Minutes of the Closed Session of the General Government Committee held on June 8, 2020 be adopted. CARRIED

3 With consent of members present, Item 6.1 was advanced in the order of business.

6. Presentations

6.1 2019 Financial Statements and Audit Report

Steve Stewart, Associate Partner, Deloitte LLP, reviewed the contents of the 2019 Financial Statements and Audit Report. Mr. Stewart discussed highlights of the audited financial statements, municipal accounting practices and standards, internal control practices, and statement of financial position. Mr. Stewart thanked Sandra Serrao, Manager of Budgets and Accounting Services, and the Finance Department for their support in conducting the audit in the COVID-19 environment.

Committee Members asked questions regarding variances to municipal debt repayment and non-financial assets. Mr. Stewart and Sandra Serrao, Manager of Budgets and Accounting Services, responded to questions from Committee Members.

Moved by: R. Tyler Morin

That the 2019 Financial Statements and Audit Report presentation be received for information. CARRIED

4. Consent Agenda

Members separated items 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.6 for discussion.

Moved by: S. Lee

That item 4.5 of the consent agenda be adopted. CARRIED

4.1 2021 Meeting Schedule and Committee Chair and Vice-Chair Appointments

Moved by: A. Khan

That the 2021 Meeting Schedule and Committee Chair and Vice-Chair appointments be approved. CARRIED

4.2 Revisions to Chief Administrative Officer By-law

Members of the Committee asked questions regarding proposed revisions, communication of resignations of department heads to Council, personnel administration and performance management responsibilities of the CAO, and staff awareness of the Respectful Workplace policy and supports.

Alexander Harras, Acting Director of Legislative & Information Services/Clerk, responded to questions from the Committee and provided an overview of proposed changes and the review process to bring the by-law up to a modern standard. Shane Baker, Chief Administrative Officer, responded to questions from the Committee regarding

4 performance management responsibilities of the CAO and discussed communication of such matters to Council.

Moved by: A. Khan

That the proposed Chief Administrative Officer By-law be approved by Council. CARRIED

Mayor Collier entered the meeting (1:35 p.m.)

4.3 Contract Award – Lakeview Boulevard Reconstruction & Top Lift

Members of the Committee asked questions regarding the context and financial implications of the project.

Dave Meredith, Interim Director of Operation & Environmental Services, responded to questions from the Committee and provided background information on the Lakeview Boulevard Environmental Assessment findings. Dianne Valentim, Director of Finance/Treasurer, responded to financial questions from the Committee.

Moved by: S. Collier

1. That the report on the contract award to Blackstone Paving & Construction Limited in the amount of $878,138.82 (inclusive of all taxes) for the Lakeview Boulevard Reconstruction & Top Lift be received for information.

2. That the report on the contract award to The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd in the amount of $79,361.03 (inclusive of all taxes) for the Lakeview Boulevard Reconstruction & Top Lift Contract Administration and Material Testing services be received for information. CARRIED

4.4 Contract Award – Range Road Reconstruction

Members of the Committee asked questions regarding how the project costs are estimated, project leadership, and timelines for water main installation on Fielding Court.

Dave Meredith, Interim Director of Operation & Environmental Services, and Ranil Fernando, Manager of Infrastructure and Asset Management, responded to questions from the Committee.

Moved by: S. Lee

1. That the report on the contract award to the Region of Durham in the amount of $1,918,973.19 (net of HST rebate) for Range Road Reconstruction be received for information.

2. That Council approve the following funding, to be allocated to Capital Account No. 997111:

5 Development Charges Reserve Fund – 2018 $ 234,888.67 Development Reserve $ 170,091.80

Total $ 404,980.48

3. That Council approve a payment estimated at $123,978.22 (net of HST rebate) upon request by the Region of Durham for the imposed water frontage charge related to the construction of a watermain on properties abutting Range Road.

4. That Council approve funding of $123,978.22 (net of HST rebate) to be allocated to Capital Account No. 1017811 from Capital Contingency for the watermain frontage charges imposed by the Region. CARRIED

4.5 Assumption of Subdivision S-A-2003-01 Salem Achilles Subdivision and SWM Pond on Plan 40R-23926

Moved by: S. Lee

1. That the works and services within the following Plans of Subdivision be assumed by the Town:

a) (S-A-2003-01) (Plan 40R-23926)– Salem Achilles Subdivision Owner: 1563485 Ontario Limited Agreement Date: September 30, 2005 Registered Plan: 40M-2288, 40R-23926 Refer to Appendix “A”

2. That the corresponding Assumption By-laws be prepared for an upcoming Council meeting. CARRIED

4.6 Second Amendment to the North Station Street Property Agreement of Purchase and Sale: Ledim Development Ltd

Members of the Committee asked questions regarding timelines, contingencies included within the amended agreement, and the process of land disposal in relation to development timelines.

Geoff Romanowski, Director of Planning & Development Services, and Nadia Sukovski, Senior Economic Development Officer responded to questions from the Committee.

Moved by: M. Crawford

1. That staff be directed to prepare an Amending Agreement of Purchase and Sale with Ledim Development Canada Ltd. for the sale of the North Station Street Property; and

2. That a by-law to approve the Amending Agreement of Purchase and Sale with Ledim Development Ltd. be presented to Council at its meeting of September 21, 2020. CARRIED

6 5. Discussion

5.1 Crossing Guard Program – Lunch-Time Coverage

Dave Meredith, Interim Director of Operations and Environmental Services, provided an overview of the contents of the written report and the recommendations contained therein. He discussed delivery of the program in accordance with the School Crossing Guard Guidelines established by the Ministry of Transportation and Ontario Traffic Council, changes to lunch hour student volumes, and crossing guard program administration in other municipalities.

Councillor Tyler Morin assumed the role of Chair.

Members of the Committee asked questions regarding public consultation on the matter through use of the Town’s IMO platform, administration of the program, tracking of student volumes, and clarification on financial implications within the report, current lunch hour coverage for the 2020/2021 school year, profile of crossing guards, and communication received from the school boards.

Chair Bower resumed the role of Chair.

Dave Meredith, Interim Director of Operations and Environmental Services, and Amanda Hynes, Office Supervisor, responded to questions from the Committee.

Main Motion

That the lunch-time coverage provided within the Town’s Crossing Guard Program be eliminated, with the exception of those locations identified within this report, and that crossing guard services be continued before and after school, for all schools within both the Durham District School Board (DDSB) and the Durham Catholic District School Board (DCDSB).

Motion to Refer with Direction

Moved by: S. Lee

That the Crossing Guard Program – Lunch Time Coverage Report be referred back to staff with direction to undertake public consultation and data collection before reporting back to the General Government Committee in November 2020. CARRIED

6. Presentations

6.2 Automated Speed Enforcement Program

John Grieve, Supervisor of Transportation, delivered a presentation reviewing the contents of the written report and the recommendations contained therein. He discussed the proposed Ajax Automated Speed Enforcement Program including site selection and schedule, hours of operation, required agreements, program implementation and financial implications.

7 Members of the Committee asked questions regarding school zones and community safety zone classification, limiting the number of hours of operation of the program, signage of automated speed enforcement zones, traffic calming budget, and obtaining preliminary speed profile data collection prior to implementation of the program to identify the most effective times for enforcement. John Grieve, Supervisor of Transportation, responded to questions from the Committee.

Moved by: S. Collier

1) That the three camera program as outlined in this report be endorsed by Council for implementation in 2021 and that staff be directed to include the costs in the 2021 Operating Budget;

2) That staff be directed to proceed with preparing the three agreements required for operation of the program;

3) That staff be directed to contact Durham Region to confirm Court capacity;

4) That staff complete the necessary site preparation work, including advanced signage deployment;

5) That staff report back to Council with all final program details, including the prepared agreements for the necessary approvals, prior to beginning operations;

6) That staff report back to Council with an update on the program after six months of operations;

7) That Council request the Province of Ontario to permit the use of an Administrative Penalty System for offenses issued by Automated Speed Enforcement; and

8) That a copy of this report be sent to the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of the Attorney General, Durham Region, all area municipalities and Durham Region Police Services. CARRIED

Closed Session (3:25 p.m.)

7. Authority to Hold a Closed Session

Moved by: A. Khan

That the Committee convene to a Closed Session pursuant to Section 239 (2) (h) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, to discuss information explicitly supplied in confidence to the municipality or local board by Canada, a province or territory or a Crown agency of any of them CARRIED

With consent of all Members present, proceedings recessed for 5 minutes.

8 7.1 Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program Grant Update

Open Meeting (3:50 p.m.)

Ratify Actions Taken In Closed Session

Moved by: A. Khan

That all actions approved in the Closed Session be ratified. CARRIED

8. Adjournment (3:51 p.m.)

Moved by: S. Collier

That the September 14, 2020 meeting of the General Government Committee be adjourned. CARRIED

______Chair

______Acting D-Clerk

9 Town of Ajax Report

Report To: General Government Committee

Prepared By: Kassandra Cruciano, Grants and Strategic Initiatives Coordinator

Subject: Residential Boulevard Encroachments

Ward(s): ALL

Date of Meeting: October 13, 2020

Reference: Motion to Reconsider – Enforcement of Road Occupancy By-law – October 15, 2019 GGC Report – Town Boulevard and Private Driveway Alterations – June 10, 2019 Motion of Council – Boulevard Encroachment / Driveway Widening – December 10, 2018

Recommendations:

1. That Council approve the Residential Boulevards Encroachment policy;

2. That Council approve the discontinuation of the Apron Widening application and approval process;

3. That Council direct Planning & Development Services to undertake a Town- initiated Zoning By-Law amendment relating to residential driveway standards to align with the intent of the Residential Boulevards Encroachment policy; and

4. That Council direct By-Law Services to use discretionary practices for the enforcement of driveway widenings and parking on private property to uphold the intent of the forthcoming Zoning By-Law Amendment.

Background:

Encroachments onto municipal boulevards adjacent to residential properties are commonplace in all municipalities. This is a result of boulevards often being visibly indistinguishable from private property lines, resulting in the frequent misconception that a boulevard is an extension of a property’s frontage or driveway. As a result, it is not uncommon to observe alterations to boulevards, including to the driveway apron or other landscaping undertakings, despite prohibition under the Town’s by-laws.

The Town’s former Road Occupancy/Road Closure By-law was in effect from 2002 until 2013, and governed the issuance of Boulevard Landscaping Permits. This was discontinued as part of the update to the by-law in 2013 due to limited uptake, as well as staff concerns related to absorption of storm water, snow clearing and overall risk to the Corporation for allowing alterations to its properties that it was unable to maintain. The Town’s position has since been to not allow any alteration to the boulevards under any circumstance. The only encroachment 10 agreements currently considered are governed and administered by the authorities outlined in the Town’s Real Property Agreement policy and procedure; however, this policy does not apply to boulevards.

In December 2018, Council directed staff to “review the ability of residents to hardscape or modify Town boulevards [for the] purposes of additional landscape design and/or additional parking”. Staff returned to Council in June 2019 outlining a series of concerns with allowing encroachments onto the boulevards via amendments to the Road Occupancy/Road Closure By- law. In lieu of permitting these encroachments, staff recommended a series of amendments to the Zoning By-law to modify the standards for parking and landscaping on private property. These recommendations were subsequently approved by Council in June 2019.

In October 2019, Council passed a Motion to Reconsider for the first recommendation in the June 2019 report, which recommended there be no changes to the Road Occupancy/Road Closure By-Law as it relates to boulevard alterations. This Motion to Reconsider additionally directed staff to examine a program whereby “residents who have altered, or wish to alter, the Town boulevard abutting their residential property to enter into an encroachment agreement with the Town to allow the alteration of the Town boulevard, subject to certain criteria and requirements.”

Discussion:

Context for the “Made-in-Ajax Solution”

Despite their common occurrence, the majority of encroachments onto boulevards are undertaken without the knowledge of the Town. In some cases, these encroachments create unintended consequences for the delivery of Town services, as well as create safety concerns for the public. The ability to enforce widespread unauthorized boulevard encroachments is a challenge for all municipalities, as it is estimated that nearly one third of all residential properties encroach onto public lands in some way without authorization.

Following the direction of Council in October 2019, staff approached the implementation of a boulevard encroachment program with a renewed perspective. Members of the original Working Group, as referenced in the October 2019 report, were reconvened alongside staff from the CAO’s Office to reframe and pivot the Town’s approach based on the direction of Council. The Group sought to acknowledge the needs of residents and the realities of the current use of boulevards, while still aiming to protect the broader public interests.

A comparative analysis was completed by assessing the differences between the encroachment policies of five municipalities and their respective relationships to boulevards. The municipalities assessed included Pickering, Whitby, Clarington, Guelph and Vaughan. A summary of this analysis can be found in ATT-3, but the key points of differentiation were the allowance of hardscaping on the boulevards, the enforcement of parking on boulevards, and the ability to enter into an agreement with the municipality to permit above-grade alterations to boulevards.

The majority of the policies for encroachments reviewed by staff did not explicitly address the realities identified by Council and staff for the Town’s residents, including landscaping alterations for the purpose of increased parking. These policies also applied to encroachments onto public lands other than the boulevards for matters like fences, pools, trees and signs, all of which are governed by other policies and by-laws at the Town.

While the program outlined in the recommended Residential Boulevard Encroachment policy is structured similarly to that which is found in Vaughan – utilizing a two tiered approach governed by a series of non-negotiable authorization requirements – staff believe the proposed approach 11 is a measured and realistic “Made-in-Ajax” solution to a complex problem faced by all municipalities.

Boulevard Encroachment Policy

Through the Residential Boulevard Encroachment policy, which can be found in ATT-1, staff are proposing a program to allow residents to alter the municipal boulevards adjacent to their properties. While staff recognize there are some risks that the Town would assume as a result of this proposal, which will be outlined in further detail in this report, staff believe the proposed program achieves Council’s intent, while reflecting the realities of the use of boulevards in the Town’s neighbourhoods.

The policy recommends the formation of two distinct types of authorized encroachments onto boulevards, which staff have classified as “simple” and “complex”. To ensure a baseline of public safety and to maintain the integrity of public assets, staff are recommending a list of mandatory requirements for all encroachments to meet as a minimum standard prior to their authorization by the Town.

Authorization Requirements

As outlined in the policy, both simple and complex encroachments must meet or exceed all of the following requirements to be deemed authorized. These specific restrictions are intended to address issues of health and safety, avoid any potential impediments to the Town’s operations or obligations, and protect the Town or any other utility/service provider’s existing infrastructure.

To be authorized, an encroachment:

 Must not create a health or safety risk to pedestrian traffic as determined by the Town;  Must not interfere with vehicular traffic, including blocking sight lines and viewing triangles;  Must not interfere with municipal assets or utilities;  Must not be within 0.3m of a side or rear property line extended to transect the full depth of the boulevard;  Must be level with the grade of the sidewalk in all areas within 45cm of the edge of a sidewalk;  Must not be within 1m of a municipal tree that is less than 20cm diameter at breast height (DBH) or 2m of a municipal tree that is greater than or equal to 20cm DBH;  Must be 1m from any utility appurtenance or service;  Must be 1m from any transit stop with a concrete pad, and 3M from a transit stop without a concrete pad;  Must be 3m from a fire hydrant;  Must not include river rock, loose gravel, pea gravel, loose stones, etc.;  May not include inappropriate vegetation; and  Must be kept in a good state of repair.

Simple Encroachments vs. Complex Encroachments

Simple Encroachments

Simple encroachments are intended to address the vast majority of cases of unauthorized encroachments onto the Town boulevards. The policy recommends simple encroachments be permitted as of right, provided they adhere to the aforementioned authorization requirements.

12 Simple encroachments would permit the following three most common alterations made by residents, as found by staff, on the boulevards:

 The increase in the width of a driveway apron, which staff recommend be permitted to the maximum driveway width defined in the Town’s Zoning By-Law and/or beyond the maximum width by up to 1.8m on the side of the driveway nearest the principle entrance to the dwelling and 0.6m on the opposite side.

o Any extension of the apron beyond the maximum permitted width of the driveway, as described above, must be visually delineated through a change in material, a change in the colour of the material, or a change in the layout or pattern of the material;

 Soft landscaping enhancements, including the planting of any appropriate vegetation that permits or promotes drainage, up to a maximum height of 0.6m; and

 The installation of tree rings, which may be no more than 15cm above grade and may not extend more than 30cm below grade.

It would be incumbent upon property owners to understand their responsibilities under the policy, including their obligations to “Call Before You Dig”, per provincial legislation.

Complex Encroachments

While staff are confident the simple encroachment classification will address the vast majority of resident alterations of boulevards, there are cases where residents may desire more intricate enhancements to complement the aesthetic or function of their private properties.

Therefore, staff are also recommending the creation of a Complex Encroachment classification to address substantial beautification endeavours, including the installment of above-grade features and/or alterations requiring works more than 30cm below-grade. Some examples of this may include the installation of an irrigation system or above-grade planters, the extension of a heated driveway onto an apron, or the expansion of intricate landscaping onto the boulevard for aesthetic purposes.

Complex encroachments may also include the addition of hard landscaping beyond the allotted apron widening dimensions that are permitted via simple encroachments. No parking would be permitted on hardscaping authorized through a complex encroachment under any circumstance.

Complex encroachments are permitted only when an application has been completed by the applicant and reviewed by Town staff, resulting in a formal agreement that is registered by both the Town and the applicant on both of the respective titles. The details of what shall be included in each agreement is included in the policy.

All relevant Departments and areas therein will be a part of the review of the application, including Transportation, Engineering, Operations and Planning. The review process will be guided by internal guidelines to ensure the intent of Council and the intent of the policy is adhered to. The approval will ultimately be issued by the Director of Planning and Development Services, and will not be appealable.

As mentioned previously, the execution of a complex encroachment agreement does not exempt applicants from meeting any of the aforementioned authorization requirements.

13 Parking on Altered Boulevards

Staff understand Council’s desire to provide more opportunities for parking for residents throughout the Town’s neighbourhoods. However, the Town is unable to permit the creation of a legal private parking space on a publicly-owned boulevard.

Staff are therefore recommending the continuation of By-Law Services’ enforcement practice related to vehicles parked on driveway aprons. This practice is employed when there is a vehicle with all four wheels contained on a legally widened apron with an approved surface.

In these cases, where no other immediate safety issue or violation is identified, By-Law Services will not issue a parking ticket.

The application of this practice will be enhanced by the approved widening of the apron to up to 1.8m beyond the approved width of the driveway per the Zoning By-Law on the side of the driveway nearest the principle entrance to the dwelling and 0.6m on the opposite side.

While the Complex Encroachment process may permit hardscaping beyond the maximum permitted apron widening width with the Town’s approval, parking will not be permitted on any hardscaped surface beyond that approved area. This information will be reflected in any agreement that is executed between the Town and a property owner, as well as clarification that any contravention will be subject to ticket and tow at the property owner’s expense.

Visual Delineation

Per the planned amendments to the Zoning By-Law, any hardscaped surface on private property beyond the maximum approved driveway width must be visually delineated by a change in material, a change in colour or a change in the layout or pattern of the material. This policy is being implemented to help distinguish the parts of the driveway that can be used as legal parking spaces and those that cannot.

To ensure consistency in the treatment of private driveways and aprons (which are indistinguishable where no sidewalk exists), the requirement for visual delineation will also be applied to aprons. The decision to allow parking on these visually-delineated extensions of driveways and aprons is an operational matter based on the discretion of the Town’s By-Law Enforcement team.

Discontinuation of Apron Widening Permits

If the Residential Boulevard Encroachment policy is approved, there would be no circumstance where staff would have to consider any apron widening applications. This is due to the fact that all property owners would have as-of-right permission, via a simple encroachment, to widen their aprons to the extent previously considered through apron widening applications.

Therefore, staff are recommending the discontinuation of the intake, administration and approval of any apron widening permits.

Relationship with Zoning By-Law Standards for Parking and Landscaping on Private Property

The proposed Residential Boulevard Encroachment policy contains standards that do not align with similar standards in the Zoning By-Law related to driveways. Staff are therefore seeking authorization to begin a Town-initiated Zoning By-Law Amendment (ZBA) process, as required under the Planning Act, to ensure a seamless relationship between the two documents.

14 Final recommendations as a result of the ZBA will be brought back to Council prior to Spring 2021. This will ensure residents are able to either alter or bring their private properties into compliance on the same timeline as property owners currently in violation of the Town’s Boulevard By-law.

Staff will bring forth a package of any updated or revised by-laws following the completion of the ZBA in the spring. This may include any modifications to the Residential Boulevard Encroachment policy, a new corresponding by-law for the administration and enforcement of the program, the modified Road Occupancy/Road Closure By-Law, and the updated Municipal Tree By-Law.

Visualization of Impact of Permitting Encroachments

Staff have prepared a series of visual examples of what may be permitted under the Residential Boulevard Encroachment policy given the complexity and multitude of potential applications of the program on properties throughout the Town’s neighbourhoods.

These visuals and their corresponding explanations can be found in ATT-2.

Financial Implications:

Fees for Application and Agreement Execution for Complex Encroachments

The following are the recommended fees associated with the application for a complex encroachment agreement, as well as the agreement execution and title registration fees. These fees have been compared with those in other municipalities, as well against the Town’s other similar application processes, and will be included in the updated Fees By-Law upon approval by Council.

As noted in the chart below, there are two types of application fees being proposed. While both are non-refundable, one is applicable to those proactively seeking approval to undertake work to alter their adjacent boulevard, and the other is for those attempting to bring a property into compliance after the fact. This is in line with the Town’s practice for residents who apply to appear in front of the Committee of Adjustment.

Proposed 2021 Fees for Residential Boulevard Encroachment Program

Application Fee, non-refundable (prior to the $300 completion of work)

Application Fee, non-refundable (if work has $600 already been completed)

Agreement Fee, non-refundable $1000 + additional costs of registration

Staff anticipate an initial influx of application fees upon approval of this policy and communication to residents. These costs will be offset by staff time and administrative fees, and thus is anticipated to be revenue neutral.

15 Administration of Preliminary Inflow of Applications

Staff are prepared for the preliminary inflow of applications to potentially exceed the capacity of Planning and Development Services for the spring of 2021. This is due to the anticipated submissions and review of complex encroachment applications, as well as the subsequent agreement development process.

This can reasonably be expected to be received from both the properties currently under notice of violation, as well as any new application as a result of residents hearing about the change in policy through any of our communications channels.

Any engagement of administrative support on a short-term, contract basis would be considered as part of Planning & Development Services 2021 budget.

Insurance Requirements for Complex Encroachment Agreements

As noted in the policy, staff are not recommending property owners be required to add the Town as an additional insured on their residential certificate of insurance in order to obtain a complex encroachment agreement.

In lieu of requiring additional insurance, all property owners will be required to indemnify the Town and assume all risk in their approved complex encroachment agreements.

Staff acknowledge this is a departure from the Town’s standard practice with other encroachment and real property agreements, and would entail the Town assuming all of the risk for any claim stemming from an alteration of a boulevard. This fact was weighed against the reality that our current by-laws and policies provide no standards or baseline requirements for these alterations that the Town is aware are happening en masse, as evidenced by this report and those preceding it. Additionally, there is no requirement for insurance in the event a resident wishes to resurface their existing approved apron.

Through the program development process, staff reviewed the past claims history for incidents related to the municipal boulevards and found only 7 claims had been made in the past 10 years. Of these 7 claims, 6 were denied due to the Town’s existing prohibition of alterations to the boulevards, and the 1 claim that was approved amounted to $53,000.00.

Staff also became aware of a change in the practices of many insurers to no longer provide residential certificates of insurance that show a municipality as an additional insured. This change would result in many property owners not being able to enter into an encroachment agreement with the Town if additional insurance was required.

Staff will continue to review this decision based on quarterly reports provided by the insurance pool, and will report back to Council in the event the risk assessment changes.

Communication Issues:

Communication to Owners of Properties Currently in Violation

Staff developed this program based on the needs and expectations of residents, including those property owners currently in violation of the existing Road Occupancy/Road Closure By-Law. As a result of this, staff expect that many of the instances currently under Notice will be adaptable to the parameters outlined in the policy with clear communication and the support of staff.

16 Upon approval of the policy by Council, letters will be sent to all property owners that are currently under Notice with details of the authorization requirements, and information on how to bring their specific properties into compliance as either simple or complex encroachments based on the scale of alteration work that has been completed. For those requiring complex encroachment agreements, a copy of the application form and information on relevant fees and the application process will be included with the letter.

All properties currently in violation will be required to bring their properties into compliance by June 15, 2021, providing 6 weeks from the beginning of May and the anticipated start of landscaping season.

Communication to all Residents

Additional communications on the adoption of this policy will be required in advance of the start of spring landscaping and construction season for all residents. This will likely include a social media blitz, and other communications activities to ensure residents are aware of the changes.

Any communications related to the ZBA process will be conducted in accordance with the Planning Act and the Town’s standard communication procedures.

Relationship to the Strategic Plan:

Focus Area Leading in Our Community

Goal Fostering and strengthening external relationships and partnerships to help achieve strategic goals.

Action Support Council activities and initiatives which benefit community needs and priorities.

Conclusion:

Encroachments onto the municipal boulevard are both a common occurrence and a sign of the change in needs of the community. For this reason, staff are recommending the establishment of a policy framework to introduce a more permissive approach to managing the alterations of municipal boulevards.

The proposed policy would set standards for boulevard encroachments that seek to avoid hazards and impediments to Town operations, and minimize risk, while allowing what is already common public practice. In cases of complex alterations, which require both above and below grade installations exceeding 30cms, or larger areas of hardscaping, a fulsome staff review and a formal agreement process would be required.

The approach of the proposed policy is intended to simplify the process for residents, provide a means for properties currently in violation to become compliant, and respond to the needs of the residents of Ajax as identified by Council.

Attachments:

ATT-1: Residential Boulevard Encroachment Policy

ATT-2: Visualization of Sample Boulevard Encroachments

ATT-3: Comparative Analysis of Municipal Encroachment Policies 17

Prepared by:

Kassandra Cruciano – Grants & Strategic Initiatives Coordinator

Submitted by:

Christie McLardie – Manager of Public & Strategic Affairs

Approved by:

Shane Baker – Chief Administrative Officer

18

TOWN OF AJAX POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

SUBJECT: Residential Boulevard Encroachments

COUNCIL ISSUED: REVISED : AUTHORED BY: REVISION #: Page 1 of 7 POLICY #: DRAFT Kassandra Cruciano, Grants Click here to & Strategic Initiatives

enter a date. Coordinator

1. POLICY OBJECTIVE

1.1. To govern the administration and management of simple and complex encroachments onto Town-owned boulevards by residential property owners.

2. SCOPE

2.1. This policy applies to landscaping and other enhancements of Town-owned boulevards immediately adjacent to the frontage of residential properties, including those with or without sidewalks.

2.2. This policy does not apply to boulevards along Regional right-of-ways or unopened road allowances.

2.3. This policy does not apply in cases where an altered boulevard has been approved by the Town via a planning application.

2.4. In the case of a corner lot or a through lot, a boulevard encroachment for the purpose of hard landscaping will only be permitted or considered adjacent to the yard where the driveway exists.

2.5. This policy does not apply to alterations on private property, which are governed by the Town’s Zoning By-law.

2.6. This policy does not supersede any existing by-law, policy or procedure, including but not limited to those related to curb cutting, apron widening, driveway widening, road occupancy, fee collection, or real property agreements.

3. DEFINITIONS

Above-Grade Features: Any installation of an item where a portion of it is above the ground, including but not limited to, raised flower beds, posts, planters and pillars.

AMANDA: Application Management and Data Automation software that is utilized for the management of business processes in the Planning and Development Department, including but not limited to receiving applications, creating and tracking files, preparing reports, monitoring complaints and issuing permits.

19 Applicant: A property owner that has intentions to or does encroach upon an immediately adjacent Town-owned boulevard.

Apron: An area of the boulevard consisting of a hard surface leading from the travelled portion of the highway to a private driveway.

Authorized Encroachment: An encroachment that is permitted either as of right under By- Law xxx, or which has been granted by the Town via the complex encroachment process.

Boulevard: The portion of a highway between the traveled road and the limit of the highway line.

Complex Encroachment: Any encroachment beyond the limitations defined under a simple encroachment. Daylighting Triangle: An triangular shaped area of private land on a corner lot, which is to be determined by measuring from the point of intersection of the street lines, the distance required by the Town’s Zoning By-law along each such street line and joining such points with a straight line.

Encroachment: Any type of vegetation, structure, building, man-made object or item of personal property of a person which exists wholly upon, or extends from that person’s premises onto Town-owned lands.

Hard Landscaping: Landscaping which includes hard-surfaced landscape elements, including but not limited to paving, decorative stonework and brick.

Inappropriate Vegetation: Pertains to any vegetation, including flowers, shrubs, hedges, and grass, that are deemed to be inappropriate for reasons determined by the Town.

Municipal Tree: Any tree located on land owned by the municipality.

Simple Encroachment: An encroachment that is permitted as of right under By-Law xxx, which may include apron widening, the installation of tree rings and soft landscaping which does not require works more than 30cm below grade.

Soft Landscaping: Landscaping which typically promotes and supports the growth of vegetation such as grass, trees, shrubs, flowers or other plants and permits the infiltration of storm water into the ground.

Unauthorized Encroachment: An encroachment that is not permitted as of right under By- Law xxx, or which has not been granted by the Town via the complex encroachment process.

Utility/Service Appurtenance: Any asset that is owned by a company providing the services of water, sewage, fuel, energy, electricity, heating and cooling, telephone, cable and internet connections, and includes, but is not limited to, the Region of Durham, Durham Region Transit, Canada Post, Elexicon or its agents, Bell Canada or its agents, Enbridge Gas and its agents, and Rogers Cable or its agents.

4. PROCEDURE

20

4.1. Authorization Requirements

Both simple and complex encroachments must meet or exceed all of the following requirements to be deemed authorized.

• Must not create a health or safety risk to pedestrian traffic as determined by the Town; • Must not interfere with vehicular traffic, including blocking sight lines and viewing triangles; • Must not interfere with municipal assets or utilities; • Must not be within 0.3m of a side or rear property line extended to transect the full depth of the boulevard; • Must be level with the grade of the sidewalk in all areas within 45cm of the edge of a sidewalk; • Must not be within 1m of a municipal tree that is less than 20cm diameter at breast height (DBH) or 2m of a municipal tree that is greater than or equal to 20cm DBH; • Must be 1m from any utility appurtenance or service; • Must be 1m from any transit stop with a concrete pad, and 3M from a transit stop without a concrete pad; • Must be 3m from a fire hydrant; • Must not include river rock, loose gravel, pea gravel, loose stones, etc.; • May not include inappropriate vegetation; and • Must be kept in a good state of repair.

4.2. Simple Encroachments

Simple encroachments are permitted as of right under By-Law xxx, provided they adhere to the authorization requirements included in Section 4.1.

Simple encroachments are defined as follows:

• Apron Widenings to the maximum driveway width defined in the Town’s Zoning By-Law and/or beyond the maximum width by up to 1.8m on the side of the driveway nearest the principle entrance to the dwelling and 0.6m on the opposite side.

o Any extension of the apron beyond the maximum permitted width of the driveway, as described above, must be visually delineated through a change in material, a change in the colour of the material, or a change in the layout or pattern of the material;

• Tree Rings which may be no more than 15cm above grade and which may not extend more than 30cm below grade; and

• Soft Landscaping which does not exceed more than 0.6m above grade.

21 Simple encroachments do not require the formal registration of an agreement with the Town.

It is incumbent upon all property owners to ensure they are compliant with their legal obligations under the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification Systems Act (i.e. “Call Before You Dig”).

4.3. Complex Encroachment

4.3.1. General

Complex encroachments differ from simple encroachments in that they include the installation of above-grade features and/or alterations requiring works more than 30cm below-grade.

Complex encroachments may also include the addition of hardscaping beyond the allotted apron widening dimensions permitted via simple encroachments.

Complex encroachments are permitted only when an application form has been completed by the applicant and reviewed by Town staff, resulting in a formal agreement that is registered by both the Town and the applicant on the respective titles.

Complex encroachment agreements do not exempt applicants from meeting the authorization requirements included in Section 4.1.

4.3.2. Application

The applicant shall submit a signed and completed application form with the non- refundable application fee to Planning and Development Services.

The application shall include the following:

• Proof of property ownership for the property immediately adjacent to the boulevard; • Drawings or photos for a new application, or drawings, photos and related correspondence with the Town if attempting to bring the property into compliance; and • A letter describing the nature of the encroachment and a rationale for the request.

Applicants who have an existing complex encroachment agreement with the Town and wish to modify it are required to submit a new application.

Applicants who have completed works on their boulevard without permission are subject to double the standard application fee.

4.3.3. Assessment Process

22 The following shall be the procedure by which Planning and Development Services staff process a complex encroachment application.

• Application form is received with the non-refundable fee by the Planning Technician; • Application form is reviewed for completion and any relevant preliminary feedback is provided to the applicant; • Application details are entered into AMANDA, and the following departments are prompted to provide feedback: o Planning o Transportation o Engineering o Operations • Comments from each department are considered by the Director of Planning and Development Services or their designate, and measured against the authorization requirements for approval. • The Director of Planning and Development Services or their designate shall have the authority to approve or reject any application submitted for a complex encroachment agreement. • If approved, the Town and the property owner shall engage in the development of an agreement outlining the obligations as defined in By- Law xxx, including the registration of the agreement on the respective titles. • If denied, a template letter is sent to the applicant stating the encroachment is unauthorized.

In the event a property owner wishes to submit a complex encroachment application form at the same time as another planning application, including minor variances or curb cuts, the applications must be considered in relation to each other.

There is no formal appeal process for property owners that have their encroachment application denied. The Director of Planning & Development Services or their designate’s decision shall be considered final.

4.3.4. Agreement

Upon approval of the complex encroachment application by the Director of Planning & Development Services or their designate, an agreement shall be signed by the Town and the applicant.

The cost of the legal review of the agreement, and the cost of registration of the agreement against the applicant’s property and the Town’s, shall be covered by an Agreement Fee to be paid in full by the property owner at the time of ratification.

Each agreement between the Town and an applicant for the purposes of a complex encroachment onto the boulevard shall be developed and modified from a template agreement and shall include:

23 • Names of both parties • Acknowledgement of a complex encroachment being permitted onto the Town’s property • Description of the approved complex encroachment, including drawings if necessary • Terms for discontinuance or termination of the agreement, including the Town’s ability to terminate at its discretion • Obligations for maintenance and compliance with authorization requirements • Obligations for restorations, by both the Town and the property owner • Indemnification of the Town and assumption of risk • Details of all fees associated with the encroachment and the process for collection, including invoicing and addition to the property tax bill in cases of non-payment • Acknowledgement that there is no parking permitted on any hardscaped areas permitted via the complex encroachment process. Contraventions will be subject to ticket and tow at the property owner’s expense • Consent to registration of the agreement against both the property’s title and the Town’s • Any additional requirements and conditions the Town may deem necessary for inclusion

4.3.5. Fees

The fees for the residential boulevard encroachment program shall be collected in accordance with the Town’s Fees By-law.

4.4. Transferability and Continuance

The agreement between the Town and the applicant for a complex encroachment shall endure so long as the agreement remains registered on title.

It is the responsibility of the applicant to understand their obligations regarding the agreement, which may pre-date their assumption of property ownership.

In the event an applicant intends to permanently discontinue the encroachment, they shall notify the Town in writing and acknowledge their obligation to remove all features and restore the Town’s lands at their expense.

4.5. Restoration Obligations

In the event the Town needs to perform works on a boulevard that has been altered, the Town is only required to restore the boulevard to its original condition with sod or asphalt.

4.6. Enforcement

Details for the enforcement and compliance with the residential boulevard encroachment program shall be followed as outlined in By-Law xxx, including those

24 details related to cost-recovery for the removal of unauthorized encroachments.

Enforcement of boulevard encroachments and alterations shall be considered in concert with those of driveway widenings and alterations on the same properties.

5. RELATED DOCUMENTATION

• Road Occupancy & Road Closure By-Law • Real Property Agreement Policy and Application • Zoning By-Law 95-2003, as • Boulevard Tree Protection By-Law • Planning & Development Services Fee By-Law • Application for Driveway Widening • Application for Apron Widening / Curb Cut

25 Boulevard Encroachment Diagrams

October 5, 2020

26 27 #1 CURRENT SCENARIO 98 OSWELL DRIVE (Zoned R1-F, Exception 127) Legend Comments Property Line Private: Driveway – Currently Permitted Limited to approximately 3.3 m width of projecting garage (Rather than 5.0 m in ZBL) Boulevard: Apron – Currently Permitted Maximum width of 3.3 m (as determined by Maximum Driveway Width) Not Permitted Interlock expands past 3.3 m maximum / Tree ring not permitted / Hardscape too close to tree

2m

28 #2 OVERALL HYBRID SOLUTION 98 OSWELL DRIVE (Zoned R1-F, Exception 127) Legend Comments Property Line Private: Driveway – Currently Permitted Limited to approximately 3.3 m width of projecting garage (Rather than 5.0 m in ZBL) Private: Driveway Expansion Maximum width of 1.8 m on door side / 0.6 m on other side (to within 0.3 m of property line) Boulevard: Apron – Currently Permitted Maximum width of 3.3 m (as determined by Maximum Driveway Width) Boulevard: Simple Encroachment Maximum width of 1.8 m on door side / 0.6 m on other side / Tree ring < 15 cm Boulevard: Complex Encroachment N/A Not Permitted N/A

1m

Visual delineation achieved here

29 30 #1 CURRENT SCENARIO 7 SCHOOLBRIDGE STREET (Zoned R1-D, Exception 44) Legend Comments Property Line Private: Driveway – Currently Permitted Maximum width of 5.6 m for garage that is flush with the house Boulevard: Apron – Currently Permitted Maximum width of 5.6 m (as determined by Maximum Driveway Width) Not Permitted Interlock on boulevard is not permitted / Interlock on private property only permitted if raised

31 #2 OVERALL HYBRID SOLUTION 7 SCHOOLBRIDGE STREET (Zoned R1-D, Exception 44) Legend Comments Property Line Private: Driveway – Currently Permitted Maximum width of 5.6 m for garage that is flush with the house Private: Driveway Expansion Maximum width of 1.8 m on door side / 0.6 m on other side (to within 0.3 m of property line) Boulevard: Apron – Currently Permitted Maximum width of 5.6 m (as determined by Maximum Driveway Width) Boulevard: Simple Encroachment Maximum width of 1.8 m on door side / 0.6 m on other side (to within 0.3 m of property line) Boulevard: Complex Encroachment Required beyond the limits of what is permitted under a Simple Encroachment Not Permitted Interlock on private property only permitted if raised above grade of driveway

Visual delineation required here

32 33 #1 CURRENT SCENARIO 57 MUSCAT CRESCENT (Zoned R1-E, Exception 80) Legend Comments Property Line Private: Driveway – Currently Permitted Maximum width of 5.6 m Boulevard: Apron – Currently Permitted Maximum width of 5.6 m (as determined by Maximum Driveway Width) Not Permitted Interlock on boulevard is not permitted / Interlock on private property only permitted if raised

34 #2 OVERALL HYBRID SOLUTION 57 MUSCAT CRESCENT (Zoned R1-E, Exception 80) Legend Comments Property Line Private: Driveway – Currently Permitted Maximum width of 5.6 m Private: Driveway Expansion Maximum width of 1.8 m on door side (No option for 0.6 m on other side due to raised curb) Boulevard: Apron – Currently Permitted Maximum width of 5.6 m (as determined by Maximum Driveway Width) Boulevard: Simple Encroachment Maximum width of 1.8 m on door side / 0.6 m on other side Boulevard: Complex Encroachment Required to permit all features above grade and extension of tree ring beyond 1.0 m Not Permitted Interlock on private property only permitted if raised above grade of driveway

Visual delineation required here 35 36 #1 CURRENT SCENARIO 89 LINCOLN STREET (Zoned R1-B) Legend Comments Property Line Private: Driveway – Currently Permitted Maximum width of 6.1 m Boulevard: Apron – Currently Permitted Maximum width of 6.1 m (as determined by Maximum Driveway Width) Not Permitted N/A (Driveway and apron in compliance)

37 #2 OVERALL HYBRID SOLUTION 89 LINCOLN STREET (Zoned R1-B) Legend Comments Property Line Private: Driveway – Currently Permitted Maximum width of 6.1 m Private: Driveway Expansion Maximum width of 1.8 m on door side / 0.6 m on other side Boulevard: Apron – Currently Permitted Maximum width of 6.1 m (as determined by Maximum Driveway Width) Boulevard: Simple Encroachment Maximum width of 1.8 m on door side / 0.6 m on other side Boulevard: Complex Encroachment Required to permit any above grade features & hardscaping beyond simple encroachment Not Permitted Buffers of at least 1.0 m required around utility appurtenances

Visual delineation required here

38 Comparative Scan: Boulevard Encroachments

Vaughan Guelph Whitby Clarington Pickering

By-Law 034-2017 By-Law 2009-17789 By-Law 6937-15 By-Law 2013-066 By-Law 6831/08

Are residential boulevard encroachments permitted? Yes Yes Yes No Yes

Yes. "Simple encroachments" are allowed Differentiate between boulevard Yes. Simple enroachments (hard and soft as of right on boulevards. "Complex The types of boulevard encroachments are encroachments and other encroachments. landscaping with permission) do not require Is there a differentiation between different types of encroachments" on boulevards are allowed Yes, but only insofar as residential differentiated by type, including "plantings", Boulevard encroachments, as outlined in an agreement outside of the Downtown or encroachments? If yes, how are these defined? once a permit has been granted. These are boulevard versus all other encroachment. "fixtures", "obstructions", "fences" and Schedule A of the By-Law, do not require Brooklin areas; complex encroachments separate from any other commercial, large- "hard surfaces". City approval. require an agreement. scale other kinds of encroachments. Beautification is focus, but recognizing that What is the municipality's philosophical approach to "Common sense" answer to major Both beautification and parking are Compliance. Parking on boulevards also Beautification parking is the growing driver for hard boulevard encroachments? enforcement challenges considered as part of their approach. banned within 15M of an intersection. surface boulevard encroachments. Boulevard encroachments are covered No encroachment program for residential Boulevard Maintenance by-law outlines How does the boulevard encroachment program relate Completely separate; boulevard Completely separate, and does not under the Property and Boulevard properties. Alterations to residential Policy what kinds of encroachments are to the driveway, curb cutting, or other road occupancy encroachments have their own by-law that supersede any other by-law, program or Maintenance By-Law; larger boulevards are not permitted. permitted, and how it is separate from curb by-laws, programs and policies? does not supersede any other by-law. policy. encroachments are covered under the Encroachment agreements developed case- cuts and driveway widening. Encroachment By-Law. by-case for other instances. Recently began enforcing in Downtown/Brooklin areas due to high traffic and risk. Requiring agreements (and Implemented in 2017 and communications By-law permitting the landscaping of Identifying the potential for implementing a Enforcement is a challenge; have been Was this program or policy or policy recently corresponding agreement fee) for all were sent to those that were not in residential boulevards was implemented in program like this in the future, but no working in the confines of this by-law since implemented? If so, was there a grandfathering or encroachments in these areas. Additionally, compliance. They were given a deadline to 2009. No institutional knowledge available political appetite to do so right now. 2008. Prioritize complaints that relate to amended application process for property owners who PW Dept had summer students audit bring their properties into compliance about how it was implemented to bring Complaint-based enforcement is a public safety or intereference with municipal were otherwise in violation? troublesome properties and submitted 250 before enforcement would begin. those in violation into compliance. challenge to keep up with. operations. them for enforcement in advance of winter maintenance. Agreements will be sought with each of these properties proactively.

No. What is permitted as far as boulevard Prior approval from the City is required for encroachments go is included in Schedule No. Requests for non-residential addition of "hard surfaces" to boulevards; Application only for complex No. Staff request residents provide Is there a publicly-available application form? What A. Exceptional circumstances are dealt with encroachments come through various no form available online. Photos, drawings encroachments. Requires a submission of drawings at time of requesting permission does the external applicant process look like? on a case-by-case basis by the Director of channels (Council, economic development, or descriptions, as well as proof of the application to the by-law department. through the Engineering department. Community Design and Development by-law etc.) ownership, are requested for submission at Services. time of request. The Community Design and Development Requests are assessed by the Coordinator For non-residential requests, Planning Who is the lead department or team member for the Manager of Policy and Business Planning Services department is the lead for of Infrastructure Maintenance, and Engineering receives requests, Public department reviews and requests program? How does this process work from application in By-Law, supported by Engineering reviewing any complaints or violations. subsequently approved or denied by the Works assesses. documents on case-by-case basis, and received to executed agreement? departments on a case-by-case basis. Agreements are not developed for Director of Operations and Emergency Process Council approves. residential boulevard encroachments. Services.

What is the process for auditing and inspecting Complaint base only; no insurance Incumbent upon the property owner to existing agreements and properties to ensure ongoing certificates kept on file for residential Complaint-based only. ensure ongoing compliance, including by Complaint-based only. Complaint-based only due to resources. compliance, and meet any insurance obligations? properties. way of insurance.

39 Comparative Scan: Boulevard Encroachments

Vaughan Guelph Whitby Clarington Pickering

By-Law 034-2017 By-Law 2009-17789 By-Law 6937-15 By-Law 2013-066 By-Law 6831/08

Council approval for all encroachment Boulevard encroachments related to hard Does the process require Council approval for Approval of exceptional circumstances by For complex encroachments, yes. agreements, no residential boulevard surfaces or exceptions to the by-law are boulevard encroachments? Or are these decisions Approved at the staff level. the Director of Community Design and Otherwise approved at the Staff level. encroachments are approved except in approved or denied by the Director of made at the staff level? Development Services. exceptional circumstances. Operations and Emergency Services.

For the "program", no. For the increase in Are there full-time staff resources allocated to the requirements for having agreements in administration and enforcement of this specific place with currently non-complying and Resources No No. No. No. program? If not, how does it factor in to existing job priority property owners, they are descriptions? anticipating but do not have data to provide.

Sodding and landscaping is permitted; plantings are permitted with some How flexible is the criteria for what is and is not Quite flexible. Only major concern is for Not flexible. Outlined explicityly in Schedule parameters (height, distance from allowed to be altered or installed on boulevards? In Not flexible. Permits that are granted do not above grade features (pillars, etc.). All A of by-law; height and distance restrictions Not flexible. No alterations permitted to the curb/sidewalk), nothing sharp or protruding, what circumstances do you permit hard-landscaping of exempt individuals from compliance with boulevard alterations must be level with the on plantings, and all hard landscaping must residential boulevards. no "concrete slabs, rocks or bricks", but boulevards? Are river rocks or similar landscaping what is outlined in the by-law. surrounding grade within 1 foot of the be at-grade. hard-landscaping is permitted with approval additions permitted? sidewalk, curb or paving. from city. No fences, lighting or irrigation installations, or other obstructions. Site-Specific How does the program reconcile loss of space for Requirements snow storage and water absorption with the permission Take this into consideration when Take this into consideration when Not something they feel like they can Taken into consideration by the Director of hard-landscaping on boulevards? Has the assessing complex permit applications, but approving exceptional requests, but overall N/A control based on overall non-compliance. when decision is made. municipality implemented or are they exploring the overall not something they focus on. not considered. implementation of alternative solutions?

Must adhere to all municipal tree policies How does this program address concerns related to Engineering department makes the call on and by-laws. Section in boulevard by-law Must adhere to all municipal tree policies Must adhere to all municipal tree policies All municipal tree by-laws and policies must municipally-owned trees? Specifically tree rings and what is permitted based on proposal from specific to planting and removal of trees, as and by-laws. and by-laws. be adhered to. drip lines. property owner. well as an appendix with approved and prohibited species.

Pedestrian health and safety; vehicular Public safety (sightlines, sharpness, etc.), Is there a set assessment matrix or list of criteria that What is in the by-law, nothing additional Asessement sight lines; interference with municipal Nothing formal. No. and interference with municipal or utlity applications are assessed against? has been formalized. works. operations are primary considerations.

Commercial or other forms of Require $2M insurance with the Town What insurance requirements are required from the No insurance required for what is permitted encroachment require $2M insurance with No additional insurance required for No insurance certificates for residential named as additional insured, and requestor for encroachment agreements? in the by-law. the Town named as additional insured. encroachments permitted in the by-law. indemnification. Kept on file and checked annually.

Was a legal opinion obtained regarding indemnification No. Have not even had a conversation with or save harmless clauses throughout the No No. the existing insurer about entrance into No. No. Insurance encroachment policy or by-law? agreements.

40 Comparative Scan: Boulevard Encroachments

Vaughan Guelph Whitby Clarington Pickering

By-Law 034-2017 By-Law 2009-17789 By-Law 6937-15 By-Law 2013-066 By-Law 6831/08

Did the municipal insurance policy require amendments or specific clauses to accommodate the No No. No. No. No. allowance for boulevard encroachments? What are the exact terms that are included?

Estimated that 1 in 3 properties in Whitby Expect 10,000 residential properties are encroaching on municipal property. Estimate 1/3 of properties are encroaching Estimated 15,000 throughout the City. How many boulevard encroachments are currently on throughout Town are encroaching, but 1500 priority properties in Downtown and onto the boulevards, 50% of which are Process very few exceptional None. file? have only process 15 complex applications Brooklin neighbourhoods, as well as 250 estimated to not in compliance with the by- circumstances. in the past 6 months. designated by PW, which are being sought law. for agreement. What is the standard fee for submission of an $200 non-refundable; no agreement fee as Application submission: $250 No fee for applying to Director for review of No application fee for any encroachment No fee for application to add hard application form? Is there a charge for a legal review of agreements are not completed for Agreement Fee: $500 exceptional circumstance. Fees only apply request, but all fees related to agreement landscaping; otherwise complex Revenue the agreement? Is there an annual fee added to the residential properties. Annual fee assessed Annual Fee: currently not charged but hope to other types of encroachments not on the development and annual are incurred by encroachments are handled on a case-by- property tax roll for boulevard encroachments? How is based on the discretion of the Manager of to do so in the future; logistics of working boulevards. the property owner. case basis. this calculated? By-Law Policy and Business Planning. with Finance department are challenging

What do boulevard-specific encroachments represent Nominal amount. N/A Nominal amount. N/A Nominal amount. per year from a revenue perspective? Are encroachment-specific fees deposited into general All encroachment-related fees collected are revenue? Or are they designated into a specific fund General revenues. N/A No. General revenues. General revenues. deposited into general revenues. (i.e. stormwater reserve)

What has been the experience working with the utility Nothing noteworthy to share other than companies, including Bell, Rogers, relevant transit ensure distance requirements from their Other Nothing noteworthy to share. N/A Nothing noteworthy to share. N/A companies, etc.? Are there learned experiences that assets are standard for all potential can be shared? allowances.

41 Town of Ajax Report

Report To: Council

Prepared By: R. Matheson

Subject: AMO 2020 Conference Recap

Ward(s): N/A

Date of Meeting: October 18, 2020

Reference:

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario represents the majority of Ontario’s 444 municipalities as a liaison with the Government of Ontario. AMO works to make municipal governments stronger and more effective through advocacy to promote shared goals and interests to address common challenges.

The annual AMO Conference provides a unique forum each year for municipalities to have access to Provincial Ministers, network with municipal colleagues from across the province, take in expert keynotes, educational sessions, and meet with over 100 industry exhibitors. This is an excellent atmosphere to promote collaboration and share best practices.

Due to COVID-19, for the first time the AMO Conference was held entirely virtually. AMO was the largest virtual gathering of municipal thought leaders since the start of COVID-19. Speeches, breakouts, networking and even delegations were all executed via an online conference platform.

From August 17-19, Mayor Collier, CAO Baker, Geoff Romanowski, Kassandra Cruciano and myself attended the annual Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) Conference in its new virtual format.

Discussion:

Town of Ajax Delegations

This year, we participated in five delegations for Ajax with provincial ministries to move our priorities forward:

 PA Jim McDonell, Municipal Affairs (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing)

42  Minister Caroline Mulroney, Associate Minister Kinga Surma, and PA Vijay Thanigasalam, Transportation

 Associate Minister Prabmeet Sarkaria, Small Business and Red Tape Reduction (Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade)

 Minister Laurie Scott, Infrastructure

 Minister Rod Phillips, Finance

Each one of these 15-minute delegations addressed topics of importance to Ajax. This year’s briefing package (attached) was shared with each ministry following our discussions.

Approach

We shook things up a little bit this year, using a singular narrative across all ministries, as many asks have impacts, or represent potential political wins, for multiple ministries. This ensures that each staffer or minister is armed with the same information to influence future conversation.

Narrative

 Ajax is a mid-sized (rapidly-growing), lower-tier municipality that often must compete for resources (at all levels)  TOA embraces intensification, density and infrastructure-supportive initiatives. We have a large number of project applications representing critical investment, job growth & housing supply that are backing up due to capacity and connectivity issues  These barriers can’t be addressed without support from the province

Key Asks

 Provincial assistance for increased sanitary capacity in our downtown (Hunt Street)  400-series highway connections to support businesses and commuters: o 412 at Rossland o 407 at Westney o 407 at Salem o 401 full interchange completion at Lakeridge  Funding for active transportation as part of future ICIP grant opportunities  Shovels in the ground for the Lakeshore East line to Bowmanville (echoing the Durham Region’s asks)  Support for widening Harwood Ave. North  Equitable access for mid-sized municipalities to funding opportunities (like the ICIP Green Infrastructure fund)  Innovation partnership opportunities

Results and Next Steps

The groundwork laid at last year’s conference set the stage and started the relationships needed to further key conversations this year. Already, we’ve had outreach from:

 MTO – thank you letter dated September 2  MEDJCT – meeting September 15 between Mayor Collier and Deputy Minister Giles Gherson about employment lands, manufacturing sector, and support for business

43  MTO – upcoming meeting of staff to discuss the connections that TOA needs, traffic modeling and next steps  Continued conversation & open dialogue with Minister Phillips staff  MMAH – letter from Minister Clark, acknowledging our presentation and concerns raised during conversation with PA McDonell, dated October 1

All of this outreach could lead to wins on some of our top priority files. We commit to keeping Council informed.

Relationship to the Strategic Plan:

Goal: Advocating for intergovernmental matters important to our community.

Action: Advocate for transportation infrastructure in north-east Ajax to support the projected growth. These include the widening of Rossland Road, and future interchanges at Salem Road and Highway 407 and Rossland Road, and Highway 412.

Conclusion:

TOA staff & members of Council are committed to building relationships, sharing best practices, learning from others’ experiences and advocating for our community priorities.

We anticipate ongoing participation in future AMO conferences.

Attachments:

ATT-1: TOA Talks AMO 2020 Briefing

Prepared by:

[Author’s Name] – [Author’s Title]

Submitted by:

[Dept. Head’s Name] – [Dept. Head’s Title]

Approved by:

[CAO’s Name] – Chief Administrative Officer

44 TOA TALKS: AMO 2020 BRIEFING August 17-19, 2020

45 TOA Quick Facts • Mid-sized municipality of approximately 125,000 • 56% racialized population • Commitment to inclusion of diverse ideas, backgrounds, cultures • Top industries • Healthcare • Logistics & Warehousing • IT & Business support services • Manufacturing

46 2 What you need to know: • New Council, CAO & senior management team • Agenda of innovation, economic development • Fixed urban boundary • Embracing density, intensification, infrastructure- supportive projects • We are facing barriers as a mid-sized, lower-tier municipality. Resources (servicing, allocations) are divided amongst 8 municipalities and Ajax competes for key infrastructure to fill gaps and build in a timely way • We have pre-consulted on 12 projects that represent 175,000 sq. ft. of gross commercial floor area (GFA), and 5,250 priority residential units in our downtown alone. Throughout Ajax the Town has applications for almost 24 million sq. ft. and more than 6,600 residential units. We will exceed our 5,000 new job target. The demand is there. However, without infrastructure investment from the Province, we face losing potential economic growth and critical housing supply

The Town can achieve densities in our downtown that meet targets for Urban Growth Centres

47 3 COVID-19 Recovery • Ajax’s approach to recovery has been thoughtful, measured, safety and budget-conscious • Town Hall remained open throughout by appointment only (with screening, safety precautions in place) • Pivoted to online services and programming: • Seniors Centre Without Walls • Ajax Hygiene Hub (unsheltered & vulnerable population support) • New online payment ability, and • Ward, resident & Council meetings • Implementing our recently announced 20/20 Focus Plan for business recovery support • Continue to work with other municipalities to share best practices, while developing a “made in Ajax” approach supported by resident demand & fiscal responsibility

48 4 Thank you, Ford Government • The addition of a new, fast-tracked, public long-term care facility at Lakeridge Health • Supporting the Schlegel Village project moving forward – together these projects represent 500+ LTC spaces and a proposed 320 unit retirement residence • Follow-up: get shovels in the ground, the LTC beds must be allocated by the Ministry of Long Term Care • Working with the federal government to provide up-to-date information, participating in LUMCO/OBCM meetings & providing $2.343M in operating support for Ajax • Follow-up: program design details, Phase 2 funding and mechanism for fund distribution

49 5 What Ajax Needs – Municipal Affairs

Servicing to support growth & connectivity

Planning tools to advance growth

What Ajax Needs – Transportation

Improved connectivity to support a healthy economy

Investment in regional transportation assets & infrastructure

What Ajax Needs – Infrastructure

Key infrastructure to expedite growth

Equitable access to project support

What Ajax Needs – Economic Development

Partnership opportunities to support innovation

50 6 Municipal Affairs and Housing

51  ‘ ’ “ ” • ‘ K ? ? @ @ ? @ J  K = K D ` D G E H G > G N O D O G – Q — m m S \ Z ² S l U l [ b c b Y [ U b ] [ W ± ? J @ ¯ y K A ? J E > D B E H G H E D E z \ \ Z V m x { w w } w a [ k l U W l ] l | | * !   *  3 n ~ p  K = K € v v p /    -  0  1  2  O G Q             e ‚ V \ \ j h ? K W l [ U b Y d ^ Y ¦ ¦  4 L L I H ` B _ D © © s ¦ ¦ ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¤ ¡ ¥ ¡ £ '  ? J ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¤ ¡ ¥ ¡ ³ S V ´ V V Z µ " ¦ I D f O I D [ U W X a ] ¥ ¡ # $ % % Q   6 7 * 6 8 !   ¶ ? A K P · § ,    2 -  9  © © © F H B M ¨ ¥ ¡ ¡ 5 5 5 &  ( )   ¡ £ ' $    :      +  - 9    1  1      *  . + , -   ‰Š Œ  ŒŽ Œ ‹   Z z Z Z ® Z V V \ \ e \ T W Y U Y „ Y W ] W l ^ Y k ˜ › J ? K ? y K K P P ? J ? ¯ I D E I O D B I N O I GF L B D  £ V S V S V \ V m ; < => ? @ @ AB ?F @ ¡ g P h i ? @ @ A Y k U l ] k U l d W X Y U Y W l C D E GB > H G H B > ` L O I N B E D š | ¤ ƒ ? @ @ = K J ° @ = K ? J K @ @ ? ? KM j V \ S V S Z V m B B I B G B M M ¥¡ H C D I I D H B > H L I H I T W X [ W [ k l U W l l Q Ÿ K P ; < = = K K ? K A KM K n o p B N N D E E H O H B H G D L I H L D I B

Q ¡ = @ @ K ? P n o t v n t R ? ? ? K A ; < = B _ L H I H G E H q Z r S š E N O E E H G E > Y ] W Y c l [ u ¢ s S w w x q Z r S V \ \ ¡ ST VW SY Z[ V \ S SY V V \ \ [ W Y ] W Y c l [ ^ U X Y ] XW ^ y ? J J K ? K A K K P D I D f O I D Z z Z ® V Z V j V ² \ D D I _ G D D D ` D G H W Y ] W l T W „ ] W X Y [ Q s e V \ † ? @ @ ? @ K ¯ ? @ @ y Y Y a U XY W b c Y d b Y M > I D B _ G N D B I N > D ƒ ? @ h @ J @ y Q G D M C D N H O H G M D K ? ? J Z Z S VW Z eY m Z Q L I D D _ L H G I D f O I D b W l ] T U b Y T T Y U [ ] Q Z SY S Z Z z Z ST Z Y „ Y W l T W Y l J J ? K ? @ K @  K s B H GB L I H L D I M B H GF O G † ‡ = ˆ ? J @ J L O I G D B G > H O V \ j \ Z V S z Z j     d [ [ Y l ^ Y W Y b l Y a ] [ ¥ ¡   ¡ ¨ ¥ ¡ Z V S V V m V Z s W l k U l d Y ] XW b [ W ? A K P I F H > B M ˜ ? K K K P P ? P @ Q   _ L I H C D _ D G H B I N > H   ™      š › œ     Servicing        to ž Ÿ g A ? ; h J K @ J E H D E G H L I D N O D !   

   ¡ ƒ ? @ h P y ? G D M C D G O D I H _ D GF š ¢ Z SY S VW Z eY m Z ¡ Y „ Y W T T Y U ¦§ © ª «¬ « support growth ¨ ¨ ­ ­ & connectivity • After undertaking study of the area, we know that the Hunt Street extension project is the best way forward to support connectivity in our downtown, and access to lay sanitary pipe to provide capacity relief and high-speed broadband in our downtown • Following our conversation last year, the Town met with Ministry of Infrastructure staff, who were unable to further the process (no new funding opportunities available)

Back to pg. 16

52 Jump to Wrap-up 8 • We continue to do our due diligence to bring costs down • Meeting with CN Rail to bring down overall costs (saving $5-9 million on the overall project, proposed at-grade crossing vs. underpass) • Meeting & engaging with the Region of Durham • We need your help. Factoring in cost savings outlined above, the project is still anticipated to cost approximately $14.5-$18.5 million pending detailed design • We cannot afford to shoulder a price tag of that magnitude on the backs of property taxes (or levies) alone, but this remains the single largest barrier to intensified growth in Ajax

Hunt Street Extension*

Initial cost (est.) $25M

Potential Savings (est.) $5-9M

At-grade crossing (est.) $14.5-18.5M

*subject to results of detailed design

53 Jump to Wrap-up 9 Planning tools to advance growth • TOA is a willing partner in growth. We continue to believe strongly in good faith negotiations and due process • We acknowledge the strength of a Minister’s Zoning Order (MZO) tool in the right circumstances to expedite new and innovative growth • Schlegel Village project in Ajax was the perfect example of an opportunity to fast-track a project • Need is apparent (LTC) • Area is within serviced urban area and not causing inter- jurisdictional issues

54 Jump to Wrap-up 10 MZOs need to be applied selectively, for example: • Durham Live • We have an OMB/LPAT decision that is disrespected by connecting an MZO to terms that are already required (infrastructure agreements in place with funding sources identified) • We are on the hook for costs stemming from the OMB/ LPAT decisions – $1 million of taxpayer money – at risk of being wasted as the process is circumvented by an MZO • Carruthers Creek headwaters (Veraine) • Too early in the process when not all land owners are on board • A previous decision required a watershed study in advance of decision-making on the future of those lands • Adding this land into the urban boundary has implications for downstream residents (Ajax) and all lower-tier growth allocations across the Region (Oshawa, Whitby, Clarington)

MZOs should not be used to circumvent due diligence requirements to the benefit of only one area in the Region while directly hurting others

55 Jump to Wrap-up 11 Transportation

56 Improved connectivity to support a healthy economy

• In order to support our thriving warehousing & distribution sector, we need key connectivity infrastructure in place to ensure that investing in Ajax continues to make sense • Large distribution centre announcement being made in August – huge opportunity for Ajax and the Durham Region with estimated 1,500 high quality jobs • The two Ajax full interchanges - Westney Rd. & Salem Rd. - have seen rapid increases in usage • We have the infrastructure and traffic already in place to support new interchanges • The following 400-series highway interchanges have been proposed, with designs partially complete: • Highway 401 interchange – Lakeridge Rd. • Highway 407 interchange – Westney Rd. & Salem Rd. • Highway 412 interchange – Rossland Rd. • Hunt St. extension project in downtown Ajax will support local traffic, commuters, active transportation in our downtown while providing sanitary servicing relief and high speed connectivity (full details on page 8)

Back to pg. 16

57 Jump to Wrap-up 13 Investment in regional transportation assets & infrastructure

• DRT continues to be a leader in transit with the launch of Canada’s first autonomous electric shuttle with smart infrastructure. We are willing partners for pilot projects and innovative solutions (further on innovation partnership readiness on page 19) • We echo the Region of Durham’s message to strongly encourage MTO to consider approving ICIP project DUR-1 for median BRT lanes to support the Durham Region BRT corridor from Scarborough to Oshawa • Active transportation is a priority for Ajax. We look forward to seeing how AT is being included in future rounds of ICIP funding • The Region is grateful for the recent announcement of $8 million for DRT funding. Transit options will be a key to economic recovery (while supporting efforts in other areas like sustainability, lessening burden on the 401, improving health outcomes, mobility to support local business) • Need a solid commitment on the Lakeshore GO East extension & shovels in the ground • TOA supports the Region of Durham’s preferred route solution

58 Jump to Wrap-up 14 Infrastructure

59 Key infrastructure to expedite growth • TOA is committed to being a willing partner in finding efficiencies, cutting red tape for businesses and bringing housing choices to market. • The Hunt Street extension project will serve to increase connectivity in our downtown while simultaneously building sanitary capacity to address our biggest hurdle to economic development and housing supply for the area (details on page 8) • Highway infrastructure and connectivity into Ajax will improve outcomes for our warehousing & distribution, and manufacturing sectors (more on page 13) • Looking forward to expedited timelines for key Ajax projects including Grandview Children’s Centre, LTC projects (Schlegel Village and Lakeridge) • TOA continues to grow, we have identified a pinch point on Harwood Ave. N. • Solution: Widen Harwood Ave between Woodcock Ave and Williamson Dr (two to four lanes) • would provide benefits to the Islamic Society of Ajax, the future home of Grandview Children’s Centre, recently MZO approved Schlegel Villages LTC Facility, Brakendale Montessori School, Spiceland Plaza and other future developments in the area

60 Jump to Wrap-up 16 • The strong development interest in this area is bringing the need for this project forward for community safety. It is critical infrastructure to ensure access for new developments • Without funding assistance, other projects may be at risk because of the increased urgency of expedited projects in this area (i.e. Grandview) • Would require an Environmental Assessment • Project cost estimate of 5.5 million • Project includes EA, Detailed Design and Construction • None currently in the 5 year forecast

Equitable access to project support • The ICIP Green Infrastructure Stream has only to date been available to small and rural municipalities • Mid-sized municipalities like Ajax are often part of a “missing middle” of opportunity – we are not small enough to qualify or not large enough • Large, one-off projects tend to be focused on Peel, York Regions or single-tier (Toronto, Ottawa), leaving out many mid-sized urban municipalities in the 100,000 population range • Cost-sharing affordability for major capital projects will also be a concern for municipalities as we struggle to cope with impacts of COVID-19, and should be considered

61 Jump to Wrap-up 17 Economic Development – Small Business and Red Tape Reduction

62 Partnership opportunities to support innovation TOA has its sights set on innovation and partnership. This was a key commitment of Council for the 2018-2022 term • Willing, supportive partner for pilot projects including: • Durham Region’s test site for blue box lid pilot project (2019), Durham Regional Police Service automated speed enforcement (2020), trail-paving compound test site • Willing host for anaerobic digester (future partnership with utility provider Elexicon) • We have a big time player (announcement anticipated mid- August) that is a global leader in innovation, technology. • We are ready to step up our game in the municipal sector to: • bring innovative solutions to residents and businesses, • provide a testing ground for potential game-changers • create a regional technology hub • Requires technology, smart cities funding • We are excited about diversifying our innovation portfolio to include a broad range of projects piloted in Ajax – if you have a disruptor, an innovator, a brand that is looking for a willing host, TOA wants to top the list!

Back to pg. 14

63 Jump to Wrap-up 19 TOA Takeaways

$14.5-18.5M $5.5M Hunt St. Harwood Ave. N. extension widening

Consideration of infrastructure impacts reflected in Grandview RFP

Highway Infrastructure 401 at Lakeridge Rd. - 407 at Westney Rd. and Salem Rd. - 412 at Rossland Rd.

Equitable access to funding

Support for our full participation as impacted stakeholders - opposed to Pickering MZOs

64 20 MAYOR SHAUN COLLIER Tel: 905-683-4550 ext. 3332 Cell: 905-409-6891 [email protected] @mayor_collier Mayor S Collier

CAO SHANE BAKER Tel: 905-683-4550 ext. 3308 Cell: 416-791-0659 [email protected]

65 Highlights

For three months, only essential businesses could operate. To assist with recovery, the Town of Ajax is streamlining processes & introducing new business supports.

Durham Economic Sharing Information Rediscover the Task Force Downtowns of Maintaining open, transparent, Durham Collaborating on initiatives to two-way communication relationships with our local leverage opportunities and Promoting the small businesses and business address common challenges businesses of our downtowns support organizations. in support of our business to help them recover. 1community. 2 3

Digital Main Streets’ Fast-tracked Portable sign limits #ShopHERE initiative temporary patio permit program Removing the maximum of Promoting free support to four mobile sign permits per calendar year and increasing small, independent businesses, Saving businesses an average sign allowances for multi- not-for-profits, and artists of $2,750 by waiving fees. tenant commercial plazas. to build and optimize online Applications have been stores. 5processed within 24 to 48 6 4 hours.

#EcDin30 campaign 2-pronged outreach Made-for-Ajax approach #SupportLocal Explaining what economic initiative development is happening in Reaching out to Ajax-based 30 second clips. businesses to check on their Encouraging everyone to wellbeing and possible support support local businesses as 7 8they need.. 9they re-open.

66 Highlights

#TakeOutDay Around the World in 1nnovation Village Ajax food challenge Supporting the national Understanding impacts of movement to order food and Encouraging residents to enjoy the pandemic on shared drinks from local restaurants food from around the world business spaces and once a week. without ever leaving Ajax innovation hubs so we may (including an update to our fully understand how this 10 11online restaurant guide). 12concept can come to fruition.

Partnership focus AI for Ajax siberXchange 2.0

Leveraging new and existing Partnering with The AI Hub at Hosted a first-of-its-kind partnerships to keep developing Durham College to host two virtual conference studio our brand and culture for more online sessions of AI for for the production of innovation and industry Ajax: How to Fund an AI Project siberXchange 2.0 from collaboration. for Your Company (July 29 August 10 to 14. and How to Utilize AI Image 13 14Recognition to Improve 15 Customer Experience (August 19).

CityStudio upNext Ajax Tourism

Participating in proven model Developing and hosting a Scanning for new of experiential education made-in-Ajax job skills and opportunities and and civic engagement that development program for young burgeoning trends to be grows tomorrow’s leaders adults (18-29) in October. seized upon in support of our while developing solutions for restaurants, hotels, motels, 16challenges facing communities. 17 18and small businesses.

Bike Friendly Five-year Economic Development Action Leveraging hyper local tourism trend and surge in people Plan riding bicycles by promoting Nearing completion with our community’s Bike Friendly consultation currently status with Ontario by Bike and underway. Visit ajax.ca/IMO encouraging more business to for more. 19get certified. 20

ajax.ca/business 67 Town of Ajax Report

Report To: General Government Committee

Prepared By: Karen McGibbon, Insurance & Risk Management Coordinator

Subject: Insurance Renewal – July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021

Ward(s): All

Date of Meeting: October 13, 2020

Reference:

Recommendation:

1. That the report on the Insurance Renewal – July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021 be received for information;

2. That a new Insurance reserve be established to segregate Insurance dividends to be utilized for risk mitigation projects; and;

3. That the 2020 dividend of $111,016 be transferred to the new insurance reserve.

Background:

The Durham Municipal Insurance Pool (DMIP) includes the Towns of Ajax and Whitby, the City of Oshawa, the Municipality of Clarington, the Townships of Brock, Scugog, Uxbridge and the Region of Durham.

The DMIP was formed to protect the participating municipalities from increasing insurance premium costs by structuring an alternative risk-financing program with a higher single deductible and collectively self-insuring claims within that deductible. The DMIP offers its members a wide range of value-added services including loss prevention programs, site audits and training, including webinars and seminars to assist members in achieving their risk management goals. The DMIP provides an integrated insurance program which effectively combines the insurance and risk management requirements of the member municipalities into a single common “pool”. Having a larger insured base (eight members) provides us with the following key benefits:

• increased price stability and protection against rising insurance costs • broader insurance coverage and more favourable terms for members • DMIP retains funds for future claim payouts which are invested to maximize the Pool’s income and help keep overall costs down • greater control over the funding and handling of claims below the Pool’s $500,000 deductible including input into claims resolution, funding levels and services offered • pro-active and comprehensive risk management programs to reduce liability and property exposures

68 • the sharing of knowledge and experience amongst Pool members to develop risk controls and policies to deal with emerging exposures and decrease the frequency and severity of claims

Discussion:

Insurance Review

The DMIP Board of Directors meet at least quarterly to review and discuss insurance related matters. As part of the annual insurance renewal process, the DMIP Board engage an actuary to review the Pool’s claim history and expected claims in order to confirm value to the DMIP for the insurance premium provided by Frank Cowan Company. Additionally, in 2018/2019 the DMIP Board of Directors undertook an independent review of the insurance market for municipalities in the Province of Ontario to identify potential alternative insurance markets or structures for the DMIP Board to consider going forward. The independent review confirmed to the DMIP Board that the insurance premium charged by Frank Cowan Company has been fair and equitable in comparison to the Pool’s claim history and municipal insurance benchmark.

Renewal of Insurance Policies for 2020/2021

The Town has insurance policies with DMIP which include coverage for general liability, errors and omissions, property and automobile. These policies have been renewed with Frank Cowan Company for the period of July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021. In addition, Ajax also has insurance policies for Cyber and Volunteer Accident coverage.

This past year, the insurance industry has moved into a hard market leading to stricter underwriting standards, less coverage options and increased premiums. Insurance market conditions continue to be very challenging, with increasing claims costs, restrictions on coverage and increased pricing which continue to be factors in the marketplace.

Many municipalities are facing considerable increases to their insurance premiums as well as increases in their deductibles and in some cases difficulty even finding an insurance company that will take on their business. For example, the City of Hamilton has reported a 42 percent increase in their 2019 insurance premium and an additional 17 percent increase in premium for their 2020 renewal. The Town of Bradford has reported an increase of 59 percent for their 2019 premium and the City of Ottawa has seen a significant premium increase of 84 percent.

Other reasons for the hardening of the insurance market include, catastrophic weather related losses, increasing damage awards and lower returns in the investment marketplace. Pooling is particularly beneficial in a hard market as it tends to be more stable avoiding the peaks and valleys experienced in the traditional insurance market. In addition, the DMIP member municipalities benefit from the investment income earned on the retained portion of the pre-funded claim loss revenue.

The impact of COVID-19 liability exposure to Ajax and other DMIP member municipalities is unknown at this point and could affect future renewals.

Claims

The public submits claims to the Town of Ajax when they believe that the Town has been negligent in its maintenance of Town facilities, roads, sidewalks, parks, trails, trees etc. which has caused them an injury or damage to their property. Claims must be submitted in writing and addressed to the Town Clerk or the Insurance and Risk Management Coordinator. Information on how to submit a claim is available on the Town’s website. In some cases, an individual may choose to 69 commence legal action against the Town and issue a Statement of Claim through the court system.

In 2019, 64 claims were closed. At the start of 2020, there were still 48 open claims, 32 of which are Trip or Slip and Fall claims. Additionally, to date in 2020, the Town has received 26 claims: 5 Slip and Fall Claims, 8 Trip and Fall Claims, 3 Pothole Claims, 8 Property Damage Claims, 1 Motor Vehicle Accident Claim and 1 Errors & Omissions Claim. Claims in any given year are not always closed. In some instances claims may remain open for several years until a decision is determined. Therefore, it should be noted that the claims which were closed in 2019 included claims dating back to 2012.

Risk Management

The Town implements many strategies to mitigate risks including:

• Risk Management seminars hosted by DMIP and Frank Cowan Company which are open to all staff. The following seminars were provided this past year:

1. The Legal Liability Risks Arising from the use of Digital Technology in Municipal Infrastructure and Operations 2. Cyber Attacks and the Eventual Cyber Claim - Various Attack Methods and What to Look For - Why Municipalities are Targeted - How the Breach Tends to Occur and How Insurance Generally Responds 3. Mitigating Driving Risks: - Distracted Driving and Collision Response and Reporting 4. A fourth seminar on Managing Risk in Construction Projects has been postponed due to COVID-19.

• The Town arranges, through the DMIP, risk inspections for various facilities each year to identify any hazards in the facility or on the property. DMIP provides a detailed inspection report so that maintenance staff can follow up and fix any outstanding issues. This year DMIP inspected, St. Andrew’s Community Centre and Gym as well as Carruthers Marsh Pavilion.

• The Town has policies and procedures in place to inspect and maintain infrastructure including roads and sidewalks in accordance with the Municipal Act, Minimum Maintenance Standards Reg. 239/02. This regulation dictates an inspection schedule and a minimum response time to fix a deficiency once it has been identified.

• The Town requires contractors, vendors, and service providers to provide certificates of insurance when working on Town property or providing services on behalf of the Town. Insurance certificates are used to transfer risk from the Town of Ajax to the appropriate party.

• The Town has a Facility User Group insurance program through BFL which provides affordable insurance coverage for groups renting our facilities, which protects both the renter and the Town.

• The Town, in consultation with DMIP, reviews contracts and agreements to ensure these documents include indemnity clauses and appropriate insurance coverage to transfer risk to the appropriate individual or organization.

70 • The Town has increased its cyber liability insurance policy limits for this year’s renewal. Cybercrime continues to increase each year and by increasing the Town’s cyber coverage limits it will better protect Ajax from these ever emerging cyber-attacks.

Financial Implications:

The Town’s annual insurance costs are established on four components specific to the Insurance Pool model:

1. Premiums – includes insurance coverage for liability, property and automobile, as well as additional insurance policies that the Town has opted to have in our portfolio including cyber and volunteer accident. 2. Administrative Expenses – dedicated Region insurance staff, risk management programs, annual audit costs and actuarial fees. 3. Claims Funding – fund contribution for pooled claim coverage (based on actuarial recommendations). 4. Investment Income – income earned on accumulated claim funding.

On a per claim basis, the Town’s deductible is $10,000, with the Pool responsible for claims up to $500,000 and the insurance company (Frank Cowan Company) covering anything above $500,000.

For the July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021 renewal period, the total premium for the DMIP pooled coverage which includes insurance coverages, pool operating costs, allowance for self-insured claims and projected investment income has resulted in an increase of 7.8 percent compared to the 2019/2020 policy year. However, the Town of Ajax premium has actually decreased by 10.1 percent as there was a new allocation methodology completed for this renewal.

The DMIP’s actuary, reviewed each member’s contribution rate in the Pool and rebased the contributions of each Pool member to reflect current exposures. The updated allocation takes into account: the number of vehicles of each member municipality, the population, the insured value of property and other insurance coverages. Based on this allocation, Ajax’s contribution rate in the Pool has changed from 17.05% to 14.36%. As such, this has resulted in a decrease in premium cost this year. The annual pooled premium for 2020/2021 is $1,205,261 (vs $1,340,539 last year) as shown below in Table 1.

Table 1 - Annual Costs and Comparison

2020/21 2019/20 Increase/Decrease Premiums 482,760 40.1% 505,100 37.7% (22,340) (4.5) Administrative 98,080 8.1% 65,522 4.9% 32,558 33.2 Claims Funding 814,921 67.6% 965,339 72.0% (150,418) (15.6) Interest Income (190,500) (15.8%) (195,422) (14.6%) 4,922 (2.5) Total $1,205,261 100% $1,340,539 100% ($135,278) (10.1%)

In addition, each year the Town purchases Cyber and Volunteer Accident insurance policies. The combined premium for these policies is $33,540 ($23,733 in 2019). The Town also budgets approximately $175,000 for claims within our $10,000 deductible limit. Funds for insurance coverage are included in each department’s operating budget.

At the DMIP Board meeting in May 2019, the Board of Directors, with the recommendation of the Pool’s actuary, approved an annual surplus payment for the founding pool members beginning in 2020. As such, Ajax received $111,016 this year. The Town has utilized DMIP dividend income 71 in the past to fund risk management initiatives to mitigate against future claims. It is anticipate that there will additional dividends to the founding pool members in the coming years. It is, therefore, proposed that the Town establish an insurance reserve to segregate the dividends and utilize the funds for specific projects geared towards higher risk projects. This will provide another funding tool and alleviate some of the pressures on other reserves.

Communication Issues: N/A

Relationship to the Strategic Plan: N/A

Conclusion:

The Durham Municipal Insurance Pool has been proactive in promoting claims management and risk management as an effective approach to reduce its risk profile. The Pool has been in place for 20 years and Ajax continues to benefit in this membership with reasonable premiums and a low deductible of $10,000 which has remained unchanged for the last 20 years. The Pool’s strong financial position, comprehensive insurance program, along with proactive risk management services, make it a prudent choice for the Town’s insurance needs.

Attachments: N/A

Prepared by:

Karen McGibbon – Insurance & Risk Management Coordinator

Submitted by:

Dianne Valentim, CPA, CGA – Director of Finance/Treasurer

Approved by:

Shane Baker – Chief Administrative Officer

72 Town of Ajax Report

Report To: General Government Committee

Prepared By: Sarah Moore, Acting Manager of Legislative Services/Deputy Clerk

Subject: 2021 User Fees and Charges

Ward(s): All

Date of Meeting: October 13, 2020

Reference: Annual Review of User Fees and Charges Policy

Recommendation:

1. That the recommended fees schedule (ATT-1) be approved, effective January 1, 2021; and

2. That the appropriate General Fees By-law be presented to Council for approval.

Background:

Under the Municipal Act, 2001 and the Planning Act, 1990, the fees and charges of a municipality are to be set by By-law. The Town’s Annual Review of User Fees and Charges Policy requires each department to review all user fees and charges on an annual basis.

Discussion:

The Annual Review of User Fees and Charges Policy provides a consolidated, consistent and transparent framework for all departments to follow when setting user fees and charges for the Town of Ajax. The policy was revised in June of 2020 to indicate that all fees shall be reviewed annually and generally adjusted according to a Municipal Price Index (MPI) each year.

The MPI is a calculation of inflation using a ‘basket of goods’ used by the municipality, which differs significantly from those used by consumers. Calculation of the traditional CPI includes items such as food, clothing, housing, insurance and entertainment, whereas the MPI includes costs related to goods and services for developing and maintaining municipal infrastructure, public safety, and regulatory and legislative requirements (i.e. labour, utilities, asphalt, salt, fuel, insurance, etc.). The MPI typically increases at a higher rate than CPI due to the comparatively higher rate of growth in the cost of municipal goods and services relative to household consumer goods and services. The MPI for the 2021 user fees has been calculated at 2.6%. All fees are rounded up to the nearest 10 cents in accordance with the approved policy, and as a result some fees that are increased by MPI may appear to increase by a marginal amount above 2.6% due to the rounding.

When reviewing annual user fees and charges, the revised policy also encourages departments to take into consideration the following additional factors, where deemed necessary or useful:

73 Subject: Annual Review of User Fees & Charges Page 2

• The cost of delivering the service, program or product, and any changes thereto, and whether a full or partial cost recovery is appropriate in the circumstance;

• Market-based comparisons among similar municipalities, including Oshawa, Pickering, Whitby, Clarington, Milton, Oakville and Richmond Hill, which may include the identification of user fees charged by other municipalities that are not being charged by the Town;

• Changes to provincial legislation that may impact any fees and/or charges;

• Existing Council policies on specific fees and/or charges; and

• Departmental strategy used in setting fees and/or charges (both in general and in relation to specific individual fees and/or charges).

This departmental research informs any changes to fees and/or charges beyond MPI adjustments that are recommended in the attached fee schedule (ATT-1). All fees and charges identified within the fee schedule are rounded up to the nearest 10 cents for this year and each subsequent year when the fees are reviewed. Explanatory notes for non-MPI fee changes and new fees are included within the chart. Of the 865 fees presented for 2021 approval, 86% are proposed to be increased by the MPI rate.

Following the updates to the Annual Review of User Fees and Charges Policy, the process has been simplified and all fees for 2021 are presented for approval in one consolidated schedule, representing input from across all departments within the organization.

Financial Implications:

Estimated revenue increases and impacts will be presented in the Departmental operating budget process for 2021. The CAO and department heads are authorized to waive or reduce fees under the by-law, where conditions warrant such a waiver or reduction.

Communication Issues:

The Town of Ajax User Fees and Charges By-laws will be posted on the Town of Ajax website. Additional communications tactics may be highlighted by departments where certain fee changes warrant a communication strategy.

Relationship to the Strategic Plan:

This report and its recommendations align with the following focus areas of the Strategic Plan: “Investing in our community”, goal 5, “Undertaking key corporate reviews and strategies”, and “Leading in our community”, goal 6, “strengthening corporate governance and innovation”.

Conclusion:

The recommendation to use MPI supports Council’s vision regarding fiscal discipline and provides greater transparency and accountability regarding annual user fees and charges. Based on completion of the annual review of current fees, it is recommended that fees be adjusted as described within the schedule of fees included as ATT-1 in this report. Pending Committee approval, a By-law to approve the 2021 Fees and Charges will be presented to Council at its next meeting.

74 Subject: Annual Review of User Fees & Charges Page 3

Attachments:

ATT-1: 2021 User Fees and Charges Schedule

Prepared by:

Sarah Moore – Acting Manager of Legislative Services / Deputy Clerk

Submitted by:

Alexander Harras – Acting Director of Legislative & Information Services / Clerk

Approved by:

Shane Baker – Chief Administrative Officer

75 ATT - 1 2021 By-law Services User Fees Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes Animal Licensing: Spayed/Neutered & Micro-chipped $20.00 No Change $20.00 0.00% 3rd party manages fees and it is reviewed yearly Animal Licensing: Spayed/Neutered $25.00 No Change $25.00 0.00% 3rd party manages fees and it is reviewed yearly Animal Licensing: Intact & Micro-chipped $40.00 No Change $40.00 0.00% 3rd party manages fees and it is reviewed yearly Animal Licensing: Intact $45.00 No Change $45.00 0.00% 3rd party manages fees and it is reviewed yearly Animal Licensing: Replacement Tag Fee $3.00 No Change $3.00 0.00% 3rd party manages fees and it is reviewed yearly Dog Impound Daily Care Fee (per day rate) $25.00 No Change $25.00 0.00% Still an appropriate fee; agreed to with the Town of Whitby Appeal of Animal Services Committee Decision to G.G.C. $500.00 No Change $500.00 0.00% Still an appropriate fee Failure to Attend a Property Standards/Animal Services $200.00 MPI Adjustment $205.20 2.60% Appeal Meeting Kennel Licence $125.00 MPI Adjustment $128.30 2.64% Kennel Licence Replacement Licence $10.00 No Change $10.00 0.00% Still an appropriate fee Lottery Licence (% of prize value) 3% Legislation 3.00% 0.00% Prescribed by Alcohol & Gaming Commission of Ontario Pet Shop Licence $125.00 MPI Adjustment $128.30 2.64% Pet Shop - Replacement Licence $10.00 No Change $10.00 0.00% Still an appropriate fee Outdoor Patio Licence $25.00 MPI Adjustment $25.70 2.80% Outdoor Patio - Replacement Licence $10.00 No Change $10.00 0.00% Still an appropriate fee Patio Licence Agreement (Town-owned Lands) $500.00 MPI Adjustment $513.00 2.60% Ice Cream Cart Licence/year - first cart $125.00 MPI Adjustment $128.30 2.64% Refreshment Vehicle Licence/year $250.00 MPI Adjustment $256.50 2.60% Refreshment Vehicle Licence/year - Each Additional $150.00 MPI Adjustment $153.90 2.60% Refreshment Vehicle - Operator Licence $25.00 MPI Adjustment $25.70 2.80% Refreshment Vehicle - Replacement Licence $10.00 No Change $10.00 0.00% Still an appropriate fee Lodging House - Licence $150.00 MPI Adjustment $153.90 2.60% Lodging House - Replacement Licence $10.00 No Change $10.00 0.00% Still an appropriate fee Fireworks Portable Sales Unit $200.00 MPI Adjustment $205.20 2.60% Fireworks Display Permit (High Hazard) $200.00 MPI Adjustment $205.20 2.60% Taxicab - Owner's Licence Fee $250.00 MPI Adjustment $256.50 2.60% Taxicab - Driver's Licence Fee $100.00 MPI Adjustment $102.60 2.60% Taxicab - Owner's Licence Renewal $200.00 MPI Adjustment $205.20 2.60% Adult Entertainment Owner's Licence $3,000.00 MPI Adjustment $3,078.00 2.60% Adult Entertainment Operator's Licence $1,000.00 MPI Adjustment $1,026.00 2.60% Adult Entertainment Attendant's Licence $250.00 MPI Adjustment $256.50 2.60% Body Rub Parlour Licence $1,000.00 MPI Adjustment $1,026.00 2.60% Body Rub Operator's Licence $200.00 MPI Adjustment $205.20 2.60% Body Rub Attendant's Licence $100.00 MPI Adjustment $102.60 2.60% Entertainment Owner's Licence $100.00 MPI Adjustment $102.60 2.60% Entertainment Operator's Licence $25.00 MPI Adjustment $25.70 2.80% Entertainment Establishment - Replacement Licence $10.00 No Change $10.00 0.00% Still an appropriate fee Pool Permit $150.00 MPI Adjustment $153.90 2.60% Portable Sign Permit $100.00 MPI Adjustment $102.60 2.60% Event Parade Permit $25.00 MPI Adjustment $25.70 2.80% Group Home Annual Licence $75.00 MPI Adjustment $77.00 2.67% Carnival Circus Festival Licence (daily rate; amount not to $100.00 MPI Adjustment $102.60 2.60% exceed $400) Hawkers and Peddlers Annual Licence - various locations $200.00 MPI Adjustment $205.20 2.60% Hawkers and Peddlers Annual Licence - single location (daily $50.00 MPI Adjustment $51.30 2.60% rate per day of operation, per location to a maximum of $2,000)

76 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 By-law Services User Fees Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes Subsequent Inspection Fees for Non-Compliant Properties $100.00 No Change $100.00 0.00% Still an appropriate fee Sidewalk Clearing - up to 23 metres $150.00 No Change $150.00 0.00% Still an appropriate fee Sidewalk Clearing - rate per additional metre beyond 23 $7.00 No Change $7.00 0.00% Still an appropriate fee metres

77 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Corporate User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes Non-Negotiable Cheque $45.00 MPI Adjustment $46.20 2.67% Non-FOI Photocopy (per page)* $0.50 MPI Adjustment $0.60 20.00% Non-FOI - Large Format Print Job - B&W $10.00 MPI Adjustment $10.30 3.00% Non-FOI - Large Format Print Job - Colour $15.00 MPI Adjustment $15.40 2.67% Non-FOI/Archival Search (hourly rate, 1hr. minimum) $30.00 MPI Adjustment $30.80 2.67% Non-FOI - Records Preparation (for each 15 minutes) $0.00 New Fee/Charge $7.50 N/A New fee for Non-FOI related service requests; mirrors current FOI fees Non-FOI - Computer programming (for each 15 minutes) $0.00 New Fee/Charge $15.00 N/A New fee for Non-FOI related service requests; mirrors Where a program is required to retrieve information from a current FOI fees machine readable database Non-FOI - where records are requested in a digital format: $0.00 New Fee/Charge $10.00 N/A New fee for Non-FOI related service requests; mirrors CD, DVD, USB drive, or other transferable storage media current FOI fees (each) Non-FOI - Scanning documents into electronic format (per $0.00 New Fee/Charge $30.00 N/A New fee for Non-FOI related service requests; mirrors hour) current FOI fees FOI - Application Fee $5.00 Legislation $5.00 0.00% FOI - Search Time (for each 15 minutes) $7.50 Legislation $7.50 0.00% FOI - Records Preparation (for each 15 minutes) $7.50 Legislation $7.50 0.00% FOI - Computer Programming (for each 15 minutes) $15.00 Legislation $15.00 0.00% FOI - Copy Fees (per page) $0.20 Legislation $0.20 0.00% FOI - Copy Fees - Drawings (per page) $6.00 Legislation $6.00 0.00% FOI - where records are requested in a digital format: CD, $10.00 Legislation $10.00 0.00% DVD, USB drive, or other transferable storage media (each) FOI - Scanning documents into electronic format (per hour) $30.00 Legislation $30.00 0.00%

78 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Finance User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes Tax certificates $75.00 MPI Adjustment $77.00 2.67% Request for Transfer of Funds $45.00 MPI Adjustment $46.20 2.67% Statement fo Account, Tax Receipts, Re-print of Tax Bill, PAP $20.00 MPI Adjustment $20.60 3.00% Letter, Adjustment, Apportionment Notification, Confirmation Letters, etc. Refund of incorrect electronic and manual payments $45.00 MPI Adjustment $46.20 2.67% Change of Ownership Fee $40.00 MPI Adjustment $41.10 2.75% New Tax Account Set-up Fee $50.00 MPI Adjustment $51.30 2.60% Post-Dated Cheques - Removal or Date Change $30.00 MPI Adjustment $30.80 2.67% Mortgage Company Information (per roll) $15.00 MPI Adjustment $15.40 2.67% Addition of Region Water/Sewer Lien, Development Charges, $40.00 MPI Adjustment $41.10 2.75% POA Arrears Title Search Request $125.00 MPI Adjustment $128.30 2.64%

79 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Fire and Emergency Services User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes INFORMATIONAL DOCUMENTS 101. Copy of Emergency Response Report - within past 2 $95.00 MPI Adjustment $97.50 2.63% years 102. Copy of Emergency Response Report - over 2 years – $150.00 MPI Adjustment $153.90 2.60% Archival 103. File Search for buildings 4 units or less - Additional units - $95.00 MPI Adjustment $97.50 2.63% $10.00 per unit 104. Fire Regulation Compliance Letter* $95.00 MPI Adjustment $97.50 2.63% INSPECTIONS 201. Boarding / Lodging / Rooming House - upon request* $195.00 MPI Adjustment $200.10 2.62% 202. Educational Institutions - upon request* $195.00 MPI Adjustment $200.10 2.62% 203. Foster Care - upon request* $195.00 MPI Adjustment $200.10 2.62% 204. Group Home - upon request* $195.00 MPI Adjustment $200.10 2.62% 205. Institutional - upon request* $195.00 MPI Adjustment $200.10 2.62% 206. Licensed Day Care - upon request* $195.00 MPI Adjustment $200.10 2.62% 207. Private Home Day Care - upon request* $195.00 MPI Adjustment $200.10 2.62% 208. Liquor Licensing - upon request - includes occupant load $195.00 MPI Adjustment $200.10 2.62% calculations* 209. Liquor Licensing for outdoor patios - includes full $195.00 MPI Adjustment $200.10 2.62% inspection* 210A. Non-Residential Inspection - 1000m2 or less - upon $195.00 MPI Adjustment $200.10 2.62% request* 210B. Non-Residential Inspection - each additional 1000m2 or $25.00 MPI Adjustment $25.70 2.80% each additional floor* 211. Non-Residential Inspection - multiple unit occupancy - per $195.00 MPI Adjustment $200.10 2.62% tenant (strip mall)* 212A. Residential Inspection - upon request - (includes $195.00 MPI Adjustment $200.10 2.62% apartment complex / hotel / motel)* 212B. Residential Inspection - each additional storey - above $25.00 MPI Adjustment $25.70 2.80% or below grade* 213. Two Unit Residential Inspection -Retrofit - upon request $195.00 MPI Adjustment $200.10 2.62% or complaint* 214. Wood Burning Appliance - upon request $0.00 No Change $0.00 0.00% 215. Fire Safety Plan Development (per hour) $75.00 MPI Adjustment $77.00 2.67% 216A. Propane Plan Review (Existing 5000 USWG or less) $276.00 No Change $276.00 0.00% The recommendation is not to increase fees for this service as the fee is based on a model used in Milton that provides flexibility to charge fees for larger and more complex facilities should the need arise. We are consistent with Milton's fee structure and we are the only municipality in the region to use this fee structure for propane facilities. 216B. Propane Plan Review (New or modified 5000 USWG or $553.00 No Change $553.00 0.00% The recommendation is not to increase fees for this service less) as the fee is based on a model used in Milton that provides flexibility to charge fees for larger and more complex facilities should the need arise. We are consistent with Milton's fee structure and we are the only municipality in the region to use this fee structure for propane facilities.

80 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Fire and Emergency Services User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes 216C. Propane Plan Review (Existing greater than 5000 $2,487.00 No Change $2,487.00 0.00% The recommendation is not to increase fees for this service USWG) as the fee is based on a model used in Milton that provides flexibility to charge fees for larger and more complex facilities should the need arise. We are consistent with Milton's fee structure and we are the only municipality in the region to use this fee structure for propane facilities. 216D. Propane Plan Review (New/modified greater than 5000 $2,764.00 No Change $2,764.00 0.00% The recommendation is not to increase fees for this service USWG) as the fee is based on a model used in Milton that provides flexibility to charge fees for larger and more complex facilities should the need arise. We are consistent with Milton's fee structure and we are the only municipality in the region to use this fee structure for propane facilities. 216E. Propane Plan Review (If necessary to retain 3rd party Actual Costs No Change Actual Costs 0.00% The recommendation is not to increase fees for this service engineering or other firm) as the fee is based on a model used in Milton that provides flexibility to charge fees for larger and more complex facilities should the need arise. We are consistent with Milton's fee structure and we are the only municipality in the region to use this fee structure for propane facilities. PERMITS 301. Open Air Burning Permit $70.00 Market-based comparison $80.00 14.29% With the comparator group having an average fee of $80.67, increasing our current fee by $10.00 represents a 14.29% increase. This increase aligns us with the fees being charged by our comparator group. 302. Fire Extinguisher Training Permit for residents, $70.00 Market-based comparison $150.00 114.29% Increasing the user fee to $150.00 represents a 114.29% employers/employees within the municipal limits. AFES increase to the user fee and aligns us with both Pickering and facilitates (per 20 participants) - Additional persons $10.00 per Oshawa. person*. 303. Open Air Burning - farm waste $0.00 No Change $0.00 0.00% EMERGENCY SERVICES 401A. Standby Requests - MTO Rates - per vehicle for the first $477.00 Actual Cost $477.00 0.00% hour or part thereof* 401B. Standby Requests - MTO Rates - per vehicle for each $238.50 Actual Cost $238.50 0.00% additional one-half hour* 402A. Motor Vehicle Collisions on Hwy 401 - (cost recovery $477.00 Actual Cost $477.00 0.00% through MTO) - per vehicle for the first hour or part thereof and for consumables used i.e. All-purpose absorbent material, firefighting foam, medical supplies etc. (plus actual costs)

402B. Motor Vehicle Collisions on Hwy 401 - (cost recovery $238.50 Actual Cost $283.50 0.00% through MTO) - per vehicle for each additional one-half hour and for consumables used i.e. All-purpose absorbent material, firefighting foam, medical supplies etc. (plus actual costs)

402C. Motor Vehicle Collisions on municipal roads, non- $477.00 Actual Cost $477.00 0.00% resident and fault known per vehicle for the first hour or part thereof and for consumables used i.e. All-purpose absorbent material, firefighting foam, medical supplies etc. (plus actual costs)

81 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Fire and Emergency Services User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes 402D. Motor Vehicle Collisions on municipal roads non- $238.50 Actual Cost $238.50 0.00% resident and fault known per vehicle for each additional one- half hour and for consumables used i.e. All-purpose absorbent material, firefighting foam, medical supplies etc. (plus actual costs) 403A. Response to Hazardous Material Incident - per vehicle $477.00 Actual Cost $477.00 0.00% for first hour or part thereof plus any additional clean-up costs or consumables used i.e. All-purpose absorbent material, firefighting foam, medical supplies etc.* 403B. Response to Hazardous Material Incident - per vehicle $238.50 Actual Cost $238.50 0.00% for each additional one-half hour or thereof plus any additional clean-up costs or consumables used i.e. All-purpose absorbent material, firefighting foam, medical supplies etc.*

404A. Response to Dangerous Goods Incident - per vehicle $477.00 Actual Cost $477.00 0.00% for first hour or part thereof plus any additional clean-up costs or consumables used i.e. All-purpose absorbent material, firefighting foam, medical supplies etc.* 404B. Response to Dangerous Goods Incident - per vehicle $238.50 Actual Cost $238.50 0.00% for each additional one-half hour or thereof plus any additional clean-up costs or consumables used i.e. All-purpose absorbent material, firefighting foam, medical supplies etc.*

405A. Additional Expenses - to retain a private contractor, rent Actual Costs Actual Cost Actual Costs 0.00% special equipment, secure or preserve property or evidence, or in order to eliminate an emergency or risk of an emergency situation and consumables used i.e. All-purpose absorbent material, firefighting foam, medical supplies etc.* 405B. Attending Natural Gas Incident - per vehicle for first $477.00 Actual Cost $477.00 0.00% hour or part thereof* 406. Attending Natural Gas Incident - per vehicle for each $238.50 Actual Cost $238.50 0.00% additional one-half hour or thereof* 407A. Attending a Non-Emergency Elevator Incident - per $477.00 Actual Cost $477.00 0.00% vehicle for first hour or part thereof* 408 or 405B. Cleaning, Decontamination or Replacement of Actual Costs Actual Cost Actual Costs 0.00% Neighboring municipalities have been financially impacted Equipment – as a result of service delivery where equipment through unforeseen replacement costs of equipment. These i.e. personal protective equipment, vehicles, hoses or other unforseen costs are a result of equipment being non-consumable materials are contaminated or damaged. contaminated or damaged during the delivery of services. This new fee/charge has been included to protect the Town of Ajax from unforeseen financial burdens such as cleaning, decontamination and/or replacement of equipment that can been incurred as a result of service delivery. This relates to personal protective equipment, vehicles, hoses or other non- consumable materials. PREVENTABLE FIRES AND ALARM SERVICES 501A. Response to Unapproved Open Air Burning - following $477.00 Actual Cost $477.00 0.00% one warning - per vehicle for first hour or part thereof*

82 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Fire and Emergency Services User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes 501B. Response to Unapproved Open Air Burning - per $238.50 Actual Cost $238.50 0.00% vehicle for each additional one- half hour or thereof* 502. Response to fires on or beside rail lines caused by Actual Costs Actual Cost Actual Costs 0.00% railway company* 503A. Response to Malicious and Nuisance Alarms - following $477.00 Actual Cost $477.00 0.00% a second response during a twelve month period - per vehicle for the first hour or part thereof* 503B. Response to Malicious and Nuisance Alarms - per $238.50 Actual Cost $238.50 0.00% vehicle for each additional one- half hour or thereof* 504A. Response to false alarm as a result of work being $477.00 Actual Cost $477.00 0.00% performed on a fire alarm system or emergency system following one false alarm during a twelve month period - per vehicle for the first hour or part thereof* 504B. Response to false alarm as a result of work being $238.50 Actual Cost $238.50 0.00% performed on a fire alarm system or emergency system following one false alarm during a twelve month period - per vehicle for each additional one-half hour or thereof* TRAINING TOWER RENTALS 601A. Live Burn – 8 hours – Weekday – (Includes staffing $2,350.00 MPI Adjustment $2,411.10 2.60% costs for two AFES staff)* 601B. Live Burn – 8 hours – Weekends – (Includes staffing $2,790.00 MPI Adjustment $2,862.60 2.60% costs for two AFES staff)* 602A. Live Burn – 4 hours – Weekday – (Includes staffing $1,180.00 MPI Adjustment $1,210.70 2.60% costs for two AFES staff)* 602B. Live Burn – 4 hours – Weekends – (Includes staffing $1,400.00 MPI Adjustment $1,436.40 2.60% costs for two AFES staff)* 603A. Artificial Smoke Only Training (no live burning) -8 hours $900.00 MPI Adjustment $923.40 2.60% – Weekday – (Smoke only and Staffing Costs for One AFES Staff)* 603B. Artificial Smoke Only Training (no live burning) 8 hours $1,340.00 MPI Adjustment $1,374.90 2.60% –Weekend – (Smoke only and Staffing Costs for One AFES Staff)* 603C. Artificial Smoke Only Training (no live burning) -4 hours $450.00 MPI Adjustment $461.70 2.60% – Weekday – (Smoke only and Staffing Costs for One AFES Staff)* 603D. Artificial Smoke Only Training (no live burning) -4 hours $670.00 MPI Adjustment $687.50 2.61% – Weekend – (Smoke only and Staffing Costs for One AFES Staff)* 604A. Small Classroom (up to 24 ppl) – 8 hours – $75.00 MPI Adjustment $77.00 2.67% (Classrooms must be booked at least 2 months in advance)* 604B. Small Classroom (up to 24 ppl) – 4 hours – $50.00 MPI Adjustment $51.30 2.60% (Classrooms must be booked at least 2 months in advance)* 604C. Overhead Projector – 8 hours* $50.00 MPI Adjustment $51.30 2.60% 604D. Overhead Projector – 4 hours* $25.00 MPI Adjustment $25.70 2.80% EQUIPMENT AND PROP RENTAL FEES 701. Roof Ventilation prop - Per 6 - 4 X 8 sheets of plywood* $275.00 MPI Adjustment $282.20 2.62% 702. Thermal Imaging Camera – 8 hours* $50.00 MPI Adjustment $51.30 2.60%

83 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Fire and Emergency Services User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes 703. Forcible entry Equipment and Prop Rental - 8 Hours* $200.00 MPI Adjustment $205.20 2.60% 704. Auto Extrication, Vehicle Supply Market Rate Actual Cost Market Rate 0.00% 705. Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) Air Fills per $10.00 MPI Adjustment $10.30 3.00% cylinder – (AFES has the capability of filling SCOTT 4500 PSI cylinders)* 706. Fire truck and Related Equipment rental per day* $575.00 MPI Adjustment $590.00 2.61%

84 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Legislative and Information Services User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes Burial Permit $25.00 No Change $25.00 0.00% The $25.00 fee is consistent with the surrounding municipalities. Accetone Funeral Home is the main customer for death registration. We also have the Crematorium. However, most of our business comes from the funeral home. If we raise the fee we are risking losing revenue to another municipality that charges less for the certificates. Marriage Licence $130.00 Market-based comparison $135.00 3.85% Although, the marriage licence fee is well below the average, to remain competitive with the other Durham municipalities my recommendation is to raise it by $5 which puts us in line with Whitby, Clarington and only slightly above the fee charged in Pickering. Commissioner of Oath - residents (up to 5 documents) $25.00 MPI Adjustment $25.70 2.80% Commissioner of Oath - non-residents (up to 5 documents) $30.00 MPI Adjustment $30.80 2.67% Civil Marriage Solemnization Service* $300.00 MPI Adjustment $307.80 2.60% Civil Marriage Ceremony Cancellation Fee $50.00 MPI Adjustment $51.30 2.60% Civil Marriage Solemnization Rescheduling Fee $50.00 MPI Adjustment $51.30 2.60% Application for Crossing of Parklands $50.00 MPI Adjustment $51.30 2.60% Liquor Licence - Building Letter $113.00 MPI Adjustment $116.00 2.65% Liquor Licence - Fire Letter $100.00 MPI Adjustment $102.60 2.60% Voters List on USB Key - first copy is no charge; replacement $50.00 MPI Adjustment $51.30 2.60% on encrypted USB key

85 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Operations and Environmental Services User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes BASEBALL DIAMONDS Baseball Diamonds - Premium - Youth $30.55 MPI Adjustment $31.40 2.78% Baseball Diamonds - Premium - Adult $48.40 MPI Adjustment $49.70 2.69% Baseball Diamonds - Premium - Commercial $96.80 MPI Adjustment $99.40 2.69% Baseball Diamonds - Premium Fri. 4pm - Sun. 4pm - $750.00 MPI Adjustment $769.50 2.60% Tournament (resident) per field Baseball Diamonds - Premium Fri. 4pm - Sun. 4pm - $1,000.00 MPI Adjustment $1,026.00 2.60% Tournament (non-resident) per field Baseball Diamonds - Type 1 - Youth $27.78 MPI Adjustment $28.60 2.95% Baseball Diamonds - Type 1 - Adult $44.00 MPI Adjustment $45.20 2.73% Baseball Diamonds - Type 1 - Non-resident (adult) $50.60 MPI Adjustment $52.00 2.77% Baseball Diamonds - Type 1 - non-resident (youth) $31.95 MPI Adjustment $32.80 2.66% Baseball Diamonds - Type 1 Fri. 4pm - Sun. 4pm - $400.00 MPI Adjustment $410.40 2.60% Tournament (resident) per field Baseball Diamonds - Type 1 Fri. 4pm - Sun. 4pm - $600.00 MPI Adjustment $615.60 2.60% Tournament (non-resident) per field Baseball Diamonds - Type 2 - Youth $15.13 MPI Adjustment $15.60 3.11% Baseball Diamonds - Type 2 - Adult $24.20 MPI Adjustment $24.90 2.89% Baseball Diamonds - Type 2 - Non-resident (adult) $27.83 MPI Adjustment $28.60 2.77% Baseball Diamonds - Type 2 - Non-resident (youth) $17.40 MPI Adjustment $17.90 2.87% Baseball Diamonds - Tournament (Fri. 4pm - Sun. 4pm) $750.00 MPI Adjustment $769.50 2.60% Premier (resident) per field Baseball Diamonds - Tournament (Fri. 4pm - Sun. 4pm) Type $400.00 MPI Adjustment $410.40 2.60% 1 (resident) per field Baseball Diamonds - Tournament (Fri. 4pm - Sun. 4pm) $1,000.00 MPI Adjustment $1,026.00 2.60% Premier (non-resident) per field Baseball Diamonds - Tournament (Fri. 4pm - Sun. 4pm) Type $600.00 MPI Adjustment $615.60 2.60% 1 (non-resident) per field Baseball Diamonds - Sports Camp (Mon. - Fri., 8am - 4pm) - $550.00 MPI Adjustment $564.30 2.60% Type 1 - per field Baseball Diamonds - Sports Camp (Mon. - Fri., 8am - 4pm) - $300.00 MPI Adjustment $307.80 2.60% Type 2 - per field Baseball Diamonds - Adminsitration Fees - Permit $10.00 MPI Adjustment $10.30 3.00% Changes/Transfers Baseball Diamonds - Adminsitration Fees - Permit Processing $25.00 MPI Adjustment $25.70 2.80% Fee Baseball Diamongs - Administration Fees - Cancellation Fee $40.00 MPI Adjustment $41.10 2.75% SOCCER PITCHES Soccer Pitches - Type 1 - Youth $24.20 MPI Adjustment $24.90 2.89% Soccer Pitches - Type 1 - Adult $37.78 MPI Adjustment $38.80 2.70% Soccer Pitches - Type 1 - Non-resident (adult) $43.45 MPI Adjustment $44.60 2.65% Soccer Pitches - Type 1 - Non-resident (youth) $27.83 MPI Adjustment $28.60 2.77% Soccer Pitches - Type 2 - Youth $12.10 MPI Adjustment $12.50 3.31% Soccer Pitches - Type 2 - Adult $19.97 MPI Adjustment $20.50 2.65% Soccer Pitches - Type 2 - Non-resident (adult) $22.97 MPI Adjustment $23.60 2.74% Soccer Pitches - Type 2 - Non-resident (youth) $13.92 MPI Adjustment $14.30 2.73% Soccer Pitches - Tournament (Fri. 4pm - Sun. 4pm) - Artificial $1,200.00 MPI Adjustment $1,231.20 2.60% Turf (resident) per field

86 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Operations and Environmental Services User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes Soccer Pitches - Tournament (Fri. 4pm - Sun. 4pm) - Type 1 $475.00 MPI Adjustment $487.40 2.61% (resident) per field Soccer Pitches - Tournament (Fri. 4pm - Sun. 4pm) - Type 2 $200.00 MPI Adjustment $205.20 2.60% (resident) per field Soccer Pitches - Tournament (Fri. 4pm - Sun. 4pm) - Artificial $1,200.00 MPI Adjustment $1,231.20 2.60% Turf (non-resident) per field Soccer Pitches - Tournament (Fri. 4pm - Sun. 4pm) - Type 1 $750.00 MPI Adjustment $769.50 2.60% (non-resident) per field Soccer Pitches - Tournament (Fri. 4pm - Sun. 4pm) - Type 2 $400.00 MPI Adjustment $410.40 2.60% (non-resident) per field Soccer Pitches - Non-Prime (Fri. 5pm - Sun. 4pm) Type 1 $12.10 MPI Adjustment $12.50 3.31% (Youth) Soccer Pitches - Non-Prime (Fri. 5pm - Sun. 4pm) Type 2 $6.05 MPI Adjustment $6.30 4.13% (Youth) Soccer Pitches - Non-Prime (Fri. 5pm - Sun. 4pm) Type 1 $18.83 MPI Adjustment $19.40 3.03% (Adult) Soccer Pitches - Non-Prime (Fri. 5pm - Sun. 4pm) Type 2 $9.98 MPI Adjustment $10.30 3.21% (Adult) Soccer Pitches - Sports Camp (Mon. - Fri., 8am - 4pm) - Type $450.00 MPI Adjustment $461.70 2.60% 1, per field Soccer Pitches - Sports Camp (Mon. - Fri., 8am - 4pm) - Type $200.00 MPI Adjustment $205.20 2.60% 2, per field Soccer Pitches - Administration Fees - Permit $10.00 MPI Adjustment $10.30 3.00% Changes/Transfers Soccer Pitches - Administration Fees - Permit Processing Fee $25.00 MPI Adjustment $25.70 2.80%

Soccer Pitches - Administration Fees - Cancellation Fee $40.00 MPI Adjustment $41.10 2.75% ARTIFICIAL TURF FIELDS Artificial Turf Fields - Youth $85.00 MPI Adjustment $87.30 2.71% Artificial Turf Fields - Adult $120.00 MPI Adjustment $123.20 2.67% Artificial Turf Fields - Commercial $150.00 MPI Adjustment $153.90 2.60% Artificial Turf Fields - Non-Prime (March 1 - April 30, and $65.00 MPI Adjustment $66.70 2.62% October 1 - December 15) Artificial Turf Administration Fees - Permit Changes/Transfers $10.00 MPI Adjustment $10.30 3.00%

Artificial Turf Administration Fees - Permit Processing Fee $25.00 MPI Adjustment $25.70 2.80% Artificial Turf Administration Fees - Cancellation Fee $40.00 MPI Adjustment $41.10 2.75% CRICKET PITCH Cricket Pitch - Youth (resident) $18.00 MPI Adjustment $18.50 2.78% Cricket Pitch - Adult (resident) $28.90 MPI Adjustment $29.70 2.77% Cricket Pitch - Youth (non-resident) $24.30 MPI Adjustment $25.00 2.88% Cricket Pitch - Adult (non-resident) $39.00 MPI Adjustment $40.10 2.82% Culvert Installation - standard installation (7 metres) $1,545.00 MPI Adjustment $1,585.20 2.60% Picnic Tables - Resident (8 tables) $103.00 MPI Adjustment $105.70 2.62% Picnic Tables - Non-Resident (8 tables) $206.00 MPI Adjustment $211.40 2.62% Special Events Permit - plus any other direct costs (i.e. staff $206.00 MPI Adjustment $211.40 2.62% time, portable toilets, hand washing stations, tents, security, etc.)

87 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Operations and Environmental Services User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes Road Occupancies* $180.00 MPI Adjustment $184.70 2.61% Tent/Canopy Rental - Resident (20 x 20 Canopy) $103.00 MPI Adjustment $105.70 2.62% Tent/Canopy Rental - Resident (10 x 10 Canopy) $51.50 MPI Adjustment $52.90 2.72% Tent/Canopy Rental - Non-Resident (20 x 20 Canopy) $154.50 MPI Adjustment $158.60 2.65% Tent/Canopy Rental - Non-Resident (10 x 10 Canopy) $103.00 MPI Adjustment $105.70 2.62% Tree Dedication $309.00 MPI Adjustment $317.10 2.62% Bench Dedication $3,000.00 MPI Adjustment $3,078.00 2.60% Film Permits - per day (set-up/tear-down/filming) $1,030.00 MPI Adjustment $1,056.80 2.60% EV Charging Station - per hour, first hour $1.00 MPI Adjustment $1.10 10.00% EV Charging Station - per hour, after first hour $2.00 MPI Adjustment $2.10 5.00% Municipal Consents* - per application, per street up to 300 $412.00 MPI Adjustment $422.80 2.62% metres Municipal Consents* - additional fee, per metre beyond 300 $0.50 MPI Adjustment $0.60 20.00% metres GREENWOOD CONSERVATION AREA Greenwood Conservation Area (9am - 6pm, May 15 - October $0.00 MPI Adjustment $0.00 0.00% 1) - General Admission Greenwood Conservation Area (9am - 6pm, May 15 - October $1.00 MPI Adjustment $1.10 10.00% 1) - Education Student Rate (per person) Greenwood Conservation Area (9am - 6pm, May 15 - October $231.75 MPI Adjustment $237.80 2.61% 1) Resident Group Rate (0-99 people) with one picnic shelter

Greenwood Conservation Area (9am - 6pm, May 15 - October $360.50 MPI Adjustment $369.90 2.61% 1) Non-Resident Group Rate (0-99 people) with one picnic shelter Greenwood Conservation Area (9am - 6pm, May 15 - October $123.60 MPI Adjustment $126.90 2.67% 1) Resident Group Rate (0-99 people) with 8 picnic tables

Greenwood Conservation Area (9am - 6pm, May 15 - October $206.00 MPI Adjustment $211.40 2.62% 1) Non-Resident Group Rate (0-99 people) with 8 picnic tables

Note: Greenwood Conservation Area (9am - 6pm, May 15 - October 1) - groups 100+ people require Special Events Permit and directed to such rate Portable Washroom and Handwashing Station - Resident rate $257.50 MPI Adjustment $264.20 2.60% for each washroom Portable Washroom and Handwashing Station - Resident rate $180.25 MPI Adjustment $185.00 2.64% for each hand wash station Portable Washroom and Handwashing Station - Non-Resident $309.00 MPI Adjustment $317.10 2.62% rate for each washroom Portable Washroom and Handwashing Station - Non-Resident $206.00 MPI Adjustment $211.40 2.62% rate for each hand wash station PAULYNN PARK Paulynn Park (9am - 6pm, May 15 - October 1) - General $0.00 MPI Adjustment $0.00 0.00% Admission Paulynn Park (9am - 6pm, May 15 - October 1) - Education $1.00 MPI Adjustment $1.10 10.00% Student Rate (per person)

88 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Operations and Environmental Services User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes Paulynn Park (9am - 6pm, May 15 - October 1) - Resident $128.75 MPI Adjustment $132.10 2.60% Group Fees (0-30 people) with one Picnic Shelter Paulynn Park (9am - 6pm, May 15 - October 1) - Non- $206.00 MPI Adjustment $211.40 2.62% Resident Group Fees (0-30 people) with one Picnic Shelter Note: Paulynn Park (9am - 6pm, May 15 - October 1) - groups 30+ people are directed to Greenwood Conservation Area rate

WATERFRONT Waterfront (9am - 6pm, May 15 - October 1) - Resident Group $128.75 MPI Adjustment $132.10 2.60% Fees (0-30 people) with Lion's Point Picnic Shelter Waterfront (9am - 6pm, May 15 - October 1) - Non-Resident $206.00 MPI Adjustment $211.40 2.62% Group Fees (0-30 people) with Lion's Point Picnic Shelterfront

Waterfront (9am - 6pm, May 15 - October 1) - Resident Group $61.80 MPI Adjustment $63.50 2.75% Fees (0-30 people) without picnic shelter (with 4 picnic tables)

Waterfront (9am - 6pm, May 15 - October 1) - Non-Resident $103.00 MPI Adjustment $105.70 2.62% Group Fees (0-30 people) without picnic shelter (with one picnic shelter) Waterfront (9am - 6pm, May 15 - October 1) - Education $1.00 MPI Adjustment $1.10 10.00% Student Rate (per person) Note: Waterfront (9am - 6pm, May 15 - October 1) - groups 30+ people are directed to Greenwood Conservation Area fees Note: Waterfront - groups 100+ people require Special Event Permit and directed to such rate WATERFRONT TRAIL PERMIT Waterfront Trail Permit - maximum 300 people; must provide $0.00 MPI Adjustment $0.00 0.00% proof of charitable status and non-profit status (includes one 10 x 10 tent and one 8' table) Waterfront Trail Permit - all groups over 300, regardless of $206.00 MPI Adjustment $211.40 2.62% status (responsible for any additional direct costs i.e. portable toilets, handwashing stations, additional tents, security, etc.)

Senior Snow Removal Program - includes service to municipal $164.80 MPI Adjustment $169.10 2.61% sidewalk, pathway to a door, complete driveway as well as windrow service Senior Snow Removal Program - includes service municipal $30.90 MPI Adjustment $31.80 2.91% sidewalk and windrow service

89 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Planning and Development User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes ENGINEERING SECTION: Engineering Review Inspection and Administration of 7.30% MPI Adjustment 7.5% 2.60% Subdivision Agreements, Development Agreements, Lot Grading Agreements and Infill Lots - Value of securities for work <$500,000 Engineering Review Inspection and Administration of 6.00% MPI Adjustment 6.2% 2.60% Subdivision Agreements, Development Agreements, Lot Grading Agreements and Infill Lots - Value of securities for work $500,000 - $1 million Engineering Review Inspection and Administration of 5.30% MPI Adjustment 5.4% 2.60% Subdivision Agreements, Development Agreements, Lot Grading Agreements and Infill Lots - Value of securities for work >$1 million Engineering Review Inspection and Administration of $980.00 MPI Adjustment $1,005.50 2.60% Subdivision Agreements, Development Agreements, Lot Grading Agreements and Infill Lots - Fee per lot, where value of work or securities are less than $13,000 Minimum fee for Infill lots $980.00 MPI Adjustment $1,005.50 2.60% Landscape Architectural and Environmental Services 6.30% MPI Adjustment 6.5% 2.60% Planning's subdivider's contributions (5400-9614) Review and Inspection for Subdivision Agreements, Development Agreements and Site Plan Applications - Percentage of the value of securities for landscape work Landscape Architectural and Environmental Services $980.00 MPI Adjustment $1,005.50 2.60% Review and Inspection for Subdivision Agreements, Development Agreements and Site Plan Applications - Minimum fee (per lot) where the value of works or securities is less thank $13,000 Engineering Review Inspection and Administration of Site 6.30% MPI Adjustment 6.5% 2.60% Plan Agreements - Value of securities for work <$500,000 Engineering Review Inspection and Administration of Site 5.70% MPI Adjustment 5.8% 2.60% Plan Agreements - Value of securities for work >$500,000 Engineering Review Inspection and Administration of Site $980.00 MPI Adjustment $1,005.50 2.60% Plan Agreements - Minimum fee where the value of work or securities are less than $13,000 Peer Reviews Actual Costs No Change Actual Costs 0.00% Engineering Review and Inspection for Street Lights in Actual Costs No Change Actual Costs of 0.00% Fees based on Actual Cost Subdivisions of Third Party Third Party Review Review Pre-Servicing Agreement - per application $1,800.00 MPI Adjustment $1,846.80 2.60% Benchmarks - per 200 lots (minimum $750) $750.00 MPI Adjustment $769.50 2.60% Digital Drawing Management Fee - Value of Works $300.00 MPI Adjustment $307.80 2.60% <$100,000 Digital Drawing Management Fee - Value of Works $500.00 MPI Adjustment $513.00 2.60% $100,000 - $500,000

90 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Planning and Development User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes Digital Drawing Management Fee - Value of Works $1,000.00 MPI Adjustment $1,026.00 2.60% >$500,000 Stormwater Maintenance Fee - per hectare $2,400.00 MPI Adjustment $2,462.40 2.60% Design Criteria* - CD Only $25.00 MPI Adjustment $25.70 2.80% Design Criteria* - Book and CD $80.00 MPI Adjustment $82.10 2.62% Site Inspections for Development Sites - fee for first, third, $215.00 MPI Adjustment $220.60 2.60% and any subsequent inspection Review of Development Applications (After 3rd $215.00 MPI Adjustment $220.60 2.60% submission) - plus hourly rate for review of any submissions greater than the 3rd submission and for any subsequent submission Driveway Apron Widening - per application $125.00 MPI Adjustment $128.30 2.64% Curb Cuts and Sidewalk/Curb Restoration - up to 4 metres $175.00 MPI Adjustment $179.60 2.63% Curb Cuts and Sidewalk/Curb Restoration - additional $40.00 MPI Adjustment $41.10 2.75% charge per metre, if curb cut exceeds 4 metres, plus actual costs for sidewalk/curb restorations Sediment and Erosion Permit Fee - initial permit fee $570.00 MPI Adjustment $584.90 2.61% Sediment and Erosion Permit Fee - per hectare $110.00 MPI Adjustment $112.90 2.64% Sediment and Erosion Permit Fee - renewal of permit $555.00 MPI Adjustment $569.50 2.61% Traffic Data and Turning Movement Counts - Traffic Data $55.00 MPI Adjustment $56.50 2.73% Traffic Data and Turning Movement Counts - Turning $55.00 MPI Adjustment $56.50 2.73% Movement Counts Hourly Rates - Engineer/Coordinator (per hour) $108.00 MPI Adjustment $110.90 2.69% Hourly Rates - Engineering Technologist (per hour) $93.00 MPI Adjustment $95.50 2.69% Hourly Rates - Landscape Architect (per hour) $105.00 MPI Adjustment $107.80 2.67% Hourly Rates - Engineering Associate (per hour) $60.00 MPI Adjustment $61.60 2.67% ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SECTION: Film Permit Fee* (security deposits will be requested $250.00 MPI Adjustment $256.50 2.60% when deemed necessary) Film Permit Fee - student $0.00 No Change $0.00 0.00% Licence Agreement Fee* (applicable for requests for $500.00 MPI Adjustment $513.00 2.60% Licenses, Easements, Encroachments) - additional fees/compensation may apply as determined on a case- by-case basis Permission to Enter Agreement Fee $0.00 New Fee/Charge $150.00 N/A New fee to offset legal costs associated with requests for Permission to Enter onto Town of Ajax property.

If there are unusual engineering and/or construction circumstances, poor quality drawing submission, poor construction techniques and/or inadequate inspection by the consultants; upon notification, the applicant will be charged the applicable hourly rates and fee in addition to the initial percentage fee. This Schedule is for routine (typical) transactions, based on three design submissions per application. Additional hourly fees may be charged at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Development or Director of Operations and Environmental Services, as applicable.

91 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Planning Act User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes PLANNING SECTION NOTE: Complex Applications (OPA and/or ZBA) refers to: The introduction of a new use that has not been contemplated by the Town's Official and/or Zoning By-law, and/or is tied to an application for a Regional Official Plan Amendment, and/or is an application(s) deemed to propose a significant change to the Town's Official Plan, subject to the Town's discretion. The related fee will be discussed with the applicant through the Town's Pre-consultation Process.

OFFICIAL PLAN Simple Local Official Plan Amendment Application (OPA) $19,340.00 MPI Adjustment $19,842.90 2.60% Complex Local Official Plan Amendment Application (OPA) $44,695.00 MPI Adjustment $45,857.10 2.60% Regional OPA Review Fee $6,555.00 MPI Adjustment $6,725.50 2.60% ZONING BY-LAW Simple Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) and Application for a $11,690.00 MPI Adjustment $11,994.00 2.60% Temporary Use By-law Complex Zoning By-law Amendment Application (ZBA) $24,800.00 MPI Adjustment $25,444.80 2.60% Removal of a Holding Symbol $3,225.00 MPI Adjustment $3,308.90 2.60% Temporary Use By-law Extension $2,595.00 MPI Adjustment $2,662.50 2.60% SUBDIVISIONS AND CONDOMINIUMS Subdivision Application - Residential - Base Fee - (plus $17,485.00 MPI Adjustment $17,939.70 2.60% applicable unit fee) Subdivision Application - Residential - fee per unit (first 200) $410.00 MPI Adjustment $420.70 2.61% Subdivision Application - Residential - fee per unit (over 200) $205.00 MPI Adjustment $210.40 2.63% Subdivision Application - Non-residential - Base fee $16,940.00 MPI Adjustment $17,380.50 2.60% Development Block (associated with a condominium/site plan) $17,485.00 MPI Adjustment $17,939.70 2.60% Revisions to a Subdivision or Condominium Application (i.e. $8,525.00 MPI Adjustment $8,746.70 2.60% not draft approved, but requiring full recirculation) Revisions to a Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision or $8,740.00 MPI Adjustment $8,967.30 2.60% Condominium (i.e. red-line revision) - Major (where substantial changes are proposed and recirculation is required)

Revisions to a Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision or $1,750.00 MPI Adjustment $1,795.50 2.60% Condominium (i.e. red-line revision) - Minor (change to condition and/or minor plan change) Request to Extend Draft Approval $1,295.00 MPI Adjustment $1,328.70 2.60% Final Approval, Subdivision Clearance Fee $2,620.00 MPI Adjustment $2,688.20 2.60% Condominium Application $11,525.00 MPI Adjustment $11,824.70 2.60% Final Approval, Condominium Clearance Fee $2,140.00 MPI Adjustment $2,195.70 2.60%

92 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Planning Act User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes Reactivation of Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision or Condominium, Site Plan or Site Plan Amendment: Where permission has been granted in accordance with the Town's Dormant File Policy 147 to reactivate a file that has not been closed, the applicant is required to pay current fees minus the fees paid to date for all applications. Lift Part-Lot Control - base fee (total max. base + unit fees = $2,595.00 MPI Adjustment $2,662.50 2.60% $6,365) Lift Part-Lot Control - per unit fee (total max. base + unit fees = $285.00 MPI Adjustment $292.50 2.63% $6,365) Extension of Part Lot Control Exemption $2,290.00 MPI Adjustment $2,349.60 2.60% SITE PLAN APPROVAL Site Plan Approval Base Fee (plus per unit fee as follows) $8,690.00 MPI Adjustment $8,916.00 2.60% Residential per unit (first 25 units) $820.00 MPI Adjustment $841.40 2.61% Residential per unit (26-100 units) $635.00 MPI Adjustment $651.60 2.61% Residential per unit (101-200 units) $310.00 MPI Adjustment $318.10 2.61% Residential per unit (over 200 units) $165.00 MPI Adjustment $169.30 2.61% Non-residential per 100m2 of gfa $90.00 MPI Adjustment $92.40 2.67% Site Plan Amendment - Minor A: Minor site works including, $500.00 MPI Adjustment $513.00 2.60% but not limited to culvert modifications and fencing Site Plan Amendment - Minor B: Updates/alterations to $1,060.00 MPI Adjustment $1,087.60 2.60% building facades and portable classroom additions Site Plan Amendment - Minor C: Patios, accessory buildings / $2,405.00 MPI Adjustment $2,467.60 2.60% structures, outdoor play areas, and/or parking lot modifications

Site Plan Amendment - Minor D: Where the expansion to an $8,440.00 MPI Adjustment $8,659.50 2.60% existing building is less than 50% of the total gross floor area of the existing building or less than 5,000 m2 (whichever is less), or an expansion to a parking area Site Plan Amendment - Major: Where an additional building is Site Plan No Change Site Plan 0.00% proposed or an expansion to the building is greater than 50% Application Application Fee of the total gross floor area of the existing building, or greater Fee applies applies than 5,000 m2 (whichever is less) Conversion of a residential dwelling to a non-residential $3,825.00 MPI Adjustment $3,924.50 2.60% building Model Homes and Sales Trailers $3,280.00 MPI Adjustment $3,365.30 2.60% Pickering Beach $1,200.00 MPI Adjustment $1,231.20 2.60% Telecommunication Facility $9,000.00 MPI Adjustment $9,234.00 2.60% AGREEMENTS

93 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Planning Act User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes Preparation of a Subdivision, Condominium, Site Plan, The Applicant Actual Cost The Applicant is 0.00% This is based off of the Town's solicitor's fees, which are not Development Agreements, or Amending Agreements* is required to required to subject to the same rate of increase or timing as the Town's reimburse the reimburse the annual fees review. Town for its Town for its legal costs legal costs associated associated with with the the preparation preparation and registration and of an registration of agreement an agreement MINOR VARIANCE AND LAND DIVISION Minor Variance Notes:

-Applicants are encouraged to Pre-consult with Staff, prior to application submission. Exception: if a minor variance is requested as a result of going through a site plan approval process.

-50% Discount from the requisite fee when applying for a minor variance application associated with the installation of an accessibility device, ramp or driveway widening for the purposes of providing barrier free access to single/semi- detached/link or townhouse dwelling units. Minor Variance - Accessory buildings, structures and $580.00 Market-based comparison $650.00 12.07% A fee increase has been proposed to account for staff time platforms, driveway widenings, below grade entrances: associated with the review of these applications. A market based comparison has also been conducted to support this. Minor Variance -Residential Minor (single or semi-detached $850.00 Market-based comparison $800.00 -5.88% A wording change has been proposed in order to account for dwellings, duplex, triplex, or townhouse dwellings) - Single a new fee category. Residential Minor is proposed to be Variance broken down into "Single Variance" and "Multiple Variances". A fee decrease is shown for "Single Variance", to account for the new fee category dealing with multiple variances. A market based comparison has been conducted to support this. Minor Variance - Residential Minor (single or semi-detached N/A New Fee/Charge $1,000.00 N/A A new fee category has been proposed to differentiate dwellings, duplex, triplex, or townhouse dwellings) - Multiple between the review time associated with a single variance Variances application of this nature versus applications with multiple variances of this nature. Minor Variance - Residential/Mixed-Use Major (condominium, $1,110.00 Market-based comparison $1,700.00 53.15% A new fee category has been proposed to differentiate apartment, or mixed-use buildings) - Single Variance between the review time associated with a single variance application of this nature versus applications with multiple variances of this nature.

94 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Planning Act User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes Minor Variance - Residential/Mixed Use Major (condominium, $1,500.00 Market-based comparison $2,000.00 33.33% A new fee category has been proposed to differentiate apartment, or mixed-use buildings) - Multiple Variances (up to between the review time associated with a single variance 5 variance requests) application of this nature versus applications with multiple variances of this nature. This category is specific to a maximum of 5 variance requests. At this point, the application is essentially a small scale zoning by-law amendment. Significant staff time is required to review and provide a recommendation on the proposal. Minor Variance - Residential/Mixed Use Major (condominium, $0.00 New Fee/Charge $300.00 N/A Further to the above, a new fee will be charged for any apartment, or mixed-use buildings) - Multiple Variances (each variance requests above and beyond 5 for any given additional variance request beyond 5) property. Minor Variance - Non-Residential - Single Variance $2,545.00 Other $2,000.00 -21.41% Although this is not a new category, the wording has been revised to account for a single variance request, whereas previously the wording captured the first three requests. Given that the change is from three requests down to one, the fee has been proposed to decrease to reflect the reduction in staff time associated with a one variance versus multiple variances request. Minor Variance - Non-Residential: Multiple Variances (up to 5 $3,705.00 Other $3,800.00 2.56% A wording change has been proposed in order to establish variance requests) consistency with the residential/mixed use variance section. Previously, a breakdown was provided for the first 3 variances and then additional requests beyond that were charged separately. The proposed rate of $3800 captures the cost of a 5 variance request in accordance with the current By-law with a 2.6% MPI increase. [$2545(first 3)+$580(4th)+$580(5th)]x 1.026 = approximately $3800 Minor Variance - Non-Residential - Multiple Variances (each $580.00 Other $300.00 -48.28% This has been reduced to align with the fee proposed for a additional variance request beyond 5) residential request of this nature (beyond 5). Minor Variance - Enlargement, expansion or, conversion of a $2,545.00 MPI Adjustment $2,611.20 2.60% legal non-conforming use/ uses defined in general terms Minor Variance - Tabling Fee - (Collected if the applicant $210.00 Market-based comparison $325.00 54.76% A wording change has been proposed to capture instances requests that the application be tabled, or if the applicant has when an application results in a deferral decision (tabling) by not met the legislated requirements, or if the applicant is not the Committee because they have questions about it and the present at the meeting and the Committee decides to table the applicant is not present to speak to their application. In this application) instance, additional staff time is required to prepare updated notice materials, as well as additional cost associated with recirculating the application in accordance with the Planning Act. A market-based comparison has also been conducted resulting in a manual increase. Minor Variance - Special Hearing - (Plus applicable application $4,110.00 MPI Adjustment $4,216.90 2.60% fee) Minor Variance - Post-development variance Double the No Change Double the 0.00% No change is proposed. The application fee will still be applicable applicable doubled when a post-development variance request is application application fee submitted. fee

95 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Planning Act User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes Minor Variance - Authorization to apply for minor variance $0.00 New Fee/Charge $1,500 N/A A new fee has been proposed to account for the cost under Section 45(1.4) of the Planning Act associated with reviewing requests to submit a minor variance application within 2 years of an applicant initiated zoning by-law amendment. A market based comparison has been conducted. At this time, it is only clear that the City of Pickering is charging an application fee regarding this, whereas others have not contemplated this permission, which was granted by By-law 3/2020 and accompanied a Delegation of Powers Report earlier this year. Land Division Administration Fee - Processing Fee $2,515.00 MPI Adjustment $2,580.40 2.60% Land Division Administration Fee - Development Agreement $200.00 MPI Adjustment $205.20 2.60% (where applicable) OTHER Property Information Request - Zoning Information $120.00 MPI Adjustment $123.20 2.67% Property Information Request - Building Information $55.00 MPI Adjustment $56.50 2.73% Property Information Request - By-law Information $55.00 MPI Adjustment $56.50 2.73% Property Information Request - Ontario Heritage Act $55.00 MPI Adjustment $56.50 2.73% Property Information Request - Legal Inquiries $110.00 MPI Adjustment $112.90 2.64% Property Information Request - Release of Agreements $250.00 MPI Adjustment $256.50 2.60% Sign By-law - Amendment $2,595.00 MPI Adjustment $2,662.50 2.60% Sign By-law - Variance $1,300.00 MPI Adjustment $1,333.80 2.60% Tree Cutting Permit $875.00 MPI Adjustment $897.80 2.61% Tree Cutting Permit - Appeal to Town of Ajax General $735.00 MPI Adjustment $754.20 2.61% Government Committee Additional Public Meeting - Where more than one public open $1,060.00 MPI Adjustment $1,087.60 2.60% house, or Community Affairs and Planning Committee meeting is required (per additional open house or meeting) Advertising* Where it is Actual Cost Where it is not 0.00% The Town does not have control over the cost of advertising not possible possible for a and therefore, we cannot establish the rate of increase or for a notice to notice to be timing of an increase. The applicant is responsible for paying be placed in placed in the the actual cost on a case-by-case basis. the Ajax Ajax News- News- Advertiser’s Advertiser’s Community Community Page, the Page, the applicant shall applicant pay the Town’s shall pay the advertising Town’s costs in respect advertising of the matter. costs in respect of the matter.

Street Addressing - initial fee (plus fee per municipal address) $435.00 MPI Adjustment $446.40 2.62%

Street Addressing - fee per municipal address (minimum) $55.00 MPI Adjustment $56.50 2.73% Street Addressing - fee per municipal address (maximum) $1,590.00 MPI Adjustment $1,631.40 2.60%

96 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Planning Act User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes Street Naming Request $165.00 MPI Adjustment $169.30 2.61% Peer Reviews The applicant Actual Cost The applicant 0.00% The applicant shall be responsible for the Town’s full costs of shall be shall be undertaking the peer review. responsible responsible for for the Town’s the Town’s full full costs of costs of undertaking undertaking the the peer peer review. review.

Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) Appeals - Committee $320.00 MPI Adjustment $328.40 2.63% of Adjustment Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) Appeals - All other $530.00 MPI Adjustment $543.80 2.60% Appeals Note: Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) Appeals - In addition, where the Town becomes involved in an appeal to the LPAT, and where the Town is in support of the application, the applicant shall pay Town staff costs in terms of time and expenses for preparation for and attendance at hearings, mediation or arbitration. Pre-Consultation - (Minor Industrial Site Plan Amendments or $500.00 Market-based comparison $600.00 20.00% Municipal scan projects eligible for inclusion in the PriorityPath program, Community Improvement Plan(s) and/or Heritage Properties shall be exempt from paying the requisite fee.) Pre-Consultation - Additional Meetings (also see Pre- $500.00 Market-based comparison $600.00 20.00% Municipal scan Consultation By-law) Commissioning Planning Applications (for up to 5 signatures) $25.00 MPI Adjustment $25.70 2.80% Refund Policy - Where any application is withdrawn after a file 90% No Change 90% 0.00% Rates represent % of application fee refunded to applicant. has been opened, but before it has been circulated Refund Policy - Where an application is withdrawn after 1st 50% No Change 50% 0.00% Rates represent % of application fee refunded to applicant. submission comments have been provided to the applicant, but before a 2nd submission has been submitted Refund Policy - Where a minor variance application is 50% No Change 50% 0.00% Rates represent % of application fee refunded to applicant. withdrawn after a file has been circulated, but before it has been considered at a public meeting Refund Policy - Where an application is withdrawn any time 0% No Change 0% 0.00% Rates represent % of application fee refunded to applicant. after the 2nd submission has been submitted Refund Policy - Where a minor variance application is 0% No Change 0% 0.00% Rates represent % of application fee refunded to applicant. withdrawn after the public meeting Heritage Permit No Fee No Change No Fee 0.00% Recirculation - Required on the 4th submission and any $1,000.00 MPI Adjustment $1,026.00 2.60% subsequent submission of an application requiring circulation to internal departments and/or external agencies Municipal Council Support for Roof-top Solar Photovoltaic $480.00 MPI Adjustment $492.50 2.60% Projects Hourly Rates - for any work done outside of an application $100.00 No Change $100.00 0.00% Printing - Plan of Roads $12.50 MPI Adjustment $12.90 3.20% Printing - Subdivision Summary (11x17) w/Chart $10.00 MPI Adjustment $10.30 3.00%

97 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Planning Act User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes Printing - Official Plan Schedules (24x36) – per schedule $15.00 MPI Adjustment $15.40 2.67% Printing - Official Plan Schedules (11x17) – per schedule $10.00 MPI Adjustment $10.30 3.00%

98 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Recreation - Admin. User Fees and Charges

Current Change Fee/Charge Rate Rationale 2021 Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes ADMINISTRATION Brochure Advertising Rates Total Budgeted Marketing Revenue Current year revenue based on budget for all listed fees. Next year estimated revenue is calculated using the average % change for all listed fees Commercial - Business Card* $270.00 MPI Adjustment $270.00 0.00% Commercial - Quarter Page* $400.00 MPI Adjustment $410.40 2.60% Commercial - Half Page* $660.00 MPI Adjustment $677.20 2.61% Commercial - Full Page* $1,060.00 MPI Adjustment $1,087.60 2.60% Commercial - Half Page - inside glossy full colour (front or $940.00 MPI Adjustment $964.50 2.61% back cover or centre)* Commercial - Inside cover (full page)* $1,910.00 MPI Adjustment $1,959.70 2.60% Commercial - Back cover (full colour glossy)* $1,950.00 MPI Adjustment $2,000.70 2.60% Community Groups - Incorporated 2 yrs. or less (Business $0.00 MPI Adjustment $0.00 0.00% Card = one annually - max 1 ad)* Community Groups - Incorporated 3-5 yrs. (Business Card & $50.00 MPI Adjustment $51.30 2.60% Quarter page size ads only = one annually max 3 business card sized ads or 1 quarter page sized ad) - Business Card* Community Groups - Incorporated 3-5 yrs. (Business Card & $115.00 MPI Adjustment $118.00 2.61% Quarter page size ads only = one annually max 3 business card sized ads or 1 quarter page sized ad) - Quarter Page* Community Groups - Business Card* $100.00 MPI Adjustment $102.60 2.60% Community Groups - Quarter Page* $230.00 MPI Adjustment $236.00 2.61% Community Groups - Half Page $450.00 MPI Adjustment $461.70 2.60% Community Groups - Full Page $490.00 MPI Adjustment $502.80 2.61% Community Groups - Half Page - inside glossy full colour (front $780.00 MPI Adjustment $800.30 2.60% or back cover or centre)

All fee increases are effective January 1, 2021 with the exception of Arena Ice/Floor which is effected seasonally.

99 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Recreation - Facilities User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes Recreational Skating Public Skating - Single Admission - Youth* $2.08 MPI Adjustment $2.20 5.77% Public Skating - Single Admission - Senior* $2.08 MPI Adjustment $2.20 5.77% Public Skating - Single Admission - Adult* $3.76 MPI Adjustment $3.90 3.72% Public Skating - Single Admission - Preschool (3 & under) $0.00 No Change $0.00 0.00% Public Skating - Group Admission* $10.71 MPI Adjustment $11.00 2.71% Public Skating - 10 Pass - Youth* $17.08 MPI Adjustment $17.60 3.04% Public Skating - 10 Pass - Senior* $17.08 MPI Adjustment $17.60 3.04% Public Skating - 10 Pass - Adult* $32.08 MPI Adjustment $33.00 2.87% Shinny Hockey - Youth/Senior* $3.27 MPI Adjustment $3.40 3.98% Shinny Hockey - Adult* $5.84 MPI Adjustment $6.00 2.74% Figure Skating - Ticket Ice* $9.71 MPI Adjustment $10.00 2.99% Recreational Swimming Public Swimming - ACC/MCC/ARC/Outdoor Pool - Single $2.08 MPI Adjustment $2.20 5.77% Admission - Youth* Public Swimming - ACC/MCC/ARC/Outdoor Pool - Single $2.08 MPI Adjustment $2.20 5.77% Admission - Senior* Public Swimming - ACC/MCC/ARC/Outdoor Pool - Single $3.76 MPI Adjustment $3.90 3.72% Admission - Adult* Public Swimming - ACC/MCC/ARC/Outdoor Pool - Single $0.00 MPI Adjustment $0.00 0.00% Admission - Preschoolv(3 & under) Public Swimming - ACC/MCC/ARC/Outdoor Pool - Group $10.71 MPI Adjustment $11.00 2.71% Admission* Public Swimming - ACC/MCC/ARC/Outdoor Pool - 10 Pass - $17.08 MPI Adjustment $17.60 3.04% Youth* Public Swimming - ACC/MCC/ARC/Outdoor Pool - 10 Pass - $17.08 MPI Adjustment $17.60 3.04% Senior* Public Swimming - ACC/MCC/ARC/Outdoor Pool - 10 Pass - $32.08 MPI Adjustment $33.00 2.87% Adult* Arenas Ice Rental Fee: Winter Season Fees (September 2021 - March 2022 - dates finalized at 2021 Spring Ice Users Meeting) Winter Prime-Time (Community Groups) - Standard Pad* $181.00 MPI Adjustment $185.80 2.65% Winter Prime-Time (Community Groups) - International Pad* $191.00 MPI Adjustment $196.00 2.62% Winter Prime-Time (General Public & Commercial $233.00 MPI Adjustment $239.10 2.62% Organziations, Tournaments) - Standard Pad* Winter Prime-Time (General Public & Commercial $243.00 MPI Adjustment $249.40 2.63% Organziations, Tournaments) - International Pad* Winter Non-Prime-Time (Community Groups) - Standard Pad* $113.00 MPI Adjustment $116.00 2.65% Winter Non-Prime-Time (Community Groups) - International $123.00 MPI Adjustment $126.20 2.60% Pad* Winter Non-Prime-Time (General Public & Commercial $160.00 MPI Adjustment $164.20 2.62% Organziations, Tournaments) - Standard Pad* Winter Non-Prime-Time (General Public & Commercial $170.00 MPI Adjustment $174.50 2.65% Organziations, Tournaments) - International Pad*

100 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Recreation - Facilities User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes Ice Rental Fee: Summer Season (March 2021 - September 2022 - dates finalized at 2021 Spring Ice Users Meeting)

Summer Prime-Time (Community Groups)* $203.00 MPI Adjustment $208.30 2.61% Summer Prime-Time (General Public & Commercial $235.00 MPI Adjustment $241.20 2.64% Organizations, Tournaments)* Summer Non-Prime-Time (Community Groups)* $115.00 MPI Adjustment $118.00 2.61% Summer Non-Prime-Time (General Public & Commercial $160.00 MPI Adjustment $164.20 2.62% Organziations, Tournaments)* Floor Rental Fee: Summer Session (March 2021 - September 2022 - dates finalized at 2021 Spring Ice Users Meeting) - Note: Event rates are charged for day of event, plus set-up/take-down day(s) Youth - Hourly* $83.00 MPI Adjustment $83.00 0.00% Adult - Hourly* $92.00 MPI Adjustment $92.00 0.00% Shows/Events - Commercial Organization (12 hours)* $1,457.00 MPI Adjustment $1,494.90 2.60% Shows/Events - Community Groups (12 hours)* $1,095.00 MPI Adjustment $1,123.50 2.60% Ice/Floor Set-up/Take-down (per hour)* $85.00 MPI Adjustment $87.30 2.71% Village Arena - early entry fee $55.00 MPI Adjustment $56.50 2.73% COMMUNITY HALLS / COMMUNITY ROOMS / PAVILIONS ACC - HMS Community Hall - Full Hall (1 hr.) - can only be $107.00 MPI Adjustment $109.80 2.62% added to an existing 4-hour booking in multiples of 1 to a max of 3* ACC - HMS Community Hall - Full Hall (4 hrs.)* $427.00 MPI Adjustment $438.20 2.62% ACC - HMS Community Hall - Full Hall (Daily)* $855.00 MPI Adjustment $877.30 2.61% ACC - HMS Community Hall - Half Hall (1 hr.) - can only be $71.00 MPI Adjustment $72.90 2.68% added to an existing 4-hour booking in multiples of 1 to a max of 3* ACC - HMS Community Hall - Half Hall (4 hrs.)* $283.00 MPI Adjustment $290.40 2.61% ACC - HMS Community Hall - Half Hall (Daily)* $566.00 MPI Adjustment $580.80 2.61% ACC - Commodores Room - Full Hall (1 hr.) - can only be $46.00 MPI Adjustment $47.20 2.61% added to an existing 4-hour booking in multiples of 1 to a max of 3* ACC - Commodores Room - Full Hall (4 hrs.)* $186.00 MPI Adjustment $190.90 2.63% ACC - Commodores Room - Full Hall (Daily)* $372.00 MPI Adjustment $381.70 2.61% ACC - Captain's Room - Full Hall (1 hr.) - can only be added to $27.00 MPI Adjustment $27.80 2.96% an existing 4-hour booking in multiples of 1 to a max of 3* ACC - Captain's Room - Full Hall (4 hrs.)* $108.00 MPI Adjustment $110.90 2.69% ACC - Captain's Room - Full Hall (Daily)* $217.00 MPI Adjustment $222.70 2.63% ACC - Duffins Room/Carruthers Room - (1 hr.) - can only be $18.00 MPI Adjustment $18.50 2.78% added to an existing 4-hour booking in multiples of 1 to a max of 3* ACC - Duffins Room/Carruthers Room - (4 hrs.)* $71.00 MPI Adjustment $72.90 2.68% ACC - Duffins Room/Carruthers Room - (Daily)* $143.00 MPI Adjustment $146.80 2.66% ACC - Admirals Room - (1 hr.) - can only be added to an $27.00 MPI Adjustment $27.80 2.96% existing 4-hour booking in multiples of 1 to a max of 3* ACC - Admirals Room - (4 hrs.)* $108.00 MPI Adjustment $110.90 2.69%

101 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Recreation - Facilities User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes ACC - Admirals Room - (Daily)* $217.00 MPI Adjustment $222.70 2.63% Audley Recreation Centre (ARC) - Community Hall (Rooms A $181.00 MPI Adjustment $185.80 2.65% + Room B + Room C) (500 Capacity) - Full Hall (1 hr.) - can only be added to an existing 4-hour booking in multiples of 1 to a max of 3* Audley Recreation Centre (ARC) - Community Hall (Rooms A $725.00 MPI Adjustment $743.90 2.61% + Room B + Room C) (500 Capacity) - Full Hall (4 hrs.)* Audley Recreation Centre (ARC) - Community Hall (Rooms A $1,450.00 MPI Adjustment $1,487.70 2.60% + Room B + Room C) (500 Capacity) - Full Hall (Daily)* Audley Recreation Centre (ARC) – Kitchen Rental Fee (only $350.00 MPI Adjustment $359.10 2.60% available to rent with Full Hall and Room A and not available to rent on its' own – fee also includes projected staff maintenance costs)* Audley Recreation Centre (ARC) - Community Hall (Room A) $82.00 MPI Adjustment $84.20 2.68% (200 Capacity) - Full Hall (1 hr.) - can only be added to an existing 4-hour booking in multiples of 1 to a max of 3 - kitchen can be rented with Room A* Audley Recreation Centre (ARC) - Community Hall (Room A $325.00 MPI Adjustment $333.50 2.62% (200 Capacity) - Full Hall (4 hrs.) - kitchen can be rented with Room A* Audley Recreation Centre (ARC) - Community Hall (Room A) $650.00 MPI Adjustment $666.90 2.60% (200 Capacity) - Full Hall (Daily) - kitchen can be rented with Room A* Audley Recreation Centre (ARC) - Community Hall (Room B + $68.00 MPI Adjustment $69.80 2.65% Room C) (150 Capacity each) - Full Hall (1 hr.) - can only be added to an existing 4-hour booking in multiples of 1 to a max of 3 - kitchen cannot be rented with Room B or Room C* Audley Recreation Centre (ARC) - Community Hall (Room B + $273.00 MPI Adjustment $280.10 2.60% Room C (150 Capacity each) - Full Hall (4 hrs.) - kitchen cannot be rented with Room B or Room C* Audley Recreation Centre (ARC) - Community Hall (Room B + $550.00 MPI Adjustment $564.30 2.60% Room C) (150 Capacity each) - Full Hall (Daily) - kitchen cannot be rented with Room B or Room C* MCC - Community Hall - Full Hall (1 hr.) - can only be added $71.00 MPI Adjustment $72.90 2.68% to an existing 4-hour booking in multiples of 1 to a max of 3* MCC - Community Hall - Full Hall (4 hrs.)* $283.00 MPI Adjustment $290.40 2.61% MCC - Community Hall - Full Hall (Daily)* $566.00 MPI Adjustment $580.80 2.61% MCC - Community Hall - Half Hall (1 hr.) - can only be added $38.00 MPI Adjustment $39.00 2.63% to an existing 4-hour booking in multiples of 1 to a max of 3* MCC - Community Hall - Half Hall (4 hrs.)* $152.00 MPI Adjustment $156.00 2.63% MCC - Community Hall - Half Hall (Daily)* $304.00 MPI Adjustment $312.00 2.63% MCC Community Room 3, ARC - Community Room - (1 hr.) - $38.00 MPI Adjustment $39.00 2.63% can only be added to an existing 4-hour booking in multiples of 1 to a max of 3* MCC Community Room 3, ARC - Community Room - (4 hrs.)* $152.00 MPI Adjustment $156.00 2.63% MCC Community Room 3, ARC - Community Room - (Daily)* $304.00 MPI Adjustment $312.00 2.63%

102 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Recreation - Facilities User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes MCC Community Room 1, ARC - Studio - (1 hr.) - can only be $27.00 MPI Adjustment $27.80 2.96% added to an existing 4-hour booking in multiples of 1 to a max of 3* MCC Community Room 1, ARC - Studio - (4 hrs.)* $108.00 MPI Adjustment $110.90 2.69% MCC Community Room 1, ARC - Studio - (Daily)* $217.00 MPI Adjustment $222.70 2.63% Carruthers Marsh Pavilion, Greenwood Discovery Pavilion - (1 $38.00 MPI Adjustment $39.00 2.63% hr.) - can only be added to an existing 4, 8 or 12-hour booking in multiples of 1 to a max of 3, at time of booking and paid in full and within facility hours of operation* Carruthers Marsh Pavilion, Greenwood Discovery Pavilion - (4 $152.00 MPI Adjustment $156.00 2.63% hrs.)* Carruthers Marsh Pavilion, Greenwood Discovery Pavilion - (8 $304.00 MPI Adjustment $312.00 2.63% hrs.)* Carruthers Marsh Pavilion, Greenwood Discovery Pavilion - $456.00 MPI Adjustment $467.90 2.61% (12 hrs.)* Rotary Park Pavilion, Greenwood Discovery Pavilion - (1 hr.) - $27.00 MPI Adjustment $27.80 2.96% can only be added to an existing 4, 8 or 12-hour booking in multiples of 1 to a max of 3, at time of booking and paid in full and within facility hours of operation* Rotary Park Pavilion, Greenwood Discovery Pavilion - (4 hrs.)* $108.00 MPI Adjustment $110.90 2.69%

Rotary Park Pavilion, Greenwood Discovery Pavilion - (8 hrs.)* $217.00 MPI Adjustment $222.70 2.63%

Rotary Park Pavilion, Greenwood Discovery Pavilion - (12 $326.00 MPI Adjustment $334.50 2.61% hrs.)* Quaker Meeting House, Hartrick House - (1 hr.) - can only be $70.00 MPI Adjustment $71.90 2.71% added to an existing 4, 8 or 12-hour booking in multiples of 1 to a max of 3, at time of booking and paid in full and within facility hours of operation* Quaker Meeting House, Hartrick House - (4 hrs.)* $280.00 MPI Adjustment $287.30 2.61% Quaker Meeting House, Hartrick House - (8 hrs.)* $561.00 MPI Adjustment $575.60 2.60% Quaker Meeting House, Hartrick House - (12 hrs.)* $841.00 MPI Adjustment $862.90 2.60% Village Community Centre - Community Groups only - (4 hrs.)* $44.00 MPI Adjustment $45.20 2.73% Meeting Rooms - Duffins and Carruthers Room - Exclusive 1 $30.00 MPI Adjustment $30.80 2.67% hr. Fee Non Resident Permit Fee: Applied to ACC HMS, ACC $20.00 MPI Adjustment $20.60 3.00% Commodores Room, MCC Community Hall, MCC Community Room 3, ARC Community Room, Hartrick House, Quaker Meeting House, Carruthers Marsh Pavilion, Greenwood Discovery Pavilion and St. Francis Centre* Non Resident Permit Fee: Applied to ACC Admirals Room, $10.00 MPI Adjustment $10.30 3.00% Captains Room, Carruthers Room, Duffins Rooms, MCC Community Room 1, ARC – Studio and Rotary Park Pavilion* Non Resident Permit Fee: ARC Community Hall – Full Hall* $100.00 MPI Adjustment $102.60 2.60% Non Resident Permit Fee: ARC Community Hall – Room A, $50.00 MPI Adjustment $51.30 2.60% Room B, Room C*

103 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Recreation - Facilities User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes Birthday Parties with Facility Rental* (4 hrs.) - (MCC CR1, $80.00 MPI Adjustment $82.10 2.62% ARC Studio, ACC Admirals, Duffins, Captains and Carruthers) - Applies to Pool, Ice, Floor or Gym Facility & Room Party Rentals Birthday Parties with Facility Rental* (4 hrs.) - (MCC CH-Half, $107.00 MPI Adjustment $109.80 2.62% MCC CR3, ARC CR) - Applies to Pool, Ice, Floor or Gym Facility & Room Party Rentals Birthday Parties with Facility Rental* (4 hrs.) - (MCC BH - Full) $156.00 MPI Adjustment $160.10 2.63% - Applies to Pool, Ice, Floor or Gym Facility & Room Party Rentals Special Event Photography Permit - (1.5 hrs.)* $105.00 MPI Adjustment $107.80 2.67% Pool Rentals Prime – Commercial Organizations* (per hour) $75.00 MPI Adjustment $77.00 2.67% Prime – General Public, Community Groups* (per hour) $63.00 MPI Adjustment $64.70 2.70% Non-Prime – Commercial Organizations* (per hour) $64.00 MPI Adjustment $65.70 2.66% Non-Prime – General Public, Community Groups* (per hour) $54.00 MPI Adjustment $55.50 2.78% Birthday Party - Pool (1-50 people) - MCC or ARC (both pools $217.00 Other $221.50 2.07% Pool party package rates based on both pool fee, head guard rental plus guards; includes 1 Head Guard and 3 Guards) - and lifeguard requirements per hour* Birthday Party - Pool (51-100 people) - MCC or ARC (both $238.00 Other $242.40 1.85% Pool party package rates based on both pool fee, head guard pools rental plus guards; includes 1 Head Guard and 4 and lifeguard requirements Guards) - per hour* Birthday Party - Pool - Extra Fee - MCC Slide (2 Guards) - per $41.00 Other $41.80 1.95% Guard rate x 2 hour* Birthday Party - Pool - Extra Fee - MCC Whirlpool (1 Guard) - $21.00 Other $20.90 -0.48% Guard rate per hour* Pool Rental - both Large & Small pool at MCC or ARC Pool $127.00 MPI Adjustment $130.40 2.68% (per hour)* Head Guard - 1 hr. (per hour)* $27.98 No Change $28.40 1.50% Forecasted on 2021 staff rate including 4% vacation Guard - 1 hr. (per hour)* $20.61 No Change $20.90 1.41% Forecasted on 2021 staff rate including 4% vacation Gymnasiums MCC, ARC, Lakeside CC, Westney Heights, Lincoln $39.00 MPI Adjustment $40.10 2.82% Alexander - Full Gym - Youth (per hour) * MCC, ARC, Lakeside CC, Westney Heights, Lincoln $51.00 MPI Adjustment $52.40 2.75% Alexander - Full Gym - Adult (per hour) * Other Fees Program & Membership transfer/cancellation/medical hold* $10.00 MPI Adjustment $10.30 3.00% Facility Booking permit processing fee* $25.00 MPI Adjustment $25.70 2.80% Facility Booking transfer fee* $10.00 MPI Adjustment $10.30 3.00% Facility Booking cancellation fee* $40.00 MPI Adjustment $41.10 2.75% Facility Booking TV/DVD rental fee* $30.00 MPI Adjustment $30.80 2.67% Facility Booking portable stage rental fee* $50.00 MPI Adjustment $51.30 2.60% Facility Booking microphone rental fee* $10.00 MPI Adjustment $10.30 3.00% Facility Booking flip chart rental fee* $5.00 MPI Adjustment $5.20 4.00% St. Francis Centre Community Groups / Not-for-Profit Organizations - 4 hrs. – $164.00 MPI Adjustment $168.30 2.62% Mon. – Thur.*

104 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Recreation - Facilities User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes Community Groups / Not-for-Profit Organizations - 4 hrs. – Fri. $244.00 MPI Adjustment $250.40 2.62% – Sun.* Community Groups / Not-for-Profit Organizations - 8 hrs. – $324.00 MPI Adjustment $332.50 2.62% Mon. – Thur.* Community Groups / Not-for-Profit Organizations - 8 hrs. – Fri. $484.00 MPI Adjustment $496.60 2.60% – Sun.* Community Groups / Not-for-Profit Organizations - Additional $54.00 MPI Adjustment $55.50 2.78% Hourly Fee Mon. – Sun.* Regular Seasonal Fees for Community Groups / Not-for-Profit $66.00 MPI Adjustment $67.80 2.73% Organizations - Effective September 1, 2019 – June 30, 2020 (Must be a minimum of one 4 hour weekday rental/week to receive this fee. If a weekend time is requested, it must accompany a regular weekday rental as well in order to receive this fee) – fee for 4 hrs.* General Public & Businesses / Commercial - 4 hrs. – Mon. – $328.00 MPI Adjustment $336.60 2.62% Thur.* General Public & Businesses / Commercial - 4 hrs. – Fri. – $488.00 MPI Adjustment $500.70 2.60% Sun.* General Public & Businesses / Commercial - 8 hrs. – Mon. – $648.00 MPI Adjustment $664.90 2.61% Thur.* General Public & Businesses / Commercial - 8 hrs. – Fri. – $968.00 MPI Adjustment $993.20 2.60% Sun.* General Public & Businesses / Commercial - Additional $99.00 MPI Adjustment $101.60 2.63% Hourly Fee Mon. – Sun.* Sound & Light Technician Hourly Fee* $28.00 MPI Adjustment $28.80 2.86% Piano Rental – per occurrence (includes $30 rental and $140 $170.00 MPI Adjustment $174.50 2.65% tuning fee)*

All fee increases are effective January 1, 2021 with the exception of Arena Ice/Floor which is effected seasonally.

RENTAL OF PERMANENT SPACE Specific spaces in Town recreation facilities are permanently rented to user groups through rental agreements. Examples are dressing rooms, AMHA office, Ajax Skating Club storage and Aquatic Club storage. These users are charged $3.91/sq. ft. to offset the cost of utilities.

105 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Recreation - Partnerships User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes Vendor Fees: Current year revenue based on budget for all listed fees. Next year estimated revenue is calculated using the average % change for all listed fees First Time Events and Events with an expected attendance of 2000 people or less Single item food and beverage* $100.00 MPI Adjustment $102.60 2.60% Multi-item food and beverage* $100.00 MPI Adjustment $102.60 2.60% Non-food and beverage* $100.00 MPI Adjustment $102.60 2.60% Handicraft vendor* $50.00 MPI Adjustment $51.30 2.60% Established Events with an expected attendance of 2000 - 4000 Single item food and beverage* $150.00 MPI Adjustment $153.90 2.60% Multi-item food and beverage* $200.00 MPI Adjustment $205.20 2.60% Non-food and beverage* $200.00 MPI Adjustment $205.20 2.60% Handicraft vendor* $75.00 MPI Adjustment $77.00 2.67% Established Events with an expected attendance of more than 4000

Single item food and beverage* $220.00 MPI Adjustment $225.80 2.64% Multi-item food and beverage* $300.00 MPI Adjustment $307.80 2.60% Non-food and beverage* $300.00 MPI Adjustment $307.80 2.60% Handicraft vendor* $75.00 MPI Adjustment $77.00 2.67% Ajax Canada Day Celebrations – 10 hour event Single item food and beverage* $440.00 MPI Adjustment $451.50 2.61% Multi-item food and beverage* $600.00 MPI Adjustment $615.60 2.60% Non-food and beverage* $600.00 MPI Adjustment $615.60 2.60% Handicraft vendor* $100.00 MPI Adjustment $102.60 2.60% Ajax Santa Claus Parade Floats Early Bird – Commercial/Business* $75.00 MPI Adjustment $77.00 2.67% Early Bird – Not for Profit/Place of Worship/Community $0.00 No Change $0.00 0.00% No fee charged. Groups* Commercial/Business* $100.00 MPI Adjustment $102.60 2.60% Not for Profit/Place of Worship/Community Groups* $25.00 MPI Adjustment $25.70 2.80% Sponsored Skate - (Includes ice rental, 4 skate patrollers, 1 $1,000.00 No Change $1,000.00 0.00% Sponsorship amount was raised last year to reflect all table, 2 chairs, opportunity for on-site presence (in the facility associated costs including lost revenue, and was rounded to lobby) and additional Customer Service Representatives (if $1000 required as per the Manager of Administration, Customer Service) - Note: if public skate sponsorship is part of an established festival or event (i.e. Ajax Winterfest) the amount will be adjusted based on the established sponsorship levels as per the Council Approved Sponsorship Policy

106 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Recreation - Partnerships User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes Sponsored Swim - (Includes pool rental, 1 head guard, 8 $1,000.00 No Change $1,000.00 0.00% Sponsorship amount was raised last year to reflect all guards, 1 table, 2 chairs, opportunity for on-site presence (in associated costs including lost revenue, and was rounded to the facility lobby) and additional Customer Service $1000 Representatives (if required as per the Manager of Administration, Customer Service) - Note: if public swim sponsorship is part of an established festival or event (i.e. Ajax Winterfest) the amount will be adjusted based on the established sponsorship levels as per the Council Approved Sponsorship Policy

All fee increases are effective January 1, 2021 with the exception of Arena Ice/Floor which is effected seasonally.

107 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Recreation - RPAL User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes Group Fitness Current year revenue based on budget for all listed fees in this section. Next year estimated revenue is calculated using the average % change for all listed fees in this section.

Youth and Familiy Programs (per class): Programs are generally 1 hour unless otherwise stated. The rate per class will be applied to the number of classes determined by Recreation, Culture & Community Development. The total fee will be rounded up or down to the nearest dollar. Family Program - additional participant* $5.00 MPI Adjustment $5.20 4.00% Family Zumba® $8.75 MPI Adjustment $9.00 2.86% Family Yoga $8.75 MPI Adjustment $9.00 2.86% Fitness Kickboxing for Kids (45 mins. Fee includes hand $8.50 MPI Adjustment $8.80 3.53% wraps) Mother & Daughter Yoga* $8.75 MPI Adjustment $9.00 2.86% Yoga Kids (45 mins.) $8.50 MPI Adjustment $8.80 3.53% Above Municipal Average Teen Fitness Camp (3 hrs. x 5 days)* $26.00 MPI Adjustment $26.70 2.69% Racquets & Fitness Camp ( 3hrs. x 5 days)* $26.00 MPI Adjustment $26.70 2.69% Teen Weight Training (TWT) with 3 month FHC membership $16.00 MPI Adjustment $16.50 3.13% (2 hrs. x 5 days)* Teen Fitness Club (2 hrs. x 5 days) $16.00 MPI Adjustment $16.50 3.13% Kids Fit Blast $8.50 MPI Adjustment $8.80 3.53% Zumba® for Teens/Special Needs (45 mins.) $7.75 MPI Adjustment $8.00 3.23% Yoga for Teens/Special Needs (45 mins.) $7.75 MPI Adjustment $8.00 3.23% Parent and Baby Programs (per class)

Parent ‘n Babe Yoga* $9.00 MPI Adjustment $9.30 3.33% Parent ‘n Babe Fitness* $8.75 MPI Adjustment $9.00 2.86% Parent ‘n Babe AquaFit* $8.75 MPI Adjustment $9.00 2.86% Parent 'n Babe Stroller Fit* $8.75 MPI Adjustment $9.00 2.86% Parent 'n Tot Yoga* $9.00 MPI Adjustment $9.30 3.33% Adult Programs (per class)

CycleFit Classes* (45 mins.) $8.25 MPI Adjustment $8.50 3.03% Total Muscle Conditioning* $8.25 MPI Adjustment $8.50 3.03% Group Personal Training (4-6 people 2x/wk. x 12 wks.) - Fee is $12.00 Market-based comparison $12.50 4.17% per person.* Bootcamp by the Lake* $8.25 MPI Adjustment $8.50 3.03% Arthritis Fitness* $8.25 MPI Adjustment $8.50 3.03% Stay Strong & Keep Fit* $8.25 MPI Adjustment $8.50 3.03% Pilates* $9.30 MPI Adjustment $9.60 3.23% Pilates Reformer Training* $37.25 MPI Adjustment $38.30 2.82% Tai Chi (1.25 hrs.)* $9.25 MPI Adjustment $9.50 2.70% TRX Circuit (45 mins.)* $8.25 MPI Adjustment $8.50 3.03% Yoga (1 hr.) - (Hatha, Flow, Power)* $9.75 MPI Adjustment $10.10 3.59% Yoga (1.5 hr.) - (Beginner, Intermediate, Restorative, Hatha, $13.75 MPI Adjustment $14.20 3.27% Above Municipal Average Meditative, Flow, Power)*

108 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Recreation - RPAL User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes Squash Learn to Play (40 mins.)* $20.50 MPI Adjustment $21.10 2.93% Above Municipal Average Zumba®* $9.25 MPI Adjustment $9.50 2.70% NIA Dance Fitness* $9.00 MPI Adjustment $9.30 3.33% Nordic Pole Walking* $9.00 MPI Adjustment $9.30 3.33% Therapeutic Aquafit Conditioning (45 mins.)* $8.25 MPI Adjustment $8.50 3.03% CAN-BIKE Youth/Adult (Previously in RP) $7.50 MPI Adjustment $7.70 2.67% 55+ (per class)

Barre & Balance* $4.50 MPI Adjustment $4.70 4.44% Nordic Pole Walking* $4.50 MPI Adjustment $4.70 4.44% Yoga (1.5 hr.) - (Beginner, Intermediate, Restorative, Hatha, $7.00 MPI Adjustment $7.20 2.86% Meditative, Flow, Power)* Yoga Programs (1 hr.) - (Hatha, Flow, Power)* $4.75 Market-based comparison $5.00 5.26% Chair Yoga with Meditation* (1.25 hrs.) $5.75 MPI Adjustment $5.90 2.61% Older Adult Fitness $4.50 MPI Adjustment $4.70 4.44% Older Adult Fitness – Just Starting Out $4.50 MPI Adjustment $4.70 4.44% Cycle Fit* (45 mins.) $4.50 MPI Adjustment $4.70 4.44% Tai Chi (1 hr.) $4.50 MPI Adjustment $4.70 4.44% Fitness Services Current year revenue based on budget for all listed fees in this section. Next year estimated revenue is calculated using the average % change for all listed fees in this section.

Fitness Appraisal (2 hrs.)* $67.00 MPI Adjustment $68.80 2.69% Fitness Appraisal + Personal Training session (3 hrs.)* $86.00 MPI Adjustment $88.30 2.67% Fitness Appraisal + 2 Personal Training sessions* $118.00 MPI Adjustment $121.10 2.63% Non-Member Fitness Appraisal* $77.00 MPI Adjustment $79.10 2.73% Personal Training ( 1 session)* $48.00 MPI Adjustment $49.30 2.71% Personal Training (5 sessions)* $229.00 MPI Adjustment $235.00 2.62% Personal Training (10 sessions)* $447.00 MPI Adjustment $458.70 2.62% Personal Training (20 sessions)* $873.00 MPI Adjustment $895.70 2.60% Personal Training (30 sessions)* $1,267.00 MPI Adjustment $1,300.00 2.60% Personal Training (2 people) (1 session)* $76.00 MPI Adjustment $78.00 2.63% BOGO Personal Training Promotion Week - (1 full-price, 2nd $72.00 MPI Adjustment $73.90 2.64% 50% off) Personal Training (3 people) (1 session)* $101.00 MPI Adjustment $103.70 2.67% Teen/Student Personal Training (1 session)* $40.00 MPI Adjustment $41.10 2.75% Teen/Student Personal Training (5 sessions)* $190.00 MPI Adjustment $195.00 2.63% Teen/Student Personal Training (10 sessions)* $372.00 MPI Adjustment $381.70 2.61% Teen/Student Personal Training (2 people) (1 session)* $64.00 MPI Adjustment $65.70 2.66% Teen/Student Personal Training (3 people) (1 session)* $84.00 MPI Adjustment $86.20 2.62% Non-Member Personal Training (1 session)* $65.00 MPI Adjustment $66.70 2.62% Non-Member Personal Training (5 sessions)* $309.50 MPI Adjustment $317.60 2.62% Squash Lesson (1 session)* $35.00 MPI Adjustment $36.00 2.86% Squash Lesson (5 sessions)* $162.00 MPI Adjustment $166.30 2.65% Pilates Personal Training (1 session)* $60.00 MPI Adjustment $61.60 2.67% Pilates Personal Training (5 sessions)* $285.00 MPI Adjustment $292.50 2.63% Pilates Personal Training Semi-Private (2 people) (1 session)* $96.00 MPI Adjustment $98.50 2.60%

109 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Recreation - RPAL User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes Pilates Personal Training Semi-Private (2 people) (5 $432.00 MPI Adjustment $443.30 2.62% sessions)* Access Card - Replacement* $9.00 MPI Adjustment $9.30 3.33% Pay-Go Universal Pass Adult* $10.60 MPI Adjustment $10.90 2.83% Pay-Go Universal Pass Senior/Student* $5.30 MPI Adjustment $5.50 3.77% Universal 10 Pass Adult* $95.65 MPI Adjustment $98.20 2.67% Universal 10 Pass Senior/Student* $47.80 MPI Adjustment $49.10 2.72% ARC Performance Pass $24.00 Departmental Strategy $25.00 4.17% Increase fee by $1 as the 2020 fee was an introdutional fee to a new service at ARC. Memberships Current year revenue based on budget for all listed fees in this section. Next year estimated revenue is calculated using the average % change for all listed fees in this section.

Fitness Centre - Adult - Annual* $440.00 MPI Adjustment $451.50 2.61% Fitness Centre - Adult - 6 month* $253.00 MPI Adjustment $259.60 2.61% Fitness Centre - Adult - 3 month* $167.20 MPI Adjustment $171.60 2.63% Fitness Centre - Spousal/Partner - same household (18yrs+, $396.00 MPI Adjustment $406.30 2.60% non-student) 10% discount - annual membership (new members only)* Fitness Centre: Summer - sold July 2 to August 31 – 1 month* $62.15 MPI Adjustment $63.80 2.65%

Fitness Centre - Senior/Teen/Student- Annual* $220.00 MPI Adjustment $225.80 2.64% Fitness Centre - Senior/Teen/Student - 6 month* $126.50 MPI Adjustment $129.80 2.61% Fitness Centre - Senior/Teen/Student - 3 month* $83.60 MPI Adjustment $85.80 2.63% Group Fitness - Adult - Annual* $387.10 MPI Adjustment $397.20 2.61% Group Fitness - Adult - 6 month* $222.95 MPI Adjustment $228.80 2.62% Group Fitness - Adult - 3 month* $147.10 MPI Adjustment $151.00 2.65% Group Fitness - Senior/Teen/Student - Annual* $193.55 MPI Adjustment $198.60 2.61% Group Fitness - Senior/Teen/Student - 6 month* $111.50 MPI Adjustment $114.40 2.60% Group Fitness - Senior/Teen/Student - 3 month* $73.55 MPI Adjustment $75.50 2.65% Squash - Adult - Annual* $379.45 MPI Adjustment $389.40 2.62% Squash - Adult - 6 month* $219.30 MPI Adjustment $225.10 2.64% Squash - Adult - 3 month* $140.40 MPI Adjustment $144.10 2.64% Squash - Spousal/Partner - same household (18yrs+, non- $345.00 MPI Adjustment $354.00 2.61% student) 10% discount - annual membership (new members only)* Squash - Senior/Teen/Student - Annual* $189.75 MPI Adjustment $194.70 2.61% Squash - Senior/Teen/Student - 6 month* $109.65 MPI Adjustment $112.60 2.69% Squash - Senior/Teen/Student - 3 month* $70.90 MPI Adjustment $72.80 2.68% Combo (FHC, Group Fitness & Squash) - Adult - Annual* $499.95 MPI Adjustment $513.00 2.61% Combo (FHC, Group Fitness & Squash) - Adult - 6 month* $289.90 MPI Adjustment $297.50 2.62% Combo (FHC, Group Fitness & Squash) - Adult - 3 month* $187.85 MPI Adjustment $192.80 2.64% Combo - Spousal/Partner - same household (18yrs+, non- $454.50 MPI Adjustment $466.40 2.62% student) 10% discount - annual membership (new members only)* Combo - Senior/Teen/Student - Annual* $249.95 MPI Adjustment $256.50 2.62% Combo - Senior/Teen/Student - 6 month* $144.95 MPI Adjustment $148.80 2.66%

110 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Recreation - RPAL User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes Combo- Senior/Teen/Student - 3 month* $93.95 MPI Adjustment $96.40 2.61% Swim/Skate - Adult - Annual* $245.60 MPI Adjustment $252.00 2.61% Swim/Skate - Adult - 6 month* $143.65 MPI Adjustment $147.40 2.61% Swim/Skate - Adult - 3 month* $93.55 MPI Adjustment $96.00 2.62% Swim/Skate - Senior/Teen/Student - Annual* $122.80 MPI Adjustment $126.00 2.61% Swim/Skate - Senior/Teen/Student - 6 month* $71.85 MPI Adjustment $73.80 2.71% Swim/Skate - Senior/Teen/Student - 3 month* $46.80 MPI Adjustment $48.10 2.78% Family Swim & Skate - (up to 5 people, max 2 adults) - Annual $341.05 MPI Adjustment $350.00 2.62%

Additional Child - to the Family Swim & Skate Annual $35.00 MPI Adjustment $36.00 2.86% Membership* Family Active - Combo Annual Membership (Up to 4 people - $1,128.00 MPI Adjustment $1,157.40 2.61% 12 and under get swim & skate membership)* Additional Child - to the Family Active Annual Membership* $35.00 MPI Adjustment $36.00 2.86% Corporate/Group Memberships - 20% discount on minimum 10 employees Fitness Centre – Adult - Annual* $352.00 MPI Adjustment $361.20 2.61% Squash – Adult - Annual* $303.55 MPI Adjustment $311.50 2.62% Group Fitness – Adult - Annual* $309.68 MPI Adjustment $317.80 2.62% Combo (FHC, Group Fitness & Squash) – Adult - Annual* $399.95 MPI Adjustment $410.40 2.61% Swim – Adult - Annual* $196.45 MPI Adjustment $201.60 2.62% Preschool - Programs are generally 1 hour unless Current year revenue based on budget for all listed fees in otherwise stated. The rate per class will be applied to the this section. Next year estimated revenue is calculated using number of classes determined by Recreation, Culture & the average % change for all listed fees in this section. Community Development. The total fee will be rounded up or down to the nearest dollar. (per class) All sessions - 30 minute class $6.39 MPI Adjustment $6.60 3.29% All sessions - 45 minute class $7.26 MPI Adjustment $7.50 3.31% All sessions - 1 hour class $7.78 MPI Adjustment $8.00 2.83% All sessions - 1.25 hour class $8.34 MPI Adjustment $8.60 3.12% All sessions - 1.5 hour class $8.86 MPI Adjustment $9.10 2.71% All sessions - 2 hour class $9.89 MPI Adjustment $10.20 3.13% All sessions - Kinderstart 2.5 hour class $11.34 MPI Adjustment $11.70 3.17% Holiday Workshops – 2 hrs. $15.60 MPI Adjustment $16.10 3.21% Summer/March Break Fun For Preschoolers – 6 hrs. – 2 $12.50 MPI Adjustment $12.90 3.20% hrs./day x 3 days per week Friday Fun Club – 2 hrs. per week $5.50 Departmental Strategy $5.75 4.55% Suggest fee increase more than 2.6% as fee has been frozen for several years Ready Set School Program – 2 hrs. x 2 days per week $11.28 MPI Adjustment $11.60 2.84% Play, Climb, Learn – 2 hrs. x 2 days per week $11.28 MPI Adjustment $11.60 2.84% Family Fun Time – 1.5 hrs. Fee per child $6.75 MPI Adjustment $7.00 3.70% Cooking Monsters – 1.25 hrs. $9.32 MPI Adjustment $9.60 3.00% Preschool Sports (Sportball) Online - Pre-Recorded 16 Weeks $0.00 New Fee/Charge $170.00 N/A New Online Format

Preschool Sports (Sportball) Online - Live 8 Weeks $0.00 New Fee/Charge $170.00 N/A New Online Format

111 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Recreation - RPAL User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes CHILDREN / YOUTH / TEEN Current year revenue based on budget for all listed fees in this section. Next year estimated revenue is calculated using the average % change for all listed fees in this section.

Youth Dance – 1.25 hrs. $8.57 MPI Adjustment $8.80 2.68% ARC Cooking Classes – 1.5 hrs. $20.00 MPI Adjustment $20.60 3.00% Sign Language – (Youth & Adult)* $10.00 MPI Adjustment $10.30 3.00% Drop-in Sports – 10 pass card (cost of 9 single visits – times $19.91 Departmental Strategy $23.85 19.79% In line with Municipal Average. range from 1-3 hrs. in duration)* Drop-in Sports – POS (cost per visit – times range from 1-3 $2.21 Departmental Strategy $2.65 19.91% In line with Municipal Average. hrs. in duration)* Computer Programming (Kids Great Minds) – Children and $168.00 Actual Cost $172.00 2.38% Contracted Service Agreement program - 3 year pricing Youth – 1 hr. ($21.50/class - 8 classes) agreement Computer Programming (Kids Great Minds) – Children and $266.00 Actual Cost $272.00 2.26% Contracted Service Agreement program - 3 year pricing Youth – 1.5 hr. ($34.00/class-8 classes) agreement Computer Programming (Kids Great Minds) – Workshop 3 hrs. $47.00 Actual Cost $49.00 4.26% Contracted Service Agreement program - 3 year pricing agreement Children's Dance – 1 hr. $8.04 MPI Adjustment $8.30 3.23% Preschool Dance – 45 mins. $7.45 MPI Adjustment $7.70 3.36% Preschool Dance – 1 hr. $8.11 MPI Adjustment $8.40 3.58% African-Caribbean Drum & Dance (Afiwi Groove School) – 45 $9.00 Actual Cost $9.23 2.56% Contracted Service Agreement program - 3 year pricing mins. agreement African-Caribbean Drum & Dance (Afiwi Groove School) – 1 $12.00 Actual Cost $12.30 2.50% Contracted Service Agreement program - 3 year pricing hr. agreement Children Art Specialty Skilled Art (i.e. Acrylic/Oil Painting) $5.71 MPI Adjustment $5.90 3.33% Children & Youth Art – 1.5 hrs. $7.85 MPI Adjustment $8.10 3.18% Children’s Mini Art – 1 hr. $7.39 MPI Adjustment $7.60 2.84% Children Art Workshop – 2 hrs. $31.82 MPI Adjustment $32.70 2.77% Mad Science – 1 hr. ($19.63/class - 8 weeks) $157.00 No Change $157.00 0.00% Contracted Service Agreement program - 3 year pricing agreement. Mad Science not increasing fees. Adventures @ Greenwood – 1.5 hrs. $9.29 MPI Adjustment $9.60 3.34% Young Chefs (PC Cooking School) – 2 hrs. ($21.25/class) $85.00 No Change $85.00 0.00% Contracted Service Agreement program - 3 year pricing agreement. Cooking Duos – 1.5 hrs. $21.42 MPI Adjustment $22.00 2.71% Ajax Improv Crew (Child & Youth) $6.82 MPI Adjustment $7.00 2.64% Theatre (GLEE: The Next Generation, Drama, etc.) – 2 hrs. $12.97 MPI Adjustment $13.40 3.32% Theatre (Drama Club/Troupe) – 1.5 hrs. $9.93 MPI Adjustment $10.20 2.72% Guitar Lessons – (Children & Adults*) $9.47 MPI Adjustment $9.80 3.48% Leadership – 1.75 hrs. $9.00 MPI Adjustment $9.30 3.33% Karate Kidz $5.85 MPI Adjustment $6.10 4.27% Karate Traditional (Children) - 1.5 hrs. $7.31 MPI Adjustment $7.60 3.97% Karate Traditional (Youth & Adult*) - 2 hrs. $9.09 MPI Adjustment $9.40 3.41% Karate Black Belt $6.62 MPI Adjustment $6.80 2.72% Preschool Sports (Sportball) $18.60 Actual Cost $19.00 2.15% Contracted Service Agreement program - 3 year pricing agreement Fencing – (Children & Adults*) Ajax Fencing Club - 1.25 hrs. $17.75 Actual Cost $18.00 1.41% Contracted Service Agreement program - 3 year pricing agreement

112 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Recreation - RPAL User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes Children Multi Sport Programs 1.25 hrs.(We got Game, Girl $6.30 MPI Adjustment $6.50 3.17% Sport) Basketball - 1.5 hrs. $6.44 MPI Adjustment $6.70 4.04% Basketball - 2 hrs. $8.59 MPI Adjustment $8.90 3.61% Parent and Child Sports – 1 hr. $6.67 MPI Adjustment $6.90 3.45% Specialty Skill Based Sport (Indoor Tennis, Flag Football) - 1 $10.08 MPI Adjustment $10.40 3.17% hr. Introductory Skill Based Sport (Cricket Kids, Soccer, Hockey, $6.65 MPI Adjustment $6.90 3.76% Dodgeball, Girls Sport, Youth Volleyball) - 1.25 hrs. Children & Youth Cricket (Youth/Adult*) – 1.5 hrs. $7.23 MPI Adjustment $7.50 3.73% Friday Night Fun Centres * - POS $3.50 Departmental Strategy $3.75 7.14% Suggest fee increase more than 2.6% as fee has been frozen for several years Friday Night Pre-Teen Dances * - POS $7.96 Market-based comparison $8.80 10.55% First Aid Course – Standard First Aid CPR C 16 hrs. $7.67 MPI Adjustment $7.90 3.00% Principles of Healthy Child Development (High Five) – 1 day $74.00 MPI Adjustment $76.00 2.70% Children / Youth / Teen Home Alone Safety Programs (SOS 4 $0.00 New Fee/Charge $71.00 N/A Babysitting and Home Alone Safety Courses offered through Kids) – 5 Day Program SOS 4 Kids is to be added to the 2021 recreation program offerings. Due to COVID-19 and a variety of work and family situations within the Ajax community, these courses will meet the increased demand for home alone safety preparedness among children and youth. Children/Youth/Adult Specialty Art Program with Kits – 2 $0.00 New Fee/Charge $16.16 N/A COVID-19 Programming hours; 6-week program (Covid-19 Programming) Rate is per 2 hour class. CAMPS - run 5 days unless otherwise stated (per day) Current year revenue based on budget for all listed fees in this section. Next year estimated revenue is calculated using the average % change for all listed fees in this section.

School Break Drop In Program – 2 hrs.* $3.50 Departmental Strategy $3.75 7.14% Suggest fee increase more than 2.6% as fee has been frozen for several years March Break Camp (Sports, Arts and Kindercamp full day) $37.74 MPI Adjustment $38.80 2.81% One Day Options (March Break & Summer Camp) (9am-4pm $42.02 MPI Adjustment $43.20 2.81% – B&A services available at additional cost) Winterrific Fun Days – One Day Options (8am-5pm) $45.90 MPI Adjustment $47.10 2.61% Counsellor in Training – Level I & Level II (including High Five $29.83 MPI Adjustment $30.70 2.92% PHCD – 2 or 3 weeks Leadership Camp ( March Break & Summer) $29.83 MPI Adjustment $30.70 2.92% Youth on The Move Camp (March Break & Summer) $54.67 MPI Adjustment $56.10 2.62% Youth Adventure Camp $54.67 MPI Adjustment $56.10 2.62% Youth Art Expression Camp (March Break & Summer) $37.84 MPI Adjustment $38.90 2.80% Youth Sport Experience Camp $38.26 MPI Adjustment $39.30 2.72% Skateboarding Camp $35.84 MPI Adjustment $36.80 2.68% Day Trippers Camp (March Break & Summer) $54.67 MPI Adjustment $56.10 2.62% Mad Science Camp – 4 days ($53.25/day) $213.00 No Change $213.00 0.00% Contracted Service Agreement program Mad Science not increasing cost - 3 year pricing agreement Mad Science Camp – 5 days ($53.40/day) $267.00 No Change $267.00 0.00% Contracted Service Agreement program Mad Science not increasing cost - 3 year pricing agreement

113 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Recreation - RPAL User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes Mad Science 1/2 Day Camp - Online - 4 days $0.00 New Fee/Charge $140.00 N/A New Online Format Mad Science 1/2 Day Camp - Online - 5 days $0.00 New Fee/Charge $173.00 N/A New Online Format Mad Science - 6 Week Online Class $0.00 New Fee/Charge $129.00 N/A New Online Format Mad Science - 7 Week Online Class $0.00 New Fee/Charge $143.00 N/A New Online Format Mad Science - 8 Week Online Class $0.00 New Fee/Charge $164.00 N/A New Online Format African-Caribbean Performing Arts Camp (Afiwi Groove $210.00 Actual Cost $231.00 10.00% Contracted Service Agreement program - 3 year pricing School) ($42.00/day) agreement Performing Arts Camp – Dance, Glee, Yoga $39.76 MPI Adjustment $40.80 2.62% Paulynn Park Camps – Cardinals/Hawks $37.33 MPI Adjustment $38.40 2.87% Playgrounds $0.00 No Change $0.00 Traditional Free Program Rotary Park Camps – Lake to Land Exploration $38.76 MPI Adjustment $39.80 2.68% Rotary Park Camps – Mini Treasure Hunters $37.33 MPI Adjustment $38.40 2.87% Dodgeball Camp – Children $37.33 MPI Adjustment $38.40 2.87% Sportball Camp – 4 days ($29/day) $114.00 Actual Cost $116.00 1.75% Contracted Service Agreement program - 3 year pricing agreement Sportball Camp – 5 days ($28.60/day) $141.00 Actual Cost $143.00 1.42% Contracted Service Agreement program - 3 year pricing agreement Sports Centre Camp (Sports Camp) $37.33 MPI Adjustment $38.40 2.87% Summer Blowout Camp $37.33 MPI Adjustment $38.40 2.87% Kindercamp – ½ day $19.95 MPI Adjustment $20.50 2.76% Kindercamp – full day $37.74 MPI Adjustment $38.80 2.81% Mini ½ Day Camp – 2 days $33.29 MPI Adjustment $34.20 2.73% Mini ½ Day Camp – 3 days $49.35 MPI Adjustment $50.70 2.74% Technology Camp (Kids Great Minds) – 1 day (8 hrs.) $89.00 Actual Cost $91.00 2.25% Contracted Service Agreement program - 3 year pricing agreement Technology Camp (Kids Great Minds) – 4 days ($67.25/day) $263.00 Actual Cost $269.00 2.28% Contracted Service Agreement program - 3 year pricing agreement Technology Camp (Kids Great Minds) – 5 days ($67/day) $327.00 Actual Cost $335.00 2.45% Contracted Service Agreement program - 3 year pricing agreement Creative Kids (ARC Camp) $39.00 MPI Adjustment $40.10 2.82% Greenwood Camps – Robins $41.82 MPI Adjustment $43.00 2.82% Greenwood Camps – Eagles $51.49 MPI Adjustment $52.90 2.74% Greenwood Camps – Saplings $37.33 MPI Adjustment $38.40 2.87% Before/After Hours Care $7.75 MPI Adjustment $8.00 3.23% Busing -1 wk.* $5.31 MPI Adjustment $5.50 3.58% Late pick up fee – camps – per 15 mins. $20.00 MPI Adjustment $20.60 3.00% Pizza Lunch (Summer Camps) per slice $0.00 New Fee/Charge $2.50 N/A Cost recovery ADULTS (per class) Current year revenue based on budget for all listed fees in this section. Next year estimated revenue is calculated using the average % change for all listed fees in this section.

Dance (Line, Latin, Ballroom, Retro, Hip Hop) – 1.5 hrs.* $8.04 MPI Adjustment $8.30 3.23% Specialized Dance (Dance Fusion, Bellydance, Bollywood) – 1 $7.88 MPI Adjustment $8.10 2.79% hr.* Adult – Certified Healthy Lifestyle Coach – Demo Workshop $23.00 No Change $23.00 0.00% Contracted Service Agreement program Fig & Pear not (Fig & Pear Naturally) increasing costs - 3 year pricing agreement Adult – Certified Healthy Lifestyle Coach – Make & Take $30.00 No Change $30.00 0.00% Contracted Service Agreement program Fig & Pear not Workshop (Fig & Pear Naturally) increasing costs - 3 year pricing agreement

114 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Recreation - RPAL User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes Adult – Certified Healthy Lifestyle Coach – 6 Week Healthy $144.00 No Change $144.00 0.00% Contracted Service Agreement program Fig & Pear not Lifestyle Course (Fig & Pear Naturally) ($24.00/week) increasing costs - 3 year pricing agreement Adult Art (Oil painting, Watercolour painting, drawing & $9.02 MPI Adjustment $9.30 3.10% photography) Cooking* $24.06 MPI Adjustment $24.70 2.66% Adult Workshops – Cooking, Holiday Décor etc.* $30.97 MPI Adjustment $31.80 2.68% Drop-in Sports Adult – POS* - various durations $3.54 Market-based comparison $3.76 6.21% In line with Municipal Average Drop-in-Sports 10 pass* (cost of 9 single visits – times range $31.86 Market-based comparison $33.84 6.21% In line with Municipal Average from 1-3 hrs. in duration) Drop-in Sports Senior* - POS (cost per visit – times range $2.21 No Change $2.20 -0.45% Keep at $2.50 (including taxes). from 1-3 hrs. in duration) Adult Sports (Volleyball/Badminton) - 2 hrs.* $7.15 MPI Adjustment $7.40 3.50% 55+ (per class) Current year revenue based on budget for all listed fees in this section. Next year estimated revenue is calculated using the average % change for all listed fees in this section.

Dance* - 1.5 hrs. $4.05 MPI Adjustment $4.20 3.70% Art* - 2 hrs. $4.59 MPI Adjustment $4.80 4.58% Cooking – 6 weeks* $15.00 MPI Adjustment $15.40 2.67% Computer / Technology – 6 weeks* $11.91 MPI Adjustment $12.30 3.27% Sports* $3.65 MPI Adjustment $3.80 4.11% Language – 1.5 hours* $5.00 MPI Adjustment $5.20 4.00% Journal Writing – 8 weeks, 2 hrs.* $10.62 No Change $10.70 0.75% Contract Service Agreement program Art Workshops – 3 hrs.* $22.13 MPI Adjustment $22.80 3.03% Seniors Day Trips – trip fees vary based on location, season Add 10% to No Change Add 10% to 0.00% and tour company used. Ajax adds 10% to per person cost. Cost Cost AQUATICS Current year revenue based on budget for all listed fees in this section. Next year estimated revenue is calculated using the average % change for all listed fees in this section.

Pre-school and Swim 1-4 (Spring/Fall 10 weeks - 30 mins. $9.64 MPI Adjustment $9.90 2.70% Swim 5 -10 (Spring/Fall 10 weeks - 45 mins.) $10.76 MPI Adjustment $11.10 3.16% Adults Swim Lessons/Teen Lessons/Ladies Only* $10.90 MPI Adjustment $11.20 2.75% Adults – private 30 mins.* $30.10 MPI Adjustment $30.90 2.66% Swim Patrol* - 10 weeks $10.50 Departmental Strategy $11.00 4.76% In line with Municipal Average Bronze Star* - 10 weeks $10.50 Departmental Strategy $11.00 4.76% In line with Municipal Average Bronze Medallion & Emergency First Aid/CPR B (2 hrs. Exam $20.00 MPI Adjustment $20.60 3.00% fee of $30 included)* Bronze Cross (2 hrs. Exam fee of $30 included)* $19.00 MPI Adjustment $19.50 2.63% Part 1 Water Safety Instructor (2 hrs./10 classes)* $25.50 Departmental Strategy $25.50 0.00% Courses are combined for 2021 - new fee applied Part 2 Water Safety Instructor (3.5 hrs./10 classes)* $16.70 Departmental Strategy $16.70 0.00% Courses are combined for 2021 - new fee applied Water Safety Instructor 3 hrs 10wks* $0.00 New Fee/Charge $35.00 N/A WSI 1 & 2 combined LSS Instructors & Emergency First Aid Instructor (2.5 hrs./10 $20.30 MPI Adjustment $20.90 2.96% classes)* NLS (National Lifeguard Service Award) (40 hrs. over 10 $30.70 MPI Adjustment $31.50 2.61% classes)* Standard First Aid, CPR C & NLS Prep Course* $14.30 MPI Adjustment $14.70 2.80% Private Lessons – 30 mins.* $30.10 MPI Adjustment $30.90 2.66%

115 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) 2021 Recreation - RPAL User Fees and Charges

Current Change 2021 Fee/Charge Rate Rationale Rate % Change Notes/Explanation of Non-MPI Changes Low Ratio Lessons – 30 mins.* $18.30 MPI Adjustment $18.80 2.73% Adapted Lessons – 30 mins.* $18.30 MPI Adjustment $18.80 2.73% Swim to Survive (per participant) $5.00 Departmental Strategy TBD 0.00% The fee is calculated based on the amount of particpants enrolled. Registration is finalized in September of each calender year. Unable to establsih fee at this time.

All fee increases are effective January 1, 2021 with the exception of Arena Ice/Floor which is effected seasonally.

116 HST will be added to all fees marked with an asterisk (*) Town of Ajax Report

Report To: General Government Committee

Prepared By: Sarah Moore, Acting Manager of Legislative Services / Deputy Clerk

Subject: Municipal Elections - Contribution Rebate Program Review – Public Consultation Results

Ward(s): N/A

Date of Meeting: October 13, 2020

Reference: GGC Report, June 8, 2020 – ‘Municipal Elections – Contribution Rebate Program Review’

Recommendation:

That the municipal election contribution rebate program be discontinued.

Background:

At the June 8, 2020 General Government Committee Meeting, staff presented a report recommending that the municipal election contribution rebate program be discontinued, based on an analysis of the program and its ability to meet its objectives. A copy of staff’s original report from the June 8, 2020 GGC meeting is included for reference as ATT-3 to this report. Council considered the report and directed staff to undertake public consultation on whether the municipal election contribution rebate program should be continued in future municipal elections. During the month of August, a public survey was posted to the Town’s IMO public consultation hub, and a separate survey was circulated to all Council candidates in the 2018 Municipal Election. All responses to each survey were anonymous.

The purpose of this report is to summarize the findings of the public consultation and make recommendations regarding the future of the contribution rebate program.

Discussion:

Public Consultation results

A total of 75 responses to the survey were received from the public, and are included as ATT-1 to this report. 52% (39) of respondents indicated that the Town should continue to offer rebates for monetary donations to candidates seeking election to Ajax Council, while 48% (36) respondents indicated that the Town should discontinue the program.

Seven respondents participated in the candidates’ survey, and are included as ATT-2 to this report. 43% (3 of 7) of candidate respondents indicated that the program should be continued.

The following themes were apparent throughout the public survey responses:

117 Subject: Municipal Elections - Contribution Rebate Program Review – Public Page 2 Consultation Results

• Feedback on the matter is divided, with 51% of the 82 total combined responses indicating support for continuing the program • Awareness of the program is limited • Respondents opposed to the program indicated that tax revenue should not be used to subsidize campaigns and could be spent on other priorities, and that candidates should be expected to raise their own campaign funds without assistance • Respondents in favour of the program indicated that it eliminates financial barriers to running for office, supports new candidates, encourages greater participation, and helps level the playing field • The process for requesting a campaign contribution rebate is time consuming • The overall cost of the program is not prohibitive

If the program were to continue, respondents proposed several suggested improvements to be considered, including:

• Increased promotion and communication of the program (to candidates, and from candidates to contributors) • Improving the process to request a campaign contribution rebate (i.e. explore the feasibility of an electronic application form)

In light of the divided feedback received through the public consultation, staff are again recommending that the program be discontinued based on the analysis provided in the June GGC report on this matter (included as ATT-3 for reference purposes). While there are valid philosophical arguments in favour and against the program, staff are of the opinion that the program generally does not achieve its objective of increasing participation in municipal elections, and prior efforts to expand the program have not succeeded. Therefore, staff recommend that the program be discontinued as the expenditure is not justified.

Should Council wish to retain the program for the 2022 municipal election, Council may direct staff to do so, and staff will prepare the necessary by-law for adoption at a future Council meeting. In such a case, staff would recommend reducing the maximum rebate amount from $225 (75% of a $300 donation) to $187.50 (75% of a $250 donation) in order to ensure costs remain manageable in the 2022 election, and directing staff to increase promotion of the program to both candidates and eligible voters.

Financial Implications:

The Town’s election expenditures in 2018, including the Contribution Rebate Program, were $255,000. Eliminating the program will relieve approximately $20,000 in costs, representing 10% of all estimated election expenses in 2022.

Communication Issues:

If the recommendation to discontinue the program is accepted, elections staff will clearly communicate to candidates and electors that the rebate program will not be offered in 2022.

118 Subject: Municipal Elections - Contribution Rebate Program Review – Public Page 3 Consultation Results

Relationship to the Strategic Plan:

The recommendations in this report align with the Focus Area “Leading in Our Community”, goal 6, “Strengthening corporate governance and innovation,” action item 6.7, “Continue to be a trailblazer in the delivery of municipal elections, ensuring that the voting experience is modern, convenient and accessible for all.”

Conclusion:

Subsequent to the divided public consultation feedback received, staff uphold the opinion that the benefits of the program remain difficult to quantify and the program generally does not meet its objectives of increasing voter and candidate participation. Staff’s recommendation therefore remains that the program be discontinued for the 2022 municipal election.

Attachments:

ATT - 1: IMO Public Survey Responses ATT - 2: 2018 Municipal Election Candidate Responses ATT - 3: GGC Report, June 8, 2020 – ‘Municipal Elections – Contribution Rebate Program Review’

Prepared by:

Sarah Moore – Acting Manager of Legislative Services / Deputy Clerk

Submitted by:

Alexander Harras – Acting Director of Legislative & Information Services / Town Clerk

Approved by:

Shane Baker – Chief Administrative Officer

119 Contribution Rebate Program Survey

SURVEY RESPONSE REPORT 01 August 2020 - 31 August 2020

PROJECT NAME: Contribution Rebate Program Review

120 Contribution Rebate Program Survey : Survey Report for 01 August 2020 to 31 August 2020

SURVEY QUESTIONS

Page 1 of 17 121 Contribution Rebate Program Survey : Survey Report for 01 August 2020 to 31 August 2020

Q1 Were you an eligible voter in the 2018 Ajax municipal elections?

2 (2.7%)

2 (2.7%)

72 (97.3%)

72 (97.3%) Question options Yes No

Optional question (74 response(s), 1 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question

Page 2 of 17 122 Contribution Rebate Program Survey : Survey Report for 01 August 2020 to 31 August 2020

Q2 Did you make a monetary contribution to a candidate in Ajax during the 2018 municipal election?

24 (33.3%)

24 (33.3%)

48 (66.7%)

48 (66.7%)

Question options Yes No

Optional question (72 response(s), 3 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question

Page 3 of 17 123 Contribution Rebate Program Survey : Survey Report for 01 August 2020 to 31 August 2020

Q3 Did you know about the Contribution Rebate Program before you donated to a candidate in the municipal election?

9 (37.5%)

9 (37.5%)

15 (62.5%)

15 (62.5%)

Question options Yes No

Optional question (24 response(s), 51 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question

Page 4 of 17 124 Contribution Rebate Program Survey : Survey Report for 01 August 2020 to 31 August 2020

Q4 Did the Contribution Rebate Program encourage you to make your donation?

6 (40.0%)

6 (40.0%)

9 (60.0%)

9 (60.0%)

Question options Yes No

Optional question (15 response(s), 60 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question

Page 5 of 17 125 Contribution Rebate Program Survey : Survey Report for 01 August 2020 to 31 August 2020

Q5 In your opinion, should the Town continue to offer rebates for monetary donations to candidates seeking election to Ajax Council?

36 (48.0%)

36 (48.0%) 39 (52.0%)

39 (52.0%)

Question options Yes No

Optional question (75 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question

Page 6 of 17 126 Contribution Rebate Program Survey : Survey Report for 01 August 2020 to 31 August 2020

In your opinion, why should the Town continue to offer rebates for monetary donations Q6 to candidates seeking election to Ajax Council?

Anonymous Existing council has formed strategic base with local businesses and most 8/04/2020 04:12 PM likely does need this incentive to gain support but to encourage a motivated resident to run they need funds and this is a great incentive to support candidates that are not incumbents.

Anonymous It can be used as a incentive for new candidates to raise funds to counter 8/04/2020 05:13 PM the incumbents name recognition and easier access to contributions

Anonymous Some candidates have contributions from owners, spouses & employees of 8/04/2020 08:22 PM Development Companies. The rebates for donations allow those without corporate ties to level the playing field.

Anonymous As a Candidate that ran in the last election i think this program helps out 8/05/2020 08:38 AM immensely. it can help even the playing field for candidates that dome come with corporate backing..

Anonymous To even the playing field and reduce financial barriers to running for election. 8/06/2020 04:55 PM Money should never be a barrier to seeking elective office.

Anonymous There may not be a huge awareness of the program, but it should help 8/06/2020 05:38 PM encourage a diverse list of future candidates by minimizing the financial burden of a campaign.

Anonymous It may encourage citizens to voting. If you invest, you will vote! 8/07/2020 11:15 AM

Anonymous The program helps encourage average citizens participate in the political life 8/07/2020 03:10 PM of the Town. It helps candidates whose policies and attributes might make them suitable representatives to stand for election by encouraging financial aid to run their campaigns. It helps free candidates from feeling obligated to individuals who might have a narrow pecuniary interest in Town bylaws. It encourages public trust and compliance if representatives appear to be independent in actions. It conforms to federal legislation granting rebates to those who donate. It has a limited rebate reimbursement as presently structured & is not a major financial drain on the Town budget.

Anonymous because it should just continue the way it's been. 8/07/2020 04:49 PM

Anonymous That way we are not excluding candidates that are not as financially set as 8/08/2020 01:28 PM some of the other candidates.

Anonymous It ensures that citizens who do not have wealthy friends and family will also 8/08/2020 05:39 PM be able to run. It opens up the field of candidates to a variety of socioeconomic groups.

Page 7 of 17 127 Contribution Rebate Program Survey : Survey Report for 01 August 2020 to 31 August 2020

Anonymous There are many social and financial disparities between those seeking office. 8/08/2020 11:15 PM The contribution program encourages and supports those who might otherwise be unable to adequately fund their campaign.

Anonymous To encourage participation and support candidates that might not have the 8/11/2020 12:09 PM financial resources personally or who do not accept developer dollars which I consider a conflict of interest.

Anonymous Financial Sustainability should not be a hindrance to running for public office. 8/13/2020 04:31 PM In addition special interests such as developed or business interests may use finance as an aid to political control or ifluence. Finally 10-20k is not a burden on the town where one looks at the overall budget

Anonymous Critical to support candidates who do not accept donations from developers. 8/13/2020 06:01 PM While corporations technically cannot contribute, developers DO make significant donations using their own names as well as the names of family members and employees.

Anonymous If not this specifically, then we need another way to reduce financial 8/13/2020 07:03 PM disincentives that would otherwise prevent candidates from running, without so much admin. eg: establish a $18k total fund, for candidates with lower income. Make applying optional, and the candidates must participate fully, and reach a small threshold of votes to demonstrate they were sincere. Paid- out only at the end of the election.

Anonymous It doesn't cost the town much and may help get a variety of candidates. 8/13/2020 07:47 PM

Anonymous To keep it fair and open to all potential candidates. To prevent financial 8/13/2020 07:48 PM barriers from preventing potential candidates from running for office. It would also allow residents to offer support if they themselves can’t vote.

Anonymous Will assist local candidates in getting local donations. 8/13/2020 09:39 PM

Anonymous I hadn’t realized this was a thing. However, I feel it might be a slight incentive 8/13/2020 10:29 PM to have enthusiastic candidates come forward!

Anonymous It allows more citizens to participate positively in the democratic process. 8/16/2020 06:35 PM Without it only the wealthy would be able to assist their preferred candidates with contributions. Why would we want to narrow the field of participation to exclude the average citizen and leave the field only to the wealthy. One only look at the number of real estate developers who are not citizens of Ajax who contributed to the campaigns of selected Ajax Council members last year to realize the role that contributions play in Ajax municipal politics. Level the playing field so that ALL citizens of Aax can participate. Retain the rebates for monetary donations to candidates for Ajax Council to aid in democratizing the electoral process. And ban donations from non-Ajax residents.

Page 8 of 17 128 Contribution Rebate Program Survey : Survey Report for 01 August 2020 to 31 August 2020

Anonymous To make a fair playing field. People with corporate interests typically would 8/16/2020 08:19 PM have more money available to contribute than the average resident.

Anonymous To ensure political representation is not centered around wealthy candidates 8/17/2020 11:58 AM and to reduce scope of lobbying from wealthy donors. There should also be a cap on political spending.

Anonymous We must ensure the barriers to those who wish to lead and serve our 8/21/2020 11:18 AM community are minimal, and allow for a diversity of voices (not just wealthy people); as such this program helps ensure people donate which helps diverse candidates can run campaigns, and reduces barriers to entry.

Anonymous It enables both rich and poor to participate in elections 8/21/2020 03:26 PM

Anonymous Unfortunately democracy is expensive. Without inducement for contribution 8/22/2020 09:44 PM candidates without the personal resources to fund their campaigns are left underfunded. The contribution allows rebate allows from grassroots campaigns.

Anonymous Give alittle, take alittle 8/27/2020 04:38 PM

Anonymous It will allow first time candidates raise funds if they are not well connected to 8/27/2020 07:27 PM richer financial backers.

Anonymous I think that it reasonable and perhaps motivation 8/27/2020 08:13 PM

Anonymous It assists candidates who have financial restrictions which may make it 8/27/2020 09:43 PM difficult to run for public office.

Anonymous Makes it affordable for the candidates to consider running 8/27/2020 10:09 PM

Anonymous help canidates who do not have deep pockets & eliminate contributions from 8/28/2020 07:36 PM those currying favor from elected officials (developer etc.)

Anonymous Because it helps those who may not have the financial ability to run for office. 8/29/2020 08:13 AM

Anonymous Citizens have the right to support their candidates and finance shouldn’t be a 8/29/2020 07:08 PM barrier

Anonymous It is costly me may stop some people from running. 8/29/2020 07:56 PM

Page 9 of 17 129 Contribution Rebate Program Survey : Survey Report for 01 August 2020 to 31 August 2020

Anonymous Candidates with less personal resources will be able to participate 8/29/2020 08:51 PM

Anonymous Running for an election is expensive. The program is an incentive for a 8/31/2020 07:54 PM diverse group of candidates to run who may not consider running due to finances. It also also supporters to get involved and know the candidates they are supporting.

Optional question (37 response(s), 38 skipped) Question type: Essay Question

In your opinion, why should the Town not continue to offer rebates for monetary donations Q7 to candidates seeking election to Ajax Council?

Anonymous I don't believe that it serves its purpose to incentivize voters to vote. 8/04/2020 04:45 PM

Anonymous It is a personal choice to donate. This only ads to the tax burden of residents 8/06/2020 05:09 PM . It is small but everything ads up.

Anonymous Anyone who wants to run for political office should be funding their own 8/06/2020 05:43 PM campaign by canvassing their supports for fund.

Anonymous Tax payers money should not be used for this. I had never even heard of 8/06/2020 05:43 PM "general tax levy" and you should have provided more of a definition. It would have been nice also, if you said where in Municipal Elections Act that this rebate information for candidates is found as this is an 86 page document (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/96m32)

Anonymous Council could reimburse candidates for printing costs ,mail out costs etc. with 8/06/2020 06:35 PM proof of payment. A candidate should run with a wish to share their knowledge and experience to help Ajax be a fair and sharing community- not an ego booster or money maker.

Anonymous Even though i participated in the program, i question why the Town, and my 8/06/2020 08:50 PM taxes, should support this.

Anonymous Dont waste my tax dollars on this. Spend it on improving the town. 8/06/2020 09:21 PM

Anonymous No need to do so. 8/06/2020 10:51 PM

Anonymous Taxpayer money should not be used to subsidize candidate campaigns. 8/07/2020 12:36 PM

Anonymous Any rebate that is paid for by tax dollars is, in effect, supporting candidates

Page 10 of 17 130 Contribution Rebate Program Survey : Survey Report for 01 August 2020 to 31 August 2020

8/07/2020 02:01 PM that I don't necessarily endorse.

Anonymous Not Sure it achieves its goal and may unfairly provide greater contributions 8/08/2020 07:32 PM by members of the public that are more lobby group oriented then civic minded. I believe political contribution are tax deductible and this should be enough of a rebate for you involvement

Anonymous Not needed as people who do this won’t change regardless if there is a 8/08/2020 08:40 PM financial tax break or not. Furthermore this is additional revenue the town could have to improve our city. I would happily contribute and receive no tax breaks but if it is offered will continue to apply for it.

Anonymous Giving public money to any candidate by ANY means -- rebates, grants, 8/09/2020 04:14 PM matching funds, interest free loans... -- surely contradicts the whole idea of a DEMOCRATIC process in which every candidate has the same opportunity for election.

Anonymous If you make a contribution you make it voluntarily. 8/10/2020 01:14 AM

Anonymous It is a voluntary choice and money donated should come from the person 8/11/2020 10:14 AM donating. I do not want my tax dollars rebated for a candidate which I do not support.

Anonymous If they wish to run for election, a position they are being quite nicely paid for 8/13/2020 03:14 PM by our tax dollars, they should fund their own campaign.

Anonymous I believe each candidate should be fully independently funded by their 8/13/2020 03:18 PM supporters. Using public money to in essence subsidize donations results in taxpayer funds going to candidates individual taxpayers may support as well as don't support.

Anonymous If you would like to run for office you need to assume the cost for doing so. 8/13/2020 03:54 PM The tax base should be for providing services not for reimbursing election campaigns

Anonymous As there are not capable to support themselves, they should have worked 8/13/2020 04:09 PM and safe.

Anonymous Any additional money can be used towards other areas that the city needs 8/13/2020 04:44 PM

Anonymous I feel candidates should be able to self fund. 8/13/2020 06:05 PM

Anonymous Public purse should not be used for reimbursement. There are many other 8/13/2020 10:42 PM areas of need that could use the money.

Anonymous I am aware that the aim of some running for public office is to have

Page 11 of 17 131 Contribution Rebate Program Survey : Survey Report for 01 August 2020 to 31 August 2020

8/14/2020 07:43 AM something on their resume but when you have a serious qualified candidate who has a 360 degree vision and understands the issues, they are likely to attract much more contributors of smaller amounts that would render the rebate as insignificant. Getting rid of the rebate program will restore a sense of efficiency and civility in our election process. It would free up scarce Tax Dollars for other critical services while removing the joke or fringe-ness out of politics.

Anonymous Because rebates should not be tied to elections. 8/14/2020 10:45 AM

Anonymous In the 2018 election, the town was inundated with election signs to the point it 8/18/2020 11:27 PM was ridiculous. Further, I heard neighbors tell stories about signs being placed on their lawns without their permission. I think some people ran because there was a way to secure town funding. Reduction of Town sponsored funding should reduce these issues.

Anonymous The candidates should source the funding themselves 8/27/2020 04:00 PM

Anonymous If an individual chooses to run for council than the decision should not hold 8/28/2020 07:12 AM the ability to receive a refund. Without the refund maybe people would put more consideration in why they are running and more effort into their campaign based on truly wanting to make a difference in the community. People would take the process more seriously.

Anonymous I believe it diminishes the power of the vote if my tax dollars go to fund a 8/30/2020 05:22 PM candidate who I don't support. This is particularly true for "fringe candidates". The program also punishes people who self fund by giving other's an unfair financial advantage

Optional question (28 response(s), 47 skipped) Question type: Essay Question

Q8 How might the Contribution Rebate Program be improved for future elections?

Anonymous Not sure at this time but the original set up seems well thought out. 8/04/2020 04:12 PM

Anonymous The contribution program should be reasonable in the amounts of money 8/04/2020 05:13 PM being paid out and it should only allow residents to only contribute to the candidates that are running in their ward. No rebate would be given for out of ward contributions.

Anonymous i like the way it is.. 8/05/2020 08:38 AM

Page 12 of 17 132 Contribution Rebate Program Survey : Survey Report for 01 August 2020 to 31 August 2020

Anonymous No idea since no suggestions were offered and I know very little about the 8/06/2020 04:55 PM programme. I would like to know more. Perhaps our News Advertiser would detail one of their reporters to give us more details.

Anonymous It should increase diversity of the pool and the elected officials. City council 8/06/2020 05:38 PM should represent the population and give people an opportunity to run for office, especially young people, minorities, women and disadvantaged groups.

Anonymous Better promotion. 8/07/2020 11:15 AM

Anonymous Inform the public of its existence 8/07/2020 03:10 PM

Anonymous increase the maximum someone can donate and have the rebate amount 8/07/2020 04:49 PM increase to equal the %

Anonymous Possibly set limits on how much a candidate can spend on elections to either 8/08/2020 01:28 PM get elected or re-elected.

Anonymous Advertising the availability of the program. 8/08/2020 05:39 PM

Anonymous Set stricter (lower) limits on the amount of money that can be expended on 8/08/2020 11:15 PM election campaigns (taking into account the position being contested). Increase the level of communication about the program....IMO not enough people know about it.

Anonymous Perhaps based on receiving a minimum percentage of votes formals to be 8/13/2020 04:31 PM determined

Anonymous See above 8/13/2020 07:03 PM

Anonymous Publicize it. I've not hear of it. 8/13/2020 07:47 PM

Anonymous Better awareness of the program would help substantially. I have made 8/13/2020 07:48 PM donations in past elections and was only made aware when I did. I would not be surprised if most voters were unaware of the program.

Anonymous N/A 8/13/2020 09:39 PM

Anonymous I am not able to provide an educated answer. 8/13/2020 10:29 PM

Page 13 of 17 133 Contribution Rebate Program Survey : Survey Report for 01 August 2020 to 31 August 2020

Anonymous It works quite admirably the way it is. 8/16/2020 06:35 PM

Anonymous There should be a monitoring system in place to examine how the funds are 8/17/2020 11:58 AM spent.

Anonymous It's fine as is, but would ensure that any "cap" for a single donor/ donation is 8/21/2020 11:18 AM maintained to ensure a single large donation doesn't take advantage of this plan.

Anonymous Higher rebate and faster turnaround 8/21/2020 03:26 PM

Anonymous No comment at this time 8/22/2020 09:44 PM

Anonymous I think its okay as is 8/27/2020 04:38 PM

Anonymous All rebates only for residents of Ajax,no rebates for business. 8/27/2020 07:27 PM

Anonymous Not sure 8/27/2020 08:13 PM

Anonymous Large corporations and business should not be eligible for rebate. 8/27/2020 09:43 PM

Anonymous make it larger for those of more moderate means 8/28/2020 07:36 PM

Anonymous Not sure 8/29/2020 08:13 AM

Anonymous Not sure , but a cap may be a good idea. 8/29/2020 07:56 PM

Anonymous Top three candidates should be compensated 8/29/2020 08:51 PM

Anonymous Not everyone knows about the program. Better communication is needed. 8/31/2020 07:54 PM

Optional question (31 response(s), 44 skipped) Question type: Essay Question

Page 14 of 17 134 Contribution Rebate Program Survey : Survey Report for 01 August 2020 to 31 August 2020

Q9 Please share any further thoughts you may have about the Contribution Rebate Program.

Anonymous It is a good program if it is properly explained to residents and it might 8/04/2020 05:13 PM encourage individuals to vote ( If you contributed you will most likely vote. There needs to be a cap on the amount of funds contributed and it must be cumulative for the three positions in each ward ( Mayor, Regional Councilor and local councilor

Anonymous Could one donate to a pool rather than specific candidates? 8/06/2020 05:38 PM

Anonymous If this program continues, candidates should make voters aware of how much 8/06/2020 05:43 PM money they receive under this program. If the information is already available, I have never been made aware by any candidate.

Anonymous Lets not make Ajax a boaster, rather a booster. 8/06/2020 06:35 PM

Anonymous This is a no-brainer. Spend town dollars on things that improve the town. 8/06/2020 09:21 PM That simple. A rebate program does not do that.

Anonymous Make the rebate higher for youth voters. 8/07/2020 11:15 AM

Anonymous Support for each candidate should be reflected in the number of votes that 8/07/2020 02:01 PM they receive, NOT the amount of money that they collect. It would make more sense to limit the amount of money spent by each candidate in his/her election campaign.

Anonymous The advantages to candidates and elected persons far outweigh the limited 8/07/2020 03:10 PM cost.

Anonymous I wasn't aware of it till now 8/07/2020 04:49 PM

Anonymous The survey preamble indicates that the previous rebates cost Ajax between 8/09/2020 04:14 PM $10,000 and $20,000. That seems like a really vague number. Don't we know EXACTLY how much money was rebated? If we don't know to the penny how much was awarded, that in itself is reason enough to cancel the rebate program.

Anonymous Tax dollars are already sky high. Use the money wisely rather than wasteful. 8/13/2020 03:14 PM Did a town hall really need another update? Total waste.

Anonymous Can't believe we provide payouts for donations. our tax base is so high in 8/13/2020 03:54 PM durham and prices escalating for homes and we provide funds like these.

Page 15 of 17 135 Contribution Rebate Program Survey : Survey Report for 01 August 2020 to 31 August 2020

The town needs to review their spending further and determine where they can cut back program spending, including introducing a lower salary band for new hires in the town

Anonymous This candidates want to enjoy themselves, they are selfish , they promise lot 8/13/2020 04:09 PM but in end they ignore

Anonymous More important local issues and costs that could be reviewed Which have 8/13/2020 04:31 PM waste and more priority

Anonymous It is very important that a lack of funding does not deter the best candidates 8/13/2020 06:01 PM from running for election. The Rebate program equalizes the “playing field” by encouraging/enabling support from local residents.

Anonymous Nothing further 8/13/2020 07:03 PM

Anonymous Not well used, unsure of additional suggestions. 8/13/2020 09:39 PM

Anonymous I have to educate myself more on the matter 8/13/2020 10:29 PM

Anonymous I need money but I don't mind a small investment in those who will save me 8/14/2020 07:43 AM money through improvements in health, safety, and overall quality of life.

Anonymous Rebates should not be tied or any money for that matter to the electoral 8/14/2020 10:45 AM process. If someone’s contributes it should because they are doing so without any money being returned etc in any form.

Anonymous Keep it! 8/16/2020 06:35 PM

Anonymous Contribution rebate program should ensure all candidates are spending equal 8/17/2020 11:58 AM amount of funds on their campaign, based on the number of constituents.

Anonymous I agree that those without sufficient funding should have an opportunity to 8/18/2020 11:27 PM run/serve if they chose. I understand I don't have a solution for that issue, but hope the Town can find one.

Anonymous Let's keep the rebate, and just ensure it's not abused by larger donors. 8/21/2020 11:18 AM

Anonymous No further comment 8/22/2020 09:44 PM

Anonymous I think its ok as is 8/27/2020 04:38 PM

Page 16 of 17 136 Contribution Rebate Program Survey : Survey Report for 01 August 2020 to 31 August 2020

Anonymous There should be no rebates to business ,or any person or company that has 8/27/2020 07:27 PM dealings with the Town of Ajax.

Anonymous It's ridiculous that this is something the Town does. 8/28/2020 07:12 AM

Anonymous Who gets this rebate? 8/29/2020 08:13 AM

Anonymous Top three candidates 8/29/2020 08:51 PM

Anonymous I believe that this program is undemocratic and encourages people to run, 8/30/2020 05:22 PM who are not necessarily serious about running.

Optional question (31 response(s), 44 skipped) Question type: Essay Question

Page 17 of 17 137 Campaign Contribution Rebate Program - Candidate Survey Thank you for participating in this survey. Please answer the following questions, providing as much detail as possible. All questions are optional, and you may be asked follow-up questions based on your answers. The survey should take no longer than 5 minutes.

This survey is anonymous – all answers provided will be used as part of the review process and may be published in future public reports to Council, but shall not be attributed to their submitter. Any personal information collected on this survey is collected pursuant to the Municipal Act, 2001, and will only be used for the purpose for which it is collected, and will not be distributed or used by the Town of Ajax for any other purpose. Questions about this collection may be directed to the Town of Ajax Records & Freedom of Information Coordinator at 65 Harwood Avenue South, Ajax, Ontario, L1S 2H9 or 905-619-2529 x 3343.

As a candidate in the 2018 Ajax municipal election, did you receive monetary donations to support your campaign? Yes No

In your opinion, should the Town continue to offer rebates for monetary donations to candidates seeking election to Ajax Council? Yes No

Why or why not?

138 How might the Contribution Rebate Program be improved for future elections?

Make it electronic, create an app

Please share any further thoughts you may have about the Contribution Rebate Program.

139 Campaign Contribution Rebate Program - Candidate Survey Thank you for participating in this survey. Please answer the following questions, providing as much detail as possible. All questions are optional, and you may be asked follow-up questions based on your answers. The survey should take no longer than 5 minutes.

This survey is anonymous – all answers provided will be used as part of the review process and may be published in future public reports to Council, but shall not be attributed to their submitter. Any personal information collected on this survey is collected pursuant to the Municipal Act, 2001, and will only be used for the purpose for which it is collected, and will not be distributed or used by the Town of Ajax for any other purpose. Questions about this collection may be directed to the Town of Ajax Records & Freedom of Information Coordinator at 65 Harwood Avenue South, Ajax, Ontario, L1S 2H9 or 905-619-2529 x 3343.

As a candidate in the 2018 Ajax municipal election, did you receive monetary donations to support your campaign? Yes No

Did you advise your donors about the availability of the rebate program before they made their campaign donation? Yes No

Please explain what factors (if any) discouraged you from promoting the Contribution Rebate Program to your donors.

Do you believe that the Contribution Rebate Program assisted you in raising money for your campaign? Yes No

In your opinion, should the Town continue to offer rebates for monetary donations to candidates seeking election to Ajax Council? Yes No

140 Why or why not?

IMO this program is advertised as a program to help those that are not elected raise money. If you look at who uses the program, what candidates benefit from it the most, it seems to be those that are already elected. I see this as giving those already elected more of an advantage, instead of intended purpose of giving those that are new to politics an advantage in raising money.

Please share any further thoughts you may have about the Contribution Rebate Program.

Another issue, the elections act does not allow for corporate contributions. Yet if the head of a corporation lives in Ajax and writes a candidate a cheque, they get back a large portion of their contribution. This defeats the purpose of this program. Not to mention if they choose to give their employees money to contribute to a candidate. The program has it's flaws.

I would agree to keep the program if the candidate can only use it once, the first time they run for office. This should not be a program offered to a Mayor, Regional Councillor or Ward Councillor who already has a support base, financially.

141 Campaign Contribution Rebate Program - Candidate Survey Thank you for participating in this survey. Please answer the following questions, providing as much detail as possible. All questions are optional, and you may be asked follow-up questions based on your answers. The survey should take no longer than 5 minutes.

This survey is anonymous – all answers provided will be used as part of the review process and may be published in future public reports to Council, but shall not be attributed to their submitter. Any personal information collected on this survey is collected pursuant to the Municipal Act, 2001, and will only be used for the purpose for which it is collected, and will not be distributed or used by the Town of Ajax for any other purpose. Questions about this collection may be directed to the Town of Ajax Records & Freedom of Information Coordinator at 65 Harwood Avenue South, Ajax, Ontario, L1S 2H9 or 905-619-2529 x 3343.

As a candidate in the 2018 Ajax municipal election, did you receive monetary donations to support your campaign? Yes No

Did you advise your donors about the availability of the rebate program before they made their campaign donation? Yes No

Do you believe that the Contribution Rebate Program assisted you in raising money for your campaign? Yes No

In your opinion, should the Town continue to offer rebates for monetary donations to candidates seeking election to Ajax Council? Yes No

142 Why or why not?

How might the Contribution Rebate Program be improved for future elections?

Please share any further thoughts you may have about the Contribution Rebate Program.

143 Campaign Contribution Rebate Program - Candidate Survey Thank you for participating in this survey. Please answer the following questions, providing as much detail as possible. All questions are optional, and you may be asked follow-up questions based on your answers. The survey should take no longer than 5 minutes.

This survey is anonymous – all answers provided will be used as part of the review process and may be published in future public reports to Council, but shall not be attributed to their submitter. Any personal information collected on this survey is collected pursuant to the Municipal Act, 2001, and will only be used for the purpose for which it is collected, and will not be distributed or used by the Town of Ajax for any other purpose. Questions about this collection may be directed to the Town of Ajax Records & Freedom of Information Coordinator at 65 Harwood Avenue South, Ajax, Ontario, L1S 2H9 or 905-619-2529 x 3343.

As a candidate in the 2018 Ajax municipal election, did you receive monetary donations to support your campaign? Yes No

Did you advise your donors about the availability of the rebate program before they made their campaign donation? Yes No

Do you believe that the Contribution Rebate Program assisted you in raising money for your campaign? Yes No

In your opinion, should the Town continue to offer rebates for monetary donations to candidates seeking election to Ajax Council? Yes No

144 Why or why not?

Only for people that contributed to my campaign were eligible for the rebate… None of them were warm to it and didn’t want to take the time to fill out the form. One contributor said it was bad karma and it was awkward to get anything back.

Please share any further thoughts you may have about the Contribution Rebate Program.

145 Campaign Contribution Rebate Program - Candidate Survey Thank you for participating in this survey. Please answer the following questions, providing as much detail as possible. All questions are optional, and you may be asked follow-up questions based on your answers. The survey should take no longer than 5 minutes.

This survey is anonymous – all answers provided will be used as part of the review process and may be published in future public reports to Council, but shall not be attributed to their submitter. Any personal information collected on this survey is collected pursuant to the Municipal Act, 2001, and will only be used for the purpose for which it is collected, and will not be distributed or used by the Town of Ajax for any other purpose. Questions about this collection may be directed to the Town of Ajax Records & Freedom of Information Coordinator at 65 Harwood Avenue South, Ajax, Ontario, L1S 2H9 or 905-619-2529 x 3343.

As a candidate in the 2018 Ajax municipal election, did you receive monetary donations to support your campaign? Yes No

In your opinion, should the Town continue to offer rebates for monetary donations to candidates seeking election to Ajax Council? Yes No

Why or why not?

I think the intention was noble but when I was presented with this program and the paperwork at the time I was registering to run, it struck me as odd. I think we are very fortunate to live in a society with a social security net but there is a limit and underwriting an individual's ability to contribute to a political campaign is not something I support. I do, however, believe we should support some things like helping seniors with their property taxes (the same way Pickering offers a grant -- and the province for that matter).

146 Please share any further thoughts you may have about the Contribution Rebate Program.

147 Campaign Contribution Rebate Program - Candidate Survey Thank you for participating in this survey. Please answer the following questions, providing as much detail as possible. All questions are optional, and you may be asked follow-up questions based on your answers. The survey should take no longer than 5 minutes.

This survey is anonymous – all answers provided will be used as part of the review process and may be published in future public reports to Council, but shall not be attributed to their submitter. Any personal information collected on this survey is collected pursuant to the Municipal Act, 2001, and will only be used for the purpose for which it is collected, and will not be distributed or used by the Town of Ajax for any other purpose. Questions about this collection may be directed to the Town of Ajax Records & Freedom of Information Coordinator at 65 Harwood Avenue South, Ajax, Ontario, L1S 2H9 or 905-619-2529 x 3343.

As a candidate in the 2018 Ajax municipal election, did you receive monetary donations to support your campaign? Yes No

Did you advise your donors about the availability of the rebate program before they made their campaign donation? Yes No

Do you believe that the Contribution Rebate Program assisted you in raising money for your campaign? Yes No

In your opinion, should the Town continue to offer rebates for monetary donations to candidates seeking election to Ajax Council? Yes No

148 Why or why not?

How might the Contribution Rebate Program be improved for future elections?

Please share any further thoughts you may have about the Contribution Rebate Program.

149 Campaign Contribution Rebate Program - Candidate Survey Thank you for participating in this survey. Please answer the following questions, providing as much detail as possible. All questions are optional, and you may be asked follow-up questions based on your answers. The survey should take no longer than 5 minutes.

This survey is anonymous – all answers provided will be used as part of the review process and may be published in future public reports to Council, but shall not be attributed to their submitter. Any personal information collected on this survey is collected pursuant to the Municipal Act, 2001, and will only be used for the purpose for which it is collected, and will not be distributed or used by the Town of Ajax for any other purpose. Questions about this collection may be directed to the Town of Ajax Records & Freedom of Information Coordinator at 65 Harwood Avenue South, Ajax, Ontario, L1S 2H9 or 905-619-2529 x 3343.

As a candidate in the 2018 Ajax municipal election, did you receive monetary donations to support your campaign? Yes No

Did you advise your donors about the availability of the rebate program before they made their campaign donation? Yes No

Do you believe that the Contribution Rebate Program assisted you in raising money for your campaign? Yes No

In your opinion, should the Town continue to offer rebates for monetary donations to candidates seeking election to Ajax Council? Yes No

150 Why or why not?

I used the program because it was available but I do not agree with having a rebate program and using property taxes to fund municipal campaigns. I strongly believe that the rebate program should be discontinued.

Please share any further thoughts you may have about the Contribution Rebate Program.

151 Town of Ajax Report

Report To: General Government Committee

Prepared By: Alexander Harras, Manager of Legislative Services / Deputy Clerk

Subject: Municipal Elections - Contribution Rebate Program Review

Ward(s): N/A

Date of Meeting: June 8, 2020

Reference: GGC Report, November 14, 2016 – ‘2018 Municipal Elections – Contribution Rebate Program’

Recommendation:

That the municipal election contribution rebate program be discontinued.

Background:

Under the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, municipalities may implement a contribution rebate program to reimburse individuals for donations made to candidates in municipal elections. Broadly speaking, the purpose of the program is to reduce financial barriers to candidates running for municipal office by offering an incentive to individuals to make financial contributions to candidates. Municipalities may assign any conditions, limitations, or criteria for eligibility they deem necessary when establishing a contribution rebate program. Only eight of Ontario’s 444 municipalities implemented a contribution rebate program for the 2018 municipal election, which included Toronto, Ottawa, Markham, Mississauga, Vaughan, Oakville, Whitby, and Ajax. Rebates are paid from the Town’s municipal elections reserve, which is funded by the general tax levy. Ajax was one of the first municipalities to introduce a contribution rebate program in 2000. The original intent was to encourage individual contributions for candidates to help them compete in elections without relying on corporate contributions or self-financing.

The approved program for the 2018 municipal election operated under the following eligibility requirements:

Minimum Contribution: $20 Rebate Amount: 75% Maximum Rebate: $225 (e.g. 75% on a $300 contribution)

Eligible Contributions include contributions of money from Ajax electors given to a candidate at any time during their campaign period.

Ineligible Contributions include contributions from individuals who are not Ajax electors, contributions of goods and services, proceeds from fundraisers, and contributions from a candidate or their spouse or children.

152 For the 2018 municipal election, the previous Council opted to increase the maximum rebate amount from $200 to $225 and decrease the minimum eligible contribution from $50 to $20. The implementing By-law #82-2016 expired after the 2018 election (a copy of which is included as ATT-1 to this report for reference). Additionally, municipal election financing rules underwent a number of significant changes prior to the 2018 election:

• Corporate and trade union donations were prohibited; • A low ‘cap’ on self-financing of campaigns was introduced for all candidates; and • The maximum individual contribution was increased to $1,250.

The program is reviewed by Legislative Services after each municipal election to determine whether it continues to achieve its policy objectives, and whether changes to campaign finance legislation have affected the program’s necessity and/or efficacy. Consideration should also be given to whether the program continues to align with Council’s priorities and vision. At its core, the program uses taxpayer dollars to subsidize municipal election campaigns; Council must consider whether this policy position still aligns with the values of the community and if Council supports the use of taxpayer resources in this manner.

Discussion:

Policy Objectives

The policy objectives of the program are two-fold:

1. Reduce financial barriers to candidates running for municipal office

Municipal elections can be an expensive endeavour for individuals that are interested in running for office. Many candidates choose to self-finance their campaigns, and there is now a maximum self-financing limit for candidates as of the 2018 municipal election. The rebate program offers a means for candidates to encourage Ajax electors to make contributions to their campaign, thus reducing their reliance on self-financing. By reducing financial barriers, more individuals may be encouraged to run for elected office, improving democratic choice and participation.

2. Increase civic engagement in municipal elections

Municipal elections often experience lower voter turnout than provincial and federal elections - finding ways to increase civic engagement and participation in municipal elections is therefore critical. By making it financially easier for electors to contribute to candidates, the Town is encouraging greater civic engagement and participation in the electoral process.

2018 Rebate Program Summary

The table below illustrates usage statistics of the rebate program for the last four regular elections:

Contribution Rebate Program Usage Statistics 2006 2010 2014 2018 # of Candidates Participating 12 of 17 11 of 21 10 of 22 17 of 32 # of Rebate Applications 174 139 89 142 received Total Rebate $ Issued $ 16,364 $ 10,662 $ 12,266 $23,266 Average Rebate $ Amount $ 94.05 $ 76.71 $ 137.82 $164.40

153 Compared with previous years, the 2018 program saw average overall participation by candidates (about half), and a return to an average number of rebates issued. The total cost and average rebate amount increased to its highest level in the history of the program.

Legislative Changes

When the contribution rebate program was introduced in 2000, its original intent was to reduce reliance on corporate contributions or self-financing for candidates by making it easier for candidates to raise funds from individuals. As a result of the changes to municipal campaign finance laws, these arguments are no longer relevant. However, the elimination of corporate contributions and legislated reduction in self-financing did not eliminate or reduce the need for fundraising, as the costs of running a municipal election campaign remain unchanged. Rather, these legislative changes have increased the need for individual contributions and perhaps therefore the need for incentives to contribute, such as a rebate. Additionally, the increased maximum individual contribution to $1,250 has likely acted as a substitute for corporate contributions across the province.

Whether these legislative changes have made the rebate program more or less relevant now than in past elections is a matter of interpretation. While the original objectives of the rebate program when it was established in 2000 are no longer relevant, effective campaigns now rely more on contributions from individuals than they ever have previously.

Candidate Participation

Participation in the program is typically half of the total number of candidates running for office in Ajax. This trend continued in 2018, despite a large increase in the total number of candidates:

Rebate Program Participation, 2000-2018

# of Candidates # of Candidates participating in rebate

32

21 22 17 17 16 15 12 11 10 7 5

2000 2003 2006 2010 2014 2018

Historically, the program has been utilized somewhat evenly by candidates that have run previously (either incumbents or repeat challengers) and by new candidates, who are the primary target audience for the program:

154 Candidates that Participated in Rebate Program, 2006-2018 (Incumbents, repeat challengers, new candidates)

Incumbents Repeat Challengers New Candidates

2006 2010 2014 2018 0% 10% 3 4 20% 4 5 3 30%

40% 2 1 50% 2 60% 70% 11 6 5 80% 4 90% 100%

Increased usage of the program by new candidates in 2018 is a positive trend and is in direct support of the program’s objectives to reduce financial barriers and bring in more new candidates.

2018 saw a dramatic increase in contributions from individuals and a reduction in self-financing (as a share of total revenues) by candidates:

Contributions to Candidates by Source, 2006-2018

Self Financing Individual & Fundraising $100 or Greater Individual & Fundraising less than $100 Corporate & Union

0% 6% 8% 7% 20% 12% 8%

12% 20% 34% 58% 25%

62% 49% 44% 35%

2006 2010 2014 2018

This is also a notable trend because the rebate program seeks to reduce candidate reliance on self-financing, which appears to have occurred in 2018. 155 Contributor Participation

The program’s second objective is to increase civic engagement in municipal elections, primarily by reducing financial barriers to electors making contributions to candidates. The 2018 municipal election was a ‘change election’ in Ajax with several races having no incumbents (including the mayor’s office), which typically correlates with higher overall financial activity and greater participation in an election.

The total number of rebate applications in 2018 (142) was average for the program when compared with prior elections. However, the participation in the program was comparatively low, as a number of other statistics indicate that participation and activity in the election was very high. For example, voter turnout reached a level not seen since 2000:

Voter Turnout, 2000-2018 2000 2003 2006 2010 2014 2018 % Voter Turnout 32.90% 26.72% 23.20% 25.40% 30.40% 32.90%

Additionally, due to the highly competitive nature of the 2018 election, the total number and value of all contributions was much higher than in previous elections:

Contributions to 2006 2010 2014 2018 Candidates by Source Individual & Fundraising $ 34,115.92 $ 26,171.19 $ 41,697.70 $ 178,117.81 $100 or Greater Individual or Fundraising $ 16,166.31 $ 16,649.32 $ 9,832.08 $ 21,536.09 Under $100 Corporate & Trade Union $ 27,195.61 $ 7,800.00 $ 10,000.00 $ - Self-Financing $ 60,097.45 $ 82,859.72 $ 60,079.65 $ 108,085.88 Total, All Sources $ 137,575.29 $ 133,480.23 $ 121,609.43 $ 307,739.78

An increase in the usage of the program should have naturally followed with the increase in individual contributions, however at best the program returned to participation levels seen in prior elections where contributions and participation were substantially less. The program was thus under-utilized by electors in 2018.

While the program did experience increased costs, the increase is attributable to the revisions made to the program’s rules. When Council revised the program for the 2018 election, the maximum rebate amount was increased from $200 to $225 and the minimum eligible contribution was reduced from $50 to $20 (resulting in a minimum rebate value of $15). The rationale for lowering the minimum eligible donation was to encourage a larger number of smaller donations, which are arguably easier for candidates to collect from contributors. In 2018, the value of issued rebates were distributed as follows:

2018 Distribution of Rebate Values Rebate Value # % $ % $225 78 55% $ 17,550.00 75% $151-224 4 3% $ 753.75 3% $51-150 51 36% $ 4,762.50 20% $15-50 9 6% $ 307.50 1% TOTAL 142 100% $ 23,373.75 100%

156 Very few rebates were issued for the lowest eligible amounts, and the majority of rebates were issued for the maximum amount, representing half of all rebates issued and three quarters of all rebate dollars issued. It can be concluded that the program changes introduced in 2018 did not have the intended effect, but merely added to the program’s costs.

Analysis

It is difficult to conclude definitively whether the Town’s contribution rebate program has a positive effect on candidate and elector participation in a given election. Many variables contribute to participation levels in an election, including competitiveness of certain races, whether incumbents are seeking re-election or not, presence of a referendum question on the ballot, and the accessibility and convenience of voting, among many others.

2018 represented a change election for Ajax. Naturally, this resulted in more candidates seeking election, and therefore greater fundraising activity by candidates and greater participation by electors. It cannot be determined with certainty whether the contribution rebate program caused or facilitated a portion of that increased participation, but the usage data suggests that the program was under-utilized relative to all other activity in the election. However, the program was relevant and useful to a number of new candidates for whom fundraising may have been more challenging in 2018 without it.

While the overall effect on candidate and elector participation is difficult to quantify, the costs and resources required to administer the program are well known. In addition to the value of the rebates themselves (over $23,000 in 2018), time and effort is required by staff to prepare the relevant forms, educate candidates and the public on the program, and review and process the applications received. If the program experienced a rapid increase in usage in a future election, it could be difficult to administer for staff in a timely manner. Indeed, the program’s historically low costs and administrative burdens are directly correlated with its low usage. Additionally, there remains the philosophical debate as to whether it is appropriate for Ajax taxpayers to be subsidizing municipal election campaigns. This remains solely in the realm of Council’s determination, and is a separate analysis from whether the program is effectively achieving its policy goals.

Lastly, it is clear from the data that in 2018 the program’s costs were disproportionately attributable to individuals that contributed $300 or more to candidates. These are individuals for whom the rebate itself may not be an effective incentive but merely a bonus, as they would likely have made large contributions in the absence of the program anyway. Despite lowering the minimum eligible contribution for the 2018 program, very few contributors who gave small amounts of money to candidates took advantage of the rebate program. There is little more that can be done to further stimulate usage of the rebate program among lower value contributions.

Overall, staff are of the opinion that the relative benefits of the program, being difficult to quantify, do not outweigh the costs. Further, recent legislative changes imposing candidate self-financing limits and prohibiting corporate and trade union contributions have significantly altered the fundraising landscape for candidates, to the extent that it is not clear whether the program continues to offer the benefits it once did. Staff therefore recommend discontinuing the contribution rebate program for the 2022 election.

Financial Implications:

The Town’s election expenditures in 2018, including the Contribution Rebate Program, were approximately $255,000. Eliminating the program will relieve approximately $20,000 in costs, representing approximately 10% of all estimated election expenses in 2022.

157 Communication Issues:

If the recommendation to discontinue the program is accepted, elections staff will clearly communicate to candidates and electors that the rebate program will not be offered in 2022.

Relationship to the Strategic Plan:

The recommendations in this report align with the Focus Area “Leading in Our Community”, goal 6, “Strengthening corporate governance and innovation,” action item 6.7, “Continue to be a trailblazer in the delivery of municipal elections, ensuring that the voting experience is modern, convenient and accessible for all.”

Conclusion:

Contribution rebate programs remain a rarely used tool in Ontario municipal elections, with only eight municipalities having deployed them in the 2018 municipal election. In conducting the regular review of the program, it is unclear whether contribution rebates provide genuine benefits to democratic participation in Ajax, though half of all candidates used the program effectively in 2018. The program continues to contribute to the overall cost and administrative burden of municipal elections in Ajax. It is recommended that the program be discontinued for the 2022 municipal election.

Attachments:

ATT-1: Contribution Rebate Program By-law #82-2016

Prepared by:

Alexander Harras – Manager of Legislative Services / Deputy Clerk

Submitted by:

Nicole Cooper – Director of Legislative & Information Services / Town Clerk

Approved by:

Shane Baker – Chief Administrative Officer

158 159 160 161 Town of Ajax Report

Report To: General Government Committee

Prepared By: Dana Smith – Manager of Operations and Fleet Services

Subject: Contract Award – Delivery of Winter Control Services

Ward(s): All

Date of Meeting: October 13, 2020

Reference: RFT No. T20027 Account No. Various – Delivery of Winter Control Services

Recommendation:

1. That Council award the contract for Delivery of Winter Control Services, to 614128 Ontario Ltd o/a Trisan Construction in the amount of $1,050,730.95 (inclusive of all taxes) for a period of one year.

2. That Council authorize Staff to renew the Contract for an additional nine, one year periods, pending analysis and satisfactory performance review at the anniversary date of the Contract, in the estimated amount of $9,456,578.57 (inclusive of all taxes).

Background:

For the past 20 to 25 years, the Town of Ajax has delivered winter control services to its residents by way of a hybrid service delivery model. The hybrid service delivery model consists of utilizing Town staff and equipment, supplemented by contracted services, who supply labor and equipment to maintain roadways and sidewalks.

This service delivery model has been effective in mitigating risks, enhancing customer service, ensuring public safety and maintaining compliance with various standards and legislation that the Town is governed by.

In February 2020, Council approved the expansion of the contracted winter control service to ensure on-going compliance with the Employment Standards Act, and extend the winter service delivery season between November 15th and April 15th. These program expansions have been captured as part of this contract award.

The existing contract expires on April 15th, 2021. To ensure adequate time to plan for, and procure the required equipment for November 15th, 2021, the Town initiated the procurement process in May 2020.

162 It is anticipated, as part of this Contract, the Town will require the following to support the Town’s Winter Control Services:

 11 combination sand/salt/plow road trucks with operators; and  4 combination sand/salt/plow sidewalk equipment with operators; and  1 filler truck with operator to support the sidewalk equipment.

The Contractor is required to perform winter maintenance services for an estimated total of 225 centerline kilometers of Town of Ajax roadways using combination units capable of end dumping, operating with a functional plow and wing attachedment, and spreading material simultaneously.

The Contractor is also required to perform winter maintenance services on an estimated total of 92 kilometers of Town of Ajax sidewalks using combination units capable of plowing snow and spreading de-icing and or abrasive material simultaneously. In addition, a Filler Vehicle is required to support the sidewalk clearing machine by transporting de-icing or abrasive material to each machine as part of the process.

Based on the contract requirements, and in accordance with Minimum Maintenance Standards, as determined by the province, the following service level objectives are expected:

Table No.1 - Indicates the estimated average data of each roadway route by road category for general planning purposes only.

Table No.1 (ROADS) **Estimated average **Estimated average Number Average time to complete the time to complete the Roadway Category of Kilometers/ assigned route once assigned route once Routes Route (Plowing and applying (applying deicing/abrasives) deicing/abrasives only) Arterial Roadways 2 26 6-8 hours 3-4 hours

Collector Roadways 2 34 8-10 hours 4-5 hours

Local Residential 7 16 10-12 hours 2-3 hours Roadways **assuming average winter weather conditions

163 Table No.2 - Indicates the estimated average data of each sidewalk route by sidewalk category for general planning purposes only.

Table No.2 (SIDEWALKS) **Estimated average time to Est. complete the assigned Number Est. Average Sidewalk Category route once (Plowing and of Kilometers/ Route Applying Routes deicing/abrasives)

Main Sidewalks 4 17.0 4-5 hours

Secondary Sidewalks 4 6.0 10-12 hours

**assuming average winter weather conditions

This contract terms will commence upon award with implementation to deliver all services extending from November 2021 through to October 2031.

Discussion:

The Town undertook a Request for Pre-Qualification RPQ No. PQ2002 for Contractors for Winter Control Services in June 2020. This RPQ resulted in the appointment of four pre- qualified Bidders.

Request for Tender (RFT) documents T20027 for the Delivery of Winter Control Services were posted to the Town’s eBidding platform and the four pre-qualified bidders were invited to register for the opportunity. Bids were received from all four bidders, prior to the closing on September 3, 2020. Listed below is a summary of the bids received:

NAME OF BIDDER TOTAL BID AMOUNT

614128 Ontario Ltd o/a Trisan Construction $ 1,050,730.95

PAVE-TAR CONSTRUCTION LTD. $ 1,240,645.08

Todd Brothers Contracting Limited $ 1,344,232.18

Gazzola Paving Limited $ 1,569,559.15

Financial Implications:

Funds for Delivery of Winter Control Services are included in the Operations and Environmental Services Department operating budget.

Communication Issues:

N/A

164 Relationship to the Strategic Plan:

This report aligns with the following section of the 2018-2022 Strategic Plan – Stronger Together:

Focus Area: Investing in our Community

Goal 7: Ensuring the Town’s workforce effectively and efficiently meets the community’s needs

Conclusion:

It is the recommendation of staff that 614128 Ontario Ltd o/a Trisan Construction be awarded the contract for the Delivery of Winter Control Services, being the lowest bidder meeting minimum specifications.

Attachments:

ATT-1: 2020 Budget – New/Expanded Programs and Initiatives

Prepared by:

Dana Smith – Manager of Operations and Fleet Services

Submitted by:

Dave Meredith – Director of Operations and Environmental Services

Approved by:

Shane Baker – Chief Administrative Officer

165 TOWN OF AJAX 2020 BUDGET NEW/EXPANDED PROGRAMS & INITIATIVES

DEPT./SECTION: 643 - Ops & Env. Services - Operations

DESCRIPTION: Winter Control – Hours of Work (ESA) / Expanded Season START DATE: 2020

JUSTIFICATION

Hours of Work ESA (Employment Standards Act) – Legislative Requirement The Employment Standards Act requires staff to work 60 hours in 6 days and provide for 11 hours of rest between shifts. Previously, the standard was set at 70 hours in 7 days. Prior to the change, staff from other sections in Operations were being utilized in order to be compliant with the existing legislation. The reduction in available hours (approximately 8,400 hours - 10 hours x 21 weeks x 40 staff) has created a bigger gap making it even more difficult to be compliant with the recent legislative changes. In an effort to reduce risks and liabilities associated with over-extended hours worked during a winter event response, staff are recommending the reduction of the average snow plow route length. To achieve this will require the expansion of the winter control contracted services for roadway plowing and salting by adding six additional trucks, to a total of 11 trucks, capable of plowing and salting roadways and hiring 5 additional staff (4 Operators and 1 Working Foreperson).

Expanded Season (November – April) Currently the contract for winter control starts on December 1st and ends on March 31st each year/season. In order to ensure compliance with the required timelines to remove snow accumulations and the treatment of icy roadways in the fall and late winter, staff are recommending extending this current contracted service to be in line with in house delivery from November 15th to April 15th. Currently, there are five trucks providing this service. The contract extension will cost $74,700 which includes standby costs of $62,500 ($12,500 x 5 trucks) and plowing costs of $12,200.

Summary of Costs 2020 2021 Annualization Legislative requirement – Staffing $133,800 $242,600 Legislative requirement – Expansion of contracted $247,800 $200,300 services (Standby and plowing costs for 6 additional trucks) Expanded season – Existing service (Standby and $ 74,700 - plowing costs for 5 trucks) Total Costs $456,300 $442,900

BUDGET 2020 2021 Annualization EXPENDITURE: $456,300 $442,900 LESS: REVENUE/RECOVERIES - - NET BUDGET $456,300 $442,900

166 Town of Ajax Report

Report To: General Government Committee

Prepared By: Stephen Ruddy, P. Eng. Acting Manager of Development Engineering & Transportation

Subject: Final Report - Westney Storm Sewer Outlet Retrofit

Ward(s): 3

Date of Meeting: October 13, 2020

Reference: Capital Account – 992711 RFT No. T19005, RFP No. P17013

Recommendations:

1. That the report on the net over-expenditure of $163,393.14 (net of HST rebate) on the Westney Storm Sewer Outlet Retrofit project, Capital Account No. 992711, previously awarded to Ratcliff Excavating and Grading, be received for information.

2. That Council approve additional funding of $25,640.68 to be allocated to Capital Account No. 992711 from the Capital Contingency Reserve.

Background:

In 2019, the Town obtained funding for eight stormwater initiatives which have now been completed. This included a retrofit to the Westney Road Storm Sewer Outfall through the Clean Water and Wastewater Fund (CWWF).

The outfall is located west of Westney Road South, across from Shaw Court, near the Westney Road leash-free dog park. The total drainage area is 81.3 hectares and the drainage area includes a combination of industrial, commercial, and residential property. This initiative was identified in the South Ajax Outfall Retrofit Environmental Assessment in 2011.

Consisting of two separate project awards; the design work for the project was awarded to Candevcon Limited and the construction portion of the project was awarded to Ratcliff Excavating and Grading.

Under the Capital Expenditure Control Policy, staff are required to report when project expenditures have exceeded the approved spending limit.

Discussion:

This project included the installation of an oil and grit separator (OGS) at the storm sewer outfall discharging into Duffins Creek, just north of Clements Road West.

167 Subject: Final Report – Westney Storm Sewer Outlet Retrofit Page 2

During the excavation work associated with this project, it was discovered that soil conditions were much worse than anticipated and required further geotechnical design work. This resulted in the installation of helical piles for structural support, which entailed the design of the piles as well as a structural engineer review.

Also, during excavation, an unanticipated concrete slab foundation was encountered, which is believed to be remnant infrastructure from either the former Westney Road landfill or Durham Water Pollution Control plant, both of which were located in this general area.

Therefore, additional budget was required to obtain the necessary resources required to complete this project in accordance with legislative requirements. The below chart explains the project billing details:

Financial Implications:

Vendor Award Date Approved Actual Over Spending Expenditures Expenditure Limit

Candevcon Limited September 18, $ 69,269.09 $ 74,902.03 ($5,632.94) 2017

Ratcliff Excavating March 4, 2019 $ 716,212.14 $ 736,219.88 ($20,007.74) and Grading

Over Budget – GGC Report February 19, 2019: $137,752.46 Over-Expenditures:

Candevcon Limited: $5,632.94 Ratcliff Excavating and Grading: $20,007.74 $25,640.68

Over Budget: $163,393.14

Additional funding in the amount of $25,640.68 will be allocated from the capital contingency reserve.

Relationship to the Strategic Plan:

This report aligns with:

Focus Area: Investing in our Community Goal 5: Undertaking key corporate review and strategies Action 5.7: Undertake a Stormwater Sustainability Plan to inform long-term funding requirements, and implement stormwater management infrastructure.

Conclusion:

The original approved spending limit for the Westney Storm Sewer Outlet Retrofit Construction has been exceeded and this report has been prepared in accordance with the Capital Expenditure Control Policy.

168 Subject: Final Report – Westney Storm Sewer Outlet Retrofit Page 3

Attachments:

ATT-1: GGC Report: Contract Award – Westney Storm Sewer Outlet Retrofit Construction

Prepared by:

Stephen Ruddy, P. Eng. – Acting Manager of Development Engineering & Transportation

Submitted by:

Geoff Romanowski, MCIP, RPP, CPT – Director of Planning and Development Services

Approved by:

Shane Baker – Chief Administrative Officer

169 170 171 172 173 Town of Ajax Report

Report To: General Government Committee

Prepared By: Mike Sawchuck, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Senior Planner

Subject: Renaming of Graf Spee Lane

Ward(s): 3

Date of Meeting: October 13, 2020

Reference: Council Meeting – July 27, 2020

Recommendation:

That staff be directed to proceed with changing the name of Graf Spee Lane to Hassard- Short Lane, and notify all residents accordingly.

1.0 Background:

The Town of Ajax has a long-standing street-naming policy that was implemented in 1958 to commemorate its unique war-time history. Under this policy, all new streets in the Town must be named after personnel that served on the HMS Ajax, Exeter or Achilles – the three Allied ships that defeated Germany’s Admiral Graf Spee in the Battle of the River Plate in December 1939, during World War II.

The Town’s current street-naming policy, which was formally adopted in 1997, maintains the intent of the initial policy but has also introduced some flexibility for street naming. For example, it outlines a process for new names to be compiled from sources beyond veteran names, provided that they are first approved by Town Council.

In May 2017, a member of Town Council approached the Town’s Heritage Advisory Committee (HAC) with a suggestion to add the name “Graf Spee” to the Street Name Reserve List. This suggestion was made with the intent of commemorating the role of the Admiral Graf Spee as the only remaining ship involved in the Battle of the River Plate that had not yet been commemorated. Although this ship was part of the enemy fleet, it was part of a historic battle that ultimately resulted in the naming of the Town of Ajax.

At this same HAC meeting it was suggested that the name “Graf Spee” could be applied to the private condominium lane providing access to 35 new residential dwellings proposed by Esquire Homes along Kings Crescent. At the conclusion of the discussion, the HAC made a motion recommending that Council consider naming the new lane after the German ship. This recommendation was approved by Council in June 2017.

In summer of 2020, as construction of the Esquire Homes development neared completion, the Town received several complaints about the new lane’s name (Graf Spee Lane) referencing a 174 German warship. In response, Ajax Town Council passed the following resolution at its July 27, 2020 meeting:

WHEREAS Council of the Town of Ajax has adopted a policy to name its streets after personnel serving on the HMS Ajax during the Battle of the River Plate, and from other sources where Council deems appropriate;

AND WHEREAS the Town has also named streets after the ships engaged in the Battle of the River Plate including the Graf Spee, the German ship that was scuttled during the battle;

AND WHEREAS Council has received concerns from residents regarding the naming of Graf Spee Lane, and therefore deems it expedient to consider renaming the street;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council directs staff to initiate the process to rename the street currently known as Graf Spee Lane;

AND THAT as per the Street Naming Policy, Council hereby directs the Director of Planning & Development Services to hold an open house for the affected residents of Graf Spee Lane, and to report back to Council with the results of the open house and a recommended course of action to rename the street;

AND THAT staff inform and consult with the Heritage Advisory Committee on the renaming of Graf Spee Lane.

2.0 Discussion:

As per the resolution above, staff have been tasked with three separate responsibilities in this matter. These include:

 Hosting an open house for affected residents;  Providing a recommended course of action; and  Consulting with the Heritage Advisory Committee.

Each responsibility is addressed below.

Results of the Open House

A virtual open house was held on September 16, 2020 to provide Graf Spee Lane residents with information about the history of Ajax, the Town’s street-naming policy, and the actions that led to the naming of their street. This session was also used to gauge the opinion of residents as to whether the street should be renamed. In total, there were 11 separate participants at the open house: three members of Town staff, four members of Council and four Graf Spee Lane households.

When asked whether they wished to have the name of their street changed, the results were mixed. One household expressed a clear desire to have the name changed. One household expressed a desire to keep the name the same, indicating an aversion to having to update personal information as a result of a street name change. The remaining two households demonstrated a somewhat neutral position, indicating that they would support the name change if it were something that the majority of residents desired.

175

Recommended Course of Action

As per the Council Resolution, staff were directed to determine an appropriate new name for the street. This task was made relatively simple due to the presence of the Town’s Street Name Reserve List. This list contains all unassigned street names already approved by Council and also designates “priority” names that are to be assigned at the earliest date possible. The name “Hassard-Short” sat atop the list of priority names and was therefore selected by staff as an appropriate replacement name for Graf Spee Lane.

Consultation with the Heritage Advisory Committee

The matter was presented and discussed at the Heritage Advisory Committee (HAC) meeting of September 9, 2020. HAC members indicated support for changing the name of Graf Spee Lane.

3.0 Financial Implications:

The financial implications associated with a street name change are primarily administrative in nature. The lone hard cost relates to replacing the existing street signs at the lane’s two intersections with Kings Crescent. This expense is estimated by Operations Department to be approximately $200.

4.0 Communication Issues:

The Planning & Development Services Department has worked closely with the Communications Section since the emergence of this matter and will continue to do so moving forward. Communications has helped to delineate the strategy for consulting with residents of Graf Spee Lane and will assist in the application of any actions required as a result of Council’s decision on this matter.

5.0 Relationship to the Strategic Plan:

This report aligns with the following section of the Strategic Plan:

Focus Area: Connecting our community Goal 3: Fostering a sense of place and celebrating our history. Action 3.5: Celebrate our unique history and heritage.

6.0 Conclusion:

The Town has received requests to change the name of the street. Given these requests and the direction from Council to present “a recommended course of action to rename the street,” staff are recommending that the name be changed to Hassard-Short Lane, in accordance with the highest priority name on the Town’s Street Name Reserve List.

176 Attachments:

N/A

Prepared by:

Mike Sawchuck, MCIP, RPP, CAHP – Senior Planner

Submitted by:

Geoff Romanowski, MCIP, RPP, CPT – Director of Planning & Development

Approved by:

Shane Baker – Chief Administrative Officer

177 Town of Ajax Report

Report To: General Government Committee

Prepared By: John Grieve, MCIP, RPP Supervisor of Transportation

Subject: 2020 Traffic Calming Warrant Update

Ward(s): All

Date of Meeting: October 13, 2020

Reference:

Recommendation:

1. That the 2020 Traffic Calming Warrant Update be endorsed by Council for use by staff to evaluate and address traffic calming related requests in the Town of Ajax.

Background:

The Town’s current Traffic Calming Warrant is a policy tool that outlines when and how traffic calming should be used. It was approved in 2015 and was an update to the Town’s first Traffic Calming Warrant (2007).

Since the implementation of the 2015 Traffic Calming Warrant, traffic issues on Town roads have become more complex and have created a need to review the program to ensure that the warrant process is sufficiently responsive to locational conditions and traffic calming priorities. The intent of the update is to re-examine and verify the assessment process, evaluation criteria, threshold and scoring criteria of the Warrant based on existing best practices.

In May 2019, the Town retained WSP Canada to work with staff to undertake the Traffic Calming Warrant Update.

The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the 2020 Traffic Calming Warrant Update and to seek Council’s endorsement of it for use to evaluate and address traffic calming related requests in the Town of Ajax.

Discussion:

The following is a summary of the 2020 Traffic Calming Warrant Update. The updated warrant is attached to this report.

178 Subject: 2020 Traffic Calming Warrant Update Page 2

Update Framework

1) Review of 2015 Warrant

The 2015 warrant outlined a six step process when considering a road segment for traffic calming. Contained within these steps, there appeared to be a number of opportunities to review and refine the elements of each step in order to establish a more efficient and effective process in the 2020 warrant. Based on the review of the 2015 warrant, along with discussions with both Town Staff and stakeholders, the following opportunities for improvement were identified:

• Speed is the only measure which would qualify a location to be categorized as a priority location. This allows locations with a high traffic speed to be prioritized over other locations where speeding was not t as high, but traffic calming is also needed.

• There are opportunities to improve the overall process for traffic calming. Improvements could be made to the data collection, evaluation, and implementation steps. There were also opportunities to better define the overall process along with emphasizing the need for monitoring within the new process.

• While the list of available traffic calming measures represent current and conventional measures commonly used by other municipalities, there was the opportunity to identify new measures which have become popular in the last five years, as well as others which would support the new overall process.

2) Best Practices and Comparable Policies

Traffic calming polices from neighbouring municipalities were reviewed as a comparison of relevant best practices. This review included assessment of policies from the City of Pickering, City of Oshawa and Town of Whitby. When reviewing the policies, the project team assessed the various components of each and how they may relate to traffic calming in the Town of Ajax. The review found that each policy had similar criteria related to the warrant evaluation process. Each had scoring for speed, volume and collisions. In Oshawa and Pickering, they required a minimum percentage of public support, while the Town of Whitby did not. The policies also included alternative components of evaluation, including assessing heavy vehicle percentage and determining if the route was a transit or emergency route.

During the teams review, it was noted that two of these policies were dated. Oshawa’s policy was last updated in 2004 while Pickering’s policy was last updated in 2007. It is Town staffs understanding that both Oshawa and Pickering are currently completing updates to their policies.

3) Ravenscroft Road Pilot Project

Over the summer of 2019 a pilot study was implemented on Ravenscroft Road to test a traffic calming treatment which has not been used extensively in the Town previously. The pilot study involved the placement of flexible bollards on the centerline of the road and close to the curb to create two narrower “gateways” for traffic to flow through.

Data collected following the implementation of the flexible bollards in fall 2019 show a drop in traffic volume through the corridor along with a reduction in traffic speed at some locations. In addition to the data, the Town received feedback, both positive and negative, on the pilot study from residents and Councillors.

179 Subject: 2020 Traffic Calming Warrant Update Page 3

Based on the feedback that was received on the initial deployment of bollards, changes were made to the design and additional locations were implemented in the summer of 2020. It was felt that these new locations, along with the relocation of existing locations would have a greater traffic calming impact.

Table 1 below provides a summary of the data collected along the corridor. The table shows data from three time periods; prior to the installation of any traffic calming measures, in 2019 after the installation of the first bollards, and in 2020 after the installation of the additional bollards.

Table 1 - Data Summary (Ravenscroft Road)

Before Traffic After first After second Location Calming installation installation (Sept. 2019) (Oct. 2019) (Sept. 2020) Daily Traffic North of Foakes Drive 3937 3092 2720 South of Brennan Road 3851 3089 2841 West of Daniels Crescent 4010 3241 2852 West of Radford Drive 5816 4247 4375 85th Percentile Speed North of Foakes Drive 55 km/h 55km/h 53km/h South of Brennan Road 50 km/h 52km/h 47km/h West of Daniels Crescent 48 km/h 48km/h 45km/h West of Radford Drive 52km/h 46km/h 49km/h

The relocation and deployment of additional bollards along the Ravenscroft Road corridor have had the impact of lowering the volume and speed of vehicles. Three of the four locations saw lower traffic volumes and speeds compared to after the first installation of traffic calming measures last year and all four locations saw lower traffic volumes and speeds compared to before the installation of measures.

The data collected in September 2020 was evaluated using the new criteria and scoring from the 2020 warrant update and all four locations indicated that each segment of road was not warranted for traffic calming. With this result, staff are confident that the appropriate traffic calming measures have been implemented on Ravenscroft Road and that they are working effectively.

Warrant Evaluation Process

The warrant evaluation process was updated to address the challenges, lessons learned, and the Town’s experience with the current warrant process, while also incorporating the latest best practices. The updated evaluation process is a seven step process, which is shown in the diagram below. A brief summary of each step follows the diagram.

180 Subject: 2020 Traffic Calming Warrant Update Page 4

Step 1: Traffic Calming Request

Initial traffic calming requests are received though many different methods including phone calls, emails and letters. They come from residents, Councillors and from time to time Town Staff. With each request, staff collect basic information on the road segment and provide a brief overview of the upcoming process.

Step 2: Initial Screening

Once a request is received, the road segment will be screened with a list of initial criteria to confirm its eligibility for traffic calming. A segment must pass this initial screening to proceed to the full evaluation. Once a location is deemed eligible for traffic calming, it is added to the list of locations for data collection. If a location does not meet one of the screening criteria, the location is not eligible for traffic calming for a period of two years.

Step 3: Data Collection

This step involves the collection of required data for the evaluation step. This process focuses on collecting two specific traffic characteristics for a given segment, the speed and volume of the traffic. Currently, the Town collects data at required locations twice a year, in the spring and fall. Additional locations can be selected for data collection throughout the year based on the needs and the Town’s discretion.

181 Subject: 2020 Traffic Calming Warrant Update Page 5

Step 4: Evaluation

The next step in the process is to complete an evaluation based on the warrant criteria. There are seven warrant criteria which are evaluated (Table 2). In order for a segment to quality for traffic calming, where applicable it must meet the minimum threshold of a criteria and then overall it must score at least the minimum number of points based on its road classification as noted below.

• 35 points for a Local Road • 40 points for a Collector Road • 45 points for a Type ‘C’ Arterial Road

Table 2 - Warrant Criteria & Scoring

If a location does not meet one of the minimum thresholds or overall does score the required minimum number of points, the location is not eligible for traffic calming for a period of two years.

182 Subject: 2020 Traffic Calming Warrant Update Page 6

Step 5: Traffic Calming Design

The locations that score at least the minimum point threshold are eligible for traffic calming implementation. Based on the Town’s available budget, each year the Town will implement the most appropriate traffic calming measure at as many locations as possible. The available traffic calming measures can be sorted into two categories, minor-adjustment and major-adjustment measures.

The two categories simply group similar type adjustments with similar levels of effort related to implementation. They are not meant to imply the severity or priority of a traffic calming measure. The type of measure for a given location is identified based on the traffic and road characteristics and are confirmed through consultation.

Step 6: Consultation & Implementation

With all traffic calming projects that proceed to implementation there is a public consultation process which is initiated to review the preliminary design. Residents and Council are notified of the consultation opportunity and are invited to provide feedback on the preliminary design.

After a preliminary design is reviewed, staff revise the design based on the feedback received before preparing the tender documents for implementation. The tender process is then completed, followed by construction of the traffic calming measure.

Step 7: Monitoring

All traffic calming measures are to be reviewed and evaluated after installation. The monitoring results will determine whether additional traffic calming efforts/measures are required. New data will be collected to be evaluated again against the same criteria and point system. If the location scores enough points to still be eligible for traffic calming, additional measures will be considered.

It is recommended that Town staff produce an annual Traffic Calming Report that includes the list of requests received and considered, along with the results of each of the requests. The report should also include details on locations with newly implemented traffic calming measures, the results of any monitoring completed, and a summary of costs for traffic calming implementation that year and a forecast for the upcoming year. This annual report would be presented to Council in advance of budget considerations annually and be available publicly on the Town’s website after being received by Council.

Traffic Calming Process Timeline

The intent for this new warrant and improved process is to be able to go from receiving a request to implementing a traffic calming solution where necessary within a 16-18 month timeframe. Currently, requests which meet the traffic calming warrant often wait 2 years or more between when a segment was evaluated and when a traffic calming measure is implemented.

In order to meet this timeline, Council will need to continue to provide sufficient budget to the Traffic Calming program and staff will need to ensure they keep on schedule throughout the process. Additionally, the backlog of road segments which have been identified for traffic calming will also have to be addressed. The “Traffic Calming Implementation Plan” staff report, presented at the October 2020 GGC, outlines a plan which will see this backlog cleared over the next few years, while still providing staff the ability to address new road segments which are added moving forward.

183 Subject: 2020 Traffic Calming Warrant Update Page 7

A typical annual timeline for traffic calming is shown below (Table 3). Requests for evaluation are received through the year. Data collection take places twice a year in spring (April-May) and fall (September-October). Following the data collection programs in spring and fall, the data is analyzed. In December-January staff review which projects have been identified as warranted and determine the appropriate traffic calming solutions and their potential budget impacts. Preliminary designs are then prepared for those which are being brought forward for completion that year. The preliminary designs are then presented to the public for review in February, before being refined and tenders issued in March-April. Construction of traffic calming projects are anticipated to take place between May-July.

Table 3 - Typical Traffic Calming Timeline

January February March April May June July August September October November December Request Evaluation Data Collection Data Analysis Design PIC Refine Design Contracting Installation Monitoring

Traffic Calming Measures

Traffic calming measures that were listed in the 2015 warrant were reviewed and compared to the Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming (2nd Edition). The objective of the review was to ensure the traffic calming types, benefits, limitations and suitability to certain locations was up to date. The measures included in the Traffic Calming Toolbox have been updated with changes to terminology and level of impact by measure to reflect this review. The use of flexible bollards has also been added to the toolbox. Table 3 shows the types of measures described in the Tool Box by category.

184 Subject: 2020 Traffic Calming Warrant Update Page 8

Table 3: Types of Traffic Calming Measures

Vertical Deflection Horizontal Deflection • Raised Crosswalk • Chicane, 1-lane • Raised Intersection • Chicane, 2-lane • Speed Cushion • Curb Radius Reduction • Speed Hump / Speed Table • Lateral Shift Surface Treatment Road Narrowing • Sidewalk Extension • Flexible Bollards • Textured Crosswalk • Curb Extension Obstruction • Neckdown • Directional Closure • Lane Narrowing • Diverter • On-Street Parking • Full-Closure • Raised Median Island • Intersection Channelization • Road Diet

Financial Implications:

The implementation of traffic calming projects is captured through the annual Capital Budget allocation of $100,000. This amount should be reviewed periodically to ensure it is sufficient based on the quantity and complexity of traffic calming projects in the Town of Ajax.

Communication Issues:

A Public Information Centre was held on March 11, 2020 at the McClean Community Centre. The majority of concerns raised by residents in attendance was related to individual speeding concerns for specific roads in Town as opposed to the traffic calming warrant process itself. There were some comments related to the overall process for traffic calming taking too long.

Through the review and refinement of the Ravenscroft Road traffic calming design, staff confirmed with Ajax Fire and Emergency Services that they remain concerned about any traffic calming measure that would necessitate any emergency vehicle having to slow down. Staff will continue to consult with emergency services prior to the implementation of any traffic calming device.

In May 2020, Staff gave update presentations to both the senior management team (SMT) and Council on the progress of the Traffic Calming Warrant Update. In these presentations staff outlined the history of traffic calming in Ajax, a preliminary assessment of the Ravenscroft Road pilot program and outlined the proposed new traffic calming warrant process. At these presentations, staff also answered questions about current road segments, which had been identified for traffic calming. It was noted that these roads remained on a warranted list. Staff have prepared the “Traffic Calming Implementation Plan” report, which is also being presented at the October GGC meeting that outlines the proposed implementation of these projects.

185 Subject: 2020 Traffic Calming Warrant Update Page 9

Relationship to the Strategic Plan:

This report aligns with the following section of the Strategic Plan:

Focus Area: Leading in our Community Goal 5: Investing in our Community Action 5.3: Update Traffic Calming Warrant Program implement approved measures in a timely manner

Conclusion:

The 2020 Traffic Calming Warrant is reflective of current best practices in the industry, while maintaining criteria which are suited for the Town. The updates to the process enable staff to be more efficient and effective in their evaluation and the new emphasis on monitoring helps to ensure that all implemented traffic calming measures are effective and that additional measures are not needed.

Traffic is dynamic and its characteristics will change over time. It is recommended that staff continually monitor the overall Traffic Calming Warrant. It is recommended that a complete traffic calming warrant update be completed every five years. Minor updates to the warrant points and thresholds can be completed on an as needed basis.

Attachments:

ATT-1: 2020 Traffic Calming Warrant Update

Prepared by:

John Grieve, MCIP, RPP – Supervisor of Transportation

Submitted by:

Geoff Romanowski, CPT, MCIP, RPP – Director of Planning & Development Services

Approved by:

Shane Baker – Chief Administrative Officer

186

TRAFFIC CALMING POLICY UPDATE Town of Ajax 2020

PROJECT NO. 19M-00699-00

187

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... A

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 What is Traffic Calming? ...... 1 1.2 Study Background ...... 1 1.3 Purpose and Objectives ...... 2

2 FRAMEWORK ...... 3 2.1 Review of Ajax’s 2015 Warrant ...... 3 2.2 Best Practices and Comparable Policies ...... 3 2.2.1 TAC’s Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming 2018 ...... 4 2.2.2 Town of Whitby ...... 5 2.2.3 City of Ottawa ...... 5 2.2.4 City of Oshawa ...... 6 2.2.5 City of Pickering ...... 6 2.3 Ravenscroft Road Pilot Study ...... 7 2.3.1 Ravenscroft Road Pilot Project Results ...... 7

3 WARRANT EVALUATION PROCESS ...... 9 3.1 Request for Traffic Calming ...... 10 3.2 Preliminary Screening Process ...... 10 3.3 Data Collection ...... 12 3.4 Traffic Calming Warrant Criteria & Scoring System 12 3.5 Traffic Calming Design ...... 14 3.6 Consultation and Implementation ...... 14 3.7 Monitoring Program ...... 15 3.8 Traffic Calming Process Timeline...... 16

4 TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES ...... 17 4.1 Types of Measures ...... 17

188 5 CONCLUSION ...... 18

A BEST PRACTICES REFERENCE – PROCESS ...... 19

B TRAFFIC CALMING REQUEST FORM ...... 20

C TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES TOOLBOX ...... 21

189 TABLES TABLE 1 PRELIMINARY SCREENING CRITERIA ...... 11 TABLE 2 WARRANT CRITERIA & POINTS CRITERIA ...... 13

FIGURES FIGURE 1 RAVENSCROFT PILOT PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ...... 7 FIGURE 2 BEFORE AND AFTER DATA COMPARISON ...... 8 FIGURE 3 TRAFFIC CALMING PROCESS FLOW CHART...... 9

190 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Town of Ajax has updated its Traffic Calming Policy to make it more efficient and to be able to address more locations. It also reflects the Town’s current long-term strategic plan, lessons learned from the existing warrant and the updated National guidelines. The main goal of traffic calming is to improve traffic and road safety for all road users and to encourage driver behaviour changes. The objectives of these traffic calming measures are to reduce the negative impacts of vehicle traffic on a specific road segment such as high vehicle speeds, high traffic volume and increased conflicts between road users. The recommended process and traffic calming treatments in the updated National guidelines, Transportation Association of Canada’s Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming in 2018 (CGTC), and other municipalities were reviewed. The updated policy includes key revisions such as: • A standard submission form was developed for consistency. • Elimination of the hierarchy list (general and priority list) that over-weighted locations with high traffic speeds in lower speed limit zones. • The warrant criteria have been adjusted to better reflect the relative need and priority of different locations. • Recommendation of two streams of treatments, minor and major adjustment treatments. The minor adjustment treatments are cost-effective to allow for more locations to be addressed in a year’s budget. The major adjustments require significant infrastructural changes and are implemented where minor adjustment treatments have not been effective. • Stronger emphasis on monitoring after implementation of the traffic calming measures. This helps confirm the effectiveness of the treatment and ensure that additional measures are not needed. The warrant process (Figure A) follows seven steps: Request, Initial Screening, Data Collection, Evaluation, Traffic Calming Design, Consultation & Implementation and Monitoring.

191 Figure A – Traffic Calming Process Flow Chart

192 1 INTRODUCTION

The Town of Ajax’s Traffic Calming Warrant is a policy tool that outlines when and how traffic calming should be used in the Town of Ajax. This Warrant has been updated with the consideration of the Town’s current long-term strategic plan, lessons learned from the existing warrant and based on the review of the best practices nationally and in neighbouring municipalities. This warrant update was developed in consultation with Transportation Staff from the Town’s Planning and Development Services Department.

1.1 WHAT IS TRAFFIC CALMING? Traffic calming is used to improve traffic safety for all road users through mainly physical features to encourage driver behaviour changes. The objectives of these traffic calming measures are to reduce the negative impacts of vehicle traffic on a specific road segment such as high vehicle speeds, high traffic infiltration / cut-through traffic and increased conflicts between road users. Traffic calming measures are selected depending on the specific concerns, geometric considerations and needs. The implementation of traffic calming should be applied consistently town-wide and with careful attention to the network impacts to ensure that volume and speed concerns are not transferred to adjacent streets.

1.2 STUDY BACKGROUND The Town of Ajax published its first Traffic Calming Warrant Framework and Process in 2007 (2007 TCWFP). The update to the first warrant occurred in 2015 to make the process more efficient and fair and to be able to address all of the eligible locations within given resources and a reasonable timeline. While the 2015 update addressed previously raised issues to 2007 TCWFP, since its adoption and use over the last five years, residents and Town staff have identified components of the 2015 warrant that this update will review, such as: ▪ Speeding concerns appear to be the main focus and are the only criteria that will allow the location to be prioritized; ▪ The overall process for the staff and for the residents should be better defined; ▪ Data collection procedures should be better defined; ▪ A well-defined monitoring program is not included in the process; and

193 ▪ Overall the warrant could use more justification based on the best practices and industry standards.

1.3 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES As the third edition of Traffic Calming Policy for The Town of Ajax, the updated policy is to provide an ongoing framework for addressing safety concerns in the residential neighbourhoods within the Town of Ajax. The desire for traffic calming is typically created by specific drive behaviour threatening the safety of all road users and the quality of life for adjacent property owners. The objective of this traffic calming warrant review is to update the existing policy with the latest and best practices in traffic calming and with consideration of the local Ajax context to address the speeding and volume concerns raised by the residents. A review of current guidelines in other municipalities and the current Town policy will help ensure the warrant process is effective and suitable for the Town of Ajax. The intent is not to create an entirely new warrant but rather to add or improve on the components that have been identified as needing improvement through experience in Ajax.

194 2 FRAMEWORK

2.1 REVIEW OF AJAX’S 2015 WARRANT The Town of Ajax’s current warrant was developed in March 2015 and it outlined a six step processing when considering a road segment for traffic calming. Based on the review of the 2015 warrant, there were a number of opportunities to refine the elements of each step in order to establish a more efficient and effective process in the 2020 warrant. The Town Staff and stakeholder were involved to identify the following opportunities for improvement: • For the overall process, improvements could be made to the data collection, evaluation, implementation steps, and to emphasize the need for monitoring within the new process. • Eligible locations are categorized into either the general or the critical list, where the critical locations are prioritized. Speed is the only measure which would qualify a location to be categorized as a priority location. This allows locations with a high traffic speed to be prioritized over other locations where speeding wasn’t as high, but traffic calming is also needed. • While the existing list of available traffic calming measures includes current and conventional measures commonly used by Canadian municipalities. However, there was the opportunity to identify new measures which have become popular in the last five years, as well as others which would support the new overall process.

2.2 BEST PRACTICES AND COMPARABLE POLICIES The national Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming and traffic calming policies from Ontario municipalities are reviewed as a comparison of relevant best practices. The four municipalities reviewed are: the Town of Whitby, City of Ottawa, City of Oshawa, and City of Pickering. When reviewing these policies, specific components in relation to the Town of Ajax and how it can be adapted to the Town are highlighted. Each municipality’s’ policy is summarized in the following section. The flow chart and details of each policy can be found in Appendix A.

195 2.2.1 TAC’S CANADIAN GUIDE TO TRAFFIC CALMING 2018 The Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) jointly updated the 1998 Canadian Guide to Neighbourhood Traffic Calming and have published the second edition of the Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming in 2018 (CGTC). The CGTC has been widely accepted as a national guideline, and the CGTC was reviewed to assist the Town of Ajax and to be used as a reference. In the CGTC, it is highlighted that traffic calming is used to maintain the road’s intended function while keeping the safety of all road users at the forefront. Excessive speeding and traffic short-cutting are the two main triggers for traffic calming needs. Increasing the safety of the road users may be accomplished by decreasing the operating speed of vehicles and volume of traffic and heightening the awareness of other street users. To achieve this, traffic calming treatments are largely physical measures but appropriate signage, pavement marking, enforcement and educational/awareness programs can contribute to motorists' behaviour changes. Some of the notable changes to the updated CGTC are: • The eligible road classifications are local, collector and arterials roads. In the past, traffic calming was designed and implemented primarily in residential neighbourhood areas (local and collector only). It should be noted that the function of arterial roads should not be hindered and access restriction and diversion of traffic flow are not recommended on arterial roads. • The characteristic of the area, rural or urban, is an important factor to consider when choosing traffic calming measures. The traffic calming measures are updated to include suitable measures in rural areas. • The list of traffic calming devices has been updated to include well-accepted treatments in other municipalities and innovative solutions that have been used to address road safety and align with the objectives of traffic calming. • In addition to literature reviews, data and performance outcomes of the listed treatments are included. The Town of Ajax’s updated policy follows the same framework and process steps as outlined in the CGTC - initiation, development, approval, implementation and evaluation. In addition, the list of potential traffic calming devices is aligned with the CGTC’s categories and types. The Ajax traffic calming toolbox that indicates the suitability of each traffic calming device has been updated.

196 2.2.2 TOWN OF WHITBY The Town of Whitby received Council approval of the Traffic Operational Review Policy in June 2017. The details from the policy are listed below: • There are five steps in the Town of Whitby’s process: Step 1 Initiation of Review, Step 2 Prioritization of Requests, Step 3 Initial Screening of Request, Step 4 Preliminary Assessment and Problem Identification, and Step 5 Ratification of Solutions. • During Step 2, locations impacting schools, Town District Parks, and multi-unit senior’s residence are prioritized. • After the review of the criteria, and the location is deemed eligible, two potential solutions are provided: Minor and Major. • Minor solutions include general advisory signs, minor pavement markings and minor curb/sidewalk adjustments. • Public consultation is not conducted until a recommended solution is proposed. • The use of bollards and pavement markings may be used as a temporary basis prior to considering permanent installation to assess results.

2.2.3 CITY OF OTTAWA The City of Ottawa’s traffic calming program includes the following options for approved requests: changing the posted speed limit, communication and enforcement measures, temporary traffic calming measure program, engineering measures, and enforcement. • Residents can request to lower the posted speed limit to 40 km/h if the roadway is designated as a residential local roadway and with a minimum of 66 percent support from the neighbours through a petition process. • The Temporary Traffic Calming Measures (TTCM) Program includes effective measures that are low in cost, easily installed and modified. • Engineering Measures are implemented through road renewal projects, as part of new development or through the Neighbourhood Traffic Calming (NTC) Program. • Communication and enforcement measures are to inform and educate motorists to drive appropriately through the use of signage, other educational campaign exercises, and targeted enforcement.

197 2.2.4 CITY OF OSHAWA The City of Oshawa published its Neighbourhood Traffic Management Guide in March 2002 to address issues with unnecessary traffic on a particular road. Key elements of the Guide are listed below: • The process for Oshawa’s traffic management is in three stages to follow the Class EA Process: Stage 1 Identify the Problem, Stage 2 Develop a Plan, and Stage 3 Implement the Plan and Monitor the Results. • Public involvement is early in the process and frequent. • Eligible roadways are arterial, collector and local roads. • Violation reports from the "Road Watch Program" is one of the sources used to identify a problem. The report is sent to the Oshawa Community Police Office. • Additional data sources considered: seven-day traffic volumes, truck volumes, 24- hour speed distribution, origins and destinations of trips using the roadway, and pedestrian surveys.

2.2.5 CITY OF PICKERING The City of Pickering published its Safer Streets Traffic Management Strategy in January 2003. It includes not only the traffic calming policy but also Neighbourhood Traffic Watch Program, 40 km/h Reduced Speed Policy, All-way Stop Sign Policy, and Community Safety Zones as a holistic approach to better manage traffic within the neighbourhood. The City’s Traffic Calming Policy includes: • Minimum requirements include: roadway classification, road segment, number of lanes, 85th percentile speed, and infiltration volume. • The requests are on a first-come-first-served basis and will be evaluated through a number of initial criteria and points based evaluation criteria. • Safer Streets Traffic Calming Review Committee made of internal City staff and residential representatives will review the proposed solution for comments.

198 2.3 RAVENSCROFT ROAD PILOT STUDY In 2019, the Town decided that a pilot study would be carried out on Ravenscroft Road to test a traffic calming treatment which had not been used extensively in the Town previously. The pilot study involved the placement of flexible bollards on the centreline of the road and close to the curb to create two narrower “gateways” for traffic to go through (Figure 1). The use of these bollards is seen as a traffic calming solution which can be implemented quickly, is lower cost than many other traffic calming options and has a large amount of flexibility when it comes to the installation. If added to the available traffic calming measures in the updated warrant, the bollards had the potential to allow the Town to address more streets with the available budget. Figure 1 Ravenscroft Pilot Project Implementation

2.3.1 RAVENSCROFT ROAD PILOT PROJECT RESULTS The traffic calming bollards were installed on Ravenscroft in September 2019 and again in the summer of 2020. The 2020 installations included updates to the design and additional locations along the corridor based on the feedback received from 2019 installation. Traffic data was collected before and after in both years’ implementations to evaluate the effectiveness of the traffic calming bollards. The feedback received on the Pilot study from residents and Councillors were both positive and negative. Overall, the flexible bollards were seen as a traffic calming measure to be added to the list of options. The lessons learned from the 2019 pilot study, which have been carried forward are:

199 • Ensure the spacing between bollards is appropriate if the spacing is too long the effectiveness of the measure is reduced; • When identifying the bollard placements, ensure you consider all potential impacts including loss of on-street parking, impacts to driveways and proximity to fire hydrants; and • Data collection and monitoring is a vital component for all traffic calming measures. The implementation of a permanent data collection solution would be a valuable complement to any implemented measure. The Figure 2, shows data from three time periods; prior to the installation of any traffic calming measures, in 2019 after the installation of the first bollards and in 2020 after the installation of the additional bollards. The 2019 installation showed decrease in traffic volume at all locations along the corridor and reduction of traffic speed at some locations. The 2020 installation with relocation and additional bollards had a positive impact on lowering the speed of vehicles. Three of the four locations showed slower speeds and lower volume compared to after the 2019 installation and all four locations saw slower that speeds compared to before the installation of measures. Figure 2 Before and After Data Comparison

200 3 WARRANT EVALUATION PROCESS

This section provides an overview of the updated Traffic Calming Warrant for Ajax. This updated warrant addresses the challenges, lessons learned and Town experience with the current warrant process while also incorporating the latest best practices. The flow chart in Figure 3 provides a visual overview of the new seven step traffic calming process. Following the flow chart there is a detailed description along with a summary of the key inputs, required data and decision required for each step in the process. Figure 3 Traffic Calming Process Flow Chart

201 3.1 REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC CALMING Traffic calming requests are received through many different methods including phone calls, emails and letters. They come from residents, Councillors and from time to time Town staff. When a request is received it is stored is a central location. With each request, staff should ensure that they collect basic information on the request, including; • Name and the contact information of the requestor; • Date the request was received; • Street name (from/to), segment length; and • Identified issues and concerns. When the request is received, staff should provide a quick overview of the traffic calming request so the requestor is aware of the next steps. This overview should also indicate at which points in the process the requester should expect communications from Town staff. To improve the requesting process, it is recommended that staff explore the development of a standard submission form for the initial screening process. This form should be placed on the Town’s Traffic Calming webpage along with the warrant and other pertinent information. Staff could also explore the development of an electronic form which could be embedded right into the website. A sample Traffic Calming Request form is shown in Appendix B.

3.2 PRELIMINARY SCREENING PROCESS Once the request is received by Town staff, a road segment will be screened with a list of initial criteria to confirm its eligibility for traffic calming. A segment must pass this preliminary screening to proceed to the full evaluation. These criteria, presented in Table 1, have been developed based on the review of nearby municipalities of similar size and TAC’s CGTC, along with input from Town staff. Once the location is deemed eligible for traffic calming, it is added to the list of locations for data collection.

202 Table 1 Preliminary Screening Criteria

Criteria Threshold Notes

As classified in the Town’s Official Plan, a Road Local, Collector or segment must be Local, Collector or Type ‘C’ Classification Type ‘C’ Arterial Arterial to be considered for Traffic Calming

If the grade is greater than 8%, traffic calming Grade Less than 8% is not permitted

The distance between fully controlled intersections (disregard minor street stop Block Length Greater than 110m controlled intersections) should be greater than 110m. Segments with shorter block lengths are not eligible for traffic calming

If the number of collisions on a segment is Less than 6 (local) greater than the threshold, traffic calming may Collision or 12 (collector / not be the appropriate solution. A full History arterial) within the operational and safety review should be last three years considered.

If a road segment has not passed the Has not been Previous preliminary screening or did not pass the evaluated in the last Evaluation traffic calming evaluation it is ineligible for re- 24 months evaluation for a period of 24 months.

If the location does not meet one of the screening criteria, the location is not eligible for traffic calming measures. Depending on the concerns raised by the requestor and desktop review of the location, passive traffic calming measures such as education materials (outreach programs like Neighbourhood Watch Programs, Active and Safe Routes to School) and use of temporary speed radar message boards could be applied.

203 3.3 DATA COLLECTION The data required to assess locations can either exist in Town databases or needs to be collected following a request. The intent of the initial screening is to assess the eligibility of requested locations before significant time and effort is expended collecting information. The data collection process is focused on collecting two specific traffic characteristics for a given segment, the speed and volume of the traffic. Speed and volume data are dynamic and can be time-sensitive therefore the data kept in the Town’s databases should be updated regularly. If data in the database is more than two years old, consideration should be given to getting updated information to complete the Traffic Calming Warrant evaluation. Currently, the Town collects data at selected locations twice a year, in spring and fall. Additional locations can be selected for data collection throughout the year based on the needs and the Town’s discretion. An Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) is recommended for the method of data collection as it can collect both the speed and volume information and is very cost-effective. The recommended length of time for data collection is for two days.

3.4 TRAFFIC CALMING WARRANT CRITERIA & SCORING SYSTEM Once the location has been deemed eligible through the initial screening process and the required data is collected, the next step in the process is to evaluate based on the warrant criteria. Each warrant criterion has points assigned to it based on a road segment’s characteristics. In order for a road segment to qualify for traffic calming it much score the minimum number of points based on its road classification as noted below. • 35 points for a Local Road • 40 points for a Collector Road • 45 points for a Type ‘C’ Arterial Road The warrant criteria and applicable points are shown in Table 2. If a road segment does not meet the minimum thresholds outlined for a given criterion, that location will be in- eligible for traffic calming.

204 Table 2 Warrant Criteria & Points Criteria

Maximum Criteria Minimum Threshold Points Points

Operating 85th percentile speed 1 point for each km/h above posted 25 Speed is higher than 10km/h speed above the posted PLUS speed limit 1 point for each 1% of vehicles over 15 km/h above posted speed

Traffic 900 vehicles/day for 1 point for each 50 vehicles above 20 Volume Local roads local threshold 2,000 vehicles/day for 1 point for each 100 vehicles Collector roads above collector threshold 5,000 vehicles/day for 1 point for each 200 vehicles Type ‘C’ Arterial roads above arterial threshold

Collision Less than 6 (local) or 5 points for each qualifying 20 History 12 (collector / arterial) collisions in excess of 3 within the last 3 years *Qualifying collisions include collisions with vulnerable road users (pedestrians, cyclists)

and collisions for which ‘exceeding speed limit’ or ‘speed too fast for condition’ is reported in the MVAR.

Pedestrian 5 points for each school or park 15 Generator within the study area

*Other Pedestrian Generators may be defined by Ajax and the study area includes the frontage of the road segment or within 300m

Pedestrian 10 points if there are no sidewalks 10 Facilities in the study area 5 points if only on one side

Bicycle 5 points if bicycle lanes, sharrows, 5 Facilities or or routes are present on the road Routes segment

205 3.5 TRAFFIC CALMING DESIGN The locations with scores above the points threshold are eligible for traffic calming implementation. Based on the Town’s available budget, each year the Town will implement the appropriate traffic calming measures at as many locations as possible. Traffic calming measures can be sorted into two categories, minor-adjustment measures and major-adjustment measures. The type of measure appropriate for a given location is identified based on the traffic and road characteristics and confirmed through consultation. MINOR-ADJUSTMENT MEASURES Minor adjustment measures include a combination of horizontal deflection, pavement markings and the use of signage. These measures are considered minor-adjustment measures because they do not require significant infrastructural changes. Some of the examples are bollards for road narrowing, speed monitoring radar for education and signage purposes and pavement markings for road guidance. A notable combination measure is the use of bollard markers along with pavement markings and speed radar boards. The benefits for minor adjustment measures are that they have minimal impacts to the Town’s maintenance and operation, low cost, and relatively simple installation. MAJOR-ADJUSTMENT MEASURES Where the locations are deemed not appropriate for the minor-adjustment treatments due to physical conditions and traffic characteristics, other measures will be considered. Major adjustment measures include a combination of horizontal and vertical deflection measures. These measures are considered major-adjustment measures because they require significant infrastructural changes. Some examples are road narrowing through curb extensions, asphalt or concrete speed humps and raised crosswalks or intersections. These major-adjustment measures are more costly and complex to install. They also have a greater impact on the Town’s maintenance and operation related to minor-adjustment measures. The traffic calming toolbox for minor and major adjustment measures is shown in Appendix C and can be used to determine what the most suitable traffic calming measure may be for a given road segment.

3.6 CONSULTATION AND IMPLEMENTATION There are three primary categories of stakeholders: requestor, the general public and the Town staff/Council.

206 The requestor is involved in the entire process of a request and is in contact with Town staff at multiple points throughout the process. The requestor is notified: • When their request is received and when the results of the screening is completed; • If the request proceeds to evaluation, they are notified the results of the evaluation; • For warranted projects, they are notified when the preliminary design is ready for review and would be invited to the public consultation; and • They are then notified one final time prior to implementation. With all traffic calming projects, the general public is invited to the public consultation of the preliminary design. This gives them the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed traffic calming design prior to implementation. At the consultation event, staff also take the opportunity to speak with the public to see if they have any roads which they want reviewed. Town staff and Council are also invited to review and provide they input on the preliminary designs before implementation. In some cases, Council can be the requestor and in these cases they would be notified throughout the process as described above. After a preliminary design is reviewed, staff will revise the design based on the feedback received before preparing the tender documents for implementation. The tender process is then completed followed by construction of the traffic calming measure.

3.7 MONITORING PROGRAM All traffic calming measures are to be reviewed and evaluated after one year of installation. The monitoring results will determine whether additional traffic calming efforts are required. The evaluation will be based on the change in traffic speed, volume, and impacts on the adjacent roadways. With new data collected after the traffic calming treatment has been installed and traffic has adjusted, the location will be evaluated again against the same criteria and point system. If the location scores enough points to still be eligible for traffic calming, additional measures will be considered. It is recommended that Town staff produce an annual Traffic Calming report that includes the list of requests received, considered, and the results of each of the requests. In addition, details on the selected locations that had traffic calming measures implemented, results after the implementation, and the total dollar amount spent as part of the traffic calming program should be included in the report. This annual report should be available publicly on the Town’s website after being received by Council.

207 3.8 TRAFFIC CALMING PROCESS TIMELINE This section outlines the expected timeline to complete a traffic calming process. The goal for staff with this new warrant and improved process is to be able to go from receiving a request to implementing a traffic calming solution where necessary within 16 to18 months. In order to meet this timeline, Council will need to continue to provide sufficient budget to the Traffic Calming program and staff will need to ensure they keep on schedule throughout the process. A typical timeline for traffic calming is shown below and includes the following. Requests for evaluation are received throughout the year. Data collection takes places twice a year in spring (April-May) and fall (Sept-Oct). Following the data collection programs in spring and fall, the data is analyzed. In January, Town staff review which projects have been identified as warranted and determine the appropriate traffic calming solutions and their potential budget impacts. Preliminary designs are prepared for those which are being brought forward for completion that year. Any project which is warranted, but cannot be completed in a given year due to budget restrictions, will remain on the list of warranted projects to be completed the following year. Currently there is a backlog of warranted projects which will take a few years to implement. Once this backlog is cleared, it is the Town’s hope that with the new available measures and with the appropriate budget for the traffic calming projects, all warranted projects in a year will be implemented the following year. Once the preliminary designs are completed, the public consultation is held early in the year followed by design refinement and contract award. Implementation of the traffic calming measures will take place in early summer.

January February March April May June July August September October November December Request Evaluation Data Collection Data Analysis Design PIC Refine Design Contracting Installation Monitoring

208 4 TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES

The traffic calming measures listed in the 2015 warrant were reviewed and compared to the CGTC. The objective of the review was to ensure the traffic calming types, benefits and disbenefits and suitability to certain locations and situations are up to date. This was important to ensure that the preferred options are included in the toolbox (Appendix C). The measures toolbox is updated with a number of changes including terminology and level of impact by measure. The types of measures and details of each measure are described in the following section and Appendix C.

4.1 TYPES OF MEASURES

Vertical Deflection Horizontal Deflection • Raised Crosswalk • Chicane, 1-Lane • Raised Intersection • Chicane, 2-Lane • Speed Cushion • Curb Radius Reduction • Speed Hump/Speed Table • Lateral Shift Surface Treatment Road Narrowing • Sidewalk Extension • Flexible Bollards • Textured Crosswalk • Curb Extension Obstruction • Neckdown • Directional Closure • Lane Narrowing • Diverter • On-Street Parking • Full Closure • Raised Median Island • Intersection Channelization • Road Diet

The measures under the obstruction category are very extreme and will remove traffic and not just calm it. They should only be considered once other treatments have been consider and rejected or tested on-road and deemed ineffective. They are considered inappropriate for collector and arterial roads because they are inconsistent with the function of these road types. All-way stop signs are not considered to be effective as a traffic calming measure and the Ontario Traffic Manual Book 5 Regulatory Signs includes recommended warrants for all- way stop implementation.

209 5 CONCLUSION

The update to the Town of Ajax’s Traffic Calming Policy addresses the local traffic needs within neighbourhoods and provides an efficient and consistent process for the Town. The updated warrant process will streamline the assessment to evaluate more locations of concern and new cost-efficient treatments will help to potentially implement more locations within the given annual budget. The key revisions include: • Elimination of the hierarchy list (general and priority list) which resulted in locations with high speeding traffic in a lower speed limit zones to be prioritized but did not adequately address locations where speeding was not the main problem. With the given budget for the year, some of these locations remained in the system as unresolved. • Recommendation of minor adjustment treatments that are cost-effective measures. This allows for more locations to be addressed in a year with the given budget. • The emphasis on monitoring for all traffic calming measures after their implementation. This helps confirm the effectiveness of a treatment and ensures that additional measures are not needed. • The warrant criteria are modified to reflect the current standard practices while maintaining the criteria that worked well for the Town. • The traffic calming measures are reviewed against the most up to date TAC guidelines (2018) and updated the types of measures to be installed within the Town, applicability, benefit and disbenefits of each measure. Traffic is dynamic and its characteristics will change over time. It is recommended that staff continually monitor the overall traffic calming warrant and if necessary change the warrant points and thresholds to adapt to changing traffic patterns. It is recommended that a complete traffic calming warrant update be completed every five years to ensure the warrant is reflective of the industry best practices and traffic conditions found in the Town of Ajax.

210 A BEST PRACTICES REFERENCE – PROCESS

211 A.1 TOWN OF WHITBY The Town of Whitby’s Traffic Operational Review Policy includes five steps: Step 1 Initiation of Review, Step 2 Prioritization of Requests, Step 3 Initial Screening of Request, Step 4 Preliminary Assessment and Problem Identification, and Step 5 Ratification of Solutions.

212

A.2 CITY OF OTTAWA The City of Ottawa’s traffic calming program includes five methods to address road safety and traffic calming concerns. Of those, the Neighbourhood Traffic Calming (NTC) Program includes engineering measures through road renewal project and the NTC process is shown below.

213

A.3 CITY OF OSHAWA The City of Oshawa’s Neighbourhood Traffic Management Guide follows the MCEA process for traffic management projects as they are recognized by the MEA. “Traffic Calming Measures are defined as "physical measures designed to control traffic speeds and encourage driving behaviour appropriate to the environment." City of Oshawa’s traffic calming process is summarized in three stages and the Class EA process is included into these stages. Stage 1: Identify the Problem • Problems can be based on either speeding, infiltration, and violation from Road Watch Program • Community support has to be at least 25% from the residents on the subject street indicating their support for this process. Stage 2: Develop a Plan • A preferred option (including funding arrangements) is developed and evaluated by City staff and local community representatives. Then it is forwarded to all affected City of Oshawa and Region of Durham departments or other agencies for comment. • Community and stakeholder approval is required. The plan is deemed acceptable with a survey response rate of 40% of the affected residents and an approval rate of 60% of those responses. • When there are more locations recommended than funding available, the use of innovative funding arrangements such as municipality/community partnerships or local improvement bylaws may be incorporated to accelerate the implementation. Stage 3: Implement the Plan • The monitoring and assessment program is in place to compare the before and after data. As part of the monitoring program, follow-up surveys, meeting with the affected residents and a monitoring report to the Operational Services Committee are included. • The request to remove the traffic calming devices after it was deemed successful, will be conducted, following the Class EA Process.

214

215 A.4 CITY OF PICKERING The City of Pickering’s Safer Streets Traffic Management Strategy includes the traffic calming policy, Neighbourhood Traffic Watch Program, 40 km/h Reduced Speed Policy, All-way Stop Sign Policy, and Community Safety Zones. For the development of Traffic Calming Policy, the City of Pickering conducted a review of a series of installed traffic calming locations to determine the impacts on the roadways for the best approachable solutions. The review includes observations of the pilot traffic calming projects, traffic speed and volume studies, consultation with affected Emergency and City service agencies and questionnaires from residents of each traffic calmed area. Key findings from the pilot traffic calming projects and are listed below: • The frequency of collisions had been reduced, if not eliminated, on most of the pilot project roadways • Traffic calming is attractive to cyclists as it reduces speed and volume, and vertical deflections such as speed humps and raised intersections have an insignificant impact on cyclists. However, horizontal deflection measures should be designed carefully in consideration of the cyclists • Similarly, reduced speed and volume due to traffic calming provide a sense of safety for pedestrians. Combining bollards when installing speed humps in rural areas will provide a designated area for pedestrians • Careful consideration of public transit vehicles should be given when a requested roadway is on a transit route

216

217

218 A.5 SUMMARY OF THE COMPARED POLICIES Table 1 summarizes traffic calming policies in the Cities of Ottawa, Oshawa, Pickering and the Town of Whitby. Table 1: Comparable traffic calming policies of municipalities in Ontario

Criteria City of Ottawa City of Oshawa City of Pickering Town of Whitby

Temporary Traffic Calming Measures Program Neighbourhood Traffic Neighbourhood Traffic Management Safer Street Traffic Management Policy Document Calming Traffic Operational Review Policy Guide Strategy Engineering Solutions for Traffic Calming Measures

Year of Release 2019 2002 2003 2017

Arterial (Type C), collector and local Eligible Streets Collector and local roads Arterial, collector and local roads Arterial, collector and local roads roads • Signage • Vertical Deflections • Pavement markings • Horizontal Deflections • Public Involvement & Education • Intersection controls • Traffic Management Measures • Roadway Width, Direction and • Reduced speed zones • Surface Treatments Elevation (vertical and • Vertical and horizontal deflections • Vertical and horizontal Traffic Calming Measure • Urban Design horizontal deflection) • Obstructions deflections Categories • Pavement Markings • Roadway Access • Signage • Geometric modifications • Vertical Centreline Treatments • Signage • Visual treatments • Temporary road closure • On-Street Parking • System Improvements and • Communication and Enforcement *Rumble strips and speed humps not Enforcement recommended

A complaint is submitted to the City Request by residents, community Submission of a “Traffic Calming Submission of a “Traffic Operational Process Initiation then the City conducts a preliminary associations, or Ward Councillors Application” and traffic studies Review Form” to the Public Works traffic assessment

219

Criteria City of Ottawa City of Oshawa City of Pickering Town of Whitby

High level review of the subject • Street designation • Facility type • • Length of the roadway intersection or roadway Initial/Minimum Screening • Concern definition • 85th percentile Speed • Number of lanes • Review of traffic and collision Criteria • Operating speed • Traffic infiltration volume • 85th percentile Speed data • Infiltrating Traffic • Field Review

25% minimum resident support is 70% minimum resident support is Initial Public Support N/A N/A required required

Points system Priority to locations with vulnerable Scoring or Ranking Points system No point system communities Description Review by the Safer Streets Traffic Calming Review Committee First-come first-serve basis

85th Percentile (max 10 points): for every 1 km/h above 50 km/h or posted th 85th percentile vehicle speed is Local street: 85th percentile is 5 km/h speed if higher than 50 km/h If 85 percentile operating speed is 10 km/h over the speed limit, a considered in the Traffic Calming above posted Speed 95th Percentile (max 10 points): for neighbourhood traffic management Review Checklist Collector street: 85th percentile is 10 every 1 km/h above 55 km/h [or study is warranted *Separate criteria for 40 km/h zones km/h above posted Warrant posted speed + 5km/h if posted speed is higher than 50 km/h]

Infiltration problem: if non-local Based on infiltration volume amount and traffic is > 20% of the anticipated Local Streets (max 10 points): 1 pt for whether the roadway is within capacity traffic generated from immediate local every 10 vehicles per hour [vph] above of over capacity Local street volume > 750 vpd dwelling units Volume 120 vph Typical urban/rural local: <3000 vpd Collector street volume > 2,000 vpd Collector road: if non-local daily trips Collector Streets (max 10 points): 1 pt Typical urban collector: 1,000 – 12,000 are 20% greater than anticipated for every 25 vph above 300 vph) vpd number of daily trips estimated in an area study Typical urban collector: <5,000 vpd

220

Criteria City of Ottawa City of Oshawa City of Pickering Town of Whitby

Separate criteria for signalized Data reviewed but not included in the Collision History N/A 1 Point for 3 collisions per year intersections, unsignalized intersections points system and roadways segments

Pedestrian facilities (max 10 points): No facilities (10); insufficient facilities (5) based on the Ottawa Pedestrian Sidewalk Plan N/A N/A N/A Crossing facilities (max 5 points): Crossing spacing (1 point for every 50m above 200m)

Equity and Reach (max 10 points): Supporting Disadvantaged Transit Route Volume of Heavy Vehicle Other Factors Neighbourhoods (5) and area N/A Emergency Route classification (5) Parking infractions related to injuries Residential frontage Activity Generator (schools & parks)

In all stages, the community During the first stage of ‘Determine Neighbourhood Traffic Calming involvement is required: community support to confirm Committee concerns’ Identifies and confirms problem; Neighbourhood walkabouts, workshops Opportunities for Community Survey sent out to all directly impacted Analyzes solutions and alternatives; and focus groups, open houses and Participation During the third stage of ‘Traffic residents identifying the proposal Calming Plan’ to confirm detailed Provides support; and public meetings concerns and to determine the Provides post-implementation 70/80% community support required functional design feedback based on case

‘Identification of Alternative Solutions’ Alternative Measures if Initial Temporary Traffic Calming Measures ‘Identification of Alternative Solutions’ must be completed as part of Class Resident contacted, process ended Screening Criteria is not met Program must be completed as part of Class EA EA

221

Criteria City of Ottawa City of Oshawa City of Pickering Town of Whitby

During the evaluation and selection of the final proposed measures, During the evaluation and selection of minimum of 60% of approval rate is the final proposed measures, feedback can be provided at a public meeting Additional Community Support required from a minimum of 40% of N/A Follow up survey after implementation Approval Processes response rate As part of the monitoring program, a follow-up survey of all residents in the affected area is required

Degree of Process Complexity High High High Medium

Evaluation and monitoring are on a Monitoring and assessment program Data comparison (speed, volume, case-by-case basis to assess impacts includes follow-up surveys, meeting collision) of before and after Monitoring and Evaluation and improvements for each Follow up is required with to the affected residents and a implementation Methods implemented solutions and to draft the monitoring report to the Operational evaluation memo to make Stakeholder feedback including City Services Committee recommendations for adjustments Staff, emergency services and residents

222 B TRAFFIC CALMING REQUEST FORM

223 TRAFFIC CALMING REQUEST FORM

Thank you for your interest in calming traffic in your neighbourhood. Please take a moment to read and fill out this form which will assist staff with responding to your request. For your information, the Town Traffic Calming Policy is available on our website at : https://www.ajax.ca/en/inside-townhall/traffic-calming.aspx

PRIMARY CONTACT INFORMATION OF THE REQUESTOR

Name: Phone Number: Email: Address: Postal Code:

LOCATION OF CONCERN

Street: From: To:

Describe your concern. Please indicate whether your concerns relate to the speed or amount of traffic and any other comments that might be helpful to Town staff. ______

Thank you for taking the time to complete this Traffic Calming Request Form. The Town staff will contact you with the progress after reviewing this form. Please email this form to [email protected].

224 C TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES TOOLBOX

225 Appendix C: Toolbox of Traffic Calming Measures

APPLICABILITY POTENTIAL BENEFITS POTENTIAL DISBENEFITS

Traffic Calming Measure Cost Local Active Speed Arterial Volume Conflict Type'C' Collector Response Reduction Reduction Reduction Emergency MeasureType Environment Maintenance Enforcement LocalAccess Transportation

Raised Crosswalk Major ✓ ◆     y  y y  y Low to Moderate

Vertical Raised Intersection Major  ◆ ◆    y  y y  y High Deflection Speed Cushion Major ✓ ◆     y   y  y Low to Moderate

Speed Hump/Speed Table Major ✓ ◆     y  y y  y Low to Moderate

Surface Sidewalk Extension Major ✓           y Moderate Treatment Textured crosswalk Major ◆ ◆ ◆    y   y  y Low to Moderate

Chicane, 1-Lane Major ✓      y  y y  y Moderate to High

Horizontal Chicane, 2-Lane Major ✓ ◆ ◆    y     y Moderate Deflection Curb Radius Reduction Major ✓ ✓ ◆    y   y  y Low to Moderate

Lateral Shift Minor ✓ ◆ ◆    y     y Moderate

Flexible Bollards Minor ✓ ✓ ◆    y      Low

Curb Extension Major ✓ ✓ ✓       y  y Low to Moderate

Neckdown Minor ✓ ✓ ◆       y  y Low to Moderate Road Lane Narrowing Minor       Low to Moderate Narrowing ✓ ✓ ✓ y y y On-Street Parking Minor ✓ ✓ ◆    y  y y  y Low to Moderate

Raised Median Island Major ✓ ✓ ✓     y    y Low to Moderate

Road Diet Minor  ◆     y  y y  y Low to Moderate

Directional Closure Major ◆      y y  y y y Moderate

Diverter Major ◆      y y y y  y Moderate to High Obstruction Full Closure Major ◆      y   y  y Moderate to High

Intersection Channelization Major ◆      y y y   y Moderate to High

Appropriate Measure(✓) Use with Caution(◆) Not Recommended() Significant Benefits() SignificantDisbenefits() | Minor Benefits() Minor Disbenefits(y) | No Benefit() No Disbenefit()

226

227 Town of Ajax Report

Report To: General Government Committee

Prepared By: John Grieve, MCIP, RPP Supervisor of Transportation

Subject: Traffic Calming Implementation Plan

Ward(s): All

Date of Meeting: October 13, 2020

Reference:

Recommendations:

1. That the report entitled “Traffic Calming Implementation Plan” be received for information; and

2. That staff be given the direction to utilize unused budget from open Traffic Calming Capital Projects to implement as many projects identified in 2021 as possible

Background:

The Town of Ajax has recognized the importance of traffic calming for many years. The first traffic calming warrant was approved in 2007 and has since been updated twice (2015 and 2020). The Traffic Calming Warrant provides a process to evaluate all traffic calming requests received by staff. This process involves the evaluation of each segment and assessment of seven distinct characteristics. If through the evaluation, a segment achieves the minimum number of points it is added to the list of warranted projects. Over the last few years, that list has grown. A key component of the 2020 Traffic Calming Warrant Update was to improve the process so that road segments, which were warranted for traffic calming, would see measures implemented in a shorter timeframe instead of sitting on this list for years.

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on existing Traffic Calming Capital projects as well as to provide an implementation plan for the list of road segment which have been identified as warranted for traffic calming.

Discussion:

Existing Capital Projects

In 2019, when the Town initiated the Traffic Calming Warrant Update, the implementation of traffic calming projects identified in approved Capital Projects were put on hold until the new warrant could be approved. The traffic calming measures on Ravenscroft Road were implemented as part of a pilot program associated with the Traffic Calming Warrant Update project. The “2020 Traffic Calming Warrant Update” staff report provides additional background on this pilot program. The road segments identified for traffic calming in open Capital Projects are noted in the implementation plan below. 228 Prior to the 2020 Capital Budget submission, specific projects were identified in the annual Traffic Calming Capital Projects. This approach was changed with the 2020 Capital Budget submission. The new approach identifies a consistent, overall level of funding annually for traffic calming programs and staff complete as many projects as possible with that available budget. This approach is intended to shorten the length of time a warranted project waits for implementation and also provides a level of certainty related to the financial impact the Traffic Calming program has on the overall Capital Budget and Long Range Capital Forecast.

Following the approval of the new Traffic Calming Warrant, staff will finalized the preliminary designs for the projects identified in the 2017-2019 Capital Projects along with the road segments identified for the implementation with the 2020 and 2021 Capital Projects. These preliminary designs will then be presented for review and comment at a public open house in early 2021. Following the open house, the designs will be refined and these projects will be implemented in 2021.

List of Warranted Segments

Currently, there are 16 road segments which have been tested and are warranted for traffic calming but have not been identified in an existing capital budget project. Each of these segments has been tested over the last two years to confirm that they are still eligible for traffic calming. There is one road segment which was previously warranted, but data collected in both 2018 and 2019 indicated that it is no longer warranted for traffic calming. This road segment is Delaney Drive between Church Street and Westney Road. At this time, staff have removed this road segment from the list of warranted segments. The segment will be retested in 2021 and should it be warranted at that time, will be considered for traffic calming. The implementation plan presented below provides a plan which will see the remaining 15 segments over the next four years.

In spring 2020, Town staff also identified that temporary traffic calming measures that were installed on Seaward Crescent and Emperor Street had met there service life and needed replacing. The decision was made that replacement traffic calming measures on these segments would be implemented using a portion of the available 2020 Traffic Calming budget. Preliminary designs were prepared in the summer and presented to the public for review. The intention was to have these measures installed in early Fall. However, due to delays related to preparing the required tender documents along with the overall length of the procurement process, the installation of the replacement traffic calming measures has been pushed to 2021.

Over the last two years, on average, Town staff have over 50 segments for traffic calming. In 2018 and 2019, there were three segments each year which were added to the list of warranted traffic calming projects. A complete list of all segments which were tested in 2018 and 2019 is shown in Attachment 1. With the implementation of the updated Traffic Calming Warrant, while the thresholds and scoring criteria have changed slightly, staff anticipate that they will continue to see a similar number of segments added to the warranted list each year.

Traffic Calming Implementation Plan

Staff have reviewed the list of warranted projects and have proposed the following implementation plan (Table 1). All projects listed in 2017-2020 will be implemented in 2021. For 2021 and beyond, when identifying which year a project would be implemented staff considered multiple factors including; what year was the segment first tested and identified as warranted; what ward is the segment in (with an effort, where possible, to balance projects between all wards annually); are there efficiencies if segments are implemented in the same year; and are there any other initiatives or road projects which would impact the implementation. 229 Table 1 – Proposed Traffic Calming Implementation Plan

Capital Budget / Implementation Year Ward Segment 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’ 22’ 23’ 24’ 25’ 1 Elizabeth Street (Kearney Dr. to Old Kingston Rd.) 1 Kerrison Drive (Old Harwood Ave. to Harwood Ave.) 1 Linton Avenue (Kearney Dr. to Sherwood Rd.) 1 Magill Road (Westney Rd. to Old Harwood Rd.) 1 Old Harwood Avenue (Magill Dr. to Chapman Dr.) 1 Ravenscroft Road (Rossland Rd. to Westney Rd.) 1 Rotherglen Drive (Bramwell Dr. to Kirkham Dr.) 1 Simms Drive (Wilce Dr. to Griffiths Dr.) 1 Sullivan Road (Westney Rd. to Magill Dr.) 2 Gillet Drive (Draycott Ave. to Elston Ave)

2 Ravenscroft Road (Taunton Rd. to Beaverton Rd.)

2 Seaward Crescent (Williamson Dr. to Williamson Dr.)

2 Warner Drive (Taunton Rd. to Williamson Dr.) 2 Williamson Drive (Gillet Dr. to Portelli Cres.) 3 Burcher Road (Lucile St. to Ambassador St.) 3 Clements Road (Hills Rd. to Burrells Rd.) 3 Clover Ridge Drive (Harwood Ave. to Dreyer Dr.) 3 Elm Street (Beatty Rd. to Windsor Ave.)

3 Emperor Street (Harwood Ave. to Pickering Beach Rd.) 3 Finley Avenue (Banner Cres. to Burden Cres.)

3 Lake Driveway West (Hawkins Cres. to Garnett Dr.)

3 Lake Driveway East (Harwood Ave. to McRae Rd.) 3 Pickering Beach Road (Emperor St. to Rollo Dr.)

The proposed implementation plan also makes an effort to provide capacity in each year to add new segments which become warranted in the future. The complete list of road segments, which will be tested in 2020 following the fall data collection, are included in Attachment 2.

230 As noted previously in the last two years, staff have seen approximately 3 segments added to the warranted list annually. With the new emphasis on responsiveness and flexibility when it comes to the implementation of traffic calming measures, staff want to ensure that there is capacity to add new projects to the implementation plan, if necessary. In a given year, if there are no new projects added and there remains capacity to include an additional project, staff will move a project forward from a future year.

Financial Implications:

Due to the hold on implementation while the Traffic Calming Warrant Update was completed, there are four open Capital Budget projects for Traffic Calming, including:

• Traffic Calming – 2017 (0991511) • Traffic Calming – 2018 (1000111) • Traffic Calming on Town Roads - 2019 (1006711) • Traffic Calming on Town Roads – 2020 (1014511)

As noted above, prior to 2020, the Traffic Calming Capital projects identified specific segments for implementation of traffic calming measures. Once the appropriate measure was implemented, any unused budget would be returned to the Strategic Initiative Reserve when the Capital project was closed.

Given the significant funding available from the already open traffic calming capital accounts (approximately $500,000) staff recommend deferring any additional funding request for the 2021 Capital Budget. Staff are proposing to utilize all available unused funding from these open capital accounts to implement as many of the projects identified for implementation up to and including 2021.

In 2021, staff will bring forward the contract award report indicating all road segments to be completed with this funding. The project list presented will include some previously approved road segments as well as any newly identified traffic calming measures.

The implementation of traffic calming projects captured through the annual Capital Budget allocation of approximately $100,000 will be reintroduced to the 2022 Capital Budget. This amount should be reviewed periodically to ensure it is sufficient based on the quantity and complexity of traffic calming projects in the Town of Ajax.

Communication Issues:

During the Traffic Calming Warrant Update project, staff heard from residents and Council that they felt the overall communication related to the Traffic Calming program was unclear. It was not always clear which road segments had been tested and which road segments were scheduled to be tested. Furthermore, once tested it wasn’t always clear which segments had met the criteria for traffic calming and which had not.

Moving forward, staff intend to prepare an annual report on the Traffic Calming program. The report will include information on all road segments which were evaluated for traffic calming and the results of that evaluation. It will also include details on locations with newly implemented traffic calming measures, the results of any monitoring completed and a summary of costs for traffic calming implementation that year along with a forecast for the upcoming year. This annual report would be presented to Council in advance of budget considerations annually and be available publicly on the Town’s website after being received by Council.

231 Relationship to the Strategic Plan:

This report aligns with the following section of the Strategic Plan:

Focus Area: Leading in our Community Goal 5: Investing in our Community Action 5.2: Update Traffic Calming Warrant Program implement approved measures in a timely manner

Conclusion:

The new Traffic Calming Warrant for the Town of Ajax establishes a more efficient and effective evaluation process for traffic calming requests. Moving forward, with this new process, the intent is to be able to evaluate and implement warranted traffic calming measures in 12-16 months.

Before that timeline can be realized, there is a backlog of warranted traffic calming projects which need to be implemented. The implementation plan presented above provides a framework where this can be achieved over the next few years, while also providing flexibility to implement new road segments, which will be identified as the evaluations continue.

Attachments:

Att 1: List of road segments tested for traffic calming in 2018 and 2019 Att 2: List of road segments to be tested in 2020

Prepared by:

John Grieve, MCIP, RPP – Supervisor of Transportation

Submitted by:

Geoff Romanowski, CPT, MCIP, RPP – Director of Planning & Development Services

Approved by:

Shane Baker – Chief Administrative Officer

232 Table 1 – Road Segments tested for Traffic Calming in 2018

Ward Road Extents Evaluation 1 Carwin Crescent Jacwin Drive to Jallan Drive Not Warranted 1 Delaney Drive Brockman Crescent to Brockman Crescent Not Warranted 1 Delaney Drive Harkins Drive to Sayor Drive Not Warranted 1 Fletcher Avenue Monk Crescent and Kerrison Drive West Not Warranted 1 Kerrison Drive W Old Harwood Avenue to Fletcher Avenue Warranted 1 Linton Avenue Sherwood Road to Kearney Road Warranted 1 Magill Drive Sheldon Drive to Dominy Drive Not Warranted 1 Magill Drive Westney Road North to Moxter Court Not Warranted 1 Old Harwood Avenue Tawn Crescent and Bantham Lane Warranted 1 Ravenscroft Road Chatfield Drive to Radford Drive Warranted 1 Ravenscroft Road Matthews Street to Brennan Road Warranted 1 Ravenscroft Road Delaney Drive to Hyde Street Not Warranted 1 Sheldon Drive Magill Drive to Old Harwood Avenue Not Warranted 1 Simms Drive Rea Street and Genner Drive Warranted 1 Sullivan Drive Bennett Avenue and Keys Drive Not Warranted 1 Woodward Crescent Adams Drive to Adams Drive (East side) Not Warranted 2 Ainsbury Avenue Byram Downs Street to Stader Heights Street Not Warranted 2 Atherton Avenue Clapperton Drive to Hazeldine Drive Not Warranted 2 Dring Street Unsworth Crescent to Unsworth Crescent Not Warranted 2 Gillett Drive Elston Avenue and Draycott Avenue Warranted 2 Gillett Drive Muscat Crescent and Elliottglen Drive Not Warranted 2 Haskell Avenue Ling Street and Weston Crescent Not Warranted 2 Oswell Drive Kirk Avenue to Weld Drive Not Warranted 2 Rushworth Drive Carberry Crescent to Thorogood Street Not Warranted 2 Turnerbury Avenue Byram Down Street to Stader Heights Street Not Warranted 2 Warner Drive Williamson Drive East and Fenton Street Not Warranted 2 Williamson Drive East Reevesmere Lane to Good Lane Not Warranted 2 Williamson Drive West Hazeldine Drive to Clapperton Drive Not Warranted 2 Williamson Drive West Winterton Drive to Bellinger Drive Not Warranted 3 Angus Drive South of Cooperage Lane Not Warranted 3 Audley Road South Bayly Street to Keywood Street Not Warranted 3 Audley Road South Crellin Street to Sharplin Drive Not Warranted 3 Burcher Road Hurley Road to Aldonschool Court Not Warranted 3 Clover Ridge Drive East Bryant Road to Gregory Road Warranted 3 Dreyer Drive East Lambard Crescent and Clements Road East Not Warranted 3 Elm Street Beaty Road to Nelson Avenue Warranted 3 Finley Avenue Banner Crescent to Burden Crescent Warranted 3 Finley Avenue Panter Crescent to Burden Crescent Warranted 3 Frazer Road Ellis Lane to Brady Lane Not Warranted 3 Lake Driveway West Vale Cres/Hawkings Cres to Hawkings Cres Warranted 3 Pickering Beach Road Rollo Drive to Emperor Street Warranted 3 Warwick Avenue Lilley Avenue to Ashbury Avenue Not Warranted 3 Warwick Avenue Gant Place to Mullord Avenue Not Warranted 3 Wicks Drive Kingston Road East to Knowles Street Not Warranted 3 York Street Windsor Drive and Harwood Avenue Not Warranted

233 Table 2 – Road Segments tested for Traffic Calming in 2019

Ward Road Extents Evaluation 1 Brightly Drive Ventris Drive to Lachlan Drive Not Warranted 1 Daniels Crescent Daniels Crescent to Matthews Street Not Warranted 1 Delaney Drive Brockman Crescent to Brockman Crescent Not Warranted 1 Delaney Drive Harkins Drive and Sayor Drive Not Warranted 1 Elizabeth Street Old Kingston Road to Cameron Street Warranted 1 Fletcher Avenue Fishlock Street to Kerrison Drive West Not Warranted 1 Fletcher Avenue Monk Cres and Monk Cres Not Warranted 1 Kearney Drive Elizabeth Street to Linton Avenue Not Warranted 1 Kerrison Drive West Old Harwood Avenue to Harwood Avenue N Warranted 1 Linton Avenue Sherwood Road to Kearney Road Warranted 1 Magill Drive Dominy Drive to Sheldon Drive Warranted 1 Magill Drive Westney Drive to Moster Court Warranted 1 Pearce Drive Large Cres to Coughlen Street Not Warranted 1 Rotherglen Road Bramwell Drive and Kirkham Drive Warranted 1 Rotherglen Road Fearn Crescent and Bramwell Drive Not Warranted 1 Simms Drive Rea St to Genner Drive Warranted 1 Sullivan Drive Bennett Ave to Ketys Drive Not Warranted 1 Sullivan Drive Keys Drive to Parkins Drive Not Warranted 1 Ventris Drive Near 35 Ventris Drive Not Warranted 1 Withay Drive Wilce Drive to Withay Street Not Warranted 2 Ainsbury Avenue Southam Street to Sladerheights Street Not Warranted 2 Armitage Crescent Near 66 Armitage Crescent Not Warranted 2 Armitage Crescent Near 24 Armitage Crescent Not Warranted 2 Biggs Drive Dooley Crescent to Oaklins Lane Not Warranted 2 Booker Drive Elliottglen Drive to Watersplace Avenue Not Warranted 2 Decourcey-Ireland Circle 40m east of Hanaway Not Warranted 2 Dooley Cres Near 110 Dooley Cres Not Warranted 2 Gillet Drive Taunton Road East to Williamson Drive East Not Warranted 2 Loughlin Hill Crescent Turnerbury Avenue to Turnerbury Avenue Not Warranted 2 McSweeney Crescent Hitchen Avenue to McSweeney Crescent Not Warranted 2 Middlecote Drive Kinhorn Gate to Binney Lane Not Warranted 2 Middlecote Drive Pointer Lane to Alford Lane Not Warranted 2 Milward Crescent near 13 Milward Cres Not Warranted 2 Nobbs Drive Batt Cres to Batt Cres Not Warranted 2 Rossland Road West East of Stannardville Drive Not Warranted 2 Seggar Avenue near Nottingham Public School Not Warranted 2 Silverwood Circle Near 35 Silverwood Circle Not Warranted 2 Snowling Drive Brider Crescent to Bellotti Cres Not Warranted 2 Snowling Drive Darlet Avenue to Darlet Avenue Not Warranted 2 Thackery Drive Salem Road North to Williamson Drive East Not Warranted 2 Westgate Avenue Pickett Street to Ainsbury Avenue Not Warranted 2 Westgate Avenue Westgate Avenue to Pickett Street Not Warranted 2 Williamson Drive East Thackery Drive to Middlecote Drive Not Warranted 2 Williamson Drive East Gillet Drive to Portelli Crescent Warranted 2 Williamson Drive West Ravenscroft Road to Searall Avenue Not Warranted

234 2 Williamson Drive West Seggar Avenue to Montebello Crescent Not Warranted 3 Admiral St Near 77 Admiral Not Warranted 3 Admiral St Near 135 Admiral Not Warranted 3 Ashbury Blvd Warwick to Davey Not Warranted 3 Audley Road South near 910 Audley Road S Not Warranted 3 Audley Road South Quaintance Ave to Holloway Drive Not Warranted 3 Beer Cres Enderly Street to Lurcook Street Not Warranted 3 Burcher Road Clements Road East to Emperor Street Not Warranted 3 Clements Road East Hills Road to Burrels Road Warranted 3 Clover Ridge Drive East Bryant and Gregory Road Not Warranted 3 Clover Ridge Drive East Danton Court to Pitman Crescent Not Warranted 3 Elm St Beaty Road to Nelson Avenue Not Warranted 3 Emperor Street Tulloch to Turnbull Not Warranted 3 Emperor Street Burcher Road to Turnbell Road Not Warranted 3 Emperor Street Burcher and Simpson Not Warranted 3 Enderly Street Beer Crescent to Lord Drive Not Warranted 3 Gilmour Drive near 32 Gilmour Drive Not Warranted 3 Hirons Drive Hulley Crescent and Hulley Crescent Not Warranted 3 Hirons Drive Woolf Crescent to Woolf Crescent Not Warranted 3 Kitney Drive Approx. 100m North of Clements Road Not Warranted 3 Lake Driveway East Harwood Avenue S to McRae Road Warranted 3 Pickering Beach Rollo Drive to Emperor Street Warranted 3 Porte Road Beer Crescent & Beer Crescent Not Warranted 3 Porte Road Beer Crescent to Beer Crescent Not Warranted 3 Rangeline Road Ruthel Road to Cherry Road Not Warranted 3 Warwick Avenue Wiseman Drive to Holliman Lane Not Warranted 3 Wicks Drive Noble Drive to Miles Drive Not Warranted

235 Table 1 – Road Segments to be tested for Traffic Calming in 2020

Ward Road Extents 1 Bray Drive Btw. Wiggins and Wilcocks Cres. 1 Carr Drive Btw. Chapman Dr and Dowers Dr 1 Coles Avenue Btw. Cornwall Dr and Chapman Dr 1 Delaney Drive Btw. Hester Ave and Hibbins Ave 1 Delaney Drive Btw. Hibbins Ave and Horne Ave 1 Ducatel Crescent Btw. Dowers Dr and Chapman Dr 1 Gardiner Drive Btw. Chalmers Cres and Adams Dr 1 Griffiths Drive Btw. Withay Dr and Turiff Cres 1 Meekings Drive Btw. Mapson Cres. and Mantell Cres.) 1 Patterson Crescent Btw. Pembry Dr and Pembry Dr 1 Pearce Drive Btw. Coughlen St and Large Cres-SL 1 Sheldon Drive Btw. Magill Drive and Old Harwood Ave 1 Strickland Drive Btw. Freeston Cres and Horne Ave 1 Sullivan Drive Btw. Willer Ave and Keys Dr 1 Wiggins Drive Btw. Bray Dr and Old Harwood Av 1 Wright Crescent Btw. Reed Dr and Redmond Dr 1 Wright Crescent Btw. Ritchie Ave and Reynold Street 2 Ballgrove Crescent Btw. Stevensgate Drive and Telford Street 2 Brackenridge Street Btw. Styles Cres. And Hollier Dr 2 Grainger Crescent Btw Wheatley Cres and Wheatley Cres 2 Hurst Drive Btw. Church and McClustey Ave 2 Lloydminster Avenue Btw. Mathouse Cres & Skelton Cres 2 Oswell Drive Btw. Kirk Ave and Weld Dr 2 Ravenscroft Road Btw. Beverton Cres and 1201 Ravenscroft Road 2 Stannardville Drive Btw. Stockell Cres and Stockell Cres 2 Stockell Crescent Btw. Stott Ave and Stannardville Dr 2 Williamson Drive East Btw. Kirk Ave and Sargeant Avenue 3 Audley Road S Btw. Sharplin Dr and Moynahan Cres 3 Fairall Street Btw. McMaster Ave & Dowty Road 3 Finley Avenue Btw. Brooksbanks Cres and Bashford Rd 3 Harwood Avenue S Btw. Brock St and Oak Street 3 Hickman Road Btw. Michaelman Road and Pickering Beach Rd 3 Kings Crescent Btw. Churchill Rd and Roosevelt Ave 3 Lake Driveway West Btw. Love Cres and Varley Dr 3 Lear Street Btw Audley Rd S and Parrot Street 3 Lord Drive Btw. Lurcook Street and Enderly Street 3 Lurcook Street Btw. Beer Crescent and Lord Dr 3 Michaelman Road Btw. Langsdorff Drive Hickman Rd 3 Pickering Beach Btw. Greenhalf Dr and Greenhalf Dr 3 Station Street Btw. Mills Rd & Commercial Ave. 3 Stonewood Street Btw. Talbotshire St and Webbford St

236