HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 05, 2022 - CouncilTHE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
MUNICIPAL OFFICE
56169 Heritage Line, Straffordville, ON
Council Chambers
Thursday, May 5, 2022
7:00 p.m.
This Meeting will be in person in Council Chambers and
will not be live-streamed or recorded to YouTube.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF
3. REVIEW OF ITEMS NOT LISTED ON AGENDA
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
5. DELEGATIONS
6. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING(S)
A. Regular Council Meeting held April 21, 2022
7. OPEN FORUM
8. MOTIONS AND NOTICE OF MOTION
9. RECREATION, CULTURE, TOURISM AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
9.1 Correspondence
9.1.1 Receive for Information
9.1.2 Requiring Action
9.2 Reports to Council
10. PHYSICAL SERVICES – EMERGENCY SERVICES
10.1 Correspondence
10.1.1 Receive for Information
10.1.2 Requiring Action
A. Periscope Playhouse re By-Law Exemption Request
10.2 Reports to Council
A. Report PS-09/22 by Ed Roloson, Manager of Capital Projects – Water/Wastewater re
2022 Road Surface Treatment – Capital
B. Report PS-10/22 by Steve Adams, Manager of Public Works re Richmond Community
Park Basketball Court
2022 Council Agenda May 5, 2022
2
11. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – SUSTAINABILITY AND CONSERVATION
11.1 Correspondence
11.1.1 Receive for Information
A. Notice of Passing ZBA-10/22 Klassen
B. Notice of Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision 11:28 Properties Inc.
C. Notice of Public Meeting re Proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment ZBA-07/22
D. Notice of Public Meeting re Proposed Combined Site Plan SPA-01/22 and Zoning By-Law
Amendment ZBA-10/22
E. Notice of Public Meeting re Proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment ZBA-14/22
F. Notice of Public Meeting re Proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment ZBA-16/22
11.1.2 Requiring Action
11.2 Reports to Council
A. Report DS-21/22 by Margaret Underhill, Deputy Clerk|Planning Coordinator re Partial
Services in Urban Areas – Development of Plan of Subdivision Review re Council
Resolution March 18, 2021
12. FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
12.1 Correspondence
12.1.1 Receive for Information
A. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation re 2021 Financial Statements
B. Aylmer and Area Chamber of Commerce re Economic Development
C. Govaxx Covid-19 Vaccine Clinics in Bayham May 19 & 26
D. Town of South Bruce Peninsula re New Home Tax Rebate Program
E. City of St. Catharines re St. Catharines Response to Ontario Housing Affordability Task
Force Recommendations
F. Municipality of Mississippi Mills re Ontario Must Built it Right the First Time
G. Township of Cramahe re Bill 109 More Homes for Everyone Act
H. Town of Arnprior re Support for Humanitarian Efforts in Ukraine
12.1.2 Requiring Action
2022 Council Agenda May 5, 2022
3
12.2 Reports to Council
A. Report CAO-17/22 by Thomas Thayer, CAO|Clerk re Southwest Tourism Relief Fund
Application
13. BY-LAWS
A. By-law No. 2022-031 Being a by-law to authorize the execution of an agreement
between the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham and Duncor Enterprises Inc.
B. By-law No. 2022-032 Being a by-law to authorize the execution of an agreement
between the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham and Elgin Property Maintenance
14. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
15. OTHER BUSINESS
15.1 In Camera
15.2 Out of Camera
16. BY-LAW TO CONFIRM THE PROCEEDINGS OF COUNCIL
A. By-law No. 2022-033 Being a by-law to confirm all actions of Council
17. ADJOURNMENT
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MUNICIPAL OFFICE
56169 Heritage Line, Straffordville, ON
Council Chambers – Held Virtually
Thursday, April 21, 2022
7:00 p.m.
The April 21, 2022 Council Meeting was held virtually via Zoom and livestreamed on
YouTube.
PRESENT:
MAYOR ED KETCHABAW
DEPUTY MAYOR RAINEY WEISLER
COUNCILLORS C. VALERIE DONNELL
DAN FROESE
SUSAN CHILCOTT
STAFF PRESENT:
CAO|CLERK THOMAS THAYER
DEPUTY CLERK MEAGAN ELLIOTT
DEPUTY CLERK|PLANNING COORDINATOR MARGARET UNDERHILL
MANAGER OF PUBLIC WORKS STEVE ADAMS
TREASURER LORNE JAMES
FIRE CHIEF|BYLAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HARRY BARANIK
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Ketchabaw called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF
No disclosures of pecuniary interest were declared.
3. REVIEW OF ITEMS NOT LISTED ON AGENDA
10.2 Report BL-01/22 by Harry Baranik, Fire Chief|By-Law Enforcement Officer re 2021 Annual
By-Law Summary Report
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Ketchabaw announced the launch of Bayham utilizing the Voyent Alert notification
system. Those interested to register can find the information on the Municipal website.
Councillor Chilcott announced that the Straffordville Hall Foundation Easter Egg Hunt was a
huge success and received ample food donations.
Councillor Chilcott announced there is a meet and greet on Friday, April 22, 2022 from 7-9 p.m.
in the Trackless Lounge with Matt Millar from the New Blue Party of Ontario.
CAO Thomas Thayer reminded those interested of the Candidate Information Session being
held on April 27, 2022 from 7-9 p.m. at the East Elgin Community Complex. Thayer noted that
2022 Council Minutes April 21, 2022
2
nominations for the Municipal Election open May 2, 2022 and that nomination papers are to be
filed in person by making an appointment with the Clerk.
5. DELEGATIONS
A. Ami Gagne re FoodCycler Municipal Solutions
Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler
Seconded by: Councillor Froese
THAT the presentation from Ami Gagne re FoodCycler Municipal Solutions be received
for information.
Recorded vote:
Member of Council YES NO
Councillor C. Valerie Donnell x
Councillor Dan Froese x
Councillor Susan Chilcott x
Deputy Mayor Rainey Weisler x
Mayor Ed Ketchabaw x
CARRIED
6. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING(S)
A. Regular Council Meeting held April 4, 2022
B. Statutory Planning Meeting held April 4, 2022
Moved by: Councillor Donnell
Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Weisler
THAT the minutes of the Council Meeting and Planning Meeting held April 4, 2022 be
adopted.
Recorded vote:
Member of Council YES NO
Councillor C. Valerie Donnell x
Councillor Dan Froese x
Councillor Susan Chilcott x
Deputy Mayor Rainey Weisler x
Mayor Ed Ketchabaw x
CARRIED
7. OPEN FORUM
8. MOTIONS AND NOTICE OF MOTION
2022 Council Minutes April 21, 2022
3
9. RECREATION, CULTURE, TOURISM AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
9.1 Correspondence
9.1.1 Receive for Information
9.1.2 Requiring Action
9.2 Reports to Council
10. PHYSICAL SERVICES – EMERGENCY SERVICES
10.1 Correspondence
10.1.1 Receive for Information
10.1.2 Requiring Action
10.2 Reports to Council
A. Report BL-01/22 by Harry Baranik, Fire Chief|By-Law Enforcement Officer re 2021 Annual
By-Law Summary Report
Moved by: Councillor Donnell
Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott
THAT Report BL-01/22 re 2021 Annual By-law Summary Report be received for
information.
Recorded vote:
Member of Council YES NO
Councillor C. Valerie Donnell x
Councillor Dan Froese x
Councillor Susan Chilcott x
Deputy Mayor Rainey Weisler x
Mayor Ed Ketchabaw x
CARRIED
11. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – SUSTAINABILITY AND CONSERVATION
11.1 Correspondence
11.1.1 Receive for Information
A. Notice of Decision re Minor Variance Application A-23/21
B. Notice of Decision re Minor Variance Application A-02/22
C. Notice of Passing re Zoning By-Law Amendment Application ZBA-06/22
D. Notice of Public Meeting re Zoning By-Law Amendment Application ZBA-11/22
E. Notice of Public Meeting re Zoning By-Law Amendment Application ZBA-12/22
2022 Council Minutes April 21, 2022
4
Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler
Seconded by: Councillor Froese
THAT items 11.1.1 A-E be received for information.
Recorded vote:
Member of Council YES NO
Councillor C. Valerie Donnell x
Councillor Dan Froese x
Councillor Susan Chilcott x
Deputy Mayor Rainey Weisler x
Mayor Ed Ketchabaw x
CARRIED
11.1.2 Requiring Action
11.2 Reports to Council
A. Report DS-18/22 by Steve Adams, Manager of Public Works|Drainage Superintendent re
Hampton Drain Improvements
Moved by: Councillor Donnell
Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Weisler
THAT Report DS-18/22 regarding re Hampton Drain Improvements be received for
information;
THAT the Council of the Municipality of Bayham acknowledges the receipt of Report
#220242 dated March 15, 2022 for the Hampton Drain Improvements, as prepared by
Spriet Associates, and filed with the Clerk on March 28, 2022;
THAT Council set a date for the Public Meeting to he held on May 19, 2022 at
8:00 pm to consider the Report;
AND THAT Staff be directed to mail a Notice of Public Meeting and Report to all persons
assessed to this drainage works, and in accordance with the Drainage Act.
Recorded vote:
Member of Council YES NO
Councillor C. Valerie Donnell x
Councillor Dan Froese x
Councillor Susan Chilcott x
Deputy Mayor Rainey Weisler x
Mayor Ed Ketchabaw x
CARRIED
B. Report DS-19/22 by Margaret Underhill, Deputy Clerk|Planning Coordinator re
Development Agreement – Green Line Road Construction
2022 Council Minutes April 21, 2022
5
Moved by: Councillor Chilcott
Seconded by: Councillor Donnell
THAT Report DS-19/22 regarding the Heutinck Development Agreement be received;
AND THAT By-law No. 2022-029 being a by-law to authorize the execution of a
Development Agreement between Andrew and Kimberly Heutinck and the Municipality
of Bayham for Green Line Road Construction be presented for enactment.
Recorded vote:
Member of Council YES NO
Councillor C. Valerie Donnell x
Councillor Dan Froese x
Councillor Susan Chilcott x
Deputy Mayor Rainey Weisler x
Mayor Ed Ketchabaw x
CARRIED
C. Report DS-20/22 by Margaret Underhill, Deputy Clerk|Planning Coordinator re Rezoning
Application ZBA-08/22 – Klassen
Moved by: Councillor Froese
Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Weisler
THAT Report DS-20/22 regarding the Klassen rezoning application ZBA-08/22 be
received for information;
AND THAT pursuant to Planning Act Regulations Bill 73 Smart Growth for our
Communities Act, 2015, it be pointed out that at the public participation meeting held April
7, 2022 associated with this application, there were no written submissions and no oral
presentations received regarding this matter;
AND THAT all considerations were taken into account in Council’s decision passing this
resolution;
AND THAT Zoning By-law No. Z456-2003, as amended, be further amended by changing
the zoning on a property owned by John and Jennifer Klassen located at 9253 Plank Road
from Central Business District/Village Residential (C1/R1) Zone to site-specific Central
Business District and Village Residential (C1-4/R1) Zone to permit the expansion of the
commercial business;
AND THAT Zoning By-law No. Z739-2022 be presented to Council for enactment.
Recorded vote:
Member of Council YES NO
Councillor C. Valerie Donnell x
Councillor Dan Froese x
2022 Council Minutes April 21, 2022
6
Councillor Susan Chilcott x
Deputy Mayor Rainey Weisler x
Mayor Ed Ketchabaw x
CARRIED
12. FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
12.1 Correspondence
12.1.1 Receive for Information
A. Municipality of Grey Highlands re HST Rebate on New Homes in Ontario
Moved by: Councillor Donnell
Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Weisler
THAT item 12.1.1 A be received for information.
Recorded vote:
Member of Council YES NO
Councillor C. Valerie Donnell x
Councillor Dan Froese x
Councillor Susan Chilcott x
Deputy Mayor Rainey Weisler x
Mayor Ed Ketchabaw x
CARRIED
12.1.2 Requiring Action
A. Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary re Funding Request
Moved by: Councillor Chilcott
Seconded by: Councillor Froese
THAT item 12.1.2 A be received for information;
AND THAT Council supports the request for four (4) approved navigational aids at a cost
of $2,000, inclusive of HST.
Recorded vote:
Member of Council YES NO
Councillor C. Valerie Donnell x
Councillor Dan Froese x
Councillor Susan Chilcott x
Deputy Mayor Rainey Weisler x
Mayor Ed Ketchabaw x
CARRIED
2022 Council Minutes April 21, 2022
7
12.2 Reports to Council
A. Report TR-09/22 by Lorne James, Treasurer re 2022 Q1 Variance Report
Moved by: Councillor Donnell
Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Weisler
THAT Staff Report TR-09/22 re 2022 Q1 Variance Report be received for information.
Recorded vote:
Member of Council YES NO
Councillor C. Valerie Donnell x
Councillor Dan Froese x
Councillor Susan Chilcott x
Deputy Mayor Rainey Weisler x
Mayor Ed Ketchabaw x
CARRIED
13. BY-LAWS
A. By-law No. 2022-022 Being a by-law to authorize the execution of an agreement
between the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham and SCG Flowmetrix
B. By-law No. 2022-029 Being a by-law to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute a
development agreement between the Municipality and Andrew and Kim Heutinck for the
construction of a portion of Green Line
C. By-Law No. Z739-2022 Being a by-law to amend by-law No. Z456-2003, as amended
Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler
Seconded by: Councillor Froese
THAT By-law Nos. 2022-022, 2022-029 and Z739-2022 be read a first, second and third
time and finally passed.
Recorded vote:
Member of Council YES NO
Councillor C. Valerie Donnell x
Councillor Dan Froese x
Councillor Susan Chilcott x
Deputy Mayor Rainey Weisler x
Mayor Ed Ketchabaw x
CARRIED
14. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
15. OTHER BUSINESS
2022 Council Minutes April 21, 2022
8
15.1 In Camera
A. Confidential Report re Sale or disposition of land; a position, plan, procedure, criteria, or
instruction to be applied to any negotiations on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the
municipality or local board (John Street)
Moved by: Councillor Donnell
Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott
THAT the Council do now rise to enter into an “In Camera” Session at 8:12 p.m. to
discuss:
A. Confidential Report re Sale or disposition of land; a position, plan, procedure, criteria, or
instruction to be applied to any negotiations on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the
municipality or local board (John Street)
Recorded vote:
Member of Council YES NO
Councillor C. Valerie Donnell x
Councillor Dan Froese x
Councillor Susan Chilcott x
Deputy Mayor Rainey Weisler x
Mayor Ed Ketchabaw x
CARRIED
15.2 Out of Camera
Moved by: Councillor Donnell
Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Weisler
THAT the Council do now rise from the “In Camera” session at 8:38 pm and report on
Confidential Report re Sale or disposition of land; a position, plan, procedure, criteria, or
instruction to be applied to any negotiations on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the
municipality or local board (John Street).
Recorded vote:
Member of Council YES NO
Councillor C. Valerie Donnell x
Councillor Dan Froese x
Councillor Susan Chilcott x
Deputy Mayor Rainey Weisler x
Mayor Ed Ketchabaw x
CARRIED
Moved by: Councillor Chilcott
Seconded by: Councillor Froese
2022 Council Minutes April 21, 2022
9
THAT Confidential Report re Sale or disposition of land; a position, plan, procedure,
criteria, or instruction to be applied to any negotiations on or to be carried on by or on
behalf of the municipality or local board (John Street) be received for information;
AND THAT staff proceed as directed.
Recorded vote:
Member of Council YES NO
Councillor C. Valerie Donnell x
Councillor Dan Froese x
Councillor Susan Chilcott x
Deputy Mayor Rainey Weisler x
Mayor Ed Ketchabaw x
CARRIED
16. BY-LAW TO CONFIRM THE PROCEEDINGS OF COUNCIL
A. By-law No. 2022-030 Being a by-law to confirm all actions of Council
Moved by: Councillor Chilcott
Seconded by: Councillor Donnell
THAT Confirming By-law No. 2022-030 be read a first, second and third time and finally
passed
Recorded vote:
Member of Council YES NO
Councillor C. Valerie Donnell x
Councillor Dan Froese x
Councillor Susan Chilcott x
Deputy Mayor Rainey Weisler x
Mayor Ed Ketchabaw x
CARRIED
17. ADJOURNMENT
Moved by: Councillor Froese
Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Weisler
THAT the Council meeting be adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Recorded vote:
Member of Council YES NO
Councillor C. Valerie Donnell x
Councillor Dan Froese x
Councillor Susan Chilcott x
2022 Council Minutes April 21, 2022
10
Deputy Mayor Rainey Weisler x
Mayor Ed Ketchabaw x
CARRIED
MAYOR CLERK
REPORT
Physical Services
TO: Mayor & Members of Council
FROM: Ed Roloson, Manager of Capital Projects – Water/Wastewater
DATE: May 5, 2022
REPORT: PS-09/22
SUBJECT: 2022 ROADS SURFACE TREATMENT - CAPITAL
BACKGROUND
This Report is bringing forward information regarding Tender results for road surface treatment as
issued by the County of Elgin.
DISCUSSION
The County of Elgin, on an annual basis, invites the lower-tier municipalities to take part in their
capital roads surface treatment tender. Tender No. 2022-T11 was issued by Elgin County with
two contractors providing bids.
Duncor Enterprises Inc. provide a total bid price of $1,876,324.80 (excluding HST) followed by
MSO Construction submitting a $2,879,083.00 (excluding HST) bid. Bayham’s portion of the
Duncor low bid is $683,446.00 (excluding HST). A total of $667,500.00 was budgeted for within
our 2022 capital surface treatment projects.
Council received and approved the recommendation set out in staff report PS-07/22 at the April
7, 2022 Council meeting regarding repurposing capital funds from both Stafford and Clarke
roads. This repurposing reduces the overall 2022 surface treatment by $85,805.00 resulting in a
total price of $598,641.00 (excluding HST) as submitted by Duncor.
Staff have successfully completed several road surface projects with Duncor and recommend
authorizing a by-law to enter into an Agreement with Duncor for surface treatment services.
RECOMMENDATION
1. THAT Report PS-09/22 re: 2022 Roads Surface Treatment be received for information;
2. AND THAT a by-law authorizing an Agreement between the Municipality of Bayham and
Duncor for surface treatment services be brought forward for Council’s consideration.
Respectfully Submitted by: Reviewed by:
___________________________
Ed Roloson Thomas Thayer, CMO
Manager of Capital Projects-Water/Wastewater CAO|Clerk
REPORT
Physical Services
TO: Mayor & Members of Council
FROM: Steve Adams, Manager of Public Works
DATE: May 5, 2022
REPORT: PS-10/22 SUBJECT: RICHMOND COMMUNITY PARK BASKETBALL COURT
BACKGROUND:
On April 7, 2022, Council received a Motion from Councillor Chilcott regarding basketball court
in the Richmond Community Park and passed the following resolution:
Moved by: Councillor Chilcott
Seconded by: Councillor Donnell
WHEREAS the Municipality of Bayham oversees and maintains the Richmond
Community Park in the hamlet of Richmond;
AND WHEREAS, in September 2021, Council considered an application to the
Ontario Trillium Foundation – Community Building Fund;
AND WHEREAS, during the above-noted consideration, Council deliberated an
application for a basketball court in the Richmond Community Park and ultimately
directed staff to submit an application for a different project;
AND WHEREAS the Municipality collects payment-in-lieu-of-parkland fees for
severed lots and holds these funds in the Parkland Reserve Fund;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the
Municipality of Bayham direct staff to investigate and report back on the costs
associated with the construction of a basketball court in the Richmond Community
Park to be funded from the Parkland Reserve Fund.
The Municipality currently maintains six (6) basketball courts or half-courts including six (6) nets
that were updated in 2017 and include a heavy-duty post and backboard system.
Below are the approximate measurements of each basketball area in use.
Straffordville Community Center Park - Two Nets on Concrete Pad 350sq meters
Port Burwell Parkette - One Net on asphalt 224sq meters
Eden Park Parking Lot - One Net 208sq meters
Corinth Community Park - Two Nets 84sq meters
Each backboard, post, and net were purchased at a cost of $1,125/unit and installed by
Municipal staff and Franklin Construction.
The Municipality in the past has utilized existing pads or areas which already contained a hard
surface, which made this an easier upgrade to be completed. However, the Village of Richmond
currently does not have a hard surface such as asphalt or concrete within the limits of the
Richmond Community Park.
DISCUSSION
Staff have researched different sizes of courts for a park setting that would match the size of the
hamlet and future growth. The following are options that could be selected:
Half Court One Net - Harder to use with concurrent multiple users but the cost is lower
to construct
Mini Full Court Two Nets - Creates a full court functionality with the ability to have
concurrent multiple users. Pad price is similar but requires an extra backboard and post.
Parkland Official Size Court - This would represent official size court with two
backboards. This would create a large play area however this would come at a cost of
more than triple compared to the above ideas.
Official Size Half Court - This would take the official size court and cut it in half to be an
official sized half court with one net. We could add a second net although cost is still
more than double a small mini court.
Staff believes utilizing a mini full court for Richmond would get the most utilization for the
property. The prices below include pricing for the hard surface and the backboard, post, and
net. The upgrades that were completed in 2017 included a heavy duty 115 mm diameter
galvanized post an aluminum backboard provided by Sport Systems Canada. The increase in
price from 2017 is about 33% to current date. Two options below for hard surface include
Asphalt and Concrete.
Below are the financial options for a mini half court and a mini full court with options of either
concrete or asphalt materials.
Mini Full Court Price
85-100sq meters
Mini Half Court Price
60-85sq. Meters
Concrete $8,000.00 $6,800.00
Backboards $3,741.00 $2,293.90
Total $11,741.00 plus HST $9,093.90 plus HST
Asphalt $6,995.00 $ 6,995.00
Backboards $ 3,741.00 $2,293.90
Total $10,736 plus HST $9,288.90 plus HST
Municipal staff would be involved in the preparation required with this pad including excavating
of topsoil, bringing base material up to grade, and installation of the backboards and post. The
cost for the extra works would be expected to be less than $1,500.00 including cement and
gravel to complete the project.
Attached hereto is the proposed location of the basketball court within the Richmond
Community Park. Staff suggest this location as this would save room for any future pavilions or
play structures.
ATTACHMENT
1. Proposed location – Basketball Court – Richmond Community Park
RECOMMENDATION
1. THAT Report PS-10/22 re Richmond Community Park Basketball Court be received for
information;
2. AND THAT staff to proceed with installing an 85-100 sq meter concrete pad including
two backboards and nets;
3. AND THAT the above works be funded through the Parkland Reserve Fund.
Respectfully Submitted by: Reviewed by:
_________________________ _________________________
Steve Adams Thomas Thayer, CMO
Manager of Public Works CAO|Clerk
PLANNING ACT
NOTICE OF THE PASSING OF
ZONING BY-LAW Z739-2022 BY
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
Applicant: Klassen, J & J, 9253 Plank Road
Application: ZBA-10/22
TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham passed By-
Law No. Z739-2022 on the 21st day of April 2022, under Section 34 of THE PLANNING ACT.
AND TAKE NOTICE that any person or agency may appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal in
respect of the By-law by filing with the Clerk of the Municipality of Bayham not later than the 12th
day of May 2022 a notice of appeal setting out the objection to the By-law and the reasons in
support of the objection.
THE PURPOSE of this By-law is amendment to change the zoning regulations on a 2,344 m2
(0.58 acre) parcel of land from a Central Business District and Village Residential (C1/R1) zone
to a site-specific Central Business District and Village Residential (C1-4/R1) zone to permit a
buffer strip of 3.2 m (10.5 ft.) whereas 4.5 m (14.8 ft.) is the permitted minimum for the commercial
building; and to permit a buffer strip of 1.8 m (5.9 ft.) whereas 4.5 m is the permitted minimum for
the commercial building parking lot; to permit side yard setback of 0.25 m (0.82 ft.) whereas 4.5
m is the permitted minimum for a commercial use abutting an Open Space (OS) zone, in Zoning
By-law Z456-2003. The subject lands are located on the west side of Plank Road, south of
Heritage Line and known as 9253 Plank Road.
THE EFFECT of this By-law will be to permit existing reduced buffer strip for the building to
facilitate proposed building enlargement of the automotive parts business; to permit reduced
buffer strip for the proposed parking lot associated with the enlargement; and to recognize the
existing side yard setback (north side).
ONLY INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS AND PUBLIC BODIES may appeal a by-law to the
Ontario Land Tribunal. A notice of appeal may not be filed by an unincorporated association or
group. However, a notice of appeal may be filed in the name of an individual who is a member
of the association or the group on its behalf.
NO PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY SHALL be added as a party to the hearing of the appeal
unless, before the by-law was passed, the person or public body made oral submissions at a
public meeting or written submissions to the council or, in the opinion of the Ontario Land
Tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to add the person or public body as a party.
The complete By-law is available for inspection in the municipal office during regular office
hours.
DATED AT THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM THIS 22nd DAY OF APRIL 2022.
Village of Straffordville
NOTE: For information regarding the fees associated with an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal, please see
the following link: https://olt.gov.on.ca/appeals-process/fee-chart/ or contact the Municipality.
Margaret Underhill
Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator
Municipality of Bayham
56169 Heritage Line, P.O. Box 160.
Straffordville, ON, N0J 1Y0
Tel: 519-866-5521 Ext 222
Fax: 519-866-3884
E-mail: munderhill@bayham.on.ca
W: www.bayham.on.ca
1
NOTICE OF APPLICATION CONCERNING A
PROPOSED DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION
APPLICATION (APPROVAL AUTHORITY COUNTY OF
ELGIN, FILE NUMBER 34T-BY202201), IN THE
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
APPLICANT: 11:28 PROPERTIES INC.
LOCATED AT: CONCESSION 8, PT LOT 22;
RP 11R-6179 PART 8, EAST SIDE OF PLANK ROAD, EDEN
TAKE NOTICE that the Municipality of Bayham has received a request from the County of Elgin
(the approval authority for Plan of Subdivision approvals for the Municipality of Bayham) to provide
Notice of Application for Draft Plan of Subdivision Application (File No. 34T-BY202201) under
Section 51 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, submitted by CJDL Limited
on behalf of 11:28 Properties Inc.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE is to inform the public of the nature of the Draft Plan of
Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment proposal. A public meeting to hear the planning merit
of the application has not yet been scheduled – future notice will be provided.
THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT of this Draft Plan of Subdivision will be to divide the subject parcel
of land into: thirty-three (33) single detached residential lots; one storm water management block;
and one active transportation access block. The proposed lots/blocks will be accessed by two
new local streets with access to Plank Road. The residential lots will be serviced by municipal
sanitary sewage disposal system and private on-site water services (wells). The subject lands are
designated ‘Hamlets’ in the Municipality of Bayham Official Plan and are zoned Holding Hamlet
Residential (HR(h2)) in the Municipality of Bayham Zoning By-law No. Z456-2003. The owners
will be required to enter into a subdivision agreement with the Municipality and obtain Zoning By-
law Amendment approval for the Removal of Holding provisions prior to any development of the
subject lands.
ANY PERSON may attend the (future) public meeting and/or make a written or verbal
representation in support of or in opposition to the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision.
IF A PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY does not make oral submissions at the public meeting or make
written submissions to Elgin County in respect of the proposed plan of subdivision before the
approval authority gives or refuses to give approval to the draft plan of subdivision, the person or
public body is not entitled to appeal the decision of Elgin County to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
IF A PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY does not make oral submissions at the public meeting or make
written submissions to Elgin County in respect of the proposed plan of subdivision before the
approval authority gives or refuses to give approval to the draft plan of subdivision, the person or
public body may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Land
Tribunal unless, in the opinion of the Tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to do so.
IF YOU WISH to be notified of the decision to adopt the proposed draft plan of subdivision, you
must make a written request to the County of Elgin, c/o Paul Hicks, Acting Manager of Planning,
at 514-503-2614 or hicks@republicurbanism.com or visit the County website at
https://www.elgincounty.ca. The County Office is located at 450 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas, ON,
N5R 5V1.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION about this matter, including information about preserving
your appeal rights, contact the Municipal Office (contact information below) or Elgin County
(contact information above). The following reports are available for inspection at the Municipal
office from Monday to Friday, between 8:30 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. and on the municipal website:
Draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by CJDL Limited, dated February 10, 2022.
Preliminary Servicing Report prepared by CJDL Limited, dated February 15, 2022.
Planning Rationale Report prepared by Civic Planning Solutions, dated February 11,
2022.
Archeological Assessment, Stage 1 & 2 and supporting documents prepared by
Thomas G. Arnold & Associates, dated June 7, 2021.
Traffic Impact Assessment and Traffic Impact Assessment addendum prepared by
F. R. Berry & Associates, dated May 2021 and February 2022.
Hydrological Assessment prepared by Ian D. Wilson Associates Limited, dated
February 11, 2022.
Dated at the Municipality of Bayham this 21st day of April 2022.
2
Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision (copy; size reduced from original)
Margaret Underhill
Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator
Municipality of Bayham
56169 Heritage Line, P.O. Box 160
Straffordville, ON, N0J 1Y0
T: 519-866-5521 Ext 222
F: 519-866-3884
E: munderhill@bayham.on.ca
W: www.bayham.on.ca
ZBA-07/22
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC MEETING CONCERNING A
PROPOSED COMBINED ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT
TO REMOVE HOLDING SYMBOL AND ZONING BY-LAW
AMENDMENT IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
APPLICANT: DAVE AND MARIANNE MILLER
LOCATED AT: 55139 LIGHT LINE
TAKE NOTICE that the Municipality of Bayham has received a complete application for a combined
Zoning By-law Amendment to Remove Holding Symbol and Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA-07/22.
AND TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham will hold a
public meeting on Thursday, May 19th, 2022 at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Council Chambers, 56169
Heritage Line, Straffordville to consider the proposed Zoning By-law Amendments under Section 34
and 36 of the PLANNING ACT.
THE PURPOSE of this By-law is an amendment to change the zoning regulations on a 1.9 ha (4.7
acre) parcel of land in the Holding Village Residential (R1(h2, h3) Zone to a site-specific Village
Residential (R1-xx) Zone, to permit: one new residential dwelling with the removal of h2 and h3
holding symbols; and, maximum accessory building floor area of 139.5 m2 (1,501 ft2) whereas 65 m2
(700 ft2) is the permitted maximum, in Zoning By-law Z456-2003. The subject lands are located on
the south side of Light Line, west of Bogus Road, known as 55139 Light Line.
THE EFFECT of this By-law will be to: remove holding provisions, recognizing Environmental Impact
Study (EIS) has been submitted addressing natural heritage and subdivision agreement is not
necessary for the development of one residential dwelling lot; and to permit an oversized accessory
building accessory to the residential dwelling use.
The Zoning By-law Amendment to Remove a Holding Symbol is only subject to appeal by the
applicant should Council refuse the proposed amendment.
ANY PERSON may attend the public meeting and/or make a written or verbal representation in
support of or in opposition to the proposed amendment. When possible please consider utilizing
written correspondence to the undersigned.
IF A PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make
written submissions to the Municipality of Bayham before the by-law is passed, the person or public
body is not entitled to appeal the decision of the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of
Bayham to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
IF A PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY does not make oral submissions at a public meeting, or make
written submissions to the Municipality of Bayham before the by-law is passed, the person or public
body may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Land Tribunal unless,
in the opinion of the Tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to do so.
IF YOU WISH to be notified of the adoption of the proposed amendment, you must make a written
request to the undersigned.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION relating to the proposed amendment may be obtained at the Municipal
Office.
Dated at the Municipality of Bayham this 29th day of April 2022.
Margaret Underhill
Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator
Municipality of Bayham
56169 Heritage Line, P.O. Box 160
Straffordville, ON, N0J 1Y0
T: 519-866-5521 Ext 222
F: 519-866-3884
E: munderhill@bayham.on.ca
W: www.bayham.on.ca
SPA-01/22 AND ZBA-10/22
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC MEETING CONCERNING A PROPOSED
COMBINED SITE PLAN PUBLIC MEETING AND NOTICE OF
INTENT TO PASS AN AMENDING
BY-LAW TO REMOVE A HOLDING SYMBOL IN THE
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
APPLICANT: BORM CAPITAL INC., C/O ETIENNE BORM
LOCATED AT: 7288 RICHMOND ROAD
TAKE NOTICE that the Municipality of Bayham has received a complete application for an amendment to a
registered Site Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment to Remove the Holding Symbol (Applications: SPA-01/22
and ZBA-10/22).
AND TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham will hold a public
meeting on Thursday, May 19th, 2022 at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Council Chambers, 56169 Heritage Line,
Straffordville to consider the proposed Zoning By-law Amendments under Section 36 of the PLANNING ACT.
AND TAKE NOTICE that only the applicant may file an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal of a decision by
Council not to remove the holding symbol and not to approve the site plan, or where Council fails to make a
decision within 150 days after the application was submitted.
THE PURPOSE of the Site Plan Public Meeting is to present the development proposal to the public for
comment to ensure that development takes a form compatible with adjacent land uses and receive feedback
from the public; and the purpose of the Zoning By-law Amendment for Removal of Holding Symbol is to
amend the zoning regulations from site-specific Rural Industrial - Holding (M2-8(h6)) to site-specific Rural
Industrial (M2-8) by removing the Holding “h6” symbol from a portion of the subject lands requiring Site Plan
Public Meeting prior to building an addition to the existing industrial use building in Zoning By-law Z456-2003.
The subject lands are located on the east side of Richmond Road, south of James Line, known as 7288
Richmond Road comprising a 5.9 ha (14.6 acre) parcel of land.
THE EFFECT of this By-law is to facilitate the proposed 3,861 m2 (41,559 ft2) building addition prior to removal
of holding provisions and Site Plan Amendment Approval or entering into an agreement with the Municipality
to facilitate adequate industrial development in the rural area. The proposed building addition (Shop #10) is
for the warehousing, shipping and receiving of automotive parts.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION relating to the proposed amendment may be obtained by contacting the
Municipal Office. The proposed site plan is shown on the back of this Notice. The Notice and Site Plan
Drawing are available for viewing on the municipal website.
Dated at the Municipality of Bayham this 29th day of April 2022.
Margaret Underhill
Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator
Municipality of Bayham
56169 Heritage Line, P.O. Box 160
Straffordville, ON, N0J 1Y0
T: 519-866-5521 Ext 222
F: 519-866-3884
E: munderhill@bayham.on.ca
W: www.bayham.on.ca
SPA-01/22 AND ZBA-10/22
ZBA-14/22
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC MEETING
CONCERNING A PROPOSED
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT
IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
APPLICANT: RUDOLF AND NANCY THIESSEN
LOCATED AT: 53580 VIENNA LINE
TAKE NOTICE that the Municipality of Bayham has received a complete application for a Zoning
By-law amendment ZBA-14/22.
AND TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham will hold a
public meeting on Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Council Chambers,
56169 Heritage Line, Straffordville to consider a proposed Zoning By-law amendment under
Section 34 of the PLANNING ACT.
THE PURPOSE of this By-law is an amendment to change the zoning regulations on a 20 ha (50
acre) parcel of land to permit maximum supplementary farm dwelling floor area of 250 m2 (2,691
ft2) in the form of one (1) mobile home in addition to the permitted permanent building for
accommodation of seasonal farm labourers, in Zoning By-law Z456-2003. The subject lands are
located at 53580 Vienna Line, north side, east of Richmond Road.
THE EFFECT of this By-law will be to permit one new temporary mobile home building and semi-
permanent addition with floor area of 83 m2 (888 ft2) to accommodate maximum six (6) seasonal
farm labourers, in addition to the existing permanent supplementary farm dwelling with maximum
floor area of 167 m2 (1,797 ft2) housing maximum sixteen (16) seasonal labourers approved
previously by way of Minor Variance (application A-01/18).
ANY PERSON may attend the public meeting and/or make a written or verbal representation in
support of or in opposition to the proposed amendment. When possible please consider
utilizing written correspondence to the undersigned.
IF A PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make
written submissions to the Municipality of Bayham before the by-law is passed, the person or
public body is not entitled to appeal the decision of the Council of the Corporation of the
Municipality of Bayham to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
IF A PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY does not make oral submissions at a public meeting, or make
written submissions to the Municipality of Bayham before the by-law is passed, the person or
public body may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Land
Tribunal unless, in the opinion of the Tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to do so.
IF YOU WISH to be notified of the adoption of the proposed amendment, you must make a written
request to the undersigned.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION relating to the proposed amendment may be obtained at the
Municipal Office.
Dated at the Municipality of Bayham this 29th day of April 2022.
Margaret Underhill
Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator
Municipality of Bayham
56169 Heritage Line, P.O. Box 160
Straffordville, ON, N0J 1Y0
T: 519-866-5521 Ext 222
F: 519-866-3884
E: munderhill@bayham.on.ca
W: www.bayham.on.ca
ZBA-16/22
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC MEETING
CONCERNING A PROPOSED
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT
IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
APPLICANT: FRANZ AND ANNA KLASSEN
LOCATED AT: 10 OAK STREET, VIENNA
TAKE NOTICE that the Municipality of Bayham has received a complete application for a Zoning
By-law amendment ZBA-16/22.
AND TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham will hold a
public meeting on Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Council Chambers,
56169 Heritage Line, Straffordville to consider a proposed Zoning By-law amendment under
Section 34 of the PLANNING ACT.
THE PURPOSE of this By-law is an amendment to change the zoning regulations on a 926 m2
(0.2 acre) parcel of land in the Village Residential 1 (R1) Zone to a site-specific Village Residential
(R1-xx) Zone, to permit minimum rear yard setback of 6.9m (22.6 ft) whereas 7.0 m (23.0 ft) is
the required minimum for the existing dwelling, in Zoning By-law Z456-2003. The subject lands
are located on the east side of Oak Street, south of Fulton Street, known as 10 Oak Street.
THE EFFECT of this By-law will be to fulfill Conditions of Consent (Elgin County Land Division file
E49-21) to rezone the retained lands to recognize existing reduced rear yard setback.
ANY PERSON may attend the public meeting and/or make a written or verbal representation in
support of or in opposition to the proposed amendment.
IF A PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make
written submissions to the Municipality of Bayham before the by-law is passed, the person or
public body is not entitled to appeal the decision of the Council of the Corporation of the
Municipality of Bayham to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
IF A PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY does not make oral submissions at a public meeting, or make
written submissions to the Municipality of Bayham before the by-law is passed, the person or
public body may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Land
Tribunal unless, in the opinion of the Tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to do so.
IF YOU WISH to be notified of the adoption of the proposed amendment, you must make a written
request to the undersigned.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION relating to the proposed amendment may be obtained at the
Municipal Office.
Dated at the Municipality of Bayham this 29th day of April 2022.
Village of Vienna
Margaret Underhill
Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator
Municipality of Bayham
56169 Heritage Line, P.O. Box 160
Straffordville, ON, N0J 1Y0
T: 519-866-5521 Ext 222
F: 519-866-3884
E: munderhill@bayham.on.ca
W: www.bayham.on.ca
April 21, 2022
Mayor Ketchabaw and Council Members,
At a recent Aylmer & Area Chamber of Commerce board meeting a topic of discussion was Eco-
nomic Development and what was currently being done to attract businesses, residents, and
visitors to our area. Over the past three years, the services and extended commitment from the
County of Elgin has tapered off significantly and there seems to be no plan in place or direction.
Our economic development and tourism promotion through Elgin County used to be active,
engaging, professional and visible. Aside from the Elgincentives program which has also tapered
off to now being on hold, our area is missing out on drawing people in and growth.
How are our County Municipal tax dollars being used in the support of our businesses? As the
Municipality has opted out of conducting their own economic development, in favour of the
County’s initiatives, it is imperative that the County’s activities are productive. It’s time for our Mu-
nicipal offices to ask the questions of why nothing is being done to actively support and drive a
key component to our growth such as economic development. We need to collectively expect
more from our County office and we are asking you to step up, advocate for our business com-
munity and submit a letter for swift changes to be made.
I encourage you to take time to visit the website. There is outdated information, links are not work-
ing properly and it does not showcase our County as progressive or forward thinking. Thank you
for your consideration and action to change. Our next board meeting is on May 12, 2022 and I
would appreciate having some direction or feedback for the Board.
Sincerely,
Nicole Pressey-Wiebenga
Executive Director, Aylmer & Area Chamber of Commerce
cc: Township of Malahide, Town of Aylmer
51 Talbot Street East Aylmer, Ontario N5H 1H3
email: aylmerchamber@eastlink.ca
…/2
April 19, 2022
The Honourable Doug Ford, M.P.P.
Premier of Ontario
Legislative Building
Queen's Park
Toronto, ON M7A 1A1
The Honourable Steve Clark, M.P.P
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
17th Floor
777 Bay St.
Toronto, ON M5G 2E5
Sent via email: premier@ontario.ca and steve.clark@pc.ola.org
Re: St. Catharines Response to Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force
Recommendations
Our File 35.31.18 & 60.73.5
Dear Premier Ford and Minister Clark,
At its meeting held on April 7, 2022, St. Catharines City Council approved the following motion
and requested that Minister Clark consider the staff recommendations starting on page 7 of the
enclosed report (Report PBS-059-2022):
That Council, via the Mayor’s Office, advise the Premier that the Housing
Affordability Task Force recommendations require further evaluation and analysis,
including feedback from AMO, ROMA, OPPI, MFOA, and OBCM, prior to
implementation; and
That Council strongly recommends that substantial Provincial investment be
provided to support municipalities to fund anticipated infrastructure upgrades to
accommodate new intensification goals outlined in the Task Force’s
recommendations; and
That Council requests the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to consider the
staff recommendations starting on page 7 of Report PBS-059-2022; and
That staff forward Report PBS-059-2022 and its Appendices to the Premier, the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and local Members of Provincial
Parliament; and
…/2
Page 2
That Council recommends the Province remove appeal rights to individuals and
parties who appeal affordable housing developments to the OLT; and
Further, that Council’s resolution be shared with Ontario Municipalities for their
endorsement.
If you have any questions, please contact the Office of the City Clerk at extension 1524.
Bonnie Nistico-Dunk, City Clerk
Legal and Clerks Services, Office of the City Clerk
:em
cc: Jennifer Stevens, MPP - St. Catharines
Jeff Burch, MPP - Niagara Centre
Wayne Gates, MPP - Niagara Falls
Sam Oosterhoff, MPP - Niagara West-Glanbrook
Tami Kitay, Director of Planning and Building Services
Brian York, Director of Economic Development and Government Relations
Melissa Wenzler, Government Relations Advisor
Scott Rosts, Chief of Staff, Mayor Sendzik’s Office
Ontario Municipalities
Encl. Report PBS-059-2022
Corporate Report
City Council
Report from: Planning and Building Services, Director
Report Date: February 14, 2022
Meeting Date: April 7, 2022
Report Number: PBS-059-2022
File: 35.31.18 & 60.73.5
Subject: St. Catharines Response to Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force
Recommendations
Strategic Pillar:
This report aligns with the following St. Catharines Strategic Plan pillars: economic,
social, environmental, and cultural.
Recommendation
That Council, via the Mayor’s Office, advise the Premier that the Housing Affordability
Task Force recommendations require further evaluation and analysis, including
feedback from AMO, ROMA, OPPI, MFOA, and OBCM, prior to implementation; and
That Council strongly recommends that substantial Provincial investment be provided to
support municipalities to fund anticipated infrastructure upgrades to accommodate new
intensification goals outlined in the Task Force’s recommendations; and
That Council requests the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to consider the staff
recommendations starting on page 7 of Report PBS-059-2022; and
That staff forward Report PBS-059-2022 and its Appendices to the Premier, the Minister
of Municipal Affairs and Housing and local Members of Provincial Parliament; and
Further, that Council’s resolution be shared with Ontario Municipalities for their
endorsement.
Report Page 2 of 10
Summary
On December 6, 2021, the Province appointed a Housing Affordability Task Force to
assess how a lack of housing supply bares responsibility for the housing affordability
crisis. The Task Force, consisting primarily of private sector development industry
representatives, crafted 55 recommendations aimed at supporting market housing
affordability. The Task Force is focused on bringing 1.5 million new homes to market in
the next 10 years. The recommendations impact many areas of land use planning,
municipal financing, cultural heritage assets and public participation. The purpose of this
report is to provide a high-level assessment of the recommendations for Council’s
information.
Relationship to Strategic Plan
The Provincial Housing Affordability Task Force recommendations, if implemented as
currently intended, will negatively impact all four pillars of the City’s Strategic Plan:
• Economic Prosperity: Support the City’s commitment to building and growing a
diverse and resilient economy through fiscal responsibility, urban regeneration,
and collaborative partnerships.
• Social Well-Being: Build and support strong, inclusive neighbourhoods, that
provide high quality of life for residents of all ages.
• Environmental Stewardship: Adopt innovative approaches and continue
responsible community planning and decision-making that balances growth,
enhances quality of life, manages emergencies, and minimized the
environmental impacts of climate change.
• Cultural Renaissance: Celebrate the City’s rich history, diversity, arts and cultural
assets through leadership, promotion and investments that support measurable,
sustainable creative growth.
Background
Since 2000, Canadian property price increases have significantly outpaced those of
wages. The average home price in Canada has quadrupled from 2000 to 2020,
whereas the average Canadian family’s income has only increased 37% in the same
time period (Statistics Canada). Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation data
indicates that in 2020, Toronto was the sixth most expensive city in the world in which to
live. Furthermore, the Canadian government has targeted immigration levels of 411,000
new residents in in 2022 and 421,000 new residents in 2023. Many of these new
residents will settle in major cities and their surrounding areas to contribute to skilled
workforce opportunities. In the Greater Golden Horseshoe, a surplus of housing does
not exist, which further contributes to a lack of affordable options for new and existing
residents.
On December 6, 2021, nine persons were appointed to a Provincial Housing
Affordability Task Force to provide the government with recommendations to address
market housing supply and affordability.
Report Page 3 of 10
Specifically, their mandate was to explore housing affordability by:
• Increasing the supply of market rate rental and ownership housing;
• Building housing supply in complete communities;
• Reducing red tape and accelerating timelines;
• Encouraging innovation and digital modernization, such as in the planning
processes;
• Supporting economic recovery and job creation; and
• Balancing housing needs with protecting the environment.
The Task Force was chaired by Jake Lawrence, CEO of Global Banking and Markets at
Scotiabank. The other appointments included:
1. Lalit Aggarwal, President of Manor Park Holdings
2. David Amborski, Professor at Ryerson’s University’s School of Planning
3. Julie Di Lorenzo, President of Diamante Urban Corp
4. Andrew Garrett, Senior Principal of Real Estate, Investment, and Management
Corporation of Ontario
5. Tim Hudak, CEO of the Ontario Real Estate Association
6. Justin Marchand, CEO of Ontario Aboriginal Housing Services
7. Ene Underwood, CEO of Habitat for Humanity GTA
8. David Wilkes, CEO of Building Industry and Land Development Association
On February 8, 2022, the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force released their report
(linked above and attached as Appendix 1) and their 55 recommendations. To date, the
Minister has not indicated which of the recommendations will be implemented, nor has a
timeline been published.
The recommendations have significant implications for the future of land use planning,
city building, heritage preservation, and municipal finance. As such, staff from Planning
and Building Services and Financial Management Services have reviewed the Task
Force’s recommendations and contributed to the comments in Appendix 2 to this report.
The purpose of this report is to share staff’s assessment of the recommendations for
Council’s information.
It is recommended that Council advise the Province of their position on these
recommendations, despite not being solicited for feedback.
Report
The Provincial Housing Affordability Task Force has predicated their recommendations
entirely on increasing supply as the primary factor in market housing affordability. It is
worth noting that it was not within the Task Force’s mandate to evaluate true affordable
housing objectives or actions. The Task Force places a significant portion of culpability
on the housing crisis to municipal zoning and slow approvals; costs of development
process, including fees, charges, and securities; public consultation, and political
influence in decision making.
Report Page 4 of 10
Of the Task Force’s 62 recommendations (55 core recommendations, 7 sub-
recommendations), staff have identified the recommendations that can be supported,
those that are neutral or require additional information to provide a determination, and
those recommendations that are opposed:
Recommendations that St. Catharines Staff
Support Neutral/More Information Needed Opposed
17 20 25
The Housing Affordability Task Force’s recommendations and the accompanying staff
comments are listed in Appendix 2 of this report.
Overview of Task Force’s Themes
The Housing Affordability’s Task Force report, attached as Appendix 1 to this report,
identifies 5 themes:
1. Make the creation of housing a greater planning priority, require greater density
and broadly expand development rights.
2. Reduce, shorten, and streamline planning application processes and implement
province-wide zoning and urban design standards.
3. Depoliticize the planning process by eliminating restrictive zoning and removing
neighbourhood character considerations.
4. Fix the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) and prevent abuse of the appeals system.
5. Support municipalities that commit to transforming the system.
Theme 1: The City of St. Catharines agrees that increased density and choice in
housing supply is necessary to accommodate growing population needs. However, by
broadly expanding development rights to the extent identified in the recommendations
will result in substandard development, extensive taxpayer burden, infrastructure
deficits, and a loss of cultural heritage and parkland attributes that make communities
desirable and livable. Furthermore, the Task Force has not demonstrated how any
savings attributed to expanded development rights will increase affordability.
Theme 2: The City of St. Catharines supports any efforts by the Province to review
Provincial ministry and agency development review processes for efficiencies, including
adequate resources to ensure quicker turnaround for approvals. Staff do not support
shortening Planning Act timeframes further as many delays in the development
application review process can be attributed to developers, consultants and external
consulting agencies. Province-wide zoning standards can not be supported as they do
not consider community context and would be counter productive as it would increase
the number of minor variance and zoning by-law amendment applications. Staff also do
not support Province-wide urban design standards as different communities have
different identities and character and harmonizing the built form of 444 municipalities
would destroy the aspects that make cities livable.
Report Page 5 of 10
Theme 3: Staff could support efforts to depoliticize the decision-making process.
However, the Task Force recommendations on how to undertake this action are unclear
in how they would be screened and administered and furthermore, are borderline
undemocratic. The Task Force assumes that public consultation only adds delay and
not value to the development process. In staff’s opinion, meaningful public consultation
results in better development and less acrimonious appeal processes.
Theme 4: Staff are supportive of a comprehensive review of Planning Act appeal rights
and Ontario Land Tribunal processes. However, the Task Force recommendations with
regards to “preventing abuse of the appeals system” are unclear in how appeals would
be screened for abuse (beyond methods the Tribunal currently employs) and seemed to
be crafted in a manner to prevent participation by the general public.
Theme 5: Staff are appreciative of Provincial support to improve the development
approvals process. However, the Task Force’s recommendations in this manner are
punitive of municipalities striving for quality development and livable cities and
otherwise incentivize insufficient process and substandard development.
St. Catharines Efforts that Support the Task Force’s Mandate
The Planning and Building Services Department supports Provincial goals to create
additional housing and has undertaken many efforts to remove process barriers to
expedite development.
Incentivization
The City of St. Catharines incentivizes private development investment through its
Community Improvement Plan (CIP) which prioritizes brownfield remediation, affordable
housing, heritage preservation and intensification areas. The City’s Development
Charges by-law has DC grant programs for downtown development, affordable housing
and industrial uses.
Process Improvement
The City of St. Catharines is a recipient of the Province’s Streamline Development Fund
and has committed to undertaking a process improvement review with a perspective of
ensuring an efficient review and evaluation process. In addition, staff are implementing
an e-permitting system and online portal for development applications in an effort to
simplify the application process and reduce costs incurred by the applicant for mileage,
copies of drawings, etc.
Permissive Official Plan and Zoning By-law
The City’s Garden City Official is fully implemented by the City’s Zoning By-law leading
to the majority of development applications going straight to site plan – including a 30-
storey mixed-use tower in the downtown. The City’s lowest density residential zone
permits a variety of ground-oriented housing, as of right, including single and semi-
detached dwellings, accessory dwelling units, quadplexes, and townhouses removing
opportunities for NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) appeals and creating opportunity for
gentle density in established neighbourhoods. Furthermore, the downtown enjoys a
policy environment with no density cap, no height cap and no parking minimums.
Report Page 6 of 10
Appeals
The City maintains a very low development application appeal rate. This achievement
can be attributed to constructive dialogue with applicants, the public and commenting
agencies, focusing on an outcome-based approach. In fact, there are only four matters
currently in front of the OLT – three of which are for one development proposal and one
on a city-wide Official Plan Amendment meant to implement the Province’s Growth
Plan. All four appeals were filed by developers and not the general public.
St. Catharines Housing Action Plan
The City of St. Catharines anticipated the rising cost of housing in 2017 and responded
with Council’s approval of a Housing Action Plan. Among other recommendations, the
report proposed the following actions:
• Amend the Official Plan’s condominium conversion policies;
• Amend the Zoning By-law to address accessory dwelling units;
• Streamline affordable housing development applications;
• Amend the Zoning By-law to incorporate the possibility of inclusionary zoning;
• Amend the Community Improvement Plan to include an affordable housing
program;
• Participate in the Regional Development Charge Review; and
• Advocate for the development of affordable housing projects and related funding
programs.
The City has implemented all of the above actions; save and except for an inclusionary
zoning practice which is currently under development.
Surplus Lands Task Force
City Council has created a Surplus Lands Task Force dedicated to the review of surplus
municipal lands and positioning of the lands to be developed for affordable, supportive,
and/or rent geared to income housing. The City has declared two properties surplus so
far and have entertained proposals to develop housing that supports a range of
affordable, rent geared to income, and market housing at 6-8 Academy Street and 320
Geneva Street. The City has entered into an agreement with Penn Terra Group Ltd.,
Bethlehem Housing, and Habitat for Humanity to see the development of a former City
property to 43% affordable housing, 14% social housing and 43% market rate housing.
Furthermore, there will be 180 rental units and 32 townhomes, 19,000 sq.ft. of
commercial space and three community gardens.
Staff Response to Task Force Recommendations
Staff question the Task Force’s fundamental premise that broadly increasing
development rights while decimating a municipality’s ability to collect payment for
growth related infrastructure, recreational and park improvements will translate to the
development of market affordable housing. It is generally understood that the market
will pay for what the market can bare and the recommendations do not guarantee that
any financial savings enjoyed by the developer through the stripping of the land use
planning system will be passed on to the end user.
Report Page 7 of 10
The City of St. Catharines has an in-effect policy environment that permits, as of right,
the development of 14,390 dwelling units to accommodate an additional population of
31,390 (STC Land Needs Assessment, adopted by Council November 2020. Approved
by Niagara Region Council March 2021. Appealed by developer April 2021 and
currently awaiting Ontario Land Tribunal decision). The City has no authority or ability to
force the development of those units. In addition to a permissive Official Plan and
Zoning By-Law framework discussed above, staff can advise that unlimited
development rights have not resulted in a measurable increase in housing supply or
contribution to housing affordability.
The Housing Affordability Task Force is especially dismissive of the value that heritage
conservation brings to the community, ignores opportunities for adaptive reuse and
expansion and ignores that many heritage assets can be reused for multiple residential
unit conversions. In the City of St. Catharines, there are several examples of heritage
schools being converted to residential dwelling units, heritage homes being converted
from a single unit to multiple dwellings and heritage industrial buildings being converted
to residential dwellings. The City supports two heritage advisory committees and
responsibly utilizes the tools of the Ontario Heritage Act to designate and list buildings
of interest. The City is mindful of property rights and works to achieve balance,
collaboration and cooperation with property owners.
The City of St. Catharines relies on municipal taxes, fees and development charges to
forecast, budget and plan for community service investment, maintenance and
replacement for the infrastructure that residents rely on. Should the municipality’s ability
to collect growth related fees from development be significantly reduced, as
recommended by the Task Force, the City will have to make the decision to drastically
reduce service levels or raise property taxes to fund growth related costs. While staff
can understand how the reduction of these fees would benefit the applicant, there is no
guarantee provided that demonstrates the cost savings being passed to the occupant.
Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that these recommendations would create
additional housing supply and diversity.
The City of St. Catharines prides itself on supporting the tender fruit lands and its
thriving grape growing capabilities. Niagara prides itself on its wine making innovations
and is known around the world for the quality of its wines, its festivals and the many
industries that thrive from this specialty crop area. The City and staff do not support the
expansion of urban boundaries or municipal boundaries to permit development on these
lands. The Task Force’s recommendation in this regard is directly contrary to the
Province’s Greenbelt Plan and would be detrimental to the highest quality food
producing soil and microclimate in the Province.
Staff Recommendations to the Task Force
Staff suggest that the Minister could consider the following items to achieve additional
housing affordability:
• Regulate the Ontario Real Estate Association to discourage blind bidding,
unethical pricing practices and realtor hoarding of residential units.
Report Page 8 of 10
• Disincentivize house flipping for profit through capital gains tax for any property
bought, improved and sold within 12 months.
• Assess, evaluate and leverage all Provincially owned land for residential
suitability and make available for true affordable housing providers, where
suitable.
• Empower municipalities to zone for residential tenure to ensure multi-residential
developments have a mix of rental and ownership tenures at strategic
intensification areas such as downtown, MTSA and intensification corridors.
• Modify taxation systems to encourage and incentivize the construction and
operation of purpose built rental, cooperative living, truly affordable housing and
housing to support racialized communities.
• Undertake a Planning Act reform process, with an advisory committee of
municipal planners and lawyers, to instill consistency, clarity, and intent of the
Act. Pre-submission consultations must be considered a development
application. Furthermore, loopholes routinely exploited for substandard
applications must be closed to provide integrity to the process (i.e. the clock must
stop when an application is deemed incomplete).
• Reinstate the intent of the Bill 139 Planning Act amendments that saw the
elimination of “de novo” hearings, consider decisions made by municipal
Councils and to adjudicate only on contested matters of land use planning.
• Redirect any ministry budget surpluses to a fund that directly creates truly
affordable housing units.
Consultation
It is noted that the Task Force did not seek or include feedback from the Association of
Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), Rural Ontario Municipalities Association (ROMA),
Ontario Professional Planners Institute (OPPI), Ontario Big City Mayors (OBCM), or
numerous other organizations, agencies or Provincial Ministries whose mandates would
be impacted by these recommendations. The composition of the Housing Affordability
Task Force represents a perspective of supporting the building industry’s desire for
expedited approvals while sacrificing many of the aspects that make cities livable. Prior
to the implementation of any of the Task Force’s recommendations, the City strongly
recommends that a comprehensive review and consultation take place with the
aforementioned agencies, municipalities, and bodies.
Financial Implications
There are no financial implications associated with this report. However, if these
recommendations are implemented as currently worded there will be significant impacts
to municipal finances. These would represent a shift from “growth pays for growth” to the
taxpayer subsidizing development to the benefit of the developer. Should the Task
Force’s recommendations be implemented there is no evidence to suggest that the costs
savings to be realized by the developer would be transferred to the end user.
Report Page 9 of 10
Environmental Sustainability Implications
There are no environmental sustainability implications associated with this report.
However, if these recommendations are implemented as currently worded there will be
a significant decrease in the municipality’s ability to invest in resilient infrastructure and
parkland development.
Conclusion
The City of St. Catharines has undertaken numerous proactive policy and regulatory
approaches to expedite development that implements the vision set out in the Garden
City Official Plan, which has been brought into conformity with the Province’s Growth
Plan population targets. The City has demonstrated commitment to Provincial goals of
creating more housing, providing a greater mix of housing types, and expediting
approvals, where under municipal control. However, staff have concerns with the
fundamental premise of the Task Force’s recommendations that by reducing “barriers”
to development in favour of developers that the market will flood with supply and
housing costs will substantially decrease.
The City has championed unlimited development rights in the downtown since 2010 (no
height cap, no density cap, no required parking) and until 2021, little attempt was made to
capitalize on these benefits. The development industry will always phase development to
reduce downward pressure on price, full well knowing that the purchase price will always
be set by what the market can bare. Staff remain concerned that many of the Task
Force’s recommendations will negatively impact public consultation, municipal revenues,
municipal autonomy and many aspects of city building that improve livability. None of the
recommendations are guaranteed to reduce the cost of housing to the end user.
Overall, staff are not confident that the implementation of the Task Force’s
recommendations will succeed at improving housing affordability.
Notifications
It would be prudent to notify the following individuals of Council’s recommendation:
• Niagara Regional Council
• Grape Growers Association
• Rural Ontario Municipalities Association
• Association of Municipalities of Ontario
• Ontario Professional Planners Institute
• Office of the Premier
• Steve Clarke, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
• Jennie Stevens, MPP
• Sam Oosterhoff, MPP
• Jeff Burch, MPP
• Niagara Home Builders Association
• Niagara Construction Association
• Ontario Federation of Agriculture
Report Page 10 of 10
Prepared and Submitted by
Tami Kitay, MPA MCIP RPP
Director of Planning and Building Services
Approved by
Dave Oakes, MPA
Chief Administrative Officer
Appendices
1. Report of the Province’s Housing Affordability Task Force
2. Provincial Housing Affordability Task Force Recommendations and
St. Catharines Comments
3. Ontario Professional Planners Institute – Letter to Minister of Municipal Affairs
and Housing, dated February 10, 2022
4. AMO’s Response to the Province’s Housing Affordability Task Force, dated
March 1, 2022
5. Municipal Finance Officers' Association of Ontario - Response to the Province’s
Housing Affordability Task Force
6. Niagara Region Response to Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on the
Ontario Housing Task Force Report, dated March 15, 2022
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force
1
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 2
Contents
Letter to Minister Clark .......................................................................3
Executive summary and recommendations ...............................4
Introduction ............................................................................................6
Focus on getting more homes built ..............................................9
Making land available to build .......................................................10
Cut the red tape so we can
build faster and reduce costs ........................................................15
Reduce the costs to build, buy and rent ....................................18
Support and incentivize
scaling up housing supply .............................................................22
Conclusion ..........................................................................................26
Appendix A: Biographies of Task Force Members ................27
Appendix B: Affordable Housing .................................................29
Appendix C: Government Surplus Land ....................................31
Appendix D: Surety Bonds ............................................................32
References ..........................................................................................33
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 3
Letter to Minister Clark
Dear Minister Clark,
Hard-working Ontarians are facing a housing crisis. For many years, the province has not built enough housing
to meet the needs of our growing population. While the affordability crisis began in our large cities, it has now
spread to smaller towns and rural communities.
Efforts to cool the housing market have only provided temporary relief to home buyers. The long-term trend is
clear: house prices are increasing much faster than Ontarian’s incomes. The time for action is now.
When striking the Housing Affordability Task Force, you and Premier Ford were clear: you wanted actionable,
concrete solutions to help Ontarians and there was no time to waste. You asked us to be bold and gave us the
freedom and independence to develop our recommendations.
In the past two months, we have met municipal leaders, planners, unions, developers and builders, the financial
sector, academics, think tanks and housing advocates. Time was short, but solutions emerged consistently
around these themes:
• More housing density across the province
• End exclusionary municipal rules that block or delay new housing
• Depoliticize the housing approvals process
• Prevent abuse of the housing appeals system
• Financial support to municipalities that build more housing
We present this report to you not as an “all or nothing” proposal, but rather as a list of options that the government
has at its disposal to help address housing affordability for Ontarians and get more homes built. We propose an
ambitious but achievable target: 1.5 million new homes built in the next ten years.
Parents and grandparents are worried that their children will not be able to afford a home when they start working
or decide to start a family. Too many Ontarians are unable to live in their preferred city or town because they
cannot afford to buy or rent.
The way housing is approved and built was designed for a different era when the province was less constrained
by space and had fewer people. But it no longer meets the needs of Ontarians. The balance has swung too far in
favour of lengthy consultations, bureaucratic red tape, and costly appeals. It is too easy to oppose new housing
and too costly to build. We are in a housing crisis and that demands immediate and sweeping reforms.
It has been an honour to serve as Chair, and I am proud to submit this report on behalf of the entire Task Force.
Jake Lawrence
Chair, Housing Affordability Task Force
Chief Executive Officer and Group Head, Global Banking and Markets, Scotiabank
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 4
Executive summary and recommendations
House prices in Ontario have almost tripled in the past 10 years, growing much faster than
incomes. This has home ownership beyond the reach of most first-time buyers across the
province, even those with well-paying jobs. Housing has become too expensive for rental units
and it has become too expensive in rural communities and small towns. The system is not
working as it should.
For too long, we have focused on solutions to “cool” the
housing market. It is now clear that we do not have enough
homes to meet the needs of Ontarians today, and we are
not building enough to meet the needs of our growing
population. If this problem is not fixed – by creating more
housing to meet the growing demand – housing prices will
continue to rise. We need to build more housing in Ontario.
This report sets out recommendations that would set a bold
goal and clear direction for the province, increase density,
remove exclusionary rules that prevent housing growth,
prevent abuse of the appeals process, and make sure
municipalities are treated as partners in this process by
incentivizing success.
Setting bold targets and making
new housing the planning priority
Recommendations 1 and 2 urge Ontario to set a bold
goal of adding 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years
and update planning guidance to make this a priority.
The task force then recommends actions in five main areas
to increase supply:
Require greater density
Land is not being used efficiently across Ontario. In too many
neighbourhoods, municipal rules only allow single-family
homes – not even a granny suite. Taxpayers have invested
heavily in subway, light rail, bus and rail lines and highways,
and the streets nearby are ideally suited for more mid- and
high-rise housing. Underused or redundant commercial and
industrial buildings are ripe to be redeveloped into housing
or mixed commercial and residential use. New housing
on undeveloped land should also be higher density than
traditional suburbs, especially close to highways.
Adding density in all these locations makes better use
of infrastructure and helps to save land outside urban
boundaries. Implementing these recommendations will
provide Ontarians with many more options for housing.
Recommendations 3 through 11 address how Ontario
can quickly create more housing supply by allowing
more housing in more locations “as of right” (without
the need for municipal approval) and make better use
of transportation investments.
Reduce and streamline urban design rules
Municipalities require numerous studies and set all kinds of
rules for adding housing, many of which go well beyond the
requirements of the provincial Planning Act. While some of
this guidance has value for urban design, some rules appear
to be arbitrary and not supported by evidence – for example,
requiring condo buildings to include costly parking stalls
even though many go unsold. These rules and requirements
result in delays and extra costs that make housing either
impossible to build or very expensive for the eventual home
buyer or renter.
Recommendation 12 would set uniform provincial
standards for urban design, including building
shadows and setbacks, do away with rules that
prioritize preservation of neighbourhood physical
character over new housing, no longer require
municipal approval of design matters like a building’s
colour, texture, type of material or window details,
and remove or reduce parking requirements in cities
over 50,000 in population.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 5
Depoliticize the process and cut red tape
NIMBYism (not in my backyard) is a major obstacle to
building housing. It drags out the approval process, pushes
up costs, and keeps out new residents. Because local
councillors depend on the votes of residents who want to
keep the status quo, the planning process has become
politicized. Municipalities allow far more public consultation
than is required, often using formats that make it hard for
working people and families with young children to take
part. Too few technical decisions are delegated to municipal
staff. Pressure to designate buildings with little or no
heritage value as “heritage” if development is proposed
and bulk listings of properties with “heritage potential” are
also standing in the way of getting homes built. Dysfunction
throughout the system, risk aversion and needless
bureaucracy have resulted in a situation where Ontario lags
the rest of Canada and the developed world in approval
times. Ontarians have waited long enough.
Recommendations 13 through 25 would require
municipalities to limit consultations to the legislated
maximum, ensure people can take part digitally,
mandate the delegation of technical decisions, prevent
abuse of the heritage process and see property
owners compensated for financial loss resulting from
designation, restore the right of developers to appeal
Official Plans and Municipal Comprehensive Reviews,
legislate timelines for approvals and enact several other
common sense changes that would allow housing to be
built more quickly and affordably.
Fix the Ontario Land Tribunal
Largely because of the politicization of the planning process,
many proponents look to the Tribunal, a quasi-judicial body,
to give the go-ahead to projects that should have been
approved by the municipality. Even when there is municipal
approval, however, opponents appeal to the Tribunal –
paying only a $400 fee – knowing that this may well
succeed in delaying a project to the point where it might
no longer make economic sense. As a result, the Tribunal
faces a backlog of more than 1,000 cases and is seriously
under-resourced.
Recommendations 26 through 31 seek to weed out or
prevent appeals aimed purely at delaying projects,
allow adjudicators to award costs to proponents in
more cases, including instances where a municipality
has refused an approval to avoid missing a legislated
deadline, reduce the time to issue decisions, increase
funding, and encourage the Tribunal to prioritize cases
that would increase housing supply quickly as it tackles
the backlog.
Support municipalities that commit to transforming
the system
Fixing the housing crisis needs everyone working together.
Delivering 1.5 million homes will require the provincial and
federal governments to invest in change. Municipalities that
make the difficult but necessary choices to grow housing
supply should be rewarded, and those that resist new
housing should see funding reductions.
Recommendations 49 and 50 call for Ontario
government to create a large “Ontario Housing Delivery
Fund” and encourage the federal government to match
funding, and suggest how the province should reward
municipalities that support change and reduce funding
for municipalities that do not.
This executive summary focuses on the actions that will get
the most housing units approved and built in the shortest
time. Other recommendations in the report deal with issues
that are important but may take more time to resolve or
may not directly increase supply (recommendation numbers
are indicated in brackets): improving tax and municipal
financing (32-37, 39, 42-44); encouraging new pathways
to home ownership (38, 40, 41); and addressing labour
shortages in the construction industry (45-47).
This is not the first attempt to “fix the housing system”.
There have been efforts for years to tackle increasing
housing prices and find solutions. This time must be
different. Recommendations 50-55 set out ways of helping
to ensure real and concrete progress on providing the
homes Ontarians need.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 6
Introduction
Ontario is in a housing crisis. Prices are skyrocketing: the average price for a house across
Ontario was $923,000 at the end of 2021.[1] Ten years ago, the average price was $329,000.[2]
Over that period, average house prices have climbed 180% while average incomes have
grown roughly 38%.[3] [4]
Not long ago, hard-working Ontarians – teachers,
construction workers, small business owners – could afford
the home they wanted. In small towns, it was reasonable to
expect that you could afford a home in the neighbourhood
you grew up in. Today, home ownership or finding a quality
rental is now out of reach for too many Ontarians. The system
is not working as it should be.
Housing has become too expensive for rental units and
it has become too expensive in rural communities and
small towns.
While people who were able to buy a home a decade or
more ago have built considerable personal equity, the
benefits of having a home aren’t just financial. Having a
place to call home connects people to their community,
creates a gathering place for friends and family, and
becomes a source of pride.
Today, the reality for an ever-increasing number of
Ontarians is quite different. Everyone in Ontario knows
people who are living with the personal and financial stress
of not being able to find housing they can afford. The young
family who can’t buy a house within two hours of where
they work. The tenant with a good job who worries about
where she’ll find a new apartment she can afford if
the owner decides to sell. The recent graduate who will
have to stay at home for a few more years before he can
afford to rent or buy.
While the crisis is widespread, it weighs more heavily on
some groups than on others. Young people starting a family
who need a larger home find themselves priced out of the
market. Black, Indigenous and marginalized people face
even greater challenges. As Ontarians, we have only
recently begun to understand and address the reality
of decades of systemic racism that has resulted in lower
household incomes, making the housing affordability gap
wider than average.
The high cost of housing has pushed minorities and
lower income Ontarians further and further away from
job markets. Black and Indigenous homeownership
rates are less than half of the provincial average.[5] And
homelessness rates among Indigenous Peoples are
11 times the national average. When housing prevents an
individual from reaching their full potential, this represents
a loss to every Ontarian: lost creativity, productivity, and
revenue. Lost prosperity for individuals and for the entire
Ontario economy.
Average price for a house across Ontario
2021
$923,000
$329,000
2011
+180%+38%
Over 10 Years
average house prices have climbed
while average incomes have grown
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 7
As much as we read about housing affordability being a
challenge in major cities around the world, the depth of the
challenge has become greater in Ontario and Canada than
almost anywhere in the developed world.
How did we get here? Why do we have this problem?
A major factor is that there just isn’t enough housing.
A 2021 Scotiabank study showed that Canada has the
fewest housing units per population of any G7 country – and,
our per capita housing supply has dropped in the past five
years.[6] An update to that study released in January 2022
found that two thirds of Canada’s housing shortage is in
Ontario.[7] Today, Ontario is 1.2 million homes – rental or
owned – short of the G7 average. With projected population
growth, that huge gap is widening, and bridging it will
take immediate, bold and purposeful effort. And to support
population growth in the next decade, we will need
one million more homes.
While governments across Canada have taken steps to
“cool down” the housing market or provide help to first-time
buyers, these demand-side solutions only work if there is
enough supply. Shortages of supply in any market have a
direct impact on affordability. Scarcity breeds price increases.
Simply put, if we want more Ontarians to have housing, we
need to build more housing in Ontario.
Ontario must build 1.5 million homes over the
next 10 years to address the supply shortage
The housing crisis impacts all Ontarians. The ripple effect of
the crisis also holds back Ontario reaching its full potential.
Economy
Businesses of all sizes are facing problems finding and
retaining workers. Even high-paying jobs in technology
and manufacturing are hard to fill because there’s not
enough housing nearby. This doesn’t just dampen the
economic growth of cities, it makes them less vibrant,
diverse, and creative, and strains their ability to provide
essential services.
Public services
Hospitals, school boards and other public service providers
across Ontario report challenges attracting and retaining
staff because of housing costs. One town told us that it
could no longer maintain a volunteer fire department,
because volunteers couldn’t afford to live within 10 minutes
drive of the firehall.
Environment
Long commutes contribute to air pollution and carbon
emissions. An international survey of 74 cities in 16 countries
found that Toronto, at 96 minutes both ways, had the
longest commute times in North America and was
essentially tied with Bogota, Colombia, for the longest
commute time worldwide.[8] Increasing density in our cities
and around major transit hubs helps reduce emissions to
the benefit of everyone.
Our mandate and approach
Ontario’s Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
tasked us with recommending ways to accelerate our
progress in closing the housing supply gap to improve
housing affordability.
Time is of the essence. Building housing now is exactly
what our post-pandemic economy needs. Housing
construction creates good-paying jobs that cannot be
outsourced to other countries. Moreover, the pandemic
gave rise to unprecedented levels of available capital that
can be invested in housing – if we can just put it to work.
We represent a wide range of experience and perspectives
that includes developing, financing and building homes,
delivering affordable housing, and researching housing
market trends, challenges and solutions. Our detailed
biographies appear as Appendix A.
Canada has the lowest amount of housing per
population of any G7 country.
We acknowledge that every house in
Ontario is built on the traditional territory
of Indigenous Peoples.
1.5MOntario must build
homes over the next 10 years to address the supply shortage.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 8
Our mandate was to focus on how to increase market
housing supply and affordability. By market housing, we are
referring to homes that can be purchased or rented without
government support.
Affordable housing (units provided at below-market rates
with government support) was not part of our mandate.
The Minister and his cabinet colleagues are working on that
issue. Nonetheless, almost every stakeholder we spoke
with had ideas that will help deliver market housing and
also make it easier to deliver affordable housing. However,
affordable housing is a societal responsibility and will
require intentional investments and strategies to bridge the
significant affordable housing gap in this province. We have
included a number of recommendations aimed at affordable
housing in the body of this report, but have also included
further thoughts in Appendix B.
We note that government-owned land was also outside our
mandate. Many stakeholders, however, stressed the value
of surplus or underused public land and land associated
with major transit investments in finding housing solutions.
We agree and have set out some thoughts on that issue in
Appendix C.
How we did our work
Our Task Force was struck in December 2021 and
mandated to deliver a final report to the Minister by the end
of January 2022. We were able to work to that tight timeline
because, in almost all cases, viewpoints and feasible
solutions are well known. In addition, we benefited from
insights gleaned from recent work to solve the problem in
other jurisdictions.
During our deliberations, we met with and talked to over
140 organizations and individuals, including industry
associations representing builders and developers,
planners, architects, realtors and others; labour unions;
social justice advocates; elected officials at the municipal
level; academics and research groups; and municipal
planners. We also received written submissions from many
of these participants. In addition, we drew on the myriad
public reports and papers listed in the References.
We thank everyone who took part in sessions that were
uniformly helpful in giving us a deeper understanding of the
housing crisis and the way out of it. We also thank the staff
of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing who
provided logistical and other support, including technical
briefings and background.
The way forward
The single unifying theme across all participants over the
course of the Task Force’s work has been the urgency
to take decisive action. Today’s housing challenges are
incredibly complex. Moreover, developing land, obtaining
approvals, and building homes takes years.
Some recommendations will produce immediate benefits,
others will take years for the full impact.
This is why there is no time to waste. We urge the Minister
of Municipal Affairs and Housing and his cabinet colleagues
to continue measures they have already taken to accelerate
housing supply and to move quickly in turning the
recommendations in this report into decisive new actions.
The province must set an ambitious and bold goal to
build 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years. If we build
1.5 million new homes over the next ten years, Ontario can
fill the housing gap with more affordable choices, catch up
to the rest of Canada and keep up with population growth.
By working together, we can resolve Ontario’s housing
crisis. In so doing, we can build a more prosperous future
for everyone.
The balance of this report lays out our recommendations.
People in households that spend 30% or more of total household income on shelter expenses are defined as
having a “housing affordability” problem. Shelter expenses include electricity, oil, gas, coal, wood or other fuels,
water and other municipal services, monthly mortgage payments, property taxes, condominium fees, and rent.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 9
Focus on getting more homes built
Resolving a crisis requires intense focus and a clear goal. The province is responsible for the
legislation and policy that establishes the planning, land use, and home building goals, which guide
municipalities, land tribunals, and courts. Municipalities are then responsible for implementing
provincial policy in a way that works for their communities. The province is uniquely positioned to
lead by shining a spotlight on this issue, setting the tone, and creating a single, galvanizing goal
around which federal support, provincial legislation, municipal policy, and the housing market
can be aligned.
In 2020, Ontario built about 75,000 housing units.[9] For this
report, we define a housing unit (home) as a single dwelling
(detached, semi-detached, or attached), apartment, suite,
condominium or mobile home. Since 2018, housing
completions have grown every year as a result of positive
measures that the province and some municipalities have
implemented to encourage more home building. But we
are still 1.2 million homes short when compared to other
G7 countries and our population is growing. The goal of
1.5 million homes feels daunting – but reflects both the need
and what is possible. In fact, throughout the 1970s Ontario
built more housing units each year than we do today.[10]
The second recommendation is designed to address the
growing complexity and volume of rules in the legislation,
policy, plans and by-laws, and their competing priorities,
by providing clear direction to provincial agencies,
municipalities, tribunals, and courts on the overriding
priorities for housing.
1. Set a goal of building 1.5 million new homes in
ten years.
2. Amend the Planning Act, Provincial Policy
Statement, and Growth Plans to set “growth in the
full spectrum of housing supply” and “intensification
within existing built-up areas” of municipalities as
the most important residential housing priorities in
the mandate and purpose.
The “missing middle” is often cited as an important part of the housing solution. We define the missing
middle as mid-rise condo or rental housing, smaller houses on subdivided lots or in laneways and other
additional units in existing houses.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 10
Making land available to build
The Greater Toronto Area is bordered on one side by Lake Ontario and on the other by the protected Greenbelt. Similarly, the Ottawa River and another Greenbelt constrain land supply
in Ottawa, the province’s second-largest city.
But a shortage of land isn’t the cause of the problem.
Land is available, both inside the existing built-up areas
and on undeveloped land outside greenbelts.
We need to make better use of land. Zoning defines what
we can build and where we can build. If we want to make
better use of land to create more housing, then we need
to modernize our zoning rules. We heard from planners,
municipal councillors, and developers that “as of right”
zoning – the ability to by-pass long, drawn out consultations
and zoning by-law amendments – is the most effective tool
in the provincial toolkit. We agree.
Stop using exclusionary zoning
that restricts more housing
Too much land inside cities is tied up by outdated rules.
For example, it’s estimated that 70% of land zoned for
housing in Toronto is restricted to single-detached or
semi-detached homes.[11] This type of zoning prevents
homeowners from adding additional suites to create
housing for Ontarians and income for themselves. As one
person said, “my neighbour can tear down what was there
to build a monster home, but I’m not allowed to add a
basement suite to my home.”
While less analysis has been done in other Ontario
communities, it’s estimated that about half of all residential
land in Ottawa is zoned for single-detached housing,
meaning nothing else may be built on a lot without public
consultation and an amendment to the zoning by-law. In
some suburbs around Toronto, single unit zoning dominates
residential land use, even close to GO Transit stations and
major highways.
One result is that more growth is pushing past urban
boundaries and turning farmland into housing. Undeveloped
land inside and outside existing municipal boundaries must
be part of the solution, particularly in northern and rural
communities, but isn’t nearly enough on its own. Most of the
solution must come from densification. Greenbelts and other
environmentally sensitive areas must be protected, and
farms provide food and food security. Relying too heavily
on undeveloped land would whittle away too much of the
already small share of land devoted to agriculture.
Modernizing zoning would also open the door to more
rental housing, which in turn would make communities
more inclusive.
Allowing more gentle density also makes better use of
roads, water and wastewater systems, transit and other
public services that are already in place and have capacity,
instead of having to be built in new areas.
The Ontario government took a positive step by allowing
secondary suites (e.g., basement apartments) across the
province in 2019. However, too many municipalities still
place too many restrictions on implementation. For the last
three years, the total number of secondary suites in Toronto
has actually declined each year, as few units get permitted
and owners convert two units into one.[12]
These are the types of renovations and home construction
performed by small businesses and local trades, providing
them with a boost.
70%It’s estimated that
of land zoned for housing in Toronto
is restricted to single-detachedor semi-detached homes.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 11
Underused and vacant commercial and industrial properties
are another potential source of land for housing. It was
suggested to us that one area ripe for redevelopment into
a mix of commercial and residential uses is the strip mall,
a leftover from the 1950s that runs along major suburban
streets in most large Ontario cities.
“As of right” zoning allows more kinds of housing that are
accessible to more kinds of people. It makes neighbourhoods
stronger, richer, and fairer. And it will get more housing
built in existing neighbourhoods more quickly than any
other measure.
3. Limit exclusionary zoning in municipalities through
binding provincial action:
a) Allow “as of right” residential housing up to
four units and up to four storeys on a single
residential lot.
b) Modernize the Building Code and other policies
to remove any barriers to affordable construction
and to ensure meaningful implementation
(e.g., allow single-staircase construction for
up to four storeys, allow single egress, etc.).
4. Permit “as of right” conversion of underutilized or
redundant commercial properties to residential
or mixed residential and commercial use.
5. Permit “as of right” secondary suites, garden suites,
and laneway houses province-wide.
6. Permit “as of right” multi-tenant housing (renting
rooms within a dwelling) province-wide.
7. Encourage and incentivize municipalities to increase
density in areas with excess school capacity to
benefit families with children.
Align investments in roads and transit
with growth
Governments have invested billions of dollars in highways,
light rail, buses, subways and trains in Ontario. But
without ensuring more people can live close to those
transit routes, we’re not getting the best return on those
infrastructure investments.
Access to transit is linked to making housing more
affordable: when reliable transit options are nearby, people
can get to work more easily. They can live further from the
centre of the city in less expensive areas without the
added cost of car ownership.
The impacts of expanding public transit go far beyond
serving riders. These investments also spur economic
growth and reduce traffic congestion and emissions. We all
pay for the cost of transit spending, and we should all share
in the benefits.
If municipalities achieve the right development near
transit – a mix of housing at high- and medium-density,
office space and retail – this would open the door to better
ways of funding the costs. Other cities, like London, UK
and Hong Kong, have captured the impacts of increased
land value and business activity along new transit routes
to help with their financing.
Ontario recently created requirements (residents/hectare)
for municipalities to zone for higher density in transit
corridors and “major transit station areas”.[13] These are
areas surrounding subway and other rapid transit stations
and hubs. However, we heard troubling reports that local
opposition is blocking access to these neighbourhoods
and to critical public transit stations. City staff, councillors,
and the province need to stand up to these tactics and
speak up for the Ontarians who need housing.
The Province is also building new highways in the Greater
Golden Horseshoe, and it’s important to plan thoughtfully
for the communities that will follow from these investments,
to make sure they are compact and liveable.
Population density
(people per km2)
Tokyo
London
New York
Toronto
4,200
1,700
450
1,800
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 12
8. Allow “as of right” zoning up to unlimited height
and unlimited density in the immediate proximity
of individual major transit stations within two years
if municipal zoning remains insufficient to meet
provincial density targets.
9. Allow “as of right” zoning of six to 11 storeys with
no minimum parking requirements on any streets
utilized by public transit (including streets on bus
and streetcar routes).
10. Designate or rezone as mixed commercial and
residential use all land along transit corridors and
redesignate all Residential Apartment to mixed
commercial and residential zoning in Toronto.
11. Support responsible housing growth on
undeveloped land, including outside existing
municipal boundaries, by building necessary
infrastructure to support higher density
housing and complete communities and applying
the recommendations of this report to all
undeveloped land.
Start saying “yes in my backyard”
Even where higher density is allowed in theory, the official
plans of most cities in Ontario contain conflicting goals like
maintaining “prevailing neighbourhood character”. This bias
is reinforced by detailed guidance that often follows from
the official plan. Although requirements are presented as
“guidelines”, they are often treated as rules.
Examples include:
• Angular plane rules that require successively higher
floors to be stepped further back, cutting the number
of units that can be built by up to half and making
many projects uneconomic
• Detailed rules around the shadows a building casts
• Guidelines around finishes, colours and other design details
One resident’s desire to prevent a shadow being cast in their
backyard or a local park frequently prevails over concrete
proposals to build more housing for multiple families. By-laws
and guidelines that preserve “neighbourhood character”
often prevent simple renovations to add new suites to
existing homes. The people who suffer are mostly young,
visible minorities, and marginalized people. It is the perfect
example of a policy that appears neutral on its surface but
is discriminatory in its application.[14]
Far too much time and money are spent reviewing and
holding consultations for large projects which conform with
the official plan or zoning by-law and small projects which
would cause minimal disruption. The cost of needless
delays is passed on to new home buyers and tenants.
Minimum parking requirements for each new unit are another
example of outdated municipal requirements that increase
the cost of housing and are increasingly less relevant with
public transit and ride share services. Minimum parking
requirements add as much as $165,000 to the cost of a new
housing unit, even as demand for parking spaces is falling:
data from the Residential Construction Council of Ontario
shows that in new condo projects, one in three parking
stalls goes unsold. We applaud the recent vote by Toronto
City Council to scrap most minimum parking requirements.
We believe other cities should follow suit.
While true heritage sites are important, heritage preservation
has also become a tool to block more housing. For example,
some municipalities add thousands of properties at a time to
a heritage register because they have “potential” heritage
value. Even where a building isn’t heritage designated or
registered, neighbours increasingly demand it be as soon
as a development is proposed.
This brings us to the role of the “not in my backyard” or
NIMBY sentiment in delaying or stopping more homes from
being built.
New housing is often the last priority
A proposed building with market and affordable
housing units would have increased the midday
shadow by 6.5% on a nearby park at the fall
and spring equinox, with no impact during the summer
months. To conform to a policy that does not permit
“new net shadow on specific parks”, seven floors
of housing, including 26 affordable housing units,
were sacrificed.
Multiple dry cleaners along a transit route were
designated as heritage sites to prevent new housing
being built. It is hard not to feel outrage when our laws
are being used to prevent families from moving into
neighbourhoods and into homes they can afford along
transit routes.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 13
NIMBY versus YIMBY
NIMBYism (not in my backyard) is a large and constant
obstacle to providing housing everywhere. Neighbourhood
pushback drags out the approval process, pushes up
costs and discourages investment in housing. It also keeps
out new residents. While building housing is very costly,
opposing new housing costs almost nothing.
Unfortunately, there is a strong incentive for individual
municipal councillors to fall in behind community opposition –
it’s existing residents who elect them, not future ones. The
outcry of even a handful of constituents (helped by the rise
of social media) has been enough, in far too many cases, to
persuade their local councillor to vote against development
even while admitting its merits in private. There is a sense
among some that it’s better to let the Ontario Land Tribunal
approve the development on appeal, even if it causes long
delays and large cost increases, then to take the political heat.
Mayors and councillors across the province are fed up and
many have called for limits on public consultations and
more “as of right” zoning. In fact, some have created a new
term for NIMBYism: BANANAs – Build Absolutely Nothing
Anywhere Near Anything, causing one mayor to comment
“NIMBYism has gone BANANAs”. We agree. In a growing,
thriving society, that approach is not just bad policy, it is
exclusionary and wrong.
As a result, technical planning decisions have become
politicized. One major city has delegated many decisions to
senior staff, but an individual councillor can withdraw the
delegation when there is local opposition and force a vote
at Council. We heard that this situation is common across
the province, creating an electoral incentive for a councillor
to delay or stop a housing proposal, or forcing a councillor
to pay the electoral cost of supporting it. Approvals of
individual housing applications should be the role of
professional staff, free from political interference.
The pressure to stop any development is now so intense that
it has given rise to a counter-movement – YIMBYism, or “yes
in my backyard,” led by millennials who recognize entrenched
opposition to change as a huge obstacle to finding a home.
They provide a voice at public consultations for young people,
new immigrants and refugees, minority groups, and Ontarians
struggling to access housing by connecting our ideals to
the reality of housing. People who welcome immigrants to
Canada should welcome them to the neighbourhood, fighting
climate change means supporting higher-density housing,
and “keeping the neighbourhood the way it is” means
keeping it off-limits. While anti-housing voices can be loud,
a member of More Neighbours Toronto, a YIMBY group that
regularly attends public consultations, has said that the most
vocal opponents usually don’t represent the majority in a
neighbourhood. Survey data from the Ontario Real Estate
Association backs that up, with almost 80% of Ontarians
saying they are in favour of zoning in urban areas that would
encourage more homes.
Ontarians want a solution to the housing crisis. We
cannot allow opposition and politicization of individual
housing projects to prevent us from meeting the needs
of all Ontarians.
12. Create a more permissive land use, planning, and
approvals system:
a) Repeal or override municipal policies, zoning,
or plans that prioritize the preservation of
physical character of neighbourhood
b) Exempt from site plan approval and public
consultation all projects of 10 units or less that
conform to the Official Plan and require only
minor variances
c) Establish province-wide zoning standards, or
prohibitions, for minimum lot sizes, maximum
building setbacks, minimum heights, angular
planes, shadow rules, front doors, building depth,
landscaping, floor space index, and heritage
view cones, and planes; restore pre-2006 site
plan exclusions (colour, texture, and type of
materials, window details, etc.) to the Planning
Act and reduce or eliminate minimum parking
requirements; and
d) Remove any floorplate restrictions to allow
larger, more efficient high-density towers.
13. Limit municipalities from requesting or hosting
additional public meetings beyond those that are
required under the Planning Act.
14. Require that public consultations provide digital
participation options.
15. Require mandatory delegation of site plan
approvals and minor variances to staff or
pre-approved qualified third-party technical
consultants through a simplified review and
approval process, without the ability to withdraw
Council’s delegation.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 14
16. Prevent abuse of the heritage preservation and
designation process by:
a) Prohibiting the use of bulk listing on municipal
heritage registers
b) Prohibiting reactive heritage designations after
a Planning Act development application has
been filed
17. Requiring municipalities to compensate property
owners for loss of property value as a result of
heritage designations, based on the principle of
best economic use of land.
18. Restore the right of developers to appeal Official
Plans and Municipal Comprehensive Reviews.
We have heard mixed feedback on Committees of
Adjustment. While they are seen to be working well in some
cities, in others they are seen to simply add another lengthy
step in the process. We would urge the government to first
implement our recommendation to delegate minor variances
and site plan approvals to municipal staff and then assess
whether Committees of Adjustment are necessary and an
improvement over staff-level decision making.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 15
Cut the red tape so we can build faster and reduce costs
One of the strongest signs that our approval process is not working: of 35 OECD countries,
only the Slovak Republic takes longer than Canada to approve a building project. The UK and
the US approve projects three times faster without sacrificing quality or safety. And they save
home buyers and tenants money as a result, making housing more affordable.[15]
A 2020 survey of development approval times in
23 Canadian cities shows Ontario seriously lagging:
Hamilton (15th), Toronto (17th), Ottawa (21st) with approval
times averaging between 20-24 months. These timelines
do not include building permits, which take about two years
for an apartment building in Toronto. Nor did they count the
time it takes for undeveloped land to be designated for
housing, which the study notes can take five to ten years.[16]
Despite the good intentions of many people involved in
the approvals and home-building process, decades of
dysfunction in the system and needless bureaucracy have
made it too difficult for housing approvals to keep up with
the needs of Ontarians. There appear to be numerous
reasons why Ontario performs so poorly against other
Canadian cities and the rest of the developed world. We
believe that the major problems can be summed up as:
• Too much complexity in the planning process, with the
page count in legislation, regulation, policies, plans, and
by-laws growing every year
• Too many studies, guidelines, meetings and other
requirements of the type we outlined in the previous
section, including many that go well beyond the scope
of Ontario’s Planning Act
• Reviews within municipalities and with outside agencies
that are piecemeal, duplicative (although often with
conflicting outcomes) and poorly coordinated
• Process flaws that include reliance on paper
• Some provincial policies that are more relevant
to urban development but result in burdensome,
irrelevant requirements when applied in some rural
and northern communities.
All of this has contributed to widespread failure on the part
of municipalities to meet required timelines. The provincial
Planning Act sets out deadlines of 90 days for decisions
on zoning by-law amendments, 120 days for plans of
subdivision, and 30 days for site plan approval, but
municipalities routinely miss these without penalty. For
other processes, like site plan approval or provincial
approvals, there are no timelines and delays drag on. The
cost of delay falls on the ultimate homeowner or tenant.
The consequences for homeowners and renters are
enormous. Ultimately, whatever cost a builder pays gets
passed on to the buyer or renter. As one person said:
“Process is the biggest project killer in Toronto because
developers have to carry timeline risk.”
Site plan control was often brought up as a frustration.
Under the Planning Act, this is meant to be a technical
review of the external features of a building. In practice,
municipalities often expand on what is required and take
too long to respond.
8,200
Then & NowTotal words in:
1996
Provincial Policy
Statement
17,0002020
17,0001970
Planning Act
96,0002020
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 16
An Ontario Association of Architects study calculating the
cost of delays between site plan application and approval
concluded that for a 100-unit condominium apartment
building, each additional month of delay costs the applicant
an estimated $193,000, or $1,930 a month for each unit.[17]
A 2020 study done for the Building Industry and Land
Development Association (BILD) looked at impacts of delay
on low-rise construction, including single-detached homes. It
estimated that every month an approval is delayed adds, on
average, $1.46 per square foot to the cost of a single home.
A two-year delay, which is not unusual for this housing type,
adds more than $70,000 to the cost of a 2,000-square-foot
house in the GTA.[16]
Getting rid of so much unnecessary and unproductive
additional work would significantly reduce the burden on
staff. It would help address the widespread shortages of
planners and building officials. It would also bring a stronger
sense among municipal staff that they are part of the housing
solution and can take pride in helping cut approval times and
lower the costs of delivering homes.
Adopt common sense approaches that save
construction costs
Wood using “mass timber” – an engineer compressed wood,
made for strength and weight-bearing – can provide a
lower-cost alternative to reinforced concrete in many mid-rise
projects, but Ontario’s Building Code is hampering its use.
Building taller with wood offers advantages beyond cost:
• Wood is a renewable resource that naturally sequesters
carbon, helping us reach our climate change goals
• Using wood supports Ontario’s forestry sector and
creates jobs, including for Indigenous people
British Columbia’s and Quebec’s building codes allow
woodframe construction up to 12 storeys, but Ontario limits
it to six. By amending the Building Code to allow 12-storey
woodframe construction, Ontario would encourage increased
use of forestry products and reduce building costs.
Finally, we were told that a shift in how builders are required
to guarantee their performance would free up billions of
dollars to build more housing. Pay on demand surety bonds
are a much less onerous option than letters or credit,
and are already accepted in Hamilton, Pickering, Innisfil,
Whitchurch-Stouffville and other Ontario municipalities.
We outline the technical details in Appendix D.
19. Legislate timelines at each stage of the provincial
and municipal review process, including site plan,
minor variance, and provincial reviews, and deem
an application approved if the legislated response
time is exceeded.
20. Fund the creation of “approvals facilitators” with
the authority to quickly resolve conflicts among
municipal and/or provincial authorities and ensure
timelines are met.
21. Require a pre-consultation with all relevant parties
at which the municipality sets out a binding list that
defines what constitutes a complete application;
confirms the number of consultations established
in the previous recommendations; and clarifies that
if a member of a regulated profession such as a
professional engineer has stamped an application,
the municipality has no liability and no additional
stamp is needed.
22. Simplify planning legislation and policy documents.
23. Create a common, province-wide definition of plan
of subdivision and standard set of conditions which
clarify which may be included; require the use of
standard province-wide legal agreements and,
where feasible, plans of subdivision.
24. Allow wood construction of up to 12 storeys.
25. Require municipalities to provide the option of pay
on demand surety bonds and letters of credit.
Then: In 1966, a draft plan of subdivision in a town in
southwestern Ontario to provide 529 low-rise and
mid-rise housing units, a school site, a shopping centre
and parks was approved by way of a two-page letter
setting out 10 conditions. It took seven months to clear
conditions for final approval.
And now: In 2013, a builder started the approval
process to build on a piece of serviced residential land
in a seasonal resort town. Over the next seven years,
18 professional consultant reports were required,
culminating in draft plan approval containing 50
clearance conditions. The second approval, issued
by the Local Planning Appeals Board in 2020, ran to
23 pages. The developer estimates it will be almost
10 years before final approval is received.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 17
Prevent abuse of the appeal process
Part of the challenge with housing approvals is that, by the
time a project has been appealed to the Ontario Land
Tribunal (the Tribunal), it has usually already faced delay and
compromises have been made to reduce the size and scope
of the proposal. When an approved project is appealed, the
appellant – which could just be a single individual – may pay
$400 and tie up new housing for years.
The most recent published report showed 1,300 unresolved
cases.[18] While under-resourcing does contribute to delays,
this caseload also reflects the low barrier to launching an
appeal and the minimal risks if an appeal is unsuccessful:
• After a builder has spent time and money to ensure a
proposal conforms with a municipality’s requirements,
the municipal council can still reject it – even if its own
planning staff has given its support. Very often this is to
appease local opponents.
• Unlike a court, costs are not automatically awarded to
the successful party at the Tribunal. The winning side
must bring a motion and prove that the party bringing
the appeal was unreasonable, clearly trying to delay the
project, and/or being vexatious or frivolous. Because the
bar is set so high, the winning side seldom asks for costs
in residential cases.
This has resulted in abuse of the Tribunal to delay new
housing. Throughout our consultations, we heard from
municipalities, not-for-profits, and developers that affordable
housing was a particular target for appeals which, even if
unsuccessful, can make projects too costly to build.
Clearly the Tribunal needs more resources to clear its
backlog. But the bigger issue is the need for so many
appeals: we believe it would better to have well-defined
goals and rules for municipalities and builders to avoid this
costly and time-consuming quasi-judicial process. Those who
bring appeals aimed at stopping development that meets
established criteria should pay the legal costs of the successful
party and face the risk of a larger project being approved.
The solution is not more appeals, it’s fixing the system. We
have proposed a series of reforms that would ensure only
meritorious appeals proceeded, that every participant faces
some risk and cost of losing, and that abuse of the Tribunal
will be penalized. We believe that if Ontario accepts our
recommendations, the Tribunal will not face the same volume
of appeals. But getting to that point will take time, and the
Tribunal needs more resources and better tools now.
Recommendation 1 will provide legislative direction to
adjudicators that they must prioritize housing growth and
intensification over competing priorities contained in
provincial and municipal policies. We further recommend
the following:
26. Require appellants to promptly seek permission
(“leave to appeal”) of the Tribunal and demonstrate
that an appeal has merit, relying on evidence
and expert reports, before it is accepted.
27. Prevent abuse of process:
a) Remove right of appeal for projects with at
least 30% affordable housing in which units
are guaranteed affordable for at least 40 years.
b) Require a $10,000 filing fee for third-party
appeals.
c) Provide discretion to adjudicators to award
full costs to the successful party in any appeal
brought by a third party or by a municipality
where its council has overridden a
recommended staff approval.
28. Encourage greater use of oral decisions issued the
day of the hearing, with written reasons to follow,
and allow those decisions to become binding the
day that they are issued.
29. Where it is found that a municipality has refused
an application simply to avoid a deemed approval
for lack of decision, allow the Tribunal to award
punitive damages.
30. Provide funding to increase staffing (adjudicators
and case managers), provide market-competitive
salaries, outsource more matters to mediators,
and set shorter time targets.
31. In clearing the existing backlog, encourage
the Tribunal to prioritize projects close to the
finish line that will support housing growth and
intensification, as well as regional water or utility
infrastructure decisions that will unlock significant
housing capacity.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 18
Reduce the costs to build, buy and rent
The price you pay to buy or rent a home is driven directly by how much it costs to build a home. In Ontario, costs to build homes have dramatically increased at an unprecedented pace over
the past decade. In most of our cities and towns, materials and labour only account for about
half of the costs. The rest comes from land, which we have addressed in the previous section,
and government fees.
A careful balance is required on government fees because,
as much as we would like to see them lowered, governments
need revenues from fees and taxes to build critically
needed infrastructure and pay for all the other services that
make Ontario work. So, it is a question of balance and of
ensuring that our approach to government fees encourages
rather than discourages developers to build the full range
of housing we need in our Ontario communities.
Align government fees and charges
with the goal of building more housing
Improve the municipal funding model
Housing requires more than just the land it is built on. It
requires roads, sewers, parks, utilities and other infrastructure.
The provincial government provides municipalities with a way
to secure funding for this infrastructure through development
charges, community benefit charges and parkland dedication
(providing 5% of land for public parks or the cash equivalent).
These charges are founded on the belief that growth – not
current taxpayers – should pay for growth. As a concept, it
is compelling. In practice, it means that new home buyers
pay the entire cost of sewers, parks, affordable housing, or
colleges that will be around for generations and may not be
located in their neighbourhood. And, although building
affordable housing is a societal responsibility, because
affordable units pay all the same charges as a market
unit, the cost is passed to new home buyers in the same
building or the not-for-profit organization supporting the
project. We do not believe that government fees should
create a disincentive to affordable housing.
If you ask any developer of homes – whether they are
for-profit or non-profit – they will tell you that development
charges are a special pain point. In Ontario, they can be
as much as $135,000 per home. In some municipalities,
development charges have increased as much as 900%
in less than 20 years.[20] As development charges go up, the
prices of homes go up. And development charges on a
modest semi-detached home are the same as on a luxury
6,000 square foot home, resulting in a disincentive to build
housing that is more affordable. Timing is also a challenge
as development charges have to be paid up front, before
a shovel even goes into the ground.
To help relieve the pressure, the Ontario government
passed recent legislation allowing builders to determine
development charges earlier in the building process. But
they must pay interest on the assessed development charge
to the municipality until a building permit is issued, and there
is no cap on the rate, which in one major city is 13% annually.
Cash payments to satisfy parkland dedication also
significantly boost the costs of higher-density projects,
adding on average $17,000 to the cost of a high-rise condo
across the GTA.[21] We heard concerns not just about the
amount of cash collected, but also about the money not
being spent in the neighbourhood or possibly not being
spent on parks at all. As an example, in 2019 the City of
Toronto held $644 million in parkland cash-in-lieu payments.[22]
Everyone can agree that we need to invest in parks as our
communities grow, but if the funds are not being spent,
perhaps it means that more money is being collected for
parklands than is needed and we could lower the cost of
housing if we adjusted these parkland fees.
A 2019 study carried out for BILD
showed that in the Greater Toronto Area,
development charges for low-rise housing are
on average more than three times higher per unit than
in six comparable US metropolitan areas, and roughly
1.75-times higher than in the other Canadian cities.
For high-rise developments the average per unit
charges in the GTA are roughly 50% higher than in the
US areas, and roughly 30% higher than in the other
Canadian urban areas.[19]
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 19
Modernizing HST Thresholds
Harmonized sales tax (HST) applies to all new housing –
including purpose-built rental. Today, the federal component
is 5% and provincial component is 8%. The federal and
provincial government provide a partial HST rebate. Two
decades ago, the maximum home price eligible for a rebate
was set at $450,000 federally and $400,000 provincially,
resulting in a maximum rebate of $6,300 federally and
$24,000 provincially, less than half of today’s average home
price. Buyers of new homes above this ceiling face a
significant clawback. Indexing the rebate would immediately
reduce the cost of building new homes, savings that can be
passed on to Ontarians. When both levels of government
agree that we are facing a housing crisis, they should not
be adding over 10% to the cost of almost all new homes.
32. Waive development charges and parkland
cash-in-lieu and charge only modest connection
fees for all infill residential projects up to 10 units
or for any development where no new material
infrastructure will be required.
33. Waive development charges on all forms of
affordable housing guaranteed to be affordable
for 40 years.
34. Prohibit interest rates on development charges
higher than a municipality’s borrowing rate.
35. Regarding cash in lieu of parkland, s.37, Community
Benefit Charges, and development charges:
a) Provincial review of reserve levels, collections
and drawdowns annually to ensure funds are
being used in a timely fashion and for the
intended purpose, and, where review points
to a significant concern, do not allow further
collection until the situation has been corrected.
b) Except where allocated towards municipality-wide
infrastructure projects, require municipalities to
spend funds in the neighbourhoods where they
were collected. However, where there’s a
significant community need in a priority area of
the City, allow for specific ward-to-ward allocation
of unspent and unallocated reserves.
36. Recommend that the federal government and
provincial governments update HST rebate to
reflect current home prices and begin indexing the
thresholds to housing prices, and that the federal
government match the provincial 75% rebate and
remove any clawback.
Make it easier to build rental
In cities and towns across Ontario, it is increasingly hard to
find a vacant rental unit, let alone a vacant rental unit at an
affordable price. Today, 66% of all purpose-built rental
units in the City of Toronto were built between 1960 and
1979. Less than 15% of Toronto’s purpose-built rentals were
constructed over the ensuing 40 years in spite of the
significant population growth during that time. In fact,
between 2006 and 2016, growth in condo apartments
increased by 186% while purpose-built rental only grew by
0.6%.[12] In 2018, the Ontario government introduced positive
changes that have created growth in purpose-built rental
units – with last year seeing 18,000 units under construction
and 93,000 proposed against a 5-year average prior to 2020
of 3,400 annually.[23]
Long-term renters often now feel trapped in apartments
that don’t make sense for them as their needs change. And
because they can’t or don’t want to move up the housing
ladder, many of the people coming up behind them who
would gladly take those apartments are instead living in
crowded spaces with family members or roommates.
Others feel forced to commit to rental units at prices way
beyond what they can afford. Others are trying their luck
in getting on the wait list for an affordable unit or housing
co-op – wait lists that are years long. Others are leaving
Ontario altogether.
Government charges on a new single-detached home
averaged roughly $186,300, or almost 22% of the price,
across six municipalities in southcentral Ontario. For a
new condominium apartment, the average was almost
$123,000, or roughly 24% of a unit’s price.
of all purpose-built rental units
in the City of Toronto were built between 1960 and 1979.
66%
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 20
A pattern in every community, and particularly large
cities, is that the apartments and rented rooms that
we do have are disappearing. Apartment buildings are
being converted to condos or upgraded to much more
expensive rental units. Duplexes get purchased and
turned into larger single-family homes.
A major challenge in bridging the gap of rental supply is that,
more often than not, purpose-built rental projects don’t make
economic sense for builders and investors. Ironically, there is
no shortage of Canadian investor capital seeking housing
investments, particularly large pension funds – but the
economics of investing in purpose-built rental in Ontario just
don’t make sense. So, investments get made in apartment
projects in other provinces or countries, or in condo projects
that have a better and safer return-on-investment. What can
governments do to get that investor capital pointed in the
right direction so we can create jobs and get more of the
housing we need built?
Some of our earlier recommendations will help, particularly
indexing the HST rebate. So will actions by government to
require purpose-built rental on surplus government land
that is made available for sale. (Appendix C)
Municipal property taxes on purpose-built rental can
be as much as 2.5 times greater than property taxes
for condominium or other ownership housing.[24]
The Task Force recommends:
37. Align property taxes for purpose-built rental with
those of condos and low-rise homes.
Make homeownership possible for
hardworking Ontarians who want it
Home ownership has always been part of the Canadian
dream. You don’t have to look far back to find a time when
the housing landscape was very different. The norm was for
young people to rent an apartment in their twenties, work
hard and save for a down payment, then buy their first
home in their late twenties or early thirties. It was the same
for many new Canadians: arrive, rent, work hard and buy.
The house might be modest, but it brought a sense of
ownership, stability and security. And after that first step
onto the ownership ladder, there was always the possibility
of selling and moving up. Home ownership felt like a real
possibility for anyone who wanted it.
That’s not how it works now. Too many young people
who would like their own place are living with one or both
parents well into adulthood.
The escalation of housing prices over the last decade has
put the dream of homeownership out of reach of a growing
number of aspiring first-time home buyers. While 73% of
Canadians are homeowners, that drops to 48% for Black
people, 47% for LGBTQ people[5] (StatsCan is studying rates
for other populations, including Indigenous People who are
severely underhoused). This is also an issue for younger
adults: a 2021 study showed only 24% of Torontonians
aged 30 to 39 are homeowners.[25]
In Canada, responsibility for Indigenous housing programs
has historically been a shared between the federal and
provincial governments. The federal government works
closely with its provincial and territorial counterparts to
improve access to housing for Indigenous peoples both on
and off reserve. More than 85% of Indigenous people live in
urban and rural areas, are 11 times more likely to experience
homelessness and have incidence of housing need that is
52% greater than all Canadians. The Murdered and Missing
Indigenous Women and Girls report mentions housing
299 times – the lack of which being a significant, contributing
cause to violence and the provision of which as a significant,
contributing solution. The Province of Ontario has made
significant investments in Urban Indigenous Housing, but
we need the Federal Government to re-engage as an
active partner.
While measures to address supply will have an impact on
housing prices, many aspiring homeowners will continue
to face a gap that is simply too great to bridge through
traditional methods.
The Task Force recognizes the need for caution about
measures that would spur demand for housing before the
supply bottleneck is fixed. At the same time, a growing
number of organizations – both non-profit and for-profit are
proposing a range of unique home equity models. Some
of these organizations are aiming at households who have
sufficient income to pay the mortgage but lack a sufficient
down payment. Others are aiming at households who fall
short in both income and down payment requirements for
current market housing.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 21
The Task Force heard about a range of models to help
aspiring first-time home buyers, including:
• Shared equity models with a government, non-profit or
for-profit lender holding a second “shared equity mortgage”
payable at time of sale of the home
• Land lease models that allow residents to own their home
but lease the land, reducing costs
• Rent-to-own approaches in which a portion of an occupant’s
rent is used to build equity, which can be used as a
down payment on their current unit or another market
unit in the future
• Models where the equity gain is shared between the
homeowner and the non-profit provider, such that the
non-profit will always be able to buy the home back and
sell it to another qualified buyer, thus retaining the home’s
affordability from one homeowner to the next.
Proponents of these models identified barriers that thwart
progress in implementing new solutions.
• The Planning Act limits land leases to a maximum of
21 years. This provision prevents home buyers from
accessing the same type of mortgages from a bank or
credit union that are available to them when they buy
through traditional homeownership.
• The Perpetuities Act has a similar 21-year limit on any
options placed on land. This limits innovative non-profit
models from using equity formulas for re-sale and
repurchase of homes.
• Land Transfer Tax (LTT) is charged each time a home is
sold and is collected by the province; and in Toronto, this
tax is also collected by the City. This creates a double-tax
in rent-to-own/equity building models where LTT ends up
being paid first by the home equity organization and then
by the occupant when they are able to buy the unit.
• HST is charged based on the market value of the home.
In shared equity models where the homeowner neither
owns nor gains from the shared equity portion of their
home, HST on the shared equity portion of the home
simply reduces affordability.
• Residential mortgages are highly regulated by the federal
government and reflective of traditional homeownership.
Modifications in regulations may be required to adapt to
new co-ownership and other models.
The Task Force encourages the Ontario government
to devote further attention to avenues to support new
homeownership options. As a starting point, the Task
Force offers the following recommendations:
38. Amend the Planning Act and Perpetuities Act to
extend the maximum period for land leases and
restrictive covenants on land to 40 or more years.
39. Eliminate or reduce tax disincentives to
housing growth.
40. Call on the Federal Government to implement
an Urban, Rural and Northern Indigenous
Housing Strategy.
41. Funding for pilot projects that create innovative
pathways to homeownership, for Black,
Indigenous, and marginalized people and
first-generation homeowners.
42. Provide provincial and federal loan guarantees
for purpose-built rental, affordable rental and
affordable ownership projects.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 22
Support and incentivize scaling up housing supply
Our goal of building 1.5 million homes in ten years means doubling how many homes Ontario
creates each year. As much as the Task Force’s recommendations will remove barriers to
realizing this ambitious goal, we also need to ensure we have the capacity across Ontario’s
communities to deliver this new housing supply. This includes capacity of our housing
infrastructure, capacity within our municipal planning teams, and boots on the ground
with the skills to build new homes.
There is much to be done and the price of failure for
the people of Ontario is high. This is why the provincial
government must make an unwavering commitment to
keeping the spotlight on housing supply. This is also
why the province must be dogged in its determination to
galvanize and align efforts and incentives across all levels
of government so that working together, we all can get
the job done.
Our final set of recommendations turns to these issues of
capacity to deliver, and the role the provincial government
can play in putting the incentives and alignment in place
to achieve the 1.5 million home goal.
Invest in municipal infrastructure
Housing can’t get built without water, sewage,
and other infrastructure
When the Task Force met with municipal leaders, they
emphasized how much future housing supply relies on
having the water, storm water and wastewater systems,
roads, sidewalks, fire stations, and all the other parts of
community infrastructure to support new homes and
new residents.
Infrastructure is essential where housing is being built
for the first time. And, it can be a factor in intensification
when added density exceeds the capacity of existing
infrastructure, one of the reasons we urge new
infrastructure in new developments to be designed for
future capacity. In Ontario, there are multiple municipalities
where the number one barrier to approving new housing
projects is a lack of infrastructure to support them.
Municipalities face a myriad of challenges in getting this
infrastructure in place. Often, infrastructure investments
are required long before new projects are approved and
funding must be secured. Notwithstanding the burden
development charges place on the price of new housing,
most municipalities report that development charges are
still not enough to fully cover the costs of building new
infrastructure and retrofitting existing infrastructure in
neighbourhoods that are intensifying. Often infrastructure
crosses municipal boundaries creating complicated and
time-consuming “who pays?” questions. Municipal leaders
also shared their frustrations with situations where new
housing projects are approved and water, sewage and
other infrastructure capacity is allocated to the project –
only to have the developer land bank the project and
put off building. Environmental considerations with new
infrastructure add further cost and complexity. The Task
Force recommends:
43. Enable municipalities, subject to adverse external
economic events, to withdraw infrastructure
allocations from any permitted projects where
construction has not been initiated within three
years of build permits being issued.
44. Work with municipalities to develop and
implement a municipal services corporation
utility model for water and wastewater under
which the municipal corporation would borrow
and amortize costs among customers instead
of using development charges.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 23
Create the Labour Force to meet
the housing supply need
The labour force is shrinking in many segments
of the market
You can’t start to build housing without infrastructure.
You can’t build it without people – skilled trades people
in every community who can build the homes we need.
The concern that we are already facing a shortage in
skilled trades came through loud and clear in our
consultations. We heard from many sources that our
education system funnels young people to university
rather than colleges or apprenticeships and creates the
perception that careers in the skilled trades are of less
value. Unions and builders are working to fill the pipeline
domestically and recruit internationally, but mass
retirements are making it challenging to maintain the
workforce at its current level, let alone increase it.
Increased economic immigration could ease this
bottleneck, but it appears difficult for a skilled labourer
with no Canadian work experience to qualify under
Ontario’s rules. Moreover, Canada’s immigration policies
also favour university education over skills our economy
and society desperately need. We ought to be welcoming
immigrants with the skills needed to build roads and
houses that will accommodate our growing population.
The shortage may be less acute, however, among
smaller developers and contractors that could renovate
and build new “missing middle” homes arising from the
changes in neighbourhood zoning described earlier.
These smaller companies tap into a different workforce
from the one needed to build high rises and new
subdivisions. Nonetheless, 1.5 million more homes will
require a major investment in attracting and developing
the skilled trades workforce to deliver this critically
needed housing supply. We recommend:
45. Improve funding for colleges, trade schools,
and apprenticeships; encourage and incentivize
municipalities, unions and employers to provide
more on-the-job training.
46. Undertake multi-stakeholder education program
to promote skilled trades.
47. Recommend that the federal and provincial
government prioritize skilled trades and adjust
the immigration points system to strongly favour
needed trades and expedite immigration status
for these workers, and encourage the federal
government to increase from 9,000 to 20,000
the number of immigrants admitted through
Ontario’s program.
Create a large Ontario Housing Delivery
Fund to align efforts and incent new
housing supply
Build alignment between governments to enable
builders to deliver more homes than ever before
All levels of government play a role in housing.
The federal government sets immigration policy, which has
a major impact on population growth and many tax policies.
The province sets the framework for planning, approvals, and
growth that municipalities rely upon, and is responsible for
many other areas that touch on housing supply, like investing
in highways and transit, training workers, the building code
and protecting the environment. Municipalities are on the
front lines, expected to translate the impacts of federal
immigration policy, provincial guidance and other factors,
some very localized, into official plans and the overall
process through which homes are approved to be built.
The efficiency with which home builders can build, whether
for-profit or non-profit, is influenced by policies and decisions
at every level of government. In turn, how many home
developers can deliver, and at what cost, translates directly
into the availability of homes that Ontarians can afford.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 24
Collectively, governments have not been sufficiently
aligned in their efforts to provide the frameworks and
incentives that meet the broad spectrum of housing needs in
Ontario. Much action, though, has been taken in recent years.
• The Ontario government has taken several steps to
make it easier to build additional suites in your own
home: reduced disincentives to building rental housing,
improved the appeal process, focused on density around
transit stations, made upfront development charges more
predictable, and provided options for municipalities to
create community benefits through development.
• The federal government has launched the National
Housing Strategy and committed over $70 billion in
funding.[26] Most recently, it has announced a $4 billion
Housing Accelerator Fund aimed at helping municipalities
remove barriers to building housing more quickly.[27]
• Municipalities have been looking at ways to change
outdated processes, rules, and ways of thinking that
create delays and increases costs of delivering homes.
Several municipalities have taken initial steps towards
eliminating exclusionary zoning and addressing other
barriers described in this report.
All governments agree that we are facing a housing crisis.
Now we must turn the sense of urgency into action and
alignment across governments.
Mirror policy changes with financial incentives
aligned across governments
The policy recommendations in this report will go a long way
to align efforts and position builders to deliver more homes.
Having the capacity in our communities to build these homes
will take more than policy. It will take money. Rewarding
municipalities that meet housing growth and approval
timelines will help them to invest in system upgrades, hire
additional staff, and invest in their communities. Similarly,
municipalities that resist new housing, succumb to NIMBY
pressure, and close off their neighbourhoods should see
funding reductions. Fixing the housing crisis is a societal
responsibility, and our limited tax dollars should be directed
to those municipalities making the difficult but necessary
choices to grow housing supply.
In late January 2022, the provincial government
announced $45 million for a new Streamline Development
Approval Fund to “unlock housing supply by cutting red
tape and improving processes for residential and industrial
developments”.[28] This is encouraging. More is needed.
Ontario should also receive its fair share of federal
funding but today faces a shortfall of almost $500 million,[29]
despite two thirds of the Canadian housing shortage being
in Ontario. We call on the federal government to address
this funding gap.
48. The Ontario government should establish a
large “Ontario Housing Delivery Fund” and
encourage the federal government to match
funding. This fund should reward:
a) Annual housing growth that meets or
exceeds provincial targets
b) Reductions in total approval times for
new housing
c) The speedy removal of exclusionary
zoning practices
49. Reductions in funding to municipalities that fail
to meet provincial housing growth and approval
timeline targets.
We believe that the province should consider partial grants
to subsidize municipalities that waive development charges
for affordable housing and for purpose-built rental.
Sustain focus, measure, monitor, improve
Digitize and modernize the approvals and
planning process
Some large municipalities have moved to electronic
tracking of development applications and/or electronic
building permits (“e-permits”) and report promising
results, but there is no consistency and many smaller
places don’t have the capacity to make the change.
Municipalities, the provincial government and agencies use
different systems to collect data and information relevant to
housing approvals, which slows down processes and leaves
much of the “big picture” blank. This could be addressed by
ensuring uniform data architecture standards.
Improve the quality of our housing data to inform
decision making
Having accurate data is key to understanding any challenge and
making the best decisions in response. The Task Force heard
from multiple housing experts that we are not always using
the best data, and we do not always have the data we need.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 25
Having good population forecasts is essential in each
municipality as they develop plans to meet future land
and housing needs. Yet, we heard many concerns about
inconsistent approaches to population forecasts. In the
Greater Golden Horseshoe, the forecast provided to
municipalities by the province is updated only when the
Growth Plan is updated, generally every seven years; but
federal immigration policy, which is a key driver of growth,
changes much more frequently. The provincial Ministry
of Finance produces a population forecast on a more
regular basis than the Growth Plan, but these are not
used consistently across municipalities or even by other
provincial ministries.
Population forecasts get translated into housing need in
different ways across the province, and there is a lack of data
about how (or whether) the need will be met. Others pointed
to the inconsistent availability of land inventories. Another
challenge is the lack of information on how much land is
permitted and how much housing is actually getting built
once permitted, and how fast. The Task Force also heard
that, although the Provincial Policy Statement requires
municipalities to maintain a three-year supply of short-term
(build-ready) land and report it each year to the province,
many municipalities are not meeting that requirement.
At a provincial and municipal level, we need better data on
the housing we have today, housing needed to close the
gap, consistent projections of what we need in the future,
and data on how we are doing at keeping up. Improved
data will help anticipate local and provincial supply
bottlenecks and constraints, making it easier to determine
the appropriate level and degree of response.
It will also be important to have better data to assess how
much new housing stock is becoming available to groups
that have been disproportionately excluded from home
ownership and rental housing.
Put eyes on the crisis and change the conversation
around housing
Ours is not the first attempt to “fix the housing system”.
There have been efforts for years to tackle increasing
housing prices and find solutions so everyone in Ontario
can find and afford the housing they need. This time must
be different.
The recommendations in this report must receive sustained
attention, results must be monitored, significant financial
investment by all levels of government must be made. And,
the people of Ontario must embrace a housing landscape
in which the housing needs of tomorrow’s citizens and
those who have been left behind are given equal weight
to the housing advantages of those who are already well
established in homes that they own.
50. Fund the adoption of consistent municipal
e-permitting systems and encourage the
federal government to match funding. Fund
the development of common data architecture
standards across municipalities and provincial
agencies and require municipalities to provide
their zoning bylaws with open data standards.
Set an implementation goal of 2025 and make
funding conditional on established targets.
51. Require municipalities and the provincial
government to use the Ministry of Finance
population projections as the basis for housing
need analysis and related land use requirements.
52. Resume reporting on housing data and
require consistent municipal reporting,
enforcing compliance as a requirement for
accessing programs under the Ontario
Housing Delivery Fund.
53. Report each year at the municipal and provincial
level on any gap between demand and supply by
housing type and location, and make underlying
data freely available to the public.
54. Empower the Deputy Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Housing to lead an all-of-government
committee, including key provincial ministries
and agencies, that meets weekly to ensure our
remaining recommendations and any other
productive ideas are implemented.
55. Commit to evaluate these recommendations
for the next three years with public reporting
on progress.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 26
Conclusion
We have set a bold goal for Ontario: building 1.5 million homes in the next 10 years.
We believe this can be done. What struck us was that
everyone we talked to – builders, housing advocates,
elected officials, planners – understands the need to act now.
As one long-time industry participant said, “for the first time
in memory, everyone is aligned, and we need to take
advantage of that.”
Such unity of purpose is rare, but powerful.
To leverage that power, we offer solutions that are bold but
workable, backed by evidence, and that position Ontario
for the future.
Our recommendations focus on ramping up the supply
of housing. Measures are already in place to try to cool
demand, but they will not fill Ontario’s housing need.
More supply is key. Building more homes will reduce the
competition for our scarce supply of homes and will give
Ontarians more housing choices. It will improve housing
affordability across the board.
Everyone wants more Ontarians to have housing.
So let’s get to work to build more housing in Ontario.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 27
APPENDIX A:Biographies of Task Force Members
Lalit Aggarwal is President of Manor Park Holdings, a
real estate development and operating company active
in Eastern Ontario. Previously, Lalit was an investor for
institutional fund management firms, such as H.I.G. European
Capital Partners, Soros Fund Management, and Goldman
Sachs. He is a past fellow of the C.D. Howe Institute and a
former Director of both Bridgepoint Health and the Centre for
the Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine. Lalit holds
degrees from the University of Oxford and the University of
Pennsylvania. He is also a current Director of the Hospital for
Sick Children Foundation, the Sterling Hall School and the
Chair of the Alcohol & Gaming Commission of Ontario.
David Amborski is a professional Urban Planner, Professor
at Ryerson University’s School of Urban and Regional
Planning and the founding Director of the Centre for Urban
Research and Land Development (CUR). His research and
consulting work explore topics where urban planning
interfaces with economics, including land and housing
markets. He is an academic advisor to the National
Executive Forum on Public Property, and he is a member
of Lambda Alpha (Honorary Land Economics Society).
He has undertaken consulting for the Federal, Provincial
and a range of municipal governments. Internationally,
he has undertaken work for the Canadian International
Development Agency (CIDA), the World Bank, the
Inter-American Development Bank, the Lincoln Institute
of Land Policy, and several other organizations in Eastern
Europe, Latin America, South Africa, and Asia. He also
serves on the editorial boards of several international
academic journals.
Andrew Garrett is a real estate executive responsible for
growing IMCO’s $11+ Billion Global Real Estate portfolio to
secure public pensions and insurance for Ontario families.
IMCO is the only Ontario fund manager purpose built to
onboard public clients such as pensions, insurance,
municipal reserve funds, and endowments. Andrew has
significant non-profit sector experience founding a B Corp
certified social enterprise called WeBuild to help incubate
social purpose real estate projects. He currently volunteers
on non-profit boards supporting social purpose real estate
projects, youth programs and the visual arts at Art Gallery
of Ontario. Andrew sits on board advisory committees for
private equity firms and holds a Global Executive MBA
from Kellogg School Management and a Real Estate
Development Certification from MIT Centre for Real Estate.
Tim Hudak is the CEO of the Ontario Real Estate Association
(OREA). With a passion and voice for championing the
dream of home ownership, Tim came to OREA following a
distinguished 21-year career in politics, including five years
as Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario.
In his role, Tim has focused on transforming OREA into
Ontario’s most cutting-edge professional association at
the forefront of advocacy on behalf of REALTORS® and
consumers, and providing world-class conferences, standard
forms, leadership training and professional guidance to its
Members. As part of his work at OREA, Tim was named one
of the most powerful people in North American residential
real estate by Swanepoel Power 200 for the last five years.
Tim is married to Deb Hutton, and together they have two
daughters, Miller and Maitland. In his spare time, Tim enjoys
trails less taken on his mountain bike or hiking shoes as well
as grilling outdoors.
Jake Lawrence was appointed Chief Executive Officer and
Group Head, Global Banking and Markets in January 2021.
In this role, Jake is responsible for the Bank’s Global
Banking and Markets business line and strategy across its
global footprint. Jake joined Scotiabank in 2002 and has
held progressively senior roles in Finance, Group Treasury
and Global Banking and Markets. From December 2018 to
January 2021, Jake was Co-Group Head of Global Banking
and Markets with specific responsibility for its Capital
Markets businesses, focused on building alignment across
product groups and priority markets to best serve our
clients throughout our global footprint. Previously, Jake was
Executive Vice President and Head of Global Banking and
Markets in the U.S., providing overall strategic direction and
execution of Scotiabank’s U.S. businesses. Prior to moving
into GBM, Jake served as Senior Vice President and Deputy
Treasurer, responsible for Scotiabank’s wholesale funding
activities and liquidity management as well as Senior Vice
President, Investor Relations.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 28
Julie Di Lorenzo (GPLLM, University of Toronto 2020), is
self-employed since 1982, operates one of the largest
female-run Real Estate Development Companies in
North America. She was instrumental in the Daniel Burnham
award-winning Ontario Growth Management Plan (2004)
as President of BILD. Julie served as the first female-owner
President of GTHBA (BILD) and on the boards of the Ontario
Science Centre, Harbourfront Toronto, Tarion (ONHWP),
St. Michael’s Hospital, NEXT36, Waterfront Toronto, Chair
of IREC Committee WT, Havergal College (Co-Chair of
Facilities), York School (interim Vice-Chair), and Canadian
Civil Liberties Association Board. Julie has served various
governments in advisory capacity on Women’s issues,
Economic Development, Innovation and Entrepreneurship.
Awards include Lifetime Achievement BILD 2017, ICCO
Business Excellence 2005 & ICCO Businesswoman of the
Year 2021.
Justin Marchand (CIHCM, CPA, CMA, BComm) is Métis and
was appointed Chief Executive Officer of Ontario Aboriginal
Housing Services (OAHS) in 2018. Justin has over 20 years of
progressive experience in a broad range of sectors, including
two publicly listed corporations, a large accounting and
consulting firm, and a major crown corporation, and holds
numerous designations across financial, operations, and
housing disciplines. He was most recently selected as Chair
of the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association’s (CHRA’s)
Indigenous Caucus Working Group and is also board
member for CHRA. Justin is also an active board member for
both the Coalition of Hamilton Indigenous Leadership (CHIL)
as well as Shingwauk Kinoomaage Gamig, located in
Bawaating. Justin believes that Housing is a fundamental
human right and that when Indigenous people have access
to safe, affordable, and culture-based Housing this provides
the opportunity to improve other areas of their lives.
Ene Underwood is CEO of Habitat for Humanity Greater
Toronto Area), a non-profit housing developer that helps
working, lower income families build strength, stability and
self-reliance through affordable homeownership. Homes
are delivered through a combination of volunteer builds,
contractor builds, and partnerships with non-profit and
for-profit developers. Ene’s career began in the private
sector as a strategy consultant with McKinsey & Company
before transitioning to not-for-profit sector leadership. Ene
holds a Bachelor of Arts (Honours) from the University of
Waterloo and a Master of Business Administration from
Ivey Business School.
Dave Wilkes is the President and CEO of the Building
Industry and Land Development Association of the GTA
(BILD). The Association has 1,300 members and proudly
represents builders, developers, professional renovators
and those who support the industry.
Dave is committed to supporting volunteer boards and
organizations. He has previously served on the George
Brown College Board of Directors, Ontario Curling
Association, and is currently engaged with Black North
Initiative (Housing Committee) and R-Labs I+T Council.
Dave received his Bachelor of Arts (Applied Geography)
from Ryerson.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 29
APPENDIX B:Affordable Housing
Ontario’s affordable housing shortfall was raised in almost every conversation. With rapidly
rising prices, more lower-priced market rental units are being converted into housing far out
of reach of lower-income households. In parallel, higher costs to deliver housing and limited
government funding have resulted in a net decrease in the number of affordable housing units
run by non-profits. The result is untenable: more people need affordable housing after being
displaced from the market at the very time that affordable supply is shrinking.
Throughout our consultations, we were reminded of the
housing inequities experienced by Black, Indigenous
and marginalized people. We also received submissions
describing the unique challenges faced by off-reserve
Indigenous Peoples both in the province’s urban centres
and in the north.
While many of the changes that will help deliver market
housing will also help make it easier to deliver affordable
housing, affordable housing is a societal responsibility.
We cannot rely exclusively on for-profit developers nor
on increases in the supply of market housing to fully solve
the problem.
The non-profit housing sector faces all the same barriers,
fees, risks and complexities outlined in this report as for-profit
builders. Several participants from the non-profit sector
referred to current or future partnerships with for-profit
developers that tap into the development and construction
expertise and efficiencies of the private sector. Successful
examples of leveraging such partnerships were cited with
Indigenous housing, supportive housing, and affordable
homeownership.
We were also reminded by program participants that,
while partnerships with for-profit developers can be very
impactful, non-profit providers have unique competencies
in the actual delivery of affordable housing. This includes
confirming eligibility of affordable housing applicants,
supporting independence of occupants of affordable
housing, and ensuring affordable housing units remain
affordable from one occupant to the next.
One avenue for delivering more affordable housing
that has received much recent attention is inclusionary
zoning. In simple terms, inclusionary zoning (IZ) requires
developers to deliver a share of affordable units in new
housing developments in prescribed areas. The previous
Ontario government passed legislation in April 2018
providing a framework within which municipalities could
enact Inclusionary Zoning bylaws.
Ontario’s first inclusionary zoning policy was introduced in
fall 2021 by the City of Toronto and applies to major transit
station areas. Internationally, inclusionary zoning has been
used successfully to incentivize developers to create new
affordable housing by providing density bonuses (more units
than they would normally be allowed, if some are affordable)
or reductions in government fees. Unfortunately, the City’s
approach did not include any incentives or bonuses.
Instead, Toronto requires market-rate fees and charges for
below-market affordable units. This absence of incentives
together with lack of clarity on the overall density that will be
approved for projects has led developers and some housing
advocates to claim that these projects may be uneconomic
and thus will not get financed or built. Municipalities shared
with us their concerns regarding the restriction in the
provincial IZ legislation that prohibits “cash in lieu” payments.
Municipalities advised that having the option of accepting the
equivalent value of IZ units in cash from the developer would
enable even greater impact in some circumstances (for
example, a luxury building in an expensive neighbourhood,
where the cost of living is too high for a low-income resident).
Funding for affordable housing is the responsibility of
all levels of government. The federal government has
committed to large funding transfers to the provinces
to support affordable housing. The Task Force heard,
however, that Ontario’s share of this funding does not
reflect our proportionate affordable housing needs. This,
in turn, creates further financial pressure on both the
province and municipalities, which further exacerbates the
affordable housing shortages in Ontario’s communities.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 30
Finally, many participants in Task Force consultations
pointed to surplus government lands as an avenue for
building more affordable housing and this is discussed
in Appendix C.
We have made recommendations throughout the report
intended to have a positive impact on new affordable
housing supply. We offer these additional recommendations
specific to affordable housing:
• Call upon the federal government to provide equitable
affordable housing funding to Ontario.
• Develop and legislate a clear, province-wide definition of
“affordable housing” to create certainty and predictability.
• Create an Affordable Housing Trust from a portion of Land
Transfer Tax Revenue (i.e., the windfall resulting from
property price appreciation) to be used in partnership
with developers, non-profits, and municipalities in the
creation of more affordable housing units. This Trust
should create incentives for projects serving and brought
forward by Black- and Indigenous-led developers and
marginalized groups.
• Amend legislation to:
• Allow cash-in-lieu payments for Inclusive Zoning units
at the discretion of the municipality.
• Require that municipalities utilize density bonusing or
other incentives in all Inclusionary Zoning and Affordable
Housing policies that apply to market housing.
• Permit municipalities that have not passed Inclusionary
Zoning policies to offer incentives and bonuses for
affordable housing units.
• Encourage government to closely monitor the
effectiveness of Inclusionary Zoning policy in creating
new affordable housing and to explore alternative
funding methods that are predictable, consistent and
transparent as a more viable alternative option to
Inclusionary Zoning policies in the provision of
affordable housing.
• Rebate MPAC market rate property tax assessment
on below-market affordable homes.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 31
APPENDIX C:Government Surplus Land
Surplus government lands fell outside the mandate of the Task Force. However, this question
came up repeatedly as a solution to housing supply. While we take no view on the disposition of
specific parcels of land, several stakeholders raised issues that we believe merit consideration:
• Review surplus lands and accelerate the sale and
development through RFP of surplus government land
and surrounding land by provincially pre-zoning for
density, affordable housing, and mixed or residential use.
• All future government land sales, whether commercial or
residential, should have an affordable housing component
of at least 20%.
• Purposefully upzone underdeveloped or underutilized
Crown property (e.g., LCBO).
• Sell Crown land and reoccupy as a tenant in a higher
density building or relocate services outside of
major population centres where land is considerably
less expensive.
• The policy priority of adding to the housing supply,
including affordable units, should be reflected in the
way surplus land is offered for sale, allowing bidders
to structure their proposals accordingly.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 32
APPENDIX D:Surety Bonds
Moving to surety bonds would free up billions of dollars for building
When a development proposal goes ahead, the developer typically needs to make site
improvements, such as installing common services. The development agreement details
how the developer must perform to the municipality’s satisfaction.
Up until the 1980s, it was common practice for Ontario
municipalities to accept bonds as financial security for
subdivision agreements and site plans. Today, however,
they almost exclusively require letters of credit from a
chartered bank. The problem with letters of credit is that
developers are often required to collateralize the letter of
credit dollar-for-dollar against the value of the municipal
works they are performing.
Often this means developers can only afford to finance
one or two housing projects at a time, constraining housing
supply. The Ontario Home Builders’ Association estimates
that across Ontario, billions of dollars are tied up in
collateral or borrowing capacity that could be used to
advance more projects.
Modern “pay on demand surety bonds” are proven to
provide the same benefits and security as a letter of credit,
while not tying up private capital the way letters of credit
do. Moving to this option would give municipalities across
Ontario access to all the features of a letter of credit with
the added benefit of professional underwriting, carried
out by licensed bonding companies, ensuring that the
developer is qualified to fulfill its obligations under the
municipal agreement.
Most important from a municipal perspective, the financial
obligation is secured. If a problem arises, the secure bond
is fully payable by the bond company on demand. Surety
companies, similar to banks, are regulated by Ontario’s Office
of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to ensure they
have sufficient funds in place to pay out bond claims.
More widespread use of this instrument could unlock billions
of dollars of private sector financial liquidity that could be
used to build new infrastructure and housing projects,
provide for more units in each development and accelerate
the delivery of housing of all types.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 33
References
1. Ontario Housing Market Report
https://wowa.ca/ontario-housing-market
2. Global Property Guide
https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/North-America/Canada/
Price-History-Archive/canadian-housing-market-strong-127030
3. National Household Survey Factsheet
https://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/economy/demographics/census/
nhshi11-6.html#:~:text=Median%20After%2Dtax%20Income%20
of,and%20British%20Columbia%20at%20%2467%2C900
4. CMHC
https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/hmip-pimh/en/TableMapChart/
5. The Globe And Mail
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/
article-black-canadians-have-some-of-the-lowest-home-
ownership-rates-in-canada/
6. Scotiabank
https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/
economics-publications/post.other-publications.housing.
housing-note.housing-note--may-12-2021-.html
7. Scotiabank
https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/
economics-publications/post.other-publications.housing.
housing-note.housing-note--january-12-2022-.html
8. Expert Market
https://www.expertmarket.co.uk/vehicle-tracking/
best-and-worst-cities-for-commuting
9. Statista
https://www.statista.com/statistics/198063/total-number-of-
housing-starts-in-ontario-since-1995/
10. Poltext
https://www.poltext.org/sites/poltext.org/files/discoursV2/DB/
Ontario/ON_DB_1975_29_5.pdf
11. Toronto City Planning
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/ph/bgrd/
backgroundfile-173165.pdf
12. Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario (FRPO)
https://www.frpo.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/
Urbanation-FRPO-Ontario-Rental-Market-Report-Summer-2020.pdf
13. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
https://www.ontario.ca/document/growth-plan-greater-golden-
horseshoe/where-and-how-grow
14. More Neighbours Toronto
https://www.moreneighbours.ca/
15. The World Bank
https://www.doingbusiness.org/en/data/exploretopics/
dealing-with-construction-permits
16. The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD)
https://bildgta.ca/Assets/BILD%20Municipal%20
Benchmarking%20Study%20-%20FINAL%20-%20Sept%20
2020%20BILD.pdf
17. Construction and Design Alliance of Ontario (CDAO)
http://www.cdao.ca/files/OAA/P5727%20-%20OAA%20Site%20
Plan%20Delay%20Study%20Update%20(2018).pdf
18. Tribunals Ontario 2019-20 Annual Report
https://olt.gov.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Tribunals_
Ontario_2019-2020_Annual_Report_EN_v2.html
19. The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD)
https://bildgta.ca/Assets/Bild/FINAL%20-%20BILD%20-%20
Comparison%20of%20Government%20Charges%20in%20
Canada%20and%20US%20-%20Sept%2013%202019.pdf
20. The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD)
https://bildgta.ca/Assets/FINAL%20GTA%20-%20
Development%20Charges%20-%2009%202020.pdf
21. Toronto Star
https://www.thestar.com/life/homes/2018/09/01/
where-did-the-money-go-parkland-dedication-fees-should-be-
used-to-build-parks-in-gta.html
22. The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD)
https://bildgta.ca/Assets/misc/BILD%20-%20New%20
Homeowner%20Money%20Report%20-%20Oct%205%20
2021%20(002)_Redacted.pdf
23. Urbanation Inc.
https://www.urbanation.ca/news/336-gta-rental-construction-
surged-2021-vacancy-fell
24. Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario (FRPO)
https://www.frpo.org/lobby-view/cities-still-ripping-off-renters
25. Edison Financial
https://edisonfinancial.ca/millennial-home-ownership-canada/
26. Government of Canada National Housing Strategy
https://www.placetocallhome.ca/what-is-the-strategy
27. CMHC
https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/media-newsroom/
news-releases/2021/housing-accelerator-fund-rent-to-own-program
28. Toronto Star
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2022/01/19/
ford-government-announces-45-million-to-cut-red-tape-and-
speed-up-applications-for-new-home-construction.html
29. Canadian Real Estate Wealth
https://www.canadianrealestatemagazine.ca/news/
federal-funds-must-flow-for-housing-programs-334810.aspx
1
Appendix 2
Provincial Housing Affordability Task Force Recommendations and STC Comments
# Recommendation Position Staff Comments
1. Set a goal of building 1.5 million
new homes in ten years.
Neutral This goal would have to be set by the Province through
population and employment targets through the Places to Grow,
Growth Plan and then implemented through Regional and
Municipal Official Plans through the Municipal Comprehensive
Review (MCR) process.
The City of St. Catharines just completed a comprehensive
compliance exercise to bring the Garden City Official Plan into
conformity with 2051 Growth Plan targets. New targets, and the
required compliance exercises and anticipate Ontario Land
Tribunal hearings, would negate that work and contribute to
further delays.
If the Province wishes to increase intensification targets again for
the 2051-time horizon, it also needs to provide municipalities with
infrastructure funding to match population growth.
2. Amend the Planning Act,
Provincial Policy Statement, and
Growth Plans to set “growth in
the full spectrum of housing
supply” and “intensification within
existing built-up areas” of
municipalities as the most
important residential housing
priorities in the mandate and
purpose.
Support Municipal Official Plans implement Provincial Growth Plan targets
and are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement. It is an
important city building initiative to focus growth and intensification
within existing built-up areas of municipalities. The City’s Garden
City Official Plan contains policies directing growth to built up
areas, particularly the downtown and GO Major Transit Station
Area (MTSA) and supports a variety of housing configurations.
2
2
3a. Limit exclusionary zoning in
municipalities through binding
provincial action:
a. Allow “as of right”
residential housing up to
four units and up to four
storeys on a single
residential lot.
Neutral The City of St. Catharines’s Zoning By-law permits accessory
dwelling units, single detached, semi detached, quadplex, and
townhouses as-of-right in its lowest density zone. The
maximum height permission for this zone is 10m
(approximately 33 feet). Staff are supportive of up to four units
on a single residential lot provided that performance standards
can be achieved. However, a mandatory minimum four storey
height limit does not consider neighbourhood context and
should have accompanying zoning standards to evaluate the
proposed development.
While the Task Force assumes that generation of additional
supply will lead to downward pressure on pricing, an as-of-right
permission for 4 units per residential lot could actually have the
reverse effect of increasing already high property values.
3b. b. Modernize the Building
Code and other policies to
remove any barriers to
affordable construction and
to ensure meaningful
implementation (e.g., allow
single-staircase
construction for up to four
storeys, allow single
egress, etc.).
Opposed Single staircase and single egress for multi-unit buildings may
result in a cost savings to the builder; however, there is no
certainty that this cost savings would be passed to the end user.
Single staircase and egress for four storey multi-unit buildings
would have implications for accessibility further reducing housing
opportunities for those already experiencing challenges. While
such a change would necessitate changes to the Fire Code and
Building Code, secondary accesses became requirements
following fatalities and coroner inquests.
4. Permit “as of right” conversion
of underutilized or redundant
commercial properties to
residential or mixed-residential
and commercial use.
Opposed There is no definition of “underutilized or redundant” commercial
properties to understand how this recommendation would be
implemented. If implemented, this permission could be abused
by landowners kicking out commercial tenants (particularly
independent, small businesses) to claim their property is
3
underutilized to obtain a “free” rezoning and increase the value of
the property. Many municipalities have recently undergone
extensive and comprehensive land needs assessments to
conform to Provincial Growth and Employment Targets.
Permitting as-of-right conversion to residential uses would result
in an imbalance of employment and commercial opportunities in
municipalities and an imbalance in property taxation.
Furthermore, in a downtown context, this recommended
permission could result in a plethora of residential units at grade
which reduces street activity, animation. This could result in a
proliferation of bedroom communities and loss of walkable
opportunities for everyday needs.
5. Permit “as of right” secondary
suites, garden suites, and
laneway houses province-wide.
Support The City’s Zoning By-law already permits accessory dwelling
units as of right. The City will be examining garden suites and
laneway housing as part of the Housekeeping Zoning By-law
Review project, tentatively scheduled for the 2023 workplan.
6. Permit “as of right” multi-tenant
housing (renting rooms within a
dwelling) province-wide.
Support Staff support home share and other methods of renting out rooms
within a dwelling as an affordable housing option. Licensing
should be explored to ensure life safety of occupants.
7. Encourage and incentivize
municipalities to increase density
in areas with excess school
capacity to benefit families with
children.
Neutral
The City of St. Catharines is not aware of any school catchment
areas that have excess capacity. As the Province is responsible
for administering the Boards of Education, efforts should be made
at investing in urban school models in downtown, midtown,
uptown, and MTSA contexts (Vancouver has embraced this
model with success). Increasing density in established
neighbourhoods via medium and high density built form may not
generate school age children. Must consider neighbourhood
context. Servicing infrastructure may require substantial
upgrades to implement this.
4
8. Allow “as of right” zoning up to
unlimited height and unlimited
density in the immediate
proximity of individual major
transit stations within two years
if municipal zoning remains
insufficient to meet provincial
density targets.
Neutral The City’s zoning currently permits, as of right, unlimited height
and density in the downtown, and has since 2013. To date, this
has not resulted in a significant amount of affordable or market
residential development. This recommendation assumes that
servicing infrastructure is adequate to accommodate.
9. Allow “as of right” zoning of six
to 11 storeys with no minimum
parking requirements on any
streets utilized by public transit
(including streets on bus and
streetcar routes).
Oppose The City’s policies already encourage intensification along arterial
roads, to support public transportation investment. However,
bus routes are dynamic and can frequently change, depending on
community needs. Transit can also go down local roads. It does
not make sense to radically change neighbourhoods based on
flexible bus routes. Furthermore, as of right permissions could
be detrimental to heritage assets and substantially increase
opposition to public transit in an effort to keep density out of
established neighbourhoods. This recommendation should be
further explored for fixed transit infrastructure, such as BRT, LRT,
and rail.
10. Designate or rezone as mixed
commercial and residential use
all land along transit corridors
and redesignate all Residential
Apartment to mixed commercial
and residential zoning in
Toronto.
Neutral This appears to be a Toronto-centric issue.
11. Support responsible housing
growth on undeveloped land,
including outside existing
OPPOSE Staff strongly oppose expanding the existing urban boundary.
Urban boundary delineations are integral to protecting tender
fruit lands, specialty crop areas, and Greenbelt lands. Expanding
5
municipal boundaries, by building
necessary infrastructure to
support higher density housing
and complete communities and
applying the recommendations of
this report to all undeveloped
land.
urban boundaries contributes to suburban sprawl, greater
infrastructure burden, and increase in property taxes to support.
Furthermore, expanding urban boundaries is contrary to climate
change objectives. There is no definition provided for
“responsible” housing growth and furthermore, this does not
provide for other supporting uses such as institutional and daily
commercial needs.
12a Create a more permissive land
use, planning, and approvals
system:
Repeal or override municipal
policies, zoning, or plans that
prioritize the preservation of
physical character of
neighbourhood.
Oppose It is unclear if “physical character of neighbourhood” includes
heritage conservation districts. The City of St. Catharines has
four heritage conservation districts, each of which have their own
distinct character. This recommendation dismisses the value of
heritage conservation and ignores residential context and
removes compatibility from planning analysis. Additional density
can still be supported in built forms that compliment character
and heritage conservation areas.
12b Exempt from site plan approval
and public consultation all
projects of 10 units or less that
conform to the Official Plan
and require only minor
variances.
Oppose The City’s site plan control by-law currently applies to
developments with 4 or more residential dwelling units. Site plan
control permits evaluation of a development for compatibility with
adjoining lands. This recommendation, if implemented, would
eliminate landscaping, drainage, parking review and would
remove the ability to assess the development for its compliance
with the City’s objectives.
12c Establish province-wide zoning
standards, or prohibitions, for
minimum lot sizes, maximum
building setbacks, minimum
heights, angular planes,
shadow rules, front doors,
Oppose Province wide zoning standards are not context sensitive (i.e. an
urban downtown has a very different context from a northern
municipality). Applying the same zoning standards to 444
municipalities would significantly add to the number of minor
variance applications, hence adding additional delay and process
which is counter to the Task Force’s desired outcome. Heritage
6
building depth, landscaping,
floor space index, and heritage
view cones, and planes;
restore pre-2006 site plan
exclusions (colour, texture, and
type of materials, window
details, etc.) to the Planning
Act and reduce or eliminate
minimum parking
requirements; and
view cones are based on site merits, heritage impact
assessments, and other contextual values. Standardized
minimum height regulations are not context supportive and do
not consider shadow impacts, growing zones, native species, etc.
Removing colour, texture, and materiality is problematic as it will
result in bland, cheap cladding that becomes the occupant’s
burden to maintain, prematurely looks dated/dirty, and does not
contribute to the streetscape (i.e. excessive stucco). Staff may be
supportive of Provincial standards for undertaking a shadow
study.
12d Remove any floorplate
restrictions to allow larger,
more efficient high-density
towers.
Oppose Floorplate regulations are to assist with appropriate shadowing,
massing, character, context, and wind impacts. By removing
floorplate restrictions, slab buildings could proliferate preventing
ground level landscaping and trees from receiving sunlight.
Impacts to tower separation and sunlight would also impact
tower occupants. Furthermore, the pedestrian scale would be
uncomfortable, if not hostile. There is no evidence to suggest
that this would lead to unit affordability. However, this could
assist with achieving more 2- and 3-bedroom units.
13 Limit municipalities from
requesting or hosting additional
public meetings beyond those
that are required under the
Planning Act.
Oppose Public consultation can encourage better development.
Removing opportunities contributes to a more acrimonious
development process and can contribute to delays.
Municipalities should have the discretion to require additional
public consultation, depending on the nature of the development
application.
14 Require that public
consultations provide digital
participation options.
Support The City of St. Catharines implemented digital participation
options at the beginning of the pandemic and have continued to
use these methods. Digital participation has expanded
7
opportunities to connect with residents on meaningful
engagement with a range of demographics and over longer
periods of time, as opposed to singular events.
15 Require mandatory delegation of
site plan approvals and minor
variances to staff or pre-
approved qualified third-party
technical consultants through a
simplified review and approval
process, without the ability to
withdraw Council’s delegation.
Neutral The City of St. Catharines has already delegated site plan
approval to staff. To date, there has been no political abuse of
withdrawing Council’s delegation. Council has already delegated
the consideration of minor variance applications to a Committee
of Adjustment which operates independently of staff and Council.
16 Prevent abuse of the heritage
preservation and designation
process by:
a) Prohibiting the use of bulk
listing on municipal
heritage registers
Oppose No definition has been provided for “bulk listing” and
furthermore, recent changes to the Ontario Heritage Act would
make “bulk listings” very difficult. The City of St. Catharines does
not abuse the designation process. Depending on how “bulk
listing” is defined, this could have implications for Heritage
Conservation Districts.
16 b) Prohibiting reactive
heritage designations after
a Planning Act
development application
has been filed
Oppose There is no definition of what “development application” includes.
Does the clock start at pre-submission consultation? What does
this mean for the 60-day moratorium on demolitions of listed
properties? If implemented, there would be no purpose for
Heritage Impact Assessments and a significant loss of cultural
heritage assets and landscapes – many of which define
neighbourhoods and communities. This could actually have the
counter effect of ensuring more properties are designated to
preserve character. This recommendation assumes that heritage
and new construction/adaptive reuse are mutually exclusive.
8
What constitutes a development application? Do pre-submission
consultations count? What does this mean for the 60 day
moratorium on demolitions? What purpose does a HIA have
then? Will have a counter effective of ensuring more properties
are designated. This recommendation assumes that heritage and
new construction/adaptive reuse are mutually exclusive.
17 Requiring municipalities to
compensate property owners
for loss of property value as a
result of heritage designations,
based on the principle of best
economic use of land.
OPPOSE It is unclear when or how this recommendation would be
triggered. Staff would need to understand if this is retroactive to
properties on the heritage registry. Development speculation has
always had risks; however, it is the responsibility of the buyer to
be aware of the responsibilities of their purchase. If there is a
potential for a heritage designation, that should be factored into
the proposal – it should not be factored in to how much the
taxpayers should “compensate” a developer for their purchase.
This recommendation, if implemented, would result in
inappropriate incentivization and the destruction of cultural
heritage assets and landscapes. In MTSAs, the cost of land
increases with the proximity of amenities. It would be cost
prohibitive to compensate developers for purchasing land in
these areas and furthermore, detrimental to cultural heritage
assets that exist in these areas.
This recommendation assumes that there is no value of cultural
heritage landscapes, where the opposite is true. Heritage
conservation contributes to a sense of community and identity.
This recommendation has not been considered with respect to
indigenous sites of interest and how “loss of property value”
would be calculated.
9
The City of St. Catharines, through its CIP, incentivizes heritage
conservation and preservation efforts. In the USA, there are tax
credits for heritage preservation.
Development applications will always result in a change in
property value – to place that burden on the taxpayer is
irresponsible. Municipalities and their taxpayers should not
compensate developers for a perceived loss of profit. In theory,
this could require a payment for “loss of property value” for every
heritage designated property. There are significant financial
impacts that could materially impact the City’s property tax levy
moving forward.
18 Restore the right of developers to
appeal Official Plans and
Municipal Comprehensive
Reviews.
Oppose This recommendation is contrary to the identified goals of the
Task Force. The Province approves Regional Municipal
Comprehensive Reviews. If the Regional OP does not provide for
the appropriate growth targets, MMAH can deny the OP. If a
municipal Official Plan, or its growth management conformity
exercise does not adequately implement Provincial targets, then
the Region can deny the OP or OPA. A third-party appeal only
serves to delay bringing additional units online more
expeditiously. Lengthy appeals take resources away from other
strategic priorities and the processing of development
applications.
19 Legislate timelines at each stage
of the provincial and municipal
review process, including site
plan, minor variance, and
provincial reviews, and deem an
application approved if the
Oppose The development application review process is typically delayed
by external factors (such as the applicant, MECP, MTO,
Conservation Authority, etc.) more so than the municipality.
Staff would need to understand what these legislated timeframes
would be to understand the staffing impacts needed to achieve
compliance. The implementation of this recommendation will
result in more “conditional approvals” where all of the conditions
10
legislated response time is
exceeded.
of approval will take the same amount of time for the applicant
to clear as they do now.
Bill 108 significantly reduced Planning Act timeframes for the
review of development applications. To date, there has been no
indication that this has resulted in an improvement in
affordability.
Automatic approvals would result in substandard, lower quality
developments.
Staff would support the Province undertaking a review of
application processing timeframes for Provincial ministries and
Conservation Authorities and providing the appropriate resources
to expedite approvals in their own control.
20 Fund the creation of “approvals
facilitators” with the authority to
quickly resolve conflicts among
municipal and/or provincial
authorities and ensure
timelines are met.
Support Staff support Provincial Facilitators to facilitate a “one window”
approach with Provincial approval agencies. Staff are interested
in understanding how the Province will define a hierarchy of
priority to apply Provincial Facilitators.
The City of St. Catharines currently has a vacant Project
Expeditor position. Recruitment efforts have not been successful.
21 Require a pre-consultation with
all relevant parties at which the
municipality sets out a binding
list that defines what
constitutes a complete
application; confirms the
number of consultations
established in the previous
Oppose The Planning Act is silent on pre-submission consultations. The
City of St. Catharines already employs a pre-submission
consultation process, setting out a list of requirements to form a
complete submission. However, staff are unclear on the
implementation aspects of this recommendation. Does this limit
the municipality’s ability to undertake a peer review? Does this
mean the municipality has not ability to deny a stamped
document? It is unclear if that means a CAHP stamped heritage
11
recommendations; and clarifies
that if a member of a regulated
profession such as a
professional engineer has
stamped an application, the
municipality has no liability and
no additional stamp is needed.
evaluation recommendation would be deemed final. In these
instances of a conflict, which consultant’s designation is given
more priority? For example, if a Landscaped Architect stamped a
plan that conflicts with a P. Eng stamped infrastructure plan – is
there a co-sign on conflicts? Which designations would be
considered as part of this process?
The City of St. Catharines has experience with “stamp for hire”
consultants who have applied their P. Eng. stamp to as-built
drawing when never visiting the project site and an architect
submitting drawings with blatant Building Code deficiencies (such
as demonstrating a 600 sq.ft. rooftop platform not attached to a
building). While it is understood that the recommendation
intends on not applying liability to the municipality, there are life
safety implications. Staff need to understand what the risk and
liability is for the municipality after assumption.
22 Simplify planning legislation
and policy documents.
Support Staff support a full Planning Act reform to improve clarity and
consistency. Greater correlation between Provincial Plans should
be explored, including prioritizing matters of Provincial interest in
instances of land use overlap (i.e. prime agricultural and
aggregate).
Staff recommend the Province form an advisory group consisting
of municipal planners and lawyers to review and recommend
changes.
23 Create a common, province-
wide definition of plan of
subdivision and standard set of
conditions which clarify which
may be included; require the
Oppose The City of St. Catharines uses standard plan of subdivision
conditions and then includes context sensitive site-specific
conditions, directly related to the site conditions. A common set
of subdivision conditions for 444 municipalities is unrealistic.
12
use of standard province-wide
legal agreements and, where
feasible, plans of subdivision.
24 Allow wood construction of up
to 12 storeys.
Neutral Allowing wood construction up to 12 storeys would necessitate a
change to the Building Code Act, which is a Provincial matter.
Wood construction to 12 storeys is currently under review for the
National Building Code. Wood construction cost savings are
typically offset by a increase in insurance premiums for
construction. As such, it is unclear how this will contribute to
housing affordability. Wood construction is more sustainable
than concrete; however, concrete stairwells should still be
required for life safety considerations.
25 Require municipalities to provide
the option of pay on demand
surety bonds and letters of credit.
Oppose Staff have considered the provision of surety bonds in lieu of
letters of credit for development securities and are not
supportive. To collect a surety bond, the municipality is required
to expend resources for court action and typically results in a
fraction of what is owed. Surety bonds will lead to an increase in
site plan non-compliances, potentially adding burden to the
taxpayer to complete developer responsibilities. The process of
collection is too onerous. The City has had difficulties collecting
on surety bonds in the past and do not recommend this option.
26 Require appellants to promptly
seek permission (“leave to
appeal”) of the Tribunal and
demonstrate that an appeal has
merit, relying on evidence and
expert reports, before it is
accepted.
Neutral The Ontario Land Tribunal has the authority now to deny the
hearing of an appeal that has no land use rationale. It is
important that the implementation of this recommendation not
be for the purposes of eliminating a democratic right to appeal.
Furthermore, additional information is needed to understand
what this process looks like, how much time it adds to the
process, and an understanding that appeals of minor variance
decisions will differ in complexity from complex OPA appeals.
13
27a Prevent abuse of process:
Remove right of appeal for
projects with at least 30%
affordable housing in which units
are guaranteed affordable for at
least 40 years.
Neutral More information is needed to fully understand how this would be
administered. Typically, the development application must be
completed prior to housing providers committing to service
agreements. It is not clear how an applicant can guarantee
affordable housing without the development application having
certainty. Staff are concerned that this recommendation would
encourage lower standards of development. Furthermore, the
Province needs to define “affordable housing” for this context.
27b Require a $10,000 filing fee for
third-party appeals.
Oppose A $10,000 appeal fee for the general public is undemocratic,
punitive, and designed to prevent access to the appeal process.
Furthermore, persons who could be legitimately impacted by a
development deserve an opportunity to appeal to a Provincial
body, regardless of financial ability. A $10,000 appeal fee would
only be accessible to wealthy resident groups. The application of
a $10,000 appeal fee would be the addition of a systemic barrier
to a democratic process.
27c Provide discretion to
adjudicators to award full costs
to the successful party in any
appeal brought by a third party
or by a municipality where its
council has overridden a
recommended staff approval.
Neutral Staff can appreciate the use of costs to be awarded for blatant
abuse of process; however, it is unclear if this is the most
appropriate method.
28 Encourage greater use of oral
decisions issued the day of the
hearing, with written reasons to
follow, and allow those
decisions to become binding
the day that they are issued.
Support Staff are supportive of oral decisions being issued the day of the
hearing, particularly for matters arising from the hearing of
Motions. Oral decisions for complex matters including conditions
of approval would be difficult to implement without the written
decision and order.
14
29 Where it is found that a
municipality has refused an
application simply to avoid a
deemed approval for lack of
decision, allow the Tribunal to
award punitive damages.
Oppose Professional planners have an ethical duty to provide
recommendations to Council based on their independent and
professional assessment of the development application. To
conclude that a refusal is to avoid an appeal for lack of decision
is an afront to the profession. If an applicant provides a
substandard application, it should be anticipated that it be
denied. Punitive damages should be applied at times of blatant
abuse of power, not inconvenience to developers.
30 Provide funding to increase
staffing (adjudicators and case
managers), provide market-
competitive salaries, outsource
more matters to mediators, and
set shorter time targets.
Support Staff support additional resources for the OLT and suggest a
merit-based appointment system so that applicants qualified in
land use planning and development matters be prioritized over
political appointments.
31 In clearing the existing backlog,
encourage the Tribunal to
prioritize projects close to the
finish line that will support
housing growth and
intensification, as well as regional
water or utility infrastructure
decisions that will unlock
significant housing capacity.
Neutral Staff support the prioritization of OLT hearings for affordable
housing projects. However, it is unclear how appeals for housing
would otherwise be prioritized in an impartial manner.
32 Waive development charges and
parkland cash-in-lieu and charge
only modest connection fees for
all infill residential project up to
10 units or for any development
where no new material
infrastructure will be required.
Oppose The City of St. Catharines just undertook a comprehensive
Development Charges background study and implemented a DC
by-law, forecasting, and reserve based on city-wide
infrastructure, parks, and recreational facility needs. The City’s
DC by-law allows the addition of up to 2 additional units without
additional DC charge to incentive intensification. If implemented,
15
this recommendation will have significant impacts on municipal
financial abilities to support infrastructure projects
Waiving cash-in-lieu of parkland fees would impact the City’s
ability to deliver parkland and recreational facilities in proximity
to the development, as well as city wide. Making development
cheaper for developers does not automatically increase supply of
affordable housing. This recommendation, if implemented, will
result in a proliferation of 10-unit developments, which may be
ultimately underdevelopment for a site just to avoid DC and
parkland costs at the expense of the community’s livability.
The implementation of this recommendation will severely impact
a municipality’s ability to invest, maintain, and construction in
servicing infrastructure and quality recreation spaces for the
residents who will be calling these developments home.
33 Waive development charges
on all forms of affordable
housing guaranteed to be
affordable for 40 years.
Neutral The City of St. Catharines’ DC By-law accommodates DC rebates
for true affordable housing. The current Development Charges
Act sets an affordability limit of 20 years. The Province would
need to amend its Act to implement this recommendation. In
doing so, the Province should clearly define “affordable housing”
for this purpose. As waiving DCs would impact the City’s capital
works program, the Province should adequately fund
municipalities with reimbursements for lost DCs for affordable
housing.
34 Prohibit interest rates on
development charges higher than
a municipality’s borrowing rate.
Oppose The City of St. Catharines currently does not have an interest
policy for development charges; however, one is being
considered by Council in Q2 2022. Most of the City’s growth-
related infrastructure will not be built until a certain level of
development has occurred. Current interest rates paid by the
16
municipality on long term debt are far lower than the Non-
Residential Construction Cost Index which more accurately
reflects the changes in the cost of infrastructure over time. In an
indirect manner, the recommendation if implemented would
ultimately lead to an increase in DC rates over time. Additionally,
those interest rates change over time, and fluctuating interest
rates do not provide cost certainty in the same manner that a
fixed interest rate could.
35 Regarding cash in lieu of
parkland, s.37, Community
Benefit Charges, and
development charges:
Provincial review of reserve
levels, collections and
drawdowns annually to ensure
funds are being used in a
timely fashion and for the
intended purpose, and, where
review points to a significant
concern, do not allow further
collection until the situation has
been corrected.
Except where allocated
towards municipality-wide
infrastructure projects, require
municipalities to spend funds in
the neighbourhoods where
they were collected. However,
where there’s a significant
community need in a priority
area of the City, allow for
Oppose Legislation for Community Benefit Charges and Development
Charges already have regulations for reporting, including
collections that are allocated to projects. For development
charges, large projects often require funds to be collected over a
period of time before a project can move forward, and that project
may take years to construct. Council ultimately make decisions
on capital budgets and forecasts and at times will need to adjust
timing to meet other strategic and emergent goals. Annual
reviews of cash in lieu reserve funds will not assist in reaching
any of the Task Force’s defined goals. Cash in lieu reserves
need to be built up in order to acquire appropriate lands for
parkland and/or recreational facilities. Areas of greatest parkland
need are typically located in areas with the high land values –
area specific collection and spending limits remove municipal
autonomy in creating people places.
This recommendation, if implemented, will create an inefficient
use of funds, require varied rates, and add administrative burden
and unnecessary complexity. DCs are collected on a city-wide
basis to be used on city-wide needs. The City of St. Catharines
future development will be 95% intensification and as such,
infrastructure requirements do not related to or benefit a single
area of the City.
17
specific ward-to-ward
allocation of unspent and
unallocated reserves.
36 Recommend that the federal
government and provincial
governments update HST rebate
to reflect current home prices
and begin indexing the
thresholds to housing prices, and
that the federal government
match the provincial 75% rebate
and remove any clawback.
Neutral More information is required.
37 Align property taxes for purpose-
built rental with those of condos
and low rise.
Neutral More information is required.
The intent of tax policy is revenue neutrality, which means that
any reduction in the tax ratio of one property tax class is shifted
and shared among the other remaining tax classes. The City of
St. Catharines’ assessment is largely residential (80%), as such,
any reduction in the tax ratio of other property tax classes will
result in the residential tax base carrying a larger tax burden.
Staff could support changing both the tax rate and property value
assessment methodology to align with those of condos and low
rise, unless there is a distinction between purpose built rental
and condo tenure.
38 Amend the Planning Act and
Perpetuities Act to extend the
maximum period for land
leases and restrictive
Neutral Extending the maximum period for land leases may assist with
some forms of affordable housing, such as community land
trusts.
18
covenants on land to 40 or
more years.
39 Eliminate or reduce tax
disincentives to housing growth.
Neutral Staff are unable to assess this recommendation until additional
information and clarity is provided as to which tax categories
disincentivize housing growth.
40. Call on the Federal
Government to implement an
Urban, Rural and Northern
Indigenous Housing Strategy.
Support The City of St. Catharines strongly supports this
recommendation.
41. Funding for pilot projects that
create innovative pathways to
homeownership, for Black,
Indigenous, and marginalized
people and first-generation
homeowners.
Support The City of St. Catharines is supportive of Provincial funding and
administration of these initiatives and suggest that Federal
assistance also be obtained to remove systemic barriers in
Canada’s banking system.
42 Provide provincial and federal
loan guarantees for purpose-
built rental, affordable rental,
and affordable ownership
projects.
Support Loan guarantees have been previously identified as a barrier for
purpose built rental and non-profit housing developments.
43 Enable municipalities, subject
to adverse external economic
events, to withdraw
infrastructure allocations from
any permitted projects where
construction has not been
Neutral The City of St. Catharines does not have substantial greenfield
development opportunities that would necessitate the phasing of
infrastructure and servicing capacities. Further information and
clarity on the intent of this recommendation and how it would be
implemented is necessary to better understand potential
implications.
19
initiated within three years of
build permits being issued.
44 Work with municipalities to
develop and implement a
municipal services corporation
utility model for water and
wastewater under which the
municipal corporation would
borrow and amortize costs
among customers instead of
using development charges.
Oppose Water and wastewater are Regional services.
Development Charges are predicated on “growth pays for
growth” whereas this recommendation utilizes existing taxpayers
to shoulder a portion of the burden of water and wastewater,
essentially subsidizing new development.
A municipal services corporation utility model would be
complicated in Niagara due to the sharing of responsibilities
between upper and lower tiers, and the structure of
administration. The utility model results in significant levels of
debt burden and increased rates within the City of St. Catharines
as the corporation would likely be created at the Regional level,
and the residents of the city would become responsible for
covering the costs of growth-related infrastructure in other
communities – including those with greenfield, low density sprawl
development.
45 Improve funding for colleges,
trade schools, and
apprenticeships; encourage
and incentivize municipalities,
unions and employers to
provide more on-the-job
training.
Support The Planning and Building Services Department for decades has
provided paid job placements for planning and building students
for on-the-job training and successional opportunities.
Furthermore, multiple PBS staff teach, guest lecture, and speak
at conferences to share information and educate future
professionals.
It is recommended that the Ministry of Education actively
encourage secondary students to consider the trades and
colleges as career options.
20
46 Undertake multi-stakeholder
education program to promote
skilled trades.
Support It is recommended that the MMAH, Ontario Building Official
Association (OBOA), construction trade unions (plumbing,
electricians, carpenters, HVAC, etc.), home builders associations,
cooperate on educational programs and on the job training
opportunities to replace retiring skilled trades.
47 Recommend that the federal and
provincial government prioritize
skilled trades and adjust the
immigration points system to
strongly favour needed trades
and expedite immigration status
for these workers, and
encourage the federal
government to increase from
9,000 to 20,000 the number of
immigrants admitted through
Ontario’s program.
Support Significant efforts should be made to encourage and make
working environments more respectful for women, immigrants,
people of colour, members of the LGTBQ2S and indigenous
communities.
48 The Ontario government
should establish a large
“Ontario Housing Delivery
Fund” and encourage the
federal government to match
funding. This fund should
reward:
a) Annual housing growth that
meets or exceeds provincial
targets
b) Reductions in total approval
times for new housing
Oppose The City of St. Catharines is supportive of the Province creating a
fund to establish truly affordable housing.
However, an “Ontario Housing Delivery Fund” has the following
implications:
a) Municipalities have no control over the market and are
unable to force annual housing growth to exceed
provincial targets.
b) A fund to reward reduction in approval time incentivizes
poor process and rewards substandard developments in
exchange for the possibility of obtaining a grant. It would
be more advantageous for the Province to review internal
21
c) The speedy removal of
exclusionary zoning
practices
Ministries and agencies for bottlenecks and resource
accordingly.
c) The City of St. Catharines’ Zoning By-law currently has one
of the most permissive low density zoning regulations in
the Province. Many exclusionary zoning practices were
removed City-wide in 2013.
49 Reductions in funding to
municipalities that fail to meet
provincial housing growth and
approval timeline targets
Oppose The City of St. Catharines have no control over market demand
and should not be penalized for the inability or unwillingness of a
developer to start construction. Furthermore, financial penalties
would only contribute to further application processing delays as
less staff and resources would be available to evaluate
applications.
50 Fund the adoption of consistent
municipal e-permitting systems
and encourage the federal
government to match funding.
Fund the development of
common data architecture
standards across municipalities
and provincial agencies and
require municipalities to provide
their zoning bylaws with open
data standards. Set an
implementation goal of 2025 and
make funding conditional on
established targets.
Support The City of St. Catharines was an early adopter of the AMANDA
database system and is currently implementing its e-permitting
system BuildSTC. A Provincially funded universal e-permitting
system would ensure consistency amongst municipalities for data
collection and reporting, and support small, less sophisticated
municipalities with an opportunity to modernize processes.
51 Require municipalities and the
provincial government to use the
Ministry of Finance population
projections as the basis for
Neutral The Province’s land use planning framework has been predicated
on growth targets and implementing policies in the Growth Plan.
It is unclear what implications shifting to Ministry of Finance
population projections will have on growth management and long
22
housing need analysis and
related land use requirements.
range planning conformity exercises envisions through the MCR
process.
52 Resume reporting on housing
data and require consistent
municipal reporting, enforcing
compliance as a requirement for
accessing programs under the
Ontario Housing Delivery Fund.
Neutral The City of St. Catharines currently reports to the Province
through building permit data and Financial Information Return
data.
53 Report each year at the
municipal and provincial level on
any gap between demand and
supply by housing type and
location, and make underlying
data freely available to the public.
Support The City agrees that public reporting on building statistics is
helpful and suggests that the Province create a consistent
methodology and reporting structure to support municipalities in
providing data. The Province is asked to provide clarity on how
demand will be measured.
54 Empower the Deputy Minister
of Municipal Affairs and
Housing to lead an all-of-
government committee,
including key provincial
ministries and agencies, that
meets weekly to ensure our
remaining recommendations
and any other productive ideas
are implemented.
Support The City supports the creation of a government committee
devoted to housing affordability and requests that municipal
planners be included to provide recommendations on
opportunities not explored as part of the Task Force’s mandate,
as well as on the realities of implementation.
55 Commit to evaluate these
recommendations for the next
three years with public reporting
on progress.
Neutral The City of St. Catharines is strongly opposed with several
recommendations as they will have a detrimental impact to the
livability of the City, its parkland, infrastructure, and cultural
heritage assets, for generations. The City agrees that public
reporting on building statistics is helpful and suggests that the
23
Province create a consistent methodology and reporting structure
to support municipalities in providing data.
Informing Choices. Inspiring Communities.
February 10, 2022
Hon. Steve Clark
Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing
17th Floor – 777 Bay Street
Toronto, ON
M7A 2J3
Re: OPPI’s Top 10 Housing Supply & Affordability Recommendations
Dear Minister Clark,
On behalf of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute (OPPI), I am pleased to provide our Top 10
recommended measures to address housing supply and affordability in the Province of Ontario.
This letter builds on the initial three recommendations from our December 20th submission to the
Housing Affordability Task Force. We hope you consider these additional recommendations as you
receive the Task Force report and develop the government’s action plan to address the housing
affordability crisis in Ontario.
Overview of Top 10 Recommendations
1.Create a Chief Planner of Ontario with oversight of municipal implementation of provincial plans.
2.Encourage Community Planning Permit Systems in Strategic Growth Areas.
3.Require RPP sign-off on Planning Justification Reports to ensure completeness of applications.
4.Establish a Planning Modernization Fund to align outdated zoning with Official Plans.
5.Align provincial infrastructure funding with growth planning to address servicing gaps.
6.Lead development of a single data standard for planning and development applications.
7.Enhance delegation framework for technical planning implementation approvals.
8.Drive more affordable units into the mix of new housing supply.
9.Promote innovative approaches and provide rehabilitation funding for social housing.
10.Provide provincial policy stability in land use planning once upcoming changes are in place.
About OPPI
OPPI is the recognized voice of Ontario’s planning profession. With over 4,600 members, it serves as both
the Professional Institute and regulator of Registered Professional Planners (RPP) in the province. Our
members work across the planning spectrum, for consulting firms, provincial and municipal approval
bodies, private developers, community agencies and academic institutions.
RPPs are skilled, professional, and dependable navigators employed to help lead communities towards
the Ontario of tomorrow. RPPs are the local experts who bring together differing points of view; they
3
Informing Choices. Inspiring Communities.
consult and develop recommendations that provide informed choices for decision-makers and elected
officials. RPPs act in the public interest as professionals who work to improve the quality and livability of
communities in Ontario today and for their sustainability long-term.
Introduction
OPPI has worked with the government to advance measures to streamline the land use planning
approvals process in the Province of Ontario. We recently collaborated with stakeholders across the
municipal and development sector to seek changes to the Planning Act that enhance delegation of minor
approvals. We thank Minister Clark for adopting these measures in Schedule 19 of Bill 13, Supporting
People and Businesses Act, 2021.
Additional delegation will help, but it is not the panacea for the housing affordability crisis in Ontario.
There is much more work to be done at all levels of government to create a comprehensive plan that
adequately addresses this generational challenge.
Many barriers have been identified and solutions proposed by stakeholders in the past few months
which we have read with interest. Some innovative and worthy concepts are emerging. OPPI will focus
our recommendations on measures that directly relate to actions the provincial government can take
regarding land use planning matters.
OPPI’s Top 10 Recommendations
1. Create an Office of the Chief Planner of Ontario (CPO) as an independent, non-partisan Office of
the Legislative Assembly to provide oversight of municipal implementation of provincial land use
plans and policies.
• A recent report by the Auditor General of Ontario found significant oversight, reporting and
guidance challenges relating to municipal implementation of provincial land use plans and
policies. Some of the key findings included:
o Minimal information is available on the outcomes of policies associated with the
Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The province has only once
reported on municipal implementation progress since the Plan’s inception.
o Many municipalities are falling short of targets in the Plan. Only four of the 25
Urban Growth Centres are on pace to meet their density targets by 2031.1
o Municipalities receive insufficient guidance on how to implement policies in
provincial plans. In a survey of municipal planners, 70% of respondents said they
lacked sufficient guidance or direction from provincial staff.2
1 Office of the Auditor General of Ontario (December 2021), Value-for-Money Audit: Land-Use Planning in
the Greater Golden Horseshoe, p. 26.
2 Office of the Auditor General of Ontario (December 2021), Value-for-Money Audit: Land-Use Planning in
the Greater Golden Horseshoe, p. 3.
Informing Choices. Inspiring Communities.
• The Chief Planner of Ontario (CPO) would serve to address these gaps by operating as an
arm’s length oversight and advisory function for municipal implementation of provincial
planning policy.
• The CPO would publish an annual report on progress towards implementation of provincial
land use plans and policies including growth targets. The report would include a macro
assessment of the implementation landscape. It would also include a micro review of major
municipalities to identify specific policies and/or targets that are lagging.
• The CPO would provide recommendations to municipalities that are misaligned with
provincial plans and policies on a path to conformity.
• The CPO would also assist in resolving differences amongst Provincial Ministries on land use
planning policies and plans at the municipal level.
2. Encourage Community Planning Permit Systems (CPPS) in Strategic Growth Areas by providing
implementation funding to municipalities.
• A CPPS is an existing Planning Act tool that combines Zoning By-Law Amendment, Site Plan
and Minor Variance into a single streamlined application and approval process. Once
implemented the process can significantly speed up the approval process, but there has
been limited uptake in Ontario.
• The Province should encourage use of a CPPS in Strategic Growth Areas as set out in the
Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (i.e., Urban Growth Centres, Major Transit
Station Areas, intensification corridors).
• As an incentive to drive uptake, the Province should provide full implementation funding to
municipalities that choose to implement a CPPS through the proposed Planning
Modernization Fund (further details below).
• Provincial standards should be set for a CPPS that include alignment of height and density
with the Official Plan.
3. Require Registered Professional Planner (RPP) sign-off on Planning Justification Reports to
indicate completeness of application prior to submission by a proponent.
• Municipalities have consistently raised significant concerns with delays caused by poor
quality and incomplete applications submitted by proponents.
• Currently, proponents are required to prepare a Planning Justification Report for a major
application including Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of
Subdivision, and/or Site Plan under the Planning Act. This report provides necessary
background, overview, and planning rationale for the submission.
• To improve completeness of applications, the Province should require Planning
Justification Reports be signed off by a Registered Professional Planner (RPP) prior to
Informing Choices. Inspiring Communities.
submission. The RPP would use professional judgement to attest to the completeness of the
submission.
• An upfront rigorous review by an RPP would serve to reduce unnecessary time going back
and forth between the proponent and municipality to address missing aspects of the
submission.
4. Establish a Planning Modernization Fund to align outdated zoning with Official Plans.
• Municipalities raise resourcing as the primary barrier to updating zoning after new Official
Plans are approved. This “out-of-date” zoning necessitates Zoning By-Law Amendments
which could add as many as 18 or more months to the approval process in some large
municipalities.
• The Province should create a Planning Modernization Fund that provides grants to
municipal planning departments to obtain sufficient resources to update zoning and/or
implement a CPPS to conform with new Official Plans. This can be funded by allocating 1%
of Land Transfer Tax revenue to the program on an ongoing basis to support municipal
planning capacity.
• Funding for local planning by other orders of government is not a novel concept.
Historically, the Government of Ontario has provided various planning grants including the
Community Planning Service Grant (CPSG).
• Ontario recently announced a Streamline Development Approval Fund to accelerate
processes for managing and approving housing applications. This fund could likely be used
to update zoning or implement a CPPS. However, competitive demands on this fund would
still necessitate a dedicated fund to ensure sufficient resources are allocated for these
initiatives.
5. Align provincial infrastructure funding and financing programs with the Growth Plan for the
Greater Golden Horseshoe to ensure provincial support is targeted towards essential servicing for
new housing developments.
• Servicing costs continue to be a significant impediment to making greenfield lands available
for housing development as well as realizing intensification in areas of antiquated
infrastructure. Limitations to municipal debt capacity pose challenges that often impede
adequate and timely servicing.
• Without adequate resources for key infrastructure, streamlining zoning and the application
process will have little impact on housing supply.
• The Province should review all existing municipal infrastructure funding and financing
programs and seek to prioritize support towards gaps in servicing for new housing
developments. This, in effect, would align existing water, wastewater and other provincial
funding for municipal infrastructure with growth planning.
Informing Choices. Inspiring Communities.
• In addition, the Province should also review Ontario’s Long-Term Infrastructure Plan (LTIP)
and align investments in provincially-owned assets such as schools, hospitals, and transit to
municipal growth plans.
• Private-public partnership to ensure access to reliable broadband should also be explored to
ensure new housing development has appropriate connectivity in the new age of
telecommuting.
6. Lead the development of a single data standard for planning and development applications in
collaboration with municipalities and industry.
• Some municipalities have moved towards e-permitting; however, platforms are siloed,
fragmented, and do not take into consideration the multiple government agencies that may
need to be consulted.
• There are no clear and consistent data standards or guidelines across these various
commenting and approval agencies. The outcome is a complex array of multi-layered
processes that add time and cost to the approval of housing projects.
• The Province should lead a data standardization initiative in partnership with relevant
stakeholders. Approaches could include supporting existing initiatives or conducting a joint
procurement with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO). Key principles should
include avoiding vendor lock-in and open standards.
• This can build on recent successes in the building permit space where AMO collaborated
with the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), a provincial agency, to
procure Cloudpermit as an approved e-permitting platform for building permits in Ontario.
7. Enhance delegation framework for technical planning implementation approvals.
• The Province recently expanded the ability of municipal councils to delegate minor planning
approvals. However, the Province should go further and provide heads of planning
departments with the authority to approve certain minor applications. These delegated
approvals could “bump up” to Council at its discretion.
• This would speed up the approval process by authorizing expert planning staff to review and
approve technical implementation aspects of housing projects instead of waiting for Council
meetings and agenda time.
• Delegation by elected Councils is a proven method to reduce approval timelines. A recent
survey, conducted by OPPI, found that where delegations were in place, 63% of heads of
planning departments reported a reduction in development approval timeline of 2-3
months and 11% reported a reduction of 4-5 months.
• The initial list of technical approvals that should be at the discretion of heads of planning
departments include Draft Plan of Subdivisions, Site Plan, Lifting of Holding Provisions and
Part Lot Control, Consents within the Built-Up Area, and Validation Certificates.
Informing Choices. Inspiring Communities.
8. Drive more affordable units into the mix of new housing supply.
• A comprehensive housing strategy should include a suite of policies that create incentives
for affordable housing units within the mix of new supply. These could include:
o An as-of-right framework developed in partnership with the municipal sector to
unlock affordable infill development on existing apartment sites.
o Allowing municipalities to provide density bonusing in exchange for affordability
requirements, including as part of inclusionary zoning by-laws.
o Requirement for municipalities to have a separate queue for processing
affordable housing applications to expedite approval.
o Financial incentives such as provincial rebates for Development Charges and HST
for affordable housing projects.
• The approach should also drive specific design features within new affordable housing
units, including:
o An appropriate mix of unit sizes that align with the nature of households, and in
locations with access to local transit options.
o Net zero heating and cooling, environmentally friendly elements, and higher
quality materials.
• Private-public partnerships could be pursued to achieve some of these objectives.
9. Promote innovative approaches and provide capital funding for rehabilitation of existing social
housing stock.
• Municipalities continue to struggle with maintaining existing social housing stock in a state-
of-good repair. There are stories of social housing units being decommissioned due to
health and safety concerns at a time when we face significant shortages and long waitlists.
• The Province should create a Social Housing Centre of Excellence aimed at developing and
sharing innovative solutions to address the deferred maintenance crisis in Ontario’s existing
social housing stock.
• The Centre can share best practices and provide templates and training on successful
approaches, such as ones used in the Regent Park, Lawrence Heights, or Alexandra Park
Revitalization projects.
• The Province should also provide dedicated and ongoing rehabilitation funding to social
housing providers. One approach could be to dedicate 25% of Land Transfer Tax revenue
towards the initiative.
Informing Choices. Inspiring Communities.
10. Provide provincial policy stability in land use planning once upcoming changes are in place.
• Frequent provincial reviews and changes to plans and policies serve as a barrier to new
housing development. Municipal capacity to adapt often lags changes to provincial plans.
• For example, the Province amended the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe in
2017 and provided municipalities five years to come into conformity. However, the Province
made further amendments in 2019 and then again in 2020 before municipalities had a
chance to conform to the previous changes. This further delayed the process as many
municipalities had to redo studies and planning work.
• The Auditor General of Ontario noted in her December 2021 report that, “numerous
changes in policies have created instability in the land use planning process”.
• Once the upcoming round of policy changes are in place, the Province should provide a
period of policy stability to allow municipalities to adapt to the new regime.
In implementation of upcoming policy changes, the Province should apply an equity lens to ensure
actions include solutions that address the inequities in accessing housing that Black, Indigenous, and
People of Colour (BIPOC) face.
Conclusion
Many challenges have led to Ontario’s current housing affordability crisis. Some of these go beyond the
land use planning policy framework and could be driven by a low interest rate environment, speculative
demand, labour shortages and other factors.
Within the land use planning policy regime, there are many potential changes to plans and policies that
could help accelerate housing supply, however our submission was intended to focus on our Top 10
recommendations.
As we look ahead to government consideration of recommendations by the Housing Affordability Task
Force and other stakeholders, OPPI would value an opportunity to provide ongoing advice to the Ministry
as it seeks to implement changes to address Ontario’s housing affordability crisis. We kindly request a
role in any implementation advisory tables setup by the Ministry on housing and other planning issues.
If you and/or Ministry staff have any questions on our proposed measures, please feel free to contact
Susan Wiggins at (647) 326-2328 or by email at s.wiggins@ontarioplanners.ca.
Sincerely,
Paul Lowes, M.E.S., MCIP, RPP Susan Wiggins, CAE, Hon IDC
President Executive Director
Ontario Professional Planners Institute Ontario Professional Planners Institute
Informing Choices. Inspiring Communities.
CC: Luca Bucci, Chief of Staff – Office of the Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing
CC: Kristin Jensen, Director of Policy – Office of the Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing
CC: Alex Earthy, Senior Policy Advisor – Office of the Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing
CC: Jae Truesdell, Director of Housing Policy – Office of the Premier
CC: Kate Manson-Smith, Deputy Minister – MMAH
CC: Joshua Paul, Assistant Deputy Minister of Housing Division – MMAH
CC: Sean Fraser, Assistant Deputy Minister (Acting) of Planning & Growth Division – MMAH
CC: Ewa Downarowicz, Director of Planning Policy Branch – MMAH
CC: Allyson Switzman, Manager of Legislation & Research Unit – MMAH
AMO’s Response to the
Province’s Housing Affordability
Task Force Report
A Submission to the Government of Ontario
March 1, 2022
4
2
Table of Contents
Preamble ........................................................................................................................................ 3
Municipal Housing Advocacy to Date ........................................................................................... 3
The Province’s Work on Housing Affordability ............................................................................. 3
AMO’s Response to the Province’s HATF Report .......................................................................... 4
Underlying Premises ........................................................................................................................................... 4
Importance of Municipal Decision-Making ........................................................................................................ 5
Promising Policy Outcomes ................................................................................................................................ 5
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 6
3
Preamble
AMO appreciates the province’s commitment to addressing the housing affordability and supply
crisis in Ontario. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the urgency of this work. In our view, the
province needs a made-in-Ontario housing framework.
Meaningful results will only be achieved if the social determinants of health, poverty reduction, and
climate change mitigation and adaptation, are also addressed. A new collective mindset and
transformative change is required, as tinkering around the edges will not be successful. Now is the
time to take bold action to address the systemic issues around housing affordability over the long-
term. We need a new provincial framework for housing affordability that we can all sign on to and
work together to achieve.
Municipal Housing Advocacy to Date
AMO has been actively involved in housing and homelessness work for years. Municipal
governments and District Social Service Administration Boards (DSSABs) in the North, are critical
players on the front lines and make a meaningful difference for our communities with support from
the provincial and federal governments. We are well-positioned to provide advice going forward on
what is necessary to address the housing crisis affecting our communities.
In recent years AMO has created several papers on housing that call for government action: “Fixing
the Housing Affordability Crisis: Municipal Recommendations for Housing in Ontario”(August 2019),
“Ending Homelessness in Ontario” (December 2021), and, “A Blueprint for Action: An Integrated
Approach to Address the Ontario Housing Crisis” (February 2022).
The 2019 paper made recommendations that would have served as a foundation for ongoing
conversations with both the provincial and federal governments. It called for the National Housing
Strategy framework to serve as a platform for the federal, provincial, and municipal orders of
government to come together to talk about how best to improve housing outcomes for the people
of Ontario.
The 2021 paper reiterated that the municipal role in housing and homelessness prevention cannot
be understated and provided 23 potential actions to pursue an integrated systems approach.
The 2022 AMO Blueprint advocates for bold action and leadership by all three orders of government
and private, non-profit, and co-operative housing sectors (collectively referred to as “development
sector”) to address the housing crisis in Ontario. It provides nearly 90 recommendations that, if
implemented by all parties, would improve affordability, diversify the housing mix, and increase
supply.
The Province’s Work on Housing Affordability
As you know, AMO was disappointed that in December 2021, the province created a Housing
Affordability Task Force (HATF) that lacked any municipal representation. Despite this, best efforts
were made to provide municipal perspectives in that process, in hopes that our members would
have enough time to provide reactions to the HATF report before the government proceeded.
4
AMO recognized the HATF had a narrower scope for consultation, which is why we focused instead
on commenting on the province’s Housing Affordability Survey (January 13, 2022), and making sure
there was AMO participation at the Ontario-Municipal Housing Summit (January 19, 2022), and the
Rural Housing Roundtable at the Rural Ontario Municipal Association conference (January 23, 2022).
Each of these milestones provided AMO with an opportunity to illustrate how complex the crisis is
and the need for an all-of-government approach to truly fix it. Those meetings made it clear that a
refresh to our 2019 housing positions was needed. That is why the AMO Housing Blueprint was
developed. The positions were informed by our AMO Affordable Housing and Planning Task Forces
and AMO Board of Directors who met in January and February.
Then, the province’s Housing Affordability Task Force’s (HATF) report was released on February 8,
2022. AMO’s Planning and Affordable Housing Task Forces and the AMO Executive met separately to
discuss the HATF. In the end, significant concerns were raised that many premises and
recommendations in the HATF report do not align with AMO’s positions on housing. Therefore, AMO
is writing to strongly encourage the Ministry to consider the comments below and
recommendations made in our Housing Blueprint as it considers how to move ahead with solving
these housing challenges.
AMO’s Response to the Province’s HATF Report
Based on conversations to date, AMO will not be providing thoughts on individual
recommendations in the HATF report. Members were concerned that doing so would be given that
many would require details that we do not have, and that many are based on premises that AMO
cannot support.
Rather, AMO respectfully submits high-level comments on the HATF report in hopes that the
province will consider them fully as it continues its work.
Underlying Premises
First, the HATF’s report fails to recognize the role that all orders of government and the
development industry play to meaningfully contribute to addressing the housing crisis in Ontario.
The HATF recommendations on their own will not address the housing crisis that Ontario faces.
Specifically, the private sector alone will not necessarily increase housing affordability without
government interventions through various planning and financial instruments.
Further, it seems to have been guided by the premise that the solutions are primarily at the local
level to address barriers caused by municipalities and their councils.
Finally, the scope of the report was too narrow by applying the premise that increasing any sort of
supply will address affordability. AMO does not believe this will be the case. More targeted action is
required to ensure the right mix of supply will meet the needs of the people of Ontario of all income
levels.
5
Importance of Municipal Decision-Making
The report does not recognize the insight into local issues that municipal elected officials and staff
have in relation to their communities, including how best to achieve housing targets and
intensification. A strengthened and more centralized role for the province in local planning
decisions would limit local autonomy and de-value community input.
The HATF report also focuses too much on municipal planning and development approvals. It leaves
gaps in areas that were not considered such as the bottle neck at the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT)
which has slowed down housing development and contributed to higher housing and municipal
costs. More work is needed to determine how the approval timing creates pressures on municipal
planning staff who are pulled away from approval work to focus on OLT cases. We continue to also
ask that De Novo hearings be removed from the OLT process toolbox.
There is also an assumption that municipal development charges and fees unnecessarily increase
housing costs, and do not respect the principle that growth must pay for growth. There is no
guarantee and no mechanism identified that developers would pass on the savings to consumers to
decrease the price of the home or rental unit.
Another concern is that the broader use of surety bonds has been suggested as long-term solution.
The financial risk associated with accepting a different instrument of financial security rests with the
municipality and ultimately, the local property taxpayer. The decision to accept the appropriateness
of such an instrument should remain a local decision, informed by all available evidence.
In our view, many of the recommendations put forward were done so without sufficient municipal
engagement or consideration. If implemented, they could erode local decision making and are often
punitive in nature. This is not productive when only working together constructively will result in the
outcomes we all seek.
Promising Policy Outcomes
The report has some promising policy outcomes for further investigation, including increasing the
supply of rental housing, missing middle housing, increasing second suites and garden suites, and
increasing density, particularly in Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs). The province should consider
achieving their policy objectives by establishing intensification targets and providing the necessary
funding and support for municipalities as they achieve those targets through their official plan
policies, based on their understanding of their communities.
It is critical that sufficient attention and action be given to regional differences across the province.
In some cases, how policy outcomes can be delivered need more consideration. For example, the
high cost of servicing land and staffing capacity challenges in rural and northern Ontario ought to
be recognized and addressed. As well, the complexity of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) was
mentioned but fell short of highlighting the need to revise the PPS to productively enhance growth
and development planning beyond rural Ontario’s settlement areas.
We have long advocated that with the complexity and lack of clarity between the Planning Act,
Growth Plans, and the PPS, the province needs to take immediate steps to remove ambiguity in and
between these policy instruments to assist those working with them to allow a more streamlined
approach. Additionally, the province should implement an integrated One Window approach
6
involving all provincial line ministries which should involve reasonable timelines for the line
ministries and other agencies under provincial authority.
Overall, a more comprehensive examination of the full spectrum of housing is required, including
community and supportive housing. The province must also consider innovative funding options
and financial tools, rental housing incentives and policies, investor speculation, and community
housing.
Underutilized crown land especially in northern Ontario should also be dedicated to affordable
housing options, as well as surplus public lands (such as school sites) throughout the province. We
would like to see the recommendations in the HATF appendices B and C on community housing and
government surplus land elevated to primary government consideration as part of the solution.
Conclusion
AMO encourages the provincial government to find ways to address the housing crisis in Ontario in
a way that requires all three orders of government and private, non-profit, and co-operative
housing sectors (collectively referred to as “development sector”) to work collectively to improve
affordability, diversify the housing mix, and increase supply.
AMO has done considerable work on housing from a broader viewpoint, including our most recent
Housing Blueprint. We encourage the Ministry to carefully consider the recommendations put
forward in that report as an input akin to the HATF report. Considerable work has gone into this
paper and is the combined efforts of our members who are speaking with one voice on this matter.
We can provide valuable, on-the-ground expertise of our members and are available to work with
the Ministry to finding areas for collaboration and action. Now is the time for bold, collaborative
action on housing.
2169 Queen Street East, 2nd Floor, Toronto, Ontario M4L 1J1 T: 416-362-9001 F: 416-362-9226
www.mfoa.on.ca www.oneinvestmentprogram.ca
MFOA Response to the Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability
Task Force
Introduction
About MFOA
The Municipal Finance Officers' Association of Ontario (MFOA), established in 1989, is the
professional association of municipal finance officers with more than 4500 individual members.
We represent individuals who are responsible for handling the financial affairs of municipalities
and who are key advisors to councils on matters of finance policy. MFOA promotes the interests
of our members in carrying out their statutory and other financial responsibilities through
advocacy, information sharing, networking opportunities, and through the promotion of fiscal
sustainability. We also provide members with training and education to enable continuous
professional development and to support excellence in municipal finance.
Objectives
We understand that Ontario’s Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing established the Task
Force with the mandate to focus on how to increase market housing supply and affordability.
The Task Force was requested to recommend ways to accelerate the progress in closing the
housing supply gap to improve housing affordability. In their report, the Task Force clarified that
‘housing affordability’ referred to homes that can be purchased or rented without government
support. Affordable housing (units provided at below-market rates with government support)
was not part of the mandate, however some suggestions were provided on this topic as well.
While the report offers many suggestions in the areas of planning and governance, MFOA is
limiting its comments to the recommendations that specifically affect municipal finance. Overall,
MFOA’s response is based on our extensive advocacy work surrounding development charges
and is grounded in three guiding principles:
a)Growth should pay for growth on a place-by-place basis
b)Complete, vibrant communities are good for everyone
c)Provincial legislation related to municipal governance should be enabling and permissive
General Comments
MFOA supports the Province’s commitment to addressing the issue of housing affordability in
Ontario. However, the Task Force’s report appears to assume that the challenges around the
housing crisis are caused primarily by municipalities and their councils, failing to recognize that
5
2169 Queen Street East, 2nd Floor, Toronto, Ontario M4L 1J1 T: 416-362-9001 F: 416-362-9226
www.mfoa.on.ca www.oneinvestmentprogram.ca
market pressures and regulatory barriers, such as the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), are
critical factors as well.
MFOA supports the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) in encouraging the provincial
government to find ways to address the housing crisis in Ontario in a way that requires all three
orders of government and private, non-profit, and co-operative housing sectors (collectively
referred to as the “development community”) to work collectively to improve affordability,
diversify the housing mix, and increase supply.
Recommendations Affecting Development Charges
MFOA is concerned that many of the recommendations around development charges (DCs) in
the Report are verbatim or highly similar to those raised by the development community in past
years. This is in spite of the municipal sector’s demonstrations to the Province and development
community that some of these recommendations are detrimental to financing growth
infrastructure and would saddle ratepayers with growth-related funding shortfalls. Regrettably,
the concerns consistently raised by the municipal sector are not addressed in the Report’s
recommendations. Indeed, these recommendations raise concerns regarding the fiscal
sustainability of municipalities.
Housing affordability is a complex issue driven by a multitude of factors, most of which lie
beyond municipalities’ control. While MFOA recognizes the need for greater housing supply in
Ontario, it also understands measures that put municipalities into financial difficulty or shift
growth-related capital costs onto established ratepayers do nothing to improve, and in fact may
even harm, housing affordability. A salient omission in the Task Force’s report is a recognition
that property taxes and user fees, and not merely new housing prices, are key drivers of
housing affordability. The higher are such taxes and fees, the less disposable income
households have left to spend on housing. Curtailment of DCs simply raises property taxes and
user fees to excessive levels, reducing housing affordability for all residents collectively. Artificial
DC exemptions and reductions serve only to distress municipal finances while doing nothing to
address root causes of excessive housing prices. MFOA recommends that the Province instead
focus on dismantling provincially-created barriers to housing supply, particularly barriers to
greater competition in Ontario’s development industry.
Recommendation #32. Waive development charges and parkland cash-in-lieu and charge only
modest connection fees for all infill residential projects up to 10 units or for any development
where no new material infrastructure will be required.
MFOA supports intensification of infill properties to better meet housing demand within
neighbourhoods. Concerns lie with the notion of “no new material infrastructure will be required”.
Any particular development, whether infill or not, may not require new infrastructure at time of
development since the required infrastructure would have been constructed years or decades
earlier to accommodate anticipated development. DCs are self-correcting in the sense that yet
unrecovered growth-related capital costs remain in DC rates until such time they are recovered
2169 Queen Street East, 2nd Floor, Toronto, Ontario M4L 1J1 T: 416-362-9001 F: 416-362-9226
www.mfoa.on.ca www.oneinvestmentprogram.ca
once all the development to which the costs are associated occurs. That is, yet unrecovered
portions of previously incurred growth-related capital costs are recycled through the DC
background study and by-law. Waiving DCs on infill development is simply apt to raise property
taxes and user fees. As an unintended consequence, this recommendation may also undermine
DC background studies in terms of growth and capital forecasts.
Higher intensity infill projects have a greater likelihood of requiring expanded infrastructure to
accommodate increased traffic, and higher water, sewer and storm water demands. Such
demands may result in infrastructure reaching its designed capacity limits well ahead of their DC
planned expansion time lines. While a single higher intensity infill project may not significantly
impact infrastructure requirements, several such projects throughout the whole community could
indeed stretch infrastructure capacity to its limits.
Recommendation #33. Waive development charges on all forms of affordable housing
guaranteed to be affordable for 40 years.
A number of municipalities already waive or reduce development fees for affordable housing
projects. However, requiring municipalities to track whether such housing remains in the
“affordable housing” category for a minimum of 40 years places an undue administrative burden
on municipalities. Furthermore, there is no indication in the recommendation as to what penalty
ought to apply if affordable housing is converted to market-priced housing or even to a non-
residential use. MFOA seeks clarification over the meaning of “all forms” of affordable housing.
Does this refer primarily rent-geared to income units? Are shelters and transitional housing,
which are important and necessary supportive housing units, included in this definition? Clear
parameters and guidance are needed to understand the implications of this recommendation.
Recommendation #34. Prohibit interest rates on development charges higher than a
municipality’s borrowing rate.
MFOA seeks clarification on whether this applies to the s.26.1 or s.26.2 rates under the
Development Charges Act, 1997. Are there other alternatives that could meet the intended goal
of the recommendation? Whereas DC payment deferrals are available to developers while
infrastructure construction is routinely required prior to development, artificial reductions to
interest rates are apt to simply raise DC rates as municipalities strive to ensure growth pays for
growth.
Recommendation #35. Regarding cash in lieu of parkland, s.37, Community Benefit Charges,
and development charges: a) Provincial review of reserve levels, collections and drawdowns
annually to ensure funds are being used in a timely fashion and for the intended purpose, and,
where review points to a significant concern, do not allow further collection until the situation has
been corrected. b) Except where allocated towards municipality-wide infrastructure projects,
require municipalities to spend funds in the neighbourhoods where they were collected.
2169 Queen Street East, 2nd Floor, Toronto, Ontario M4L 1J1 T: 416-362-9001 F: 416-362-9226
www.mfoa.on.ca www.oneinvestmentprogram.ca
However, where there’s a significant community need in a priority area of the City, allow for
specific ward-to-ward allocation of unspent and unallocated reserves.
(a) Municipalities already perform annual reviews of their reserves and report to their councils
accordingly. These reports were formally submitted to the Province, however, with a change
in policy, this is no longer required. Such reporting to the Province could be reinstated.
MFOA urges the Province to consider the unintended consequences of prohibiting collection
of development levies (DCs, parkland dedication and CBCs). This could result in growth-
related funding shortfalls, delays in the construction of growth infrastructure until sufficient
funding is accumulated, and delays in housing construction until development levies are
reinstated. All of these effects impede housing supply and thus housing affordability.
Intermittent disallowance of development levy collection will, moreover, create inequities as
some developments would have to pay such levies while others would not.
There is need for clarification around what is deemed “timely”. There often exists “tipping
points”, such as the timing of development projects, to initiate a project vs public opinion as
to when such construction is required. Often, there is the need to save for several years to
fund certain projects. Checks and balances are already in place, including annual reports to
council, along with regulatory requirements such as the Community Benefits Charge (CBC)
where 60% of funds need to be allocated each year.
(b) In most cases, municipalities find area-specific DCs impractical and unwarranted, as
evidenced by DC background studies. Forcing municipalities to use area-specific DCs when
they are impractical or unwarranted undermines municipal autonomy and efforts to create
complete and vibrant communities. Forcing municipalities to track DC collections at the
neighbourhood or ward level would create an undue and complicated administrative burden.
Such unintended consequences should be avoided. There is also concern about what
constitutes a “neighbourhood” and the question of who decides where one neighbourhood
ends and another begins. Not only does this recommendation seek to micromanage
municipalities, it is apt to create an administrative quagmire while provincially-imposed
administrative burdens on municipalities are already far too excessive.
It should also be noted that there is no such thing as unallocated DC or CBC reserves. By
law, all DC and CBC funds are dedicated to the growth-related projects noted in the
respective background studies.
Recommendation # 44. Work with municipalities to develop and implement a municipal services
corporation utility model for water and wastewater under which the municipal corporation would
borrow and amortize costs among customers instead of using development charges.
Please refer to the reports and letters submitted to the Province on this very topic just three
years ago from MFOA and ORSTT, AMO and Watson & Associates (dated January 2019). A
research paper published by the Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance speaks to the
2169 Queen Street East, 2nd Floor, Toronto, Ontario M4L 1J1 T: 416-362-9001 F: 416-362-9226
www.mfoa.on.ca www.oneinvestmentprogram.ca
model proposed in the recommendation that clearly demonstrates that eliminating water and
wastewater DCs would have a detrimental impact on rates.
Other Recommendations
Recommendation # 17. Requiring municipalities to compensate property owners for loss of
property value as a result of heritage designations, based on the principle of best economic use
of land.
Consideration of this recommendation should include the basis of valuation, timing of heritage
designation, who determines the best economic use of land, and municipal affordability. This
recommendation could give rise to the unintended consequence of municipalities declining to
preserve historically significant buildings and sites in order to avoid unaffordable compensation.
Recommendation # 25. Require municipalities to provide the option of pay on demand surety
bonds and letters of credit.
The option of accepting surety bonds already exists. Demanding that municipalities accept them
undermines municipal autonomy by removing municipalities’ authority to act according to their
risk profiles and preferences and by permitting developers to dictate financial security terms to
municipalities. Instead, the Province should encourage municipalities to educate themselves on
financial security alternatives, which may help incline more municipalities to accept surety
bonds.
Recommendation # 37. Align property taxes for purpose-built rental with those of condos and
low-rise homes.
MFOA is assuming this recommendation refers to reducing tax ratios for multi-residential
housing down to 1.0. If this is an incorrect assumption, please provide clarification as needed.
A provincial freeze on multi-residential taxes for municipalities with multi-residential tax ratios
above 2.0 was instituted several years ago, causing municipalities to move these tax ratios
down to 2.0. A similar freeze aimed at a target multi-residential tax ratio of 1.0 would eventually
implement this recommendation. However, it should be noted that such significant movement of
tax ratios often takes time. Municipalities should retain the decision-making power and
autonomy over how and how quickly they move towards target tax ratios.
Recommendation # 38. Amend the Planning Act and Perpetuities Act to extend the maximum
period for land leases and restrictive covenants on land to 40 or more years.
2169 Queen Street East, 2nd Floor, Toronto, Ontario M4L 1J1 T: 416-362-9001 F: 416-362-9226
www.mfoa.on.ca www.oneinvestmentprogram.ca
This would create an undue administrative burden on municipal staff to track land leases and
restrictive covenants on land for such an extended period of time.
Recommendation #39. Eliminate or reduce tax disincentives to housing growth.
Clarification is required as to whether this refers to land transfer tax or something else.
Recommendation # 48. The Ontario government should establish a large “Ontario Housing
Delivery Fund” and encourage the federal government to match funding. This fund should
reward: a) Annual housing growth that meets or exceeds provincial targets b) Reductions in
total approval times for new housing c) The speedy removal of exclusionary zoning practices.
There is no indication in the report as to appropriate parameters in the setting of targets and if
this intended to be an annual comparison or a rolling average. Concerns have been raised
around blanket targets that are province-wide or “zone-wide”. Issues are centred around low or
non-growth municipalities, growth patterns that are nonlinear or inconsistent, and unfair
comparison or increased competition between municipalities or growth areas within a
municipality. Furthermore, the basis of evaluation should be identified for consideration such as
permits issued, completed housing, and rural vs. urban development.
Recommendation #49. Reductions in funding to municipalities that fail to meet provincial
housing growth and approval timeline targets.
Clarification is sought as to what funding may be considered in this recommendation. This
recommendation may have undue financial impacts if funding outside the fund under
recommendation 48 is considered.
We appreciate the opportunity for MFOA to provide comments on the Report of the Ontario
Housing Affordability Task Force. Should you have any questions, please contact MFOA’s
Executive Director Donna Herridge (donna@mfoa.on.ca).
Staff members: Suzanna Dieleman, Manager of Policy; Christine Duong, Policy Team Lead
Niagara9/I/ Region
______________________________________________________________________
Planning and Development Services
1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way, Thorold, ON L2V 4T7
905-980-6000 Toll-free: 1-800-263-7215
Sent via e-mail: steve.clark@pc.ola.org
March 15, 2022
The Honourable Steve Clark
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
17th Floor, 777 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 2J3
Subject: Response to the Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force
Dear Minister Clark,
On February 8, 2022, the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force (“Task Force”)
published a total of 55 recommended actions aimed at increasing Ontario’s housing
supply by 1.5 million households over the next ten years. The recommendations, which
are aimed at all levels of government and their associated agencies, primarily seek to
increase “as-of-right” intensification within urban areas, streamline development
approvals and related timelines, improve tax and municipal financing, and reform the
Ontario Land Tribunal appeals process.
The Niagara Region appreciates the Province’s commitment to improving housing
affordability across Ontario. Over 20,000 of Niagara’s households were reported to have
been in core housing need as of 2016, primarily driven by a lack of affordable housing
options within the community. Given the recent surge in housing prices experienced
across the Province, rates of core housing need are have risen. Action must be taken to
ensure more housing of all types are provided to meet the needs of our growing
population.
The provision of affordable, accessible, and adequate housing is a complex matter that
requires coordination between all levels of government. The report focuses on the
inefficiencies in the land development process and how it contributes to the crisis,
however planning approvals at the municipal level are only one factor in housing
affordability. There are other economic factors contributing to the housing supply
challenge and affordability including:
- building industry capacity (lack of labour);
- supply chain and shortages in materials ; and,
- approved land supply being held back by landowners.
CWCD 2022-71 App 1
6
Memorandum
March 15, 2022
Page 2
While not addressed specifically in the Task Force’s report, the Province should also
consider the specific challenges associated with increasing the supply of community
housing (i.e. housing owned and operated by non-profit housing corporations, housing
co-operatives and municipal governments) and supportive housing. Although an
increase in market supply can address the issue of housing affordability in part, the
private sector alone cannot solve the entirety of this problem and it is the community
housing need that is the most dire and needs to be addressed. A collective effort from
all levels of government, housing service providers, and the development industry is
required to provide the necessary tools and interventions to address this problem.
The Province should also consider the unique housing challenges faced by
communities of all types and sizes, including small to medium sized cities and rural
communities. A city like Toronto versus a city like Thorold will have access to different
resources and require vastly different solutions towards the achievement of improved
housing affordability. In short, a “one-size-fits-all” approach should be avoided.
Regional and local staff have reviewed all recommendations provided by the Task
Force. At this time, the Province has not specified which, if any, policy, regulation,
and/or protocol changes the Province may elect to advance. In the absence of more
substantive details relating to the recommendations, Regional and local staff have
outlined general comments on the primary objectives and themes of the Task Force’s
report below, which are shared with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for
their consideration. In addition to this letter, a few of our local municipalities have also
indicated that they will be submitting comments on these recommendations.
Increase Density and “As of Right” Permissions
Relevant Task Force Recommendations
3. Limit exclusionary zoning in municipalities through binding provincial action:
a) Allow “as of right” residential housing up to four units and up to four storeys
on a single residential lot.
b) Modernize the Building Code and other policies to remove any barriers to
affordable construction and to ensure meaningful implementation (e.g., allow
single-staircase construction for up to four storeys, allow single egress, etc.).
Memorandum
March 15, 2022
Page 3
4.Permit “as of right” conversion of underutilized or redundant commercial
properties to residential or mixed residential and commercial use.
5.Permit as of right secondary suites, garden suites, and laneway houses
province-wide
6.Permit “as of right” multi-tenant housing (renting rooms within a dwelling)
province-wide.
7.Encourage and incentivize municipalities to increase density in areas with
excess school capacity to benefit families with children.
8.Allow “as of right” zoning up to unlimited height and unlimited density in the
immediate proximity of individual major transit stations within two years if
municipal zoning remains insufficient to meet provincial density targets.
9.Allow “as of right” zoning of six to 11 storeys with no minimum parking
requirements on any streets utilized by public transit (including streets on bus
and streetcar routes).
11.Support responsible housing growth on undeveloped land, including outside
existing municipal boundaries, by building necessary infrastructure to support
higher density housing and complete communities and applying the
recommendations of this report to all undeveloped land.
Staff is generally supportive of the objective to increase the overall density and
diversity of housing in built up areas.
Over 60% of Niagara’s current housing stock is made up of single-detached
dwellings. Although recent construction activity has begun a shift towards more
medium density builds there is a range of housing types the Region is seeking to
encourage through its new Niagara Official Plan.
Staff do support flexibility in “as of right” permissions for housing, particularly within
planned major transit station areas and strategic growth areas and in a manner that
is compatible in scale with stable residential areas; however, staff cannot support
intensification that is completely unplanned and unrestricted.
Intensification must be considered in balance with other key considerations needed
for the creation of complete communities, such as infrastructure and servicing
Memorandum
March 15, 2022
Page 4
capacity, parking requirements, impacts to neighbourhood character, access to
employment uses, and landscaping and public realm design. In the absence of
municipal oversight through zoning, there are limited tools to ensure development
and related services are planned for in a strategic manner.
Recommendation 4, Regional staff support the conversion of underutilized
commercial lands along major arterial transit routes as priority areas for mixed
residential and commercial use, provided that these sites do not serve as land
supply for population based employment.
Recommendation 11, clarification is needed to understand what is meant by
development “outside municipal boundaries”. If referring to settlement area
expansions, existing Provincial policy provides sufficient ability for municipalities to
consider adjustments to their urban and rural settlement area boundaries, and while
Regional staff support higher densities and the creation of complete communities on
potential expansion lands, staff do not support unplanned development within
natural areas or agricultural lands. Development should be directed to settlement
areas where infrastructure and service levels exists to support development vs. to
areas outside of settlement of settlement area boundaries. The resultant financial
burden on municipalites would be significant if development occurs outside of
settlement area boundaries.
Streamline Development Approvals
Relevant Task Force Recommendations
12.Create a more permissive land use, planning, and approvals system:
a)Repeal or override municipal policies, zoning, or plans that prioritize the
preservation of physical character of neighbourhood.
b)Exempt from site plan approval and public consultation all projects of 10
units or less that conform to the Official Plan and require only minor
variances
c)Establish province-wide zoning standards, or prohibitions, for minimum lot
sizes, maximum building setbacks, minimum heights, angular planes,
shadow rules, front doors, building depth, landscaping, floor space index,
and heritage view cones, and planes; restore pre-2006 site plan exclusions
Memorandum
March 15, 2022
Page 5
(colour, texture, and type of materials, window details, etc.) to the Planning
Act and reduce or eliminate minimum parking requirements; and
d)Remove any floorplate restrictions to allow larger, more efficient high-
density towers.
13.Limit municipalities from requesting or hosting additional public meetings
beyond those that are required under the Planning Act.
14.Require that public consultations provide digital participation options.
15.Require mandatory delegation of site plan approvals and minor variances to
staff or pre-approved qualified third-party technical consultants through a
simplified review and approval process, without the ability to withdraw Council’s
delegation.
16.Prevent abuse of the heritage preservation and designation process by:
a)Prohibiting the use of bulk listing on municipal heritage registers.
b)Prohibiting reactive heritage designations after a Planning Act development
application has been filed.
19.Legislate timelines at each stage of the provincial and municipal review process,
including site plan, minor variance, and provincial reviews, and deem an
application approved if the legislated response time is exceeded.
49.Reductions in funding to municipalities that fail to meet provincial housing
growth and approval timeline targets.
50.Fund the adoption of consistent municipal e-permitting systems and encourage
the federal government to match funding. Fund the development of common
data architecture standards across municipalities and provincial agencies and
require municipalities to provide their zoning bylaws with open data standards.
Set an implementation goal of 2025 and make funding conditional on
established targets.
Regional staff support the objective to streamline the development approvals
process, expand the usage of delegated approval for applications that are technical
and/or minor and nature, and reduce unnecessary delays in the delivery of needed
housing supply. However, several of the recommendations noted above impede the
ability for municipalities to consider local characteristics and existing built
environments as part of planned development. It must also be acknowledged that
development approval processes does not only rest with municipalities; there are
Memorandum
March 15, 2022
Page 6
development approval processes that take place at the provincial level and there is
the need to have appropriate staff resources available to thoses ministries and and a
commitment to streamlining provincial development approval processes as well.
NIMBY is a significant barrier for the development of affordable housing, community
housing, supportive housing, and other facilities needed for homelessness services
in particular, and presents a challenge for intensification in particular.
Addressing NIMBY requires continued dialogue, education, negotiation and
relationship building is required to demystify the perceived threats associated with
growth and development, which is where the importance of public consultation
should also be acknowledged. Public consultation allows opportunities to provide
information with local residents, allow for open dialogue, and allow a variety of
voices to be heard.
Recommendation 12 c), although staff support additional guidance for flexible
zoning standards, a Regional approach would be more appropriate. The growth
forecasts, intensification targets, and existing built form in Niagara are different from
those of Toronto and the Greater Toronto Area. A “one size fits all” approach with
such technical considerations would contribute to a homogenous urban form that
disregards local characteristics
Recommendation 13, Regional staff are of the opinion that the necessity for
additional meetings remain at the discretion of the local municipality and/or approval
authorities provided they comply with existing Planning Act timeframes.
With regards to Recommendation 16, Regional staff note that recent changes to
the Ontario Heritage Act includes statutory timeline limitations for when
municipalities can designate a property following the submission of certain
applications under the Planning Act. The conservation of culturally and historically
significant resources is a Provincial objective that merit continued priority in site
specific cases.
Reform the Ontario Land Tribunal Appeals Process
Relevant Task Force Recommendations
18.Restore the right of developers to appeal Official Plans and Municipal
Comprehensive Reviews.
20.Fund the creation of “approvals facilitators” with the authority to quickly resolve
conflicts among municipal and/or provincial authorities and ensure timelines are
met.
Memorandum
March 15, 2022
Page 7
21.Require a pre-consultation with all relevant parties at which the municipality sets
out a binding list that defines what constitutes a complete application; confirms
the number of consultations established in the previous recommendations; and
clarifies that if a member of a regulated profession such as a professional
engineer has stamped an application, the municipality has no liability and no
additional stamp is needed.
26.Require appellants to promptly seek permission (“leave to appeal”) of the
Tribunal and demonstrate that an appeal has merit, relying on evidence and
expert reports, before it is accepted.
27.Prevent abuse of process:
a) Remove right of appeal for projects with at least 30% affordable housing in
which units are guaranteed affordable for at least 40 years.
b) Require a $10,000 filing fee for third-party appeals.
c) Provide discretion to adjudicators to award full costs to the successful party
in any appeal brought by a third party or by a municipality where its council
has overridden a recommended staff approval.
28.Encourage greater use of oral decisions issued the day of the hearing, with
written reasons to follow, and allow those decisions to become binding the day
that they are issued.
29.Where it is found that a municipality has refused an application simply to avoid a
deemed approval for lack of decision, allow the Tribunal to award punitive
damages.
30.Provide funding to increase staffing (adjudicators and case managers), provide
market-competitive salaries, outsource more matters to mediators, and set
shorter time targets.
31.In clearing the existing backlog, encourage the Tribunal to prioritize projects
close to the finish line that will support housing growth and intensification, as
well as regional water or utility infrastructure decisions that will unlock significant
housing capacity.
Regional staff agree that additional changes can be made to continuously improve
the appeals process. For instance, subject to further information regarding the
manner in which these objectives are implemented, Regional staff generally support
the aims of Recommendations 20, 21, 26, 28 and 30 as a means of reducing
baseless appeals and reducing the wait times for decisions to be rendered.
Memorandum
March 15, 2022
Page 8
Regional staff are concerned, however, that measures to increase the filing fee for
appeals as outlined in Recommendation 27 b) or to introduce the ability to award
punitive costs as outlined in Recommendation 29 would essentially eliminate the
ability for residents or small interest groups to participate in the appeals.
Recommendation 18, allowing developers to appeal MCRs will result in a dramatic
slow down of the growth management process, and ultimately, the development
approvals process. In addition, there are competing interests within the development
community itself that will serve to frustrate and lengthen the appeals process. One of
the challenges of the last several years has been the instability in the planning and
development sector as a result of the long protracted appeals associated with the
original conformity excercises to the Growth Plan followed by several years of
changes to Provinical legislation and Plans. Permitting these types of appeals will
serve to undermine the Province’s goal of streamlining the approvals process and
will prevent municipalities from bringing housing on-line in an expedited fashion.
Recommendation 31, prioritization should focus on proposals that include an
affordable housing component, and should allow for equitable consideration across
the Province (i.e. in areas outside of Toronto and the Greater Toronto Area).In
clearing the existin backlog of appeals priorities should be given to municipal
initiated amendments that are appealed.
Improve Municipal Financing and Taxes
Relevant Task Force Recommendations
25.Require municipalities to provide the option of pay on demand surety bonds and
letters of credit.
32.Waive development charges and parkland cash-in-lieu and charge only modest
connection fees for all infill residential projects up to 10 units or for any
development where no new material infrastructure will be required.
33.Waive development charges on all forms of affordable housing guaranteed to be
affordable for 40 years.
34.Prohibit interest rates on development charges higher than a municipality’s
borrowing rate.
35.Regarding cash in lieu of parkland, s.37, Community Benefit Charges, and
development charges:
Memorandum
March 15, 2022
Page 9
a) Provincial review of reserve levels, collections and drawdowns annually to
ensure funds are being used in a timely fashion and for the intended
purpose, and, where review points to a significant concern, do not allow
further collection until the situation has been corrected.
b) Except where allocated towards municipality-wide infrastructure projects,
require municipalities to spend funds in the neighbourhoods where they
were collected. However, where there’s a significant community need in a
priority area of the City, allow for specific ward-to-ward allocation of unspent
and unallocated reserves.
36.Recommend that the federal government and provincial governments update
HST rebate to reflect current home prices and begin indexing the thresholds to
housing prices, and that the federal government match the provincial 75%
rebate and remove any claw back.
37.Align property taxes for purpose-built rental with those of condos and low-rise
homes.
39.Eliminate or reduce tax disincentives to housing growth.
42.Provide provincial and federal loan guarantees for purpose-built rental,
affordable rental and affordable ownership projects.
43.Enable municipalities, subject to adverse external economic events, to withdraw
infrastructure allocations from any permitted projects where construction has not
been initiated within three years of build permits being issued.
44.Work with municipalities to develop and implement a municipal services
corporation utility model for water and wastewater under which the municipal
corporation would borrow and amortize costs among customers instead of using
development charges.
The recommendations included above require further detail and analysis to provide
substantive comments. There are a number of recommendations Regional staff have
concerns with, including:
Recommendation 25, The Region does not support the use of surety bonds as they
do not offer the same financial security as a Letter of Credit.
Recommendation 32, The Region currently has grant programs for development
charges on social housing that meet specific grant program criteria. Infill units still
create a demand for regional sevices. Development Charges (DCs) help pay for the
construction of growth related infrastructure, waiving them for infill units will have
Memorandum
March 15, 2022
Page 10
impacts on the Region’s finances and will shift growth costs to existing homeowners.
Also, it is not clear what is meant by “no new material infrastructure” and this could
lead to appeals based of different interpretations.
Recommendation 33, DCs help pay for the construction of growth related
infrastructure, waiving them for affordable housing will have significant impacts on
the Region’s finances and will shift growth costs to existing taxpayer. Additional
information is required on the definition of affordable. The Region currently has grant
programs for development charges on social housing that meet specific grant
program criteria. However, occupants of this housing type still create demand for
services which are paid for by DCs. The cost of growth for these developments are
funded from Regional taxes and shift growth costs to existing homeowners which
also impacts affordability. The Provincial government should provide funding for
such programs.
Recommendation 34, The Region has concerns of the potential funding gap that
will occur if interest rates are not included in DCs, this places a greater burden on
the existing taxpayer. Municipal borrowing rates fluctuate so flexibility needs to be
provided to municipalities.
Recommendation 35(b), The Region does not support and prefers the current
flexibility to adopt area specific or Region wide charges and the flexibility to prioritize
use of DCs based on actual growth and need.
Recommendation 37, the Niagara Region has a tax policy already in place that
charges new multi-residential at the same tax rate as residential.
Recommendation 44, the Region does not support. Municipal development charge
models are effective tools to ensure growth pays for growth.
Moving Forward
Further consultation with the municipal sector is recommended before the
implementation of any strategy, actions, or regulations in response to the Task Force’s
recommendations to ensure that strong and effective solutions for facilitating the
development of affordable housing is reflected in all communities across the Province.
The Report recommendations does not address the need for additional mechanisms to
support affordable housing from Provincial and Federal governments (i.e. tax
incentives). Long-term funding from all levels of government must also be available to
provide needed support services to create healthy mixed income communities.
Memorandum
March 15, 2022
Page 11
Regional and local municipal staff are available to convene and contribute municipal
expertise and knowledge in this matter.
Respecfully,
________________________________
Diana Morreale, MCIP, RPP
Acting Driector, Community and Long Range Planning
Planning and Development, Niagara Region
Niagara Region
1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way, Thorold, ON, L2V 4T7
Waterloo City Centre | 100 Regina Street South, Waterloo, ON N2J 4A8 | P. 519.886.1550 | F. 519.747.8760 | TTY. 1.866.786.3941
The City of Waterloo is committed to providing accessible formats and communication supports for persons with disabilities. If another format would work better
for you, please contact: clerkinfo@waterloo.ca or TTY at 1-866-786-3941.
www.waterloo.ca
March 23, 2022
Hon. Steve Clark
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
College Park, 17th Floor
777 Bay St.
Toronto, ON M7A 2J3
RE: Resolution from the City of Waterloo passed March 21st, 2022 re: Ontario
Must Build it Right the First Time
Dear Minister Clark,
Please be advised that the Council of the Corporation of the City of Waterloo at its Council
meeting held on Monday, March 21st, 2022 resolved as follows:
WHEREAS the Province of Ontario adopted greenhouse gas reduction targets of
30% by 2030, and emissions from buildings represented 22% of the province’s
2017 emissions,
WHEREAS all Waterloo Region municipalities, including the City of Waterloo,
adopted greenhouse gas reduction targets of 80% below 2012 levels by 2050
and endorsed in principle a 50% reduction by 2030 interim target that requires
the support of bold and immediate provincial and federal actions,
WHEREAS greenhouse gas emissions from buildings represent 45% of all
emissions in Waterloo Region, and an important strategy in the TransformWR
community climate action strategy, adopted by all Councils in Waterloo Region,
targets new buildings to be net-zero carbon or able to transition to net-zero
carbon using region-wide building standards and building capacity and expertise
of building operators, property managers, and in the design and construction
sector,
WHEREAS the City of Waterloo recently adopted a net-zero carbon policy for
new local government buildings and endorsed a corporate greenhouse gas and
energy roadmap to achieve a 50% emissions reduction by 2030 for existing local
government buildings and net-zero emissions by 2050 (provided the provincial
electricity grid is also net-zero emissions),
WHEREAS the draft National Model Building Code proposes energy performance
tiers for new buildings and a pathway to requiring net zero ready construction in
new buildings, allowing the building industry, skilled trades, and suppliers to
adapt on a predictable and reasonable timeline while encouraging innovation;
Waterloo City Centre | 100 Regina Street South, Waterloo, ON N2J 4A8 | P. 519.886.1550 | F. 519.747.8760 | TTY. 1.866.786.3941
The City of Waterloo is committed to providing accessible formats and communication supports for persons with disabilities. If another format would work better
for you, please contact: clerkinfo@waterloo.ca or TTY at 1-866-786-3941.
www.waterloo.ca
WHEREAS the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is consulting on
changes for the next edition of the Ontario Building Code (ERO #: 019-4974) that
generally aligns with the draft National Model Building Code except it does not
propose adopting energy performance tiers, it does not propose timelines for
increasing minimum energy performance standards step-by-step to the highest
energy performance tier, and, according to Efficiency Canada and The
Atmospheric Fund, it proposes adopting minimum energy performance standards
that do not materially improve on the requirements in the current Ontario Building
code;
WHEREAS buildings with better energy performance provide owners and
occupants with lower energy bills, improved building comfort, and resilience from
power disruptions that are expected to be more common in a changing climate,
tackling both inequality and energy poverty;
WHEREAS municipalities are already leading the way in adopting or developing
energy performance tiers as part of Green Development Standards, including
Toronto and Whitby with adopted standards and Ottawa, Pickering, and others
with standards in development;
WHEREAS the City of Waterloo is finalizing Green Development Standards for its
west side employment lands and actively pursuing Green Development
Standards in partnership with the Region of Waterloo, the Cities of Kitchener and
Cambridge, and all local electricity and gas utilities through WR Community
Energy;
WHEREAS while expensive retrofits of the current building stock to achieve
future net zero requirements could be aligned with end-of-life replacement cycles
to be more cost-efficient, new buildings that are not constructed to be net zero
ready will require substantial retrofits before end-of-life replacement cycles at
significantly more cost, making it more cost-efficient to build it right the first time.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council request the Province of Ontario
to include energy performance tiers and timelines for increasing minimum energy
performance standards step-by-step to the highest energy performance tier in the
next edition of the Ontario Building Code, consistent with the intent of the draft
National Model Building Code and the necessity of bold and immediate provincial
action on climate change;
THAT Council request the Province of Ontario to adopt a more ambitious energy
performance tier of the draft National Model Building Code as the minimum
requirement for the next edition of the Ontario Building Code than those currently
proposed;
Waterloo City Centre | 100 Regina Street South, Waterloo, ON N2J 4A8 | P. 519.886.1550 | F. 519.747.8760 | TTY. 1.866.786.3941
The City of Waterloo is committed to providing accessible formats and communication supports for persons with disabilities. If another format would work better
for you, please contact: clerkinfo@waterloo.ca or TTY at 1-866-786-3941.
www.waterloo.ca
THAT Council request the Province of Ontario provide authority to municipalities
to adopt a specific higher energy performance tier than the Ontario Building
Code, which would provide more consistency for developers and homebuilders
than the emerging patchwork of municipal Green Development Standards;
THAT Council request the Province of Ontario to facilitate capacity, education
and training in the implementation of the National Model Building Code for
municipal planning and building inspection staff, developers, and homebuilders to
help build capacity; and
THAT this resolution be provided to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing,
to area MPPs, and to all Ontario Municipalities.
Please accept this letter for information purposes only.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Julie Scott
City Clerk, City of Waterloo
CC (by email):
Catherine Fife, M.P.P (Waterloo)
Laura Mae Lindo, M.P.P (Kitchener Centre)
Belinda C. Karahalios, M.P.P (Cambridge)
Amy Fee, M.P.P (Kitchener-South Hespeler)
Mike Harris, M.P.P (Kitchener-Conestoga)
Corporation of the Township of Cramahe
P.O. Box 357, Colborne, Ontario K0K 1S0 • T (905)355-2821 • F (905)355-3430
April 27, 2022
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Office of the Minister
777 Bay Street, 17th Floor
Toronto, ON
M7A 2J3
Overview of Bill 109, More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022 – PLAN-23-22
Resolution No.2022-121
Moved by Councillor Clark
Seconded by Councillor Van Egmond
BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council receive Report PLAN-2022-23 for information; and
THAT Council direct staff to prepare a resolution letter to be endorsed by Council, signed by the
mayor, and sent to David Piccini, MPP and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing prior to
April 29, 2022.
CARRIED.
Re: Bill 109: More Homes for Everyone Act
Dear Minister Clark,
This letter is in response to the request for feedback concerning Bill 109 in addition to the April
20, 2022 Information Session and Technical Overview for Bill 109 presented by the Ministry of
Municipal Affairs and Housing.
It is acknowledged that housing affordability and availability is becoming a serious issue in the
province of Ontario, however it is the concern of many that the proposed changes will not
achieve the goals being set for expediting the housing project process.
Whereas the Township of Cramahe supports housing supply initiatives, especially initiatives that
balanced and sustainable growth which is a key objective of its Strategic Plan, the Township of
Cramahe and the Northumberland County Official Plans . Although all Municipalities are wanting
to expediate housing project processes, it is difficult to see how the proposed changes are
executing this goal responsibly.
Whereas municipalities, including the Township of Cramahe, are facing unprecedented
development pressures, complex development files, and ongoing resource challenges on the
heels of a global pandemic.
Corporation of the Township of Cramahe
P.O. Box 357, Colborne, Ontario K0K 1S0 • T (905)355-2821 • F (905)355-3430
Whereas the Province of Ontario through the Homes for Everyone Act, 2022 proposes to:
enact legislation to refund application fees should certain planning approvals not be
issued within prescribed timeframes;
regulate the supporting materials necessary for a complete site plan application; and,
to provide limitations on the types of subdivision conditions that can be imposed on
development applications.
Now therefore be it resolved that while Council for the Township of Cramahe generally supports
many of the revisions to provincial legislation to support increased housing supply, the
Township of Cramahe respectfully objects to:
1. Refunding development application fees that would result in lost revenue for staff time spent
on files, and which delays may not be attributed to a lack of staff resources on the file, but
rather the result of increasingly complex matters that impact timeframes and are largely
outside the control of municipal planning departments, including the quality and timeliness of
application material by the applicant and/or their consulting team.
2. Prescribing the requirements for a complete site plan application. At the pre-consultation
stage together with staff and agencies a detailed list of requirements for the complete site
application is provided. Municipal and agency staff together with the applicant work well to
scope the types of studies and level of detail through approved Terms of Reference, as
required. This practice should be left to Municipalities, with appeal rights provided to the
applicant under the Planning Act, should a dispute arise.
3. Limiting the types of conditions of approval for Draft Plans of Subdivision may impact staff
and Councils’ ability to appropriately respond to the unique and complex nature of
development applications and to best protect the interests of the Municipality. The applicant
has the right to appeal under the Planning Act should a dispute arise.
And further that that this resolution be circulated to David Piccini, MPP and through the
Provincial commenting window for the More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
Mandy Martin
Mayor
Township of Cramahe
(905) 376-7241
mmartin@cramahe.ca
cc. Members of Council
David Piccini, MPP
Municipal Clerk
Town of Arnprior Support for Humanitarian Efforts in Ukraine
To Whom it may concern,
Council of the Corporation of the Town of Arnprior passed the following resolution regarding supporting Ukraine in these difficult times. Council at their meeting, requested staff provide this resolution to all municipalities in the province of Ontario for their information.
Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Arnprior supports our Federal, Provincial and local municipalities in condemning the aggression and violent acts that Russia is taking upon Ukraine; and
Whereas on March 2, 2022 Mayor Stack issued a press release voicing the
Town’s support of “the Ukrainian people, who are fighting bravely against the invading Russian forces” and asked that everyone in Arnprior keep “these brave souls in our hearts and minds, and hope for a swift end to this conflict,” and
Whereas the clock at the D.A. Gillies (Museum) will stay lit in blue and yellow until the attacks cease. Therefore Be It Resolved That:
1. That Council support the humanitarian efforts in Ukraine with a $1000.00 donation to the Canadian Red Cross Ukraine Humanitarian Crisis Appeal. 2. That the Mayor send a letter to the Ukrainian Embassy in Ottawa in
support and solidarity of those in Ukraine, their friends and families across the globe and those of Ukrainian heritage within our community. The Town of Arnprior has sent a donation to the Canadian Red Cross Ukraine
Humanitarian Crisis Appeal, and the Mayor has issued a letter to the Ukrainian Embassy in Ottawa, as noted. Sincerely,
Kaila Zamojski Deputy Clerk Town of Arnprior 613-623-4231 Ext. 1818
REPORT
CAO
TO: Mayor & Members of Council
FROM: Thomas Thayer, CMO, CAO|Clerk
DATE: May 5, 2022
REPORT: CAO-17/22
SUBJECT: SOUTHWEST TOURISM RELIEF FUND APPLICATION
BACKGROUND
Ontario’s Southwest Tourism Relief Fund (STRF) is a Federal investment program operated by
the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (FedDev Ontario) and aims to
support tourism businesses and organizations to adapt their operations, facilitate growth, and
position Ontario’s Southwest to be a destination of choice for both domestic and international
visitors.
The STRF has identified the following types of eligible projects:
• Creating, adapting, and enhancing protocols and permanent infrastructure to meet health and
safety requirements to accommodate visitors;
• Modernizing operations, attractions, greening initiatives, and online sales services;
• Supporting businesses with the local promotion of tourism products, including digital and
virtual reality experiences;
• Developing capacity for more inclusive tourism experiences (e.g., staff training to ensure
welcoming, inclusive environments to diverse clientele, gender-neutral washroom facilities);
• Providing support to local communities to develop sustainable tourism plans based on
research and market analysis, and designed to rebuild tourism confidence in communities;
• Supporting seasonal dispersion by equipping tourism SMEs to extend their product offering to
increase visitation during the winter and shoulder seasons;
• Implementation of tourism plans that create or improve local assets, facilities, and planning for
key infrastructure;
• Developing and enhancing tourism services and experiences; and,
• Implementing strategies to re-activate and animate downtown cores, main streets and
business districts through activities, public art, and mixed-use spaces.
Potential project areas include:
• Winter and shoulder tourism
• Indigenous tourism
• Rural and remote tourism
• Culinary tourism
• Inclusive tourism
• Environmentally sustainable
• Innovative and bold - unique ideas and opportunities
Municipalities are eligible for 100% funding on projects between $20,000 and $100,000. The
application deadline is May 15, 2022.
DISCUSSION
The Municipality actively applies for grant funding to assist in the provision and upgrade of
infrastructure and recreation services in the municipality to help offset any necessity to utilize
tax levies or reserves.
Based on the criteria and priorities of STRF funding, staff are seeking Council support to submit
a STRF application to upgrade the exterior of the Port Burwell Historic Lighthouse, which would
modernize the Lighthouse and enhance tourism infrastructure in Bayham. The current exterior
cladding is vinyl and is wearing and susceptible to water intrusion, requiring full replacement.
Historically, the Port Burwell Lighthouse was constructed in 1840 and is the oldest wooden
lighthouse on the Canadian shore of Lake Erie and one of the oldest surviving in Canada. On
October 22, 1985, the Village of Port Burwell designated the Port Burwell Lighthouse as a
property of architectural and historical value or interest under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage
Act, 1974, SO c122.
Council has addressed and has been supportive of this matter previously, having received
Report CAO 44/19, which identified that an application had been submitted to the Canadian
Experiences Fund for $184,000 for the works. Further, Council received Report CAO-22/21 in
July 2021, which sought Council support to submit an application to the Canadian Communities
Revitalization Fund (CCRF) for this project, and although the Municipality has not formally
received notice that the application was unsuccessful, staff are recommending looking at other
options to fund these works.
Council will also note that, by the way of Report TR-07/22 re 2021 Surplus Allocation, Council
has approved the allocation of $125,000 to the Facilities Reserve for this specific project so any
funding received through the STRF would offset allocated project costs and free up Facilities
Reserve funds for other capital ventures.
Staff did meet virtually with a grant consultant associated with the STRF to confirm eligibility and
applicability of such an application. It was determined that this project fits within the scope of the
STRF criteria as it involves the enhancement of permanent infrastructure by visually improving a
cultural, main-street asset in Port Burwell that also acts as a historic beacon and tourist
attraction for the community. It is to be noted that the STRF generally focuses on grants that
apply to soft costs rather than hard costs (i.e. capital), but will consider hard costs if a strong
rationale can be provided.
From a funding perspective, the STRF would provide up to 100% funding for the works
identified. It is expected the Municipality would apply for $100,000, which would subsidize the
capital funds already allocated for the project and free up funds for other capital works or as a
contingency to address cost overruns on other short-term capital needs.
RECOMMENDATION
1. THAT Report CAO-17/22 re Southwest Tourism Relief Fund Application be received for
information;
2. AND THAT Council support an application to the STRF for the upgrade of the exterior of
the Port Burwell Historic Lighthouse.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Thomas Thayer, CMO
CAO|Clerk
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
BY-LAW NO. 2022-031
A BY-LAW TO AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
AND DUNCOR ENTERPRISES INC.
WHEREAS the Municipality of Bayham, through Elgin County, contracts for the completion of
various surface treatment applications;
AND WHEREAS the County of Elgin issued Tender 2022-T11, being a tender for road
surface treatment;
AND WHEREAS Duncor Enterprises Inc. was the successful bidder for Tender 2022-T11;
AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham is desirous of
entering into an agreement with Duncor Enterprises Inc. for surface treatment applications;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY
OF BAYHAM ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. THAT the Mayor and Clerk be and are hereby authorized to execute the Agreement
attached hereto as Schedule “A” and forming part of this by-law between The
Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham and Duncor Enterprises Inc., being an
agreement respecting surface treatment applications;
2. AND THAT this by-law shall come into full force and effect upon final passing.
READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 5th DAY OF
MAY, 2022.
___________________________ _____________________________
MAYOR CLERK
Page 1 of 3
THIS AGREEMENT DATED THE 5th DAY OF MAY, 2022
BETWEEN:
The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham
(Hereinafter called the “Municipality”
of the First Part
and
Duncor Enterprises Inc.
(Hereinafter called the "Contractor")
of the Second Part
WHEREAS the Municipality, through Elgin County, contracts for the completion of various surface
treatment applications;
NOW THEREFORE IN CONSIDERATION OF the mutual covenants herein contained, the payments
required hereby, and such other consideration as the parties hereto deem acceptable, the parties
agree as follows:
Section 1 - General Provisions
1.1 A general description of work is to provide all the labour, equipment and materials required for
Surface Treatment in the Municipality of Bayham pursuant to Elgin County Tender 2022-T11;
1.2 In respect of such work and except as otherwise specifically provided, the Contractor, at his own
expense, shall provide all and every kind of labour, machinery, plant, structures, roadways and
materials necessary for the due execution and completion of all the work set out in this Contract
and shall forthwith according to the instructions of the Municipality commence the works and
diligently execute the respective portions thereof; and deliver the works complete in every
particular to the Municipality within the time specified in the Tender.
1.3 Elgin County Tender 2022-T11 shall form part of this Agreement.
1.4 The Contractor shall be responsible for any damage made to Municipal or private property. Any
damage will be repaired at the expense of the Contractor and approved by the Municipality.
1.5 The Contractor shall maintain and pay for Comprehensive General Liability Insurance in an
amount of not less than two million ($2,000,000.00) naming the Municipality of Bayham as an
additional insured in respect of all operations performed by or on behalf of the Municipality. The
coverage shall not be altered, cancelled or allowed to expire or lapse without thirty (30) days
prior written notice to the Municipality. A Certificate of Insurance shall be filed with the
Municipality upon the signing of the Agreement and be maintained in place for the duration of
the agreement.
Page 2 of 3
1.6 The Contractor shall agree to fulfil all of his obligations in compliance with the Occupational
Health and Safety Act and further agrees to take responsibility for any health and safety violation
that may occur. The Contractor shall indemnify and save harmless the Municipality from any
and all charges, fines, penalties and costs that may be incurred of paid by the Municipality.
1.7 The contractor shall provide a Certificate from Workplace Safety and Insurance Board indicating
that all payments by the Contractor to the WSIB in conjunction with this Agreement have been
made and that the Municipality will not be liable to the Board for future payments in connection
with the Agreement. The Certificate shall be provided upon signing of the Agreement and yearly
thereafter until the expiry or termination of this Agreement.
Section 2 – Administration
2.1 This Agreement shall take effect on the 5th day of May 2022, and shall remain in
effect until December 31, 2022.
2.2 Payment shall be made net thirty (30) calendar days following receipt of invoice.
2.3 Any notice required to be given under this Agreement must be in writing to the
applicable address set out below:
(a) in the case of the Municipality:
Municipality of Bayham
PO Box 160
56169 Heritage Line
Straffordville, ON N0J 1Y0
Office: (519) 866-5521
Email: eroloson@bayham.on.ca
(b) in the case of the Contractor:
Duncor Enterprises Inc.
101 Big Bay Point Road
Barrie, ON
L4N 8M5
Email: MichelleChisholm@duncor.ca
2.4 In construing this Agreement, words in the singular shall include the plural and vice versa and
words importing the masculine shall include the feminine, and the neuter and vice versa, and
words importing persons shall include corporations and vice versa.
Page 3 of 3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have duly executed this Agreement this 5th day of May, 2022.
Authorized by ) THE CORPORATION OF THE
Bayham By-law No. 2022-031 ) MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
)
)
) _____________________________
) Mayor
)
) _____________________________
) Clerk
)
WITNESS WHEREOF the part of the Second Part has hereunto set is hand and seal.
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED, this 5th day of May, 2022.
In the presence of )
)
)
_______________________ ) ______________________________
Witness: ) Duncor Enterprises Inc.
SURFACE TREATMENT AND
MICROSURFACING
Request for Tender
No. 2022-T11
ELECTRONIC BID SUBMISSIONS ONLY
Bid Submissions shall be received by the Bidding System no later than:
March 18, 2022
3:00 p.m. (local time)
Issued: February 24, 2022
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................................................... 1
DATA SHEET FOR BIDDERS ............................................................................................................ 4
DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS .......................................................................................... 5
DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................. 5 INTERPRETATIONS .................................................................................................. 7
PART ONE – INFORMATION FOR BIDDERS ................................................................................... 8
1.1 CONTRACT / INTENT ..................................................................................... 8 1.2 BID SUBMISSION ........................................................................................... 8 1.3 INQUIRY / QUESTIONS ................................................................................. 9 1.4 SUBSURFACE SOILS - TEST PITS – N/A .................................................. 10 1.5 ADDENDA ..................................................................................................... 10
1.6 ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS .......................................................................... 10 1.7 NON-EXCLUSIVE ......................................................................................... 10 1.8 EVALUATION ................................................................................................ 11 1.9 BID BOND (DEPOSIT) AND AGREEMENT TO BOND ............................... 11
1.10 PROOF OF ABILITY ..................................................................................... 12
1.11 SUBCONTRACTOR(S) ................................................................................. 12 1.12 PROCUREMENT POLICY ............................................................................ 12
PART TWO – GENERAL TERMS & CONDITIONS ......................................................................... 13
2.1 GENERAL ...................................................................................................... 13
2.2 CONTRACTOR'S INSOLVENCY ................................................................. 13
2.3 DEFAULT / NON-PERFORMANCE ............................................................. 13 2.4 PROTECTION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES ............................................. 14 2.5 RESTORATION ............................................................................................. 14 2.6 UNLOADING .................................................................................................. 14
2.7 UTILITIES ...................................................................................................... 14
2.8 ELECTRICAL SAFETY AUTHORITY ........................................................... 14 2.9 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND DISPOSAL OF DEBRIS ............. 14 2.10 PROTECTION OF WATER QUALITY .......................................................... 15 2.11 MUNICIPAL ROADS ..................................................................................... 15
2.12 IRON BAR MONUMENTS ............................................................................ 15
2.13 DUST CONTROL .......................................................................................... 15 2.14 NOISE ABATEMENT .................................................................................... 16 2.15 FREEZING WEATHER ................................................................................. 16 2.16 MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC, ACCESS AND SIGN REQUIREMENTS ... 16
2.17 COMPLAINTS AND CLAIMS FROM THE PUBLIC ..................................... 16
2.18 GARBAGE COLLECTION ............................................................................. 16 2.19 CLEAN - UP REINSTATEMENT ................................................................... 17
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 2
2.20 EMERGENCY AND MAINTENANCE MEASURES ..................................... 17
2.21 CHARACTER OF WORKERS ...................................................................... 17 2.22 PROJECT SITE WORKING CONDITIONS .................................................. 17 2.23 TEMPORARY BUILDINGS ........................................................................... 17 2.24 UNIT PRICES ................................................................................................ 18
2.25 QUANTITIES ................................................................................................. 18
2.26 TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE ......................................................................... 18 2.27 SHOP DRAWINGS ........................................................................................ 18 2.28 SUB-SURFACE CONDITIONS ..................................................................... 19 2.29 INSPECTION OF WORK .............................................................................. 19
2.30 EMERGENCIES ............................................................................................ 19
2.31 CLAIMS, NEGOTIATIONS, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION ................... 19
PART THREE – STANDARD TERMS & CONDITIONS .................................................................. 20
3.1 RIGHTS OF THE COUNTY .......................................................................... 20 3.2 GENERAL NOTES TO BIDDERS ................................................................ 21 3.3 ASSIGNMENT ............................................................................................... 22
3.4 REQUIREMENTS AT TIME OF CONTRACT EXECUTION ........................ 22 3.5 INSURANCE .................................................................................................. 23 3.6 INDEMNIFICATION ....................................................................................... 24 3.7 CONTRACTOR'S LIABILITY AND WSIB COVERAGE ............................... 24 3.8 CARE AND HANDLING ................................................................................ 26
3.9 DEFECTS TO BE MADE GOOD .................................................................. 27 3.10 COUNTY NOT EMPLOYER ......................................................................... 27 3.11 PATENTS AND COPYRIGHTS .................................................................... 27 3.12 CONFLICT OF INTEREST ............................................................................ 27 3.13 STANDARDS AND LEGISLATION: FAILURE TO COMPLY ..................... 28
3.14 FAILURE OF EXECUTION OF CONTRACT ............................................... 28 3.15 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND ACTS ..................................................... 28 3.16 PERMITS AND FEES .................................................................................... 28 3.17 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION .................................................................... 29 3.18 ACCESSIBILITY REGULATIONS FOR CONTRACTED SERVICES ......... 29
3.19 ORIGIN OF GOODS AND SERVICES ......................................................... 29 3.20 SAMPLES ...................................................................................................... 30 3.21 FAIR WAGES ................................................................................................ 30 3.22 EMPLOYMENT .............................................................................................. 30
3.23 ERRORS, OMISSIONS IN THE COUNTY DOCUMENTS .......................... 30
PART FOUR – SPECIAL TERMS & CONDITIONS ......................................................................... 31
4.1 GENERAL WORK ......................................................................................... 31 4.2 WORK LOCATIONS ...................................................................................... 31 4.3 MAP / DRAWINGS ........................................................................................ 32
4.4 SITE EXAMINATION ..................................................................................... 33
4.5 START OF CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................... 33 4.6 WORK COMPLETION SCHEDULE ............................................................. 33
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 3
4.7 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ..................................................................... 33
4.8 ERRORS AND OMISSIONS OF THE CONTRACTOR ............................... 34 4.9 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES .............................................................................. 34 4.10 FORCE MAJEURE ........................................................................................ 34 4.11 MAINTENANCE/WARRANTY PERIOD ....................................................... 34
4.12 CHANGES TO EQUIPMENT OR SERVICES .............................................. 35
4.13 TERMS OF PAYMENT .................................................................................. 35 4.14 AGREEMENT ................................................................................................ 36 4.15 CONTINGENCY AND PROVISIONAL ITEMS ............................................. 36 4.16 EXTRA WORK ............................................................................................... 36
4.17 PIGGYBACK CONTRACTS – ASSOCIATED MUNICIPALITIES ............... 37
PART FIVE – CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS ................................................................................ 38
5.1 GENERAL ...................................................................................................... 38 5.2 MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS - MICROSURFACING ................................ 38 5.3 MIX DESIGN AND CONTROL ...................................................................... 38 5.4 COMPOSITION OF MICROSURFACING .................................................... 39
5.5 PLANT AND EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 39 5.6 SPREADING EQUIPMENT ........................................................................... 40 5.7 CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................................... 40 5.8 PREPARATION OF THE SURFACE ............................................................ 41 5.9 SURFACE TREATMENT .............................................................................. 41
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................... 43
APPENDIX A - SAMPLE FORM OF AGREEMENT ................................................ 44 BID FORMS ………………………………………………………………………Attached
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 4
DATA SHEET FOR BIDDERS
Tender No. 2022-T11
Project Name and Description
Surface Treatment and Microsurfacing on Various Roads in
the County of Elgin. The RFT includes work for the County
as well as work for the following Associated Municipalities: - Township of Malahide - Municipality of Bayham - Municipality of Central Elgin
Bid Submission Type Electronic Bid Submission only
Closing Date and Time March 18, 2022 @ 3:00:59 pm (local time)
Test Pits / Pre-Tender Meeting N/A
Deadline for Questions March 11, 2022 @ 4:00 pm
Bid Bond / Deposit 10% of contract price, excluding HST
Bonding – Performance 100% of contract price, excluding HST
Bonding – Labour & Material 50% of contract price, excluding HST
Open for Acceptance Ninety (90) Calendar days
Tentative Commencement Date July 4, 2022
Completion Date August 26, 2022
Working Days N/A
Maintenance Term Twelve (12) months from the date of substantial completion
Liquidated Damages $1000 per calendar day
Project Bonus N/A
Contract Administrator County of Elgin – Engineering Services (Part 1 work only)
Contracts Separate Contracts are required between the Contractor and the County of Elgin and each of any Associated Municipality awarded
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 5
DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS
DEFINITIONS Wherever a term set out below appears in the text of this Request for Tender (RFT) capitalized and in italics, the term shall have the meaning set out for it in this Section. Wherever a term below appears in the text of this RFT in lower case, it shall be deemed to have the meaning ordinarily attributed to it in the English
language. (a) Alternative means a choice of things, each being fully compliant. (b) Associated Municipalities or associated municipalities collectively refers to the municipalities
participating in this Request for Tender and includes the Township of Malahide, Municipality of Bayham and the Municipality of Central Elgin. (c) Bidder(s) means all persons, partnerships or corporations who respond to this RFT, and includes
their heirs, successors, and permitted assigns.
(d) Bidding System means the County’s bid portal website operated by bids&tenders™ and posted as https://elgincounty.bidsandtenders.ca/Module/Tenders/en
(e) County means the Corporation of the County of Elgin and includes its successors and assigns and,
where applicable and context requires, shall be deemed to include any one or more Associated Municipality by whom work contemplated by this RFT upon any local road within the territorial limits of such Associated Municipality has been awarded to the successful bidder hereunder.
(f) Contract means the agreement to be entered into between the Contractor and the County with
respect to the supply of the Equipment and Services. It shall be based upon this RFT, with any agreed upon amendments, and shall also include any plans and specifications and will be held to cover the supply of any and all work, labour, implements and materials that could be reasonably required to properly and satisfactorily supply the Equipment or Services.
(g) Contract Administrator means Elgin County Engineering Services, who will provide contract administration and inspection services for the County’s portion of this project. (h) Contractor means the Bidder(s) whose Tender(s) is/are accepted and who has/have agreed to
supply the Equipment and Services as described in the Contract. In either case, the term extends to
its legal representatives, successors and permitted assigns, agents, employees, sub-Contractors and suppliers. (i) Equipment means all goods, materials, articles, equipment, software, intellectual property (or any
part of them) and vehicles as described in the Specifications and acquired through the inclusion of
such equipment in a schedule to the Contract from time to time throughout the term of the Contract. (j) Improper means a Tender that is not in conformity in some manner with the requirements of this
RFT but will be reviewed by the County to determine whether it may be considered in the evaluation
process, in the sole and unfettered discretion of the County.
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 6
(k) RFT means this Request for Tender document, including all schedules, parts and attachments, as issued by the County, including any addenda or amendments made to it after initial issue. (l) Services means the services as required and described in Part Four and Five of this RFT.
(m) Successful Bidder means the Bidder(s) whose Tender(s) is/are accepted and who has/have agreed to supply the Equipment and Services as described in the Contract. In either case, the term extends to its legal representatives, successors and permitted assigns, agents, employees, sub-Contractors and suppliers.
(n) Tender(s) means the Bidder’s electronic submission in response to this RFT, including the specifications, directions, specifications, schedules and requirements, together with all documents of any description and agreements made or to be made pertaining to the method of supplying the
Equipment or Services or to the quantities as shown of acceptable materials to be furnished under
the Contract.
(o) Total Acquisition Cost means the sum of all costs, including purchase price, all taxes, warranty, life cycle cost, operating and disposal costs.
(p) Working Day means is defined as any day:
i. except Saturdays, Sundays and Statutory Holidays. ii. Except a day on which the Contractor is prevented by inclement weather, or conditions resulting immediately therefrom, adverse to controlling operation or operations, as determined by the County of Elgin from proceeding with at least 60% of the normal labour and equipment force
engaged on such operation or operations for at least five (5) hours towards completion of such
operation or operations. A controlling operation or operations is to be construed to include any feature of work considered at the time by the County of Elgin and the Contractor which if delayed will delay the time of completion of the Contract.
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 7
INTERPRETATIONS
The following rules of interpretation apply: (a) The term ‘best value’ means the most cost efficient and effective manner of supplying the Equipment
or Services in the sole and unfettered opinion of the County.
(b) Each reference to Provincial legislation in this RFT, unless otherwise specified, is a reference to the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990 edition, and, in every case, includes all applicable amendments to the legislation, including successor legislation.
(c) The words “shall”, “will”, and “must” used in this RFT denote imperative and mean “a requirement having a significant degree of importance to the objective of this RFT”. (d) The words “should” or “may” used in this RFT denotes permissive.
(e) The word “and” is an inclusive conjunction, the use of which indicates that all items or phrases in the subsection, article, or list in which it appears are permitted or required, as the case may be. The word “or” is an alternate conjunction, the use of which indicates that alternate or optional items or phrases in the subsection, article or list in which it appears are permitted or required, as the case
may be; however, notwithstanding the foregoing, where the context permits, the word “or” may also
be an inclusive conjunction having the same meaning as the word “and”. (f) Even if otherwise indicated within, any section of this RFT and as context so requires, any reference to “County” herein shall be deemed to include reference to any one or more Associated Municipality
or Associated Municipalities or words to that effect.
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 8
PART ONE – INFORMATION FOR BIDDERS
1.1 CONTRACT / INTENT
The County invites qualified experienced Contractor(s) to respond to this Request for Tender for
the supply of all labour, equipment and materials to supply and place Surface Treatment and
Microsurfacing on various roads throughout the County including roads under the separate ownership and jurisdiction of the County and, individually, each Associated Municipality, in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, appendices and attachments of this RFT. It is the intent of the County to secure one Contractor.
The intent of this RFT is to secure the equipment or services outlined herein in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, appendices and attachments of this RFT. The County may or may not enter into a Contract as a result of the issuance of this RFT. The County may accept any
Tender in whole or in part, whether the price or prices be the lowest or not, and may reject any and all Tenders. This RFT includes proposed work for the County in addition to work for any one or more, or none, of the Associated Municipalities. Locations and quantities of work are listed in Section 4.2 (Work
Locations) of this RFT.
1.2 BID SUBMISSION
ELECTRONIC BID SUBMISSIONS ONLY, shall be received by the Bidding System. Hardcopy
submissions not permitted. All Bidders shall have a Bidding System Vendor account and be registered as a Plan Taker for this Bid opportunity, which will enable the Bidder to download the Request for Tender document, download Addendums, receive email notifications pertaining to this bid opportunity and to submit
their bid electronically through the Bidding System. Bidders are cautioned that the timing of their Bid Submission is based on when the Bid is RECEIVED by the Bidding System, not when a Bid is submitted, as Bid transmission can be delayed due to file
transfer size, transmission speed, etc.
For the above reasons, it is recommended that sufficient time to complete your Bid Submission and attachment(s) (if applicable) and to resolve any issues that may arise. The closing time and date shall be determined by the Bidding System’s web clock.
Bidders should contact bids&tenders support listed below, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the closing time and date, if they encounter any problems. The Bidding System will send a confirmation email to the Bidder advising that their bid was submitted successfully. If you do not receive a confirmation email, contact bids&tenders™ support at support@bidsandtenders.ca.
Late Bids are not permitted by the County’s Bidding System.
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 9
To ensure receipt of the latest information and updates via email regarding this bid, or if a Bidder has
obtained this Bid Document from a third party, the onus is on the Bidder to create a Bidding System Vendor account and register as a Plan Taker for the bid opportunity.
Bidders may edit or withdraw their Bid Submission prior to the closing time and date. However, the
Bidder is solely responsible to ensure the re-submitted bid is received by the Bidding System no later than the stated closing time and date.
The onus unequivocally remains with the Bidder to ensure that the bid is submitted electronically
prior to the deadline and in accordance with the submission instructions.
Submission of a Tender will constitute acceptance of all provisions contained in this RFT on the part of all Bidders.
When submitting a Tender, Bidders must ensure that all areas of this RFT that require information are completed and submitted in accordance with the instructions. Failure to do so may result in the incomplete Tender being rejected.
Tenders which are incomplete, conditional, illegible, or obscure or which contain reservations, erasures, alterations, or irregularities will be declared Improper and may be rejected.
None of the conditions contained on the Bidder’s standard or general conditions of sale shall be of
any effect unless explicitly agreed to by the County.
If after reading the RFT, your organization does not wish to submit a Tender, please complete a
“Notice of No Bid” in the bidding system.
1.3 INQUIRY / QUESTIONS
All inquiries regarding this RFT shall be directed through the Bidding System online by clicking on
the “Submit a Question” button for this bid opportunity.
All questions shall be submitted in writing prior to the question deadline noted on page 4.
Any inquiries will be responded to in writing. Any clarification shall not alter the Tender. Verbal arrangements or discussions are not binding and cannot be relied upon.
If during the period prior to submission of Tenders, the County determines, in its sole and unfettered discretion, that part of the Tender requires formal amendment or clarification, written addenda to this Tender will be produced and distributed to all known Bidders.
Bidders attempting to contact County staff or elected officials other than the contact indicated in this RFT, for whatever reason during the Tender or evaluation process, are advised that such action may result in their disqualification from the process. If consultation is deemed to be necessary by the County, a pre-tender meeting of all Bidders and County staff will be arranged at a location of the
County’s choosing. The County reserves the right to change the deadline for submission, if necessary, to accommodate such a meeting.
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 10
No officer, agent or employee of the County is authorized to verbally alter any portion of this RFT.
During the period prior to submission of Tenders, any clarification will be issued in the form of written addenda.
1.4 SUBSURFACE SOILS - TEST PITS – N/A
Not applicable to this contract.
1.5 ADDENDA
The County, may at its discretion, amend or supplement the tender documents by addendum at
any time prior to the closing date. Changes to the tender documents shall be made by Addendum only. Such changes made by addendum shall be supplementary to and form an integral part of the tender documents and should be allowed for in arriving at the total price.
Bidders shall acknowledge receipt of any addenda through the Bidding System by checking a box
for each addenda and any applicable attachment. It is the responsibility of the Bidder to have received all Addenda that are issued. Bidders should check online at https://elgincounty.bidsandtenders.ca/Module/Tenders/en prior to submitting their
Bid and up until Bid closing time and date in the event additional addenda are issued.
If a Bidder submits their bid prior to the Bid closing time and date and an addenda have been issued, the Bidding System shall WITHDRAW the Bid submission and the bid status will change to an INCOMPLETE STATUS and Withdraw the Bid. The Bidder can view this status change in the
“MY BIDS” section of the Bidding System.
The Bidder is solely responsible to: • make any required adjustments to their Bid; and • acknowledge the addenda; and
• Ensure the re-submitted Bid is RECEIVED by the Bidding System no later than the stated
bid closing time and date.
1.6 ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS
Each Bidder, by submitting a Tender, represents that the Bidder has read, completely understands,
and accepts the terms, conditions, and specifications of the RFT in full.
1.7 NON-EXCLUSIVE
Bidders should note that any Contract(s) awarded as a result of this RFT will be non-exclusive.
The County may, at its sole and unfettered discretion, purchase the same or similar Equipment or Services from other sources, including but not limited to other Bidders, during the term of the Contract(s).
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 11
1.8 EVALUATION
Evaluation will be based on, but not limited to, the following:
a) compliance with tender requirements b) lowest total bid price
c) experience of Firm/Staff Availability/Client References/Track Record (proof of ability)
1.9 BID BOND (DEPOSIT) AND AGREEMENT TO BOND
Bidders shall upload and submit a DIGITAL Bid Bond and a DIGITAL Agreement to Bond with their
Tender.
Bid Bond
Each Tender must be accompanied by a 10% Bid Bond.
Agreement to Bond
Each Tender must be accompanied by an Agreement to Bond completed and executed by the Bidder’s Surety. The Agreement to Bond shall provide for a Performance Bond for 100% of the contract price (excluding HST) and a Labour and Material Payment Bond for 50% of the contract
price (excluding HST).
Electronically Verifiable/Enforceable (e-bond) Format
All Bonds shall be from a Surety Company authorized by law to carry on business in the Province of Ontario, in favour of the Corporation of the County of Elgin. Bonds must be irrevocable and open for bid acceptance for at least ninety (90) days from the date of bid closing. Each submission must be accompanied by a digital Bid Bond and a digital Agreement to Bond. The County will only accept submissions that include both the Bid Bond and Agreement to Bond in an
electronically verifiable/enforceable (e-Bond) format.
For more information regarding e-Bonds bidders are encouraged to contact their surety company or visit the Surety Association of Canada at the following link: https://www.surety-canada.com/en/ebonding/index.html
All instruction details for accessing authentication should be included with the uploaded Bond.
Note: A scanned pdf copy of a Bid Bond or an Agreement to Bond are not acceptable.
Any costs associated with e-Bonds are the responsibility and cost of the bidder. No interest will be paid on any bid deposit.
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 12
1.10 PROOF OF ABILITY
The Bidder shall be qualified and competent to perform the work called for in the Tender. If the Bidder has not completed similar work for the County or not filed "Proof of Ability" within two years preceding this Tender, on similar work, they should complete the Proof of Ability section as part of their
electronic bid submission in the Bidding System.
The "Proof of Ability" shall include a list of similar work projects the Bidder has successfully completed.
The County reserves the right to investigate and evaluate the experience, capability, registration and financial position of any Bidder prior to an award of a Contract. The County reserves the right to reject any Bidder or Tender in its sole discretion, based on the information obtained.
1.11 SUBCONTRACTOR(S)
The Bidder shall provide as part of their electronic bid submission in the Bidding System, the name
and address of each proposed subcontractor used in making up the Tender and shall state the
portion of the work allotted to each. Only one subcontractor shall be named for each part of the work to be sublet.
If no subcontractors are being used, please click the box confirming that your “own forces” will be
used for this project.
The Contractor shall not be allowed to substitute other subcontractors in place of those named in the Tender without written approval from the County.
1.12 PROCUREMENT POLICY Bids will be solicited, received, accepted and processed in accordance with the County’s Procurement Policy as amended from time to time. In submitting a bid, the Bidder agrees and
acknowledges that it has read and will be bound by the terms and conditions of the County’s
Procurement Policy which is posted on the County’s website, www.elgincounty.ca
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 13
PART TWO – GENERAL TERMS & CONDITIONS
2.1 GENERAL
This Tender, including these Terms and Conditions, forms the entire contract between the parties,
and no variations thereof, irrespective of the wording of the Bidder’s acceptance will be effective
unless specifically agreed to in writing.
2.2 CONTRACTOR'S INSOLVENCY If the Contractor commits any act of bankruptcy, or if a receiver is appointed on account of its insolvency or in respect of any of its property, or if the Contractor makes a general assignment for the benefit of its creditors; then, in any such case, the County may, without notice, terminate the Contract.
If the Contractor fails to comply with any request, instruction or order of the County; or fails to pay its account; or fails to comply with or persistently disregard statutes, regulations, by-laws or directives
or relevant authorities related to the equipment, material and/or services; or fails to prosecute the equipment, material and/or services with skill and diligence; or purports to assign or sublet the contract or a portion of it without the County’s written consent; or refuses to correct defective equipment, material and/or services; or is otherwise in default in carrying out its part of any of the terms, conditions and obligations of the contract; then, in any such case, the County may, upon
expiration of ten days from the date of written notice to the Contractor, terminate the contract.
Any termination of the Contract by the County, as mentioned above, shall be without
prejudice to any other rights or remedies the County may have.
2.3 DEFAULT / NON-PERFORMANCE
The County or, if applicable, any Associated Municipality will reserve the right to determine “non-
performance” or “poor quality” of service and further reserves the right to cancel any or all of this contract at any time should the Contractor’s performance not meet the terms and conditions of the Tender upon 30 days written notification to the Contractor.
“Non-performance” shall mean the failure to meet the complete terms and conditions of this Contract including, but not limited to, the response time. In the event of such cancellation, the County or, if applicable, any Associated Municipality retains the right to claim damages as a result
of such default.
Upon any default of the Contractor, the County or, if applicable, any Associated Municipality at its
election may reduce or cancel any purchase order in the event that any delivery or deliveries affected are not made at the time specified in this Tender without penalty or prejudice.
If the County or, if applicable, any Associated Municipality terminates the Contract, it is entitled to: i. withhold any further payment to the Contractor until the completion of the material or services and the expiry of all obligations under the contract; and
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 14
ii. recover from the Contractor any loss, damage and expense incurred by the County or, if
applicable, any Associated Municipality by reason of the supplier’s default (which may be deducted from any monies due or becoming due to the Contractor).
2.4 PROTECTION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES
The Contractor shall be informed of, and protect all existing services, structures and vehicles, to the satisfaction of the County. Any damage shall be repaired and/or replaced by the Contractor, at its own expense, to the satisfaction of the County.
2.5 RESTORATION
The Contractor shall repair all damages caused to adjacent property, public or private, such as
sidewalks, roadways, grassed areas, trees and shrubs and any structures at his own expense before acceptance of the work by the County.
2.6 UNLOADING
Unloading shall be executed by the Contractor using approved lifting techniques.
2.7 UTILITIES
The attention of the Contractor is drawn to the presence of utility pole lines, overhead wires and underground utilities within the right-of-way. The Contractor shall cooperate with all authorities to ensure that services and utilities are protected from damage during the performance of the work.
The Contractor will be responsible for determining the location of all utilities and will held liable for any damage to overhead and underground utilities caused by his operations. Arrangements will be made by the Contractor with the utility companies to relocate their plant where necessary. The cost of any necessary relocation work shall be borne by the County being directly billed from the utility company. No allowance or claims of any nature will be allowed on account of delays or inconveniences due to utility relocation.
2.8 ELECTRICAL SAFETY AUTHORITY
In accordance with the Electrical Safety Authority (ESA) regulations on the Continuous Safety
Services (CSS) Program, all Contractors providing services at any County location involving any
degree of electrical connections(s) must:
i. Enter all electrical work into a log book (for “routine” work at facilities on the CSS program); and/or ii. Apply for and receive a Certificate of Inspection, prior to energizing any electrical work (for “substantial” work at facilities on the CSS program, or any work performed at any County
location NOT on the CSS program).
2.9 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND DISPOSAL OF DEBRIS
The Contractor shall protect the environment by controlling his operations in a manner acceptable
to the governing Conservation Authority, Elgin County, Ministry of Labour and Ministry of the
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 15
Environment. The Contractor shall remove and manage all waste materials in accordance with
local and provincial requirements. The Contractor agrees to assume full responsibility to procure and obtain all permits and documentation necessary to effect the proper disposal of materials and/or waste removal from the
County’s premises including but not limited the regulations set forth in O.Reg 409/19, On-site and
excess soil management under the Environmental Protection Act.
2.10 PROTECTION OF WATER QUALITY
At all times, the Contractor shall maintain existing ditch and stream flows and shall control all
construction work so as not to allow sediment or other deleterious materials to enter the stream.
No waste or surplus organic material including topsoil is to be stored or disposed of within 30 m of
any watercourses. Run-off from excavation piles will not be permitted to drain directly into
watercourses but shall be diffused onto vegetative areas a minimum of 30 m from the watercourse. Where this measure is not sufficient or feasible to control sediment entering the watercourses, sedimentation traps or geotextile coverage will be required.
If dewatering is required, the water shall be pumped into a sedimentation pond or diffused onto vegetated areas a minimum of 30 m from the watercourses and not pumped directly into the watercourses.
No machinery shall enter the creek bed of any watercourse. Movement of construction equipment in the vicinity of any creeks shall be limited to the minimum required for construction.
The Contractor shall not carry out equipment maintenance or refueling or store fuel containers within 100 m of any watercourse. The Contractor shall not stockpile construction debris or empty fuel/pesticide containers within the Contract limits.
2.11 MUNICIPAL ROADS
During construction, if damage occurs to any roads due to construction, it will be the Contractor’s
responsibility to restore damaged roads to their original condition at the Contractor’s own expense. This includes haul routes.
2.12 IRON BAR MONUMENTS
Standard iron bar survey monuments exist in the field. The Bidder shall allow in his tender, a sum sufficient to cover the resetting, by an Ontario Land Surveyor, of all survey bars displaced or damaged during construction.
2.13 DUST CONTROL
As a part of the work required under Section GC7.06 of the OPS General Conditions, the
Contractor shall take such steps as may be required to prevent dust nuisance from his/her operations either within the right-of-way or elsewhere or by public traffic where it is the Contractor’s responsibility to maintain a roadway through the work.
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 16
Where the work requires the sawing or grinding of asphalt or the sawing or grinding of concrete,
blades and grinders of the wet type shall be used together with sufficient water to prevent the incidence of dust, wherever dust would affect traffic or wherever dust would be a nuisance to residents of the area where the work is being carried out.
The cost of all such preventative measures shall be borne by the Contractor except, however, where water or calcium chloride is used to reduce the dust caused by traffic on a roadway, which is the Contractor’s responsibility to maintain for public traffic. The cost of such quantities of water and
calcium chloride as are authorized by the County to restrict dust to acceptable levels as per the unit rates in the Bid Forms.
2.14 NOISE ABATEMENT
The Contractor shall at all times, attempt to keep the noise level caused by his operation to a minimum. The Contractor will not be permitted to carry out any work at night or Sundays, Holidays without the consent of the County. The Contractor shall comply with the local municipalities current
noise by-law.
2.15 FREEZING WEATHER
It is not expected that winter conditions will be encountered for this project, however if required during freezing weather, all work shall be adequately protected with straw, tarpaulins or wet steam, or any combination of these methods, as considered necessary. The cost of all such special precautions during freezing weather shall be the Contractor’s expense. No payment will be made for frost-ripping regardless of the depth.
2.16 MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC, ACCESS AND SIGN REQUIREMENTS
The Contractor shall provide, erect and maintain construction signs in accordance with the provisions of the Contract. Traffic Control methods and equipment will be strictly enforced. Additional traffic control requirements are listed in section five of this RFT.
2.17 COMPLAINTS AND CLAIMS FROM THE PUBLIC
The Contractor shall assign an employee to investigate all complaints from the public resulting from his work during the course of the project and to immediately rectify any situation from which the
public has just cause for complaint. If the Project Engineer is not on site, the designated employee
shall keep a diary listing of all complaints, the time and date that they were received, and the action taken by the Contractor to rectify the situation. Copies of complaints shall be made available at the County’s request.
2.18 GARBAGE COLLECTION
The Contractor will be responsible for ensuring that garbage collection, including recyclables, is maintained during construction operations and when necessary, the Contractor shall make
arrangements directly with the collection agency, to permit and co-ordinate pick-up.
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 17
2.19 CLEAN - UP REINSTATEMENT
The Contractor is advised that the work site must be maintained in as clean a condition as possible during the period of the Contract.
2.20 EMERGENCY AND MAINTENANCE MEASURES
Whenever the construction site is unattended by the general superintendent, the name, address
and telephone number of a responsible official of the contracting firm, shall be given to the County. This official shall be available at all times and have the necessary authority to mobilize workmen and machinery and to take any action as directed by the County in case emergency or maintenance measures are required regardless of whether the emergency or requirement for maintenance was caused by the Contractor’s negligence, an act of God, or any cause whatsoever.
2.21 CHARACTER OF WORKERS
All operators must be fully trained, qualified and experienced. If any operator is not performing
satisfactorily or operating the equipment safely to the satisfaction of the County, the County reserves the right to have the equipment and the operator removed from the job site immediately upon request. At all times, the employees of the Contractor shall act in a civil, responsible, courteous and productive manner.
The County reserves the right to request that any Contractor’s employees be taken off the job, and not re-employed until satisfactory arrangements have been made to ensure that there is no repetition of any offending behavior.
The Contractor shall not leave any equipment on County property unattended at any time, unless the County gives prior approval and such equipment is properly protected to the satisfaction of the
County.
2.22 PROJECT SITE WORKING CONDITIONS
It is the Bidder’s responsibility to investigate the project site and the nature of the work and inform itself, before bidding, of all the physical, working conditions and administrative practices applicable. Details of a site visit or test pits, if applicable, are provided in the Information for Bidders, Part One of this RFT.
2.23 TEMPORARY BUILDINGS
Temporary construction buildings may be erected by the Contractor at the site of the work, but the location of all temporary buildings used for construction purposes must be submitted to the Engineer for approval prior to the commencement of the work. In the event that there is inadequate
space for the Contractor's office space, storage yard, etc. the Contractor shall obtain same at his
own cost and payment will be on the basis that such costs are included in a lump sum amount (if required) in the bid forms. Adequate fire extinguishers must be provided at the site of any temporary building to be used in
case of fire and all temporary buildings shall comply in all respects with the requirements of any
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 18
local, national or provincial legislation pertaining thereto.
The Contractor shall pay for all permits and fees in connection with the erection, movement or placing of any temporary building. Should any of the Contractor's structures be placed on private
property, two (2) copies of a Form of Release signed by each property owner affected shall be
provided by the Contractor.
2.24 UNIT PRICES
Unit price shall include labour, material, overhead and profit and other relative charges, but shall be
exclusive of HST. Any work done on the basis of unit prices shall be carried out generally in accordance with the specifications for similar work and shall be the County’s approval. Bid prices shall be freight on board (F.O.B.) delivered. All prices quoted shall be in Canadian funds and shall be firm for the term of the contract. Price changes caused by Government Tax Legislation will be accepted, but these changes must be
submitted in writing and accepted by the County prior to being invoiced. No other price changes will be accepted.
2.25 QUANTITIES
Unless otherwise specified in this RFT, quantities shown are approximate and furnished without liability on behalf of the County. Quantities are supplied for the guidance of the bidders only and are not to be considered as minimum or maximum quantities. Unless otherwise stated, payment will be by the unit complete at the Tender price on the actual quantities deemed acceptable by the County.
2.26 TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE
The County shall have the right to cancel at any time any contract or any part of any contract resulting from this Tender in respect to the goods, materials, articles, equipment, work or services, covered thereby, not delivered or performed by the specified time in the written document, without
incurring any liability whatsoever in respect hereto. “Time is of the essence”.
2.27 SHOP DRAWINGS The Contractor shall furnish to the County or any Associated Municipality, at proper times, all shop and setting drawings or diagrams which the County or any Associated Municipality may deem necessary in order to make clear the work intended or to show its relation to adjacent work of other trades. The Contractor shall make any changes in such drawings or diagrams which the County may require consistent with the contract, and shall submit sufficient copies of the revised prints to
the County or any Associated Municipality for approval, all but one of which shall be returned to the Contractor if approved by the County or any Associated Municipality. When submitting shop and setting drawings, the Contractor shall notify the County or any Associated Municipality in writing of changes made therein from the drawings or specifications. The County’s or any Associated Municipality’s approval of such drawings or of the revised drawings shall not relieve the Contractor
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 19
from responsibility for errors made by the Contractor therein or for changes made from the
drawings or specifications not covered by the Contractor's written notification. All models and templates submitted shall conform to the spirit and intent of the contract documents.
2.28 SUB-SURFACE CONDITIONS
In the event that during the execution of the work sub-surface conditions at the location of the work are found to differ materially from those indicated in the contract documents or otherwise represented in writing by the County or any Associated Municipality to the Contractor then the
Contractor shall promptly notify the County or any Associated Municipality in writing of such
conditions. The County or any Associated Municipality shall promptly investigate such conditions and if he finds that they differ materially and will result in an increase or decrease in the cost of or time required for performance of this contract an equitable adjustment shall be made between the parties and the contract modified in writing accordingly. If the parties fail to agree, the dispute shall
be determined by arbitration as detailed in this section.
2.29 INSPECTION OF WORK
The County and any Associated Municipality shall at all times have access to the work wherever it is in preparation or progress and the Contractor shall provide proper facilities for such access and for inspection. If the specifications, the County’s instructions, the laws, or the ordinances of any public authority require any work to be specially tested or approved, the Contractor shall give the County or
any Associated Municipality timely notice of its readiness for inspection, and if the inspection is by an
authority other than the County, of the date and time fixed for such inspection. Inspections by the County or any Associated Municipality shall be promptly made. If any such work should be covered up without approval or consent of the County or any Associated Municipality, it must, if required by the County or any Associated Municipality, be uncovered for examination and made good at the
Contractor's expense. Re-examination of quoted work may be ordered by the Engineer. If such work
be found in accordance with the contract, the County or any Associated Municipality shall pay the cost of re-examination and replacement. If such work be found not in accordance with the contract, through the fault of the Contractor, the Contractor shall pay such cost.
2.30 EMERGENCIES
The County or any Associated Municipality has authority to stop the progress of the work whenever in his opinion such stoppage may be necessary to ensure its proper execution. In an emergency
affecting or threatening the safety of life, or of the structure, or of adjoining property, he has
authority to make such changes and to order, assess and award the cost of such work extra to the contract or otherwise as may in his opinion be necessary.
2.31 CLAIMS, NEGOTIATIONS, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION
With regard to all matters concerning claims, negotiations, mediation, and arbitration, the Ontario Provincial Standards (O.P.S.) Sections GC3.11 to GC3.15 shall apply.
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 20
PART THREE – STANDARD TERMS & CONDITIONS
3.1 RIGHTS OF THE COUNTY The County is not liable for any costs incurred by the Bidder in the preparation of their response to the Tender. Furthermore, the County shall not be responsible for any liabilities, costs, expenses, loss or damage incurred, sustained or suffered by any Bidder, prior or subsequent to, or by reason
of the acceptance, or non-acceptance by the County of any bid or by reason of any delay in the award of the contract.
The County reserves the right to request specific requirements not adequately covered in their
initial submission and clarify information contained in the Request for Tender.
The County reserves the right to modify any and all requirements stated in the Request for Tender
at any time prior to the possible awarding of a contract.
The County reserves the right to cancel this Request for Tender at any time, without penalty or cost
to the County. This Request for Tender should not be considered a commitment by the County to
enter into any contract.
The County reserves the right to enter into negotiations with the selected Bidder. If these
negotiations are not successfully concluded, the County reserves the right to begin negotiations with the next selected Bidder.
In the event of any disagreement between the County and the Bidder regarding the interpretation of
the provisions of the Request for Tender, the Director of Financial Services or an individual acting in that capacity, shall make the final determination as to interpretation. The County reserves the right to evaluate the bids based on past performance, timely project completion, appropriate manpower, equipment and facilities.
The County reserves the right to award by items, groups of items, parts of items or parts of groups
of items, or all items of the Tender, and to award Contracts to one or more Bidders; to accept or reject any Tender in whole or in part; to waive irregularities and omissions in the County’s sole and unfettered discretion, if in so doing, the best interests of the County will be served. No liability shall accrue to the County for its decision in this regard.
Should the County receive only one (1) Tender on commodities/services that have a known multiple source potential, the right is reserved to recall or cancel the competition or to negotiate the
prices/terms offered by the Bidder.
All Tenders shall be irrevocable for ninety (90) days following the deadline for submission to allow sufficient time for evaluation of the Tenders and for the investigation of the Bidders.
The County and likewise the successful Bidder shall have the right during anytime of this contract to cancel this contract within 30 days’ notice in writing without penalty or recourse.
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 21
Upon acceptance of a Tender, or any part of it, by the County, the successful Bidder shall, if
requested by the County or, if applicable, any Associated Municipality, execute and enter into an additional formal contract that is satisfactory to the County or such Associated Municipality to properly secure the Contract resulting from the acceptance of a Tender, or any part of it and to embody indemnity and related provisions as required to protect the County or such Associated
Municipality.
No Tender shall be accepted from any person or Bidder who, has a claim or has instituted a legal proceeding against the County or against whom the County has a claim or has instituted a legal
proceeding, without the prior approval of County Council. This applies whether the legal
proceeding is related or unrelated to the subject matter of this RFT.
The County may request to inspect the successful bidder’s equipment to determine the ability to
adequately service the requirements of this contract. Such inspection may result in disqualification of a Bidder if in the judgment of the County the bidder’s product or equipment does not adequately fulfill this contract.
Failure to comply with all terms, specifications, requirements, conditions and general provision of this Tender, to the satisfaction of the County, shall be just cause for cancellation of the contract award. The County shall then have the right to award the contract to any other Bidders or to reissue the Tender. The County shall assess against the Bidder any damages whatsoever as a result of failure
to perform. In addition, the County may, at its discretion, stop the performance of this contract until
such time as the successful Bidder complies with all the provisions of this contract.
3.2 GENERAL NOTES TO BIDDERS
The Bidder is not to act on verbal instruction from the County or, if applicable, any Associated
Municipality on work they consider to be extra to their contract scope. Extra work can only be authorized by the County or, if applicable, any Associated Municipality and in a written format only. The written form must also include that this work is an extra to the contract scope and the method by which extra costs will be tabulated.
The Contractor shall provide a competent representative to be constantly on site during all working hours and ongoing throughout the execution of the Works. The Contractor's representative shall, at
all times, be in full control and be responsible for all activities and all phases of Work including
those portions of the Works performed by sub-contractors. The competent representative is required to supervise work and workers and ensure compliance of regulatory and tender requirements.
Bidders must meet the County's requirements for experience. The County will disqualify any Bidder who cannot provide the following, when requested by the County.
i. proof that they have previously held and satisfactorily completed a contract of the size and type being proposed; or ii. proof of employment in the type of service being proposed and written references as to their satisfactory performance; or
iii. adequately demonstrate that they have the ability to provide the necessary expertise and
resources to satisfactorily complete the Contract.
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 22
The County reserves the right to investigate and evaluate the experience, capability, registration and financial position of any bidder prior to an award of a contract. The County reserves the right to reject any bidder or Tender based on the information obtained.
3.3 ASSIGNMENT
The Contractor shall not assign the Contract (or any portion of it) without the prior written consent of the County. It is understood and agreed that the Bidder will be an independent Contractor and that all services will be performed by the employees or agents of the Contractor. Sub-contracting agreements made by the Contractor will not release the Contractor from any obligation to the County with respect to the performance of the Contract. Joint or consortium Tenders must have one prime
Contractor who will be responsible for overall project success, provide one point of contact and a
single billing point. The County shall not be responsible for payment to the Contractor’s partners, sub-contractors or suppliers in the event the prime Contractor defaults on its responsibilities. The prime Contractor must communicate such to its partners, sub-Contractors and suppliers. The prime Contractor must also provide the County with a written statement outlining function
components that the sub-Contractor(s) will be offering. The County must grant prior written
approval, in its sole and unfettered discretion, for any assignment and all sub-Contractors.
3.4 REQUIREMENTS AT TIME OF CONTRACT EXECUTION
Subject to an award of the Contract by the County and/or any Associated Municipality, the
successful Bidder is required to submit the following documentation in a form satisfactory to the County and/or such Associated Municipality: i. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board Clearance Certificate.
ii. Insurance Certificates, as described in this document, showing proof of the requested policies
and amounts as noted in section 3.5. iii. Verification of receipt of a copy of the County of Elgin Health and Safety Policy iv. A copy of the Contractor's Health and Safety Policy v. Performance Bond(s) equal to the full value of the applicable portion of the Works
contemplated by this RFT, naming the County or, if applicable, the Associated Municipality as beneficiary thereunder; vi. Labour and Materials Bond(s) equal to the 50% of value of labour and materials for the applicable portion of Works contemplated by this RFT, naming the County or, if applicable, the Associated Municipality as beneficiary thereunder.
vii. Documentation confirming all employees are bonded or bondable. (not applicable) viii. Security Clearance - available for all employees if requested. (not applicable) When the Agreement is executed by the County or, if applicable, an Associated Municipality and by the Contractor, an executed copy thereof together with the other Contract Documents is delivered
to the Contractor. Neither the County nor any Associated Municipality shall be responsible for any liabilities, costs or expenses, loss or damage incurred, sustained or suffered by any Bidder prior or subsequent to or by reason of the acceptance or the non-acceptance by the County or by reasons of delay in the acceptance of a Tender save as provided in the Contract. Tenders are subject to a
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 23
Formal Contract being prepared and executed. The County reserves the right to reject any or all
Tenders and to waive formalities as the interest of the County, including the Associated Municipalities, may require without stating reasons and therefore the lowest or any Tender will not necessarily be accepted.
3.5 INSURANCE
The Contractor shall at its own expense obtain and maintain until the termination of the contract and provide the County and any Associated Municipality with evidence of the following insurance:
i. General Liability Insurance
The Contractor will provide at its own expense General Liability Insurance on an occurrence
basis for an amount not less than Five Million ($5,000,000) dollars and shall include the
Corporation of the County of Elgin and each contracted Associated Municipality as an additional insured with respect to the Contractor's operations, acts and omissions relating to its obligations under this Agreement, such policy to include the following:
1) owners' protective products and completed operations;
2) non-owned automobile liability;
3) personal injury; 4) broad from property damage; 5) contractual liability; 6) contingent employers’ liability;
7) cross liability;
8) severability of interest clauses.
ii. Automobile/Equipment Insurance
The Contractor shall provide at their own expense (including the cost of deductibles) and maintain and keep in force during the term of this agreement, such policy to include against claims for personal injury, death, property damage or loss, arising from an accident or occurrence relating to this agreement, in an amount of not less than Five Million ($5,000,000)
dollars in respect of each claim or occurrence. The insurance policy as required herein shall be
in force during the term of the Contract.
The coverage shall be effective prior to the Contractor performing any services under this Contract.
The policies shown above will not be cancelled or permitted to lapse unless the insurer notifies the
County and each contracted Associated Municipality in writing at least thirty (30) days prior to the
effective date of cancellation or expiry. The County and each contracted Associated Municipality reserves the right to request such higher
limits of insurance or other types of policies appropriate to the work, as the County and such Associated Municipality may reasonably require.
The Contractor shall not commence work until such time as the required evidence of insurance has
been filed with and approved by the County and each contracted Associated Municipality. The Contractor shall further provide that evidence of the continuance of said insurance is filed at each policy renewal date for the duration of the contract.
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 24
3.6 INDEMNIFICATION
The Contractor agrees that it shall continuously save, keep harmless and fully indemnify the County and each Associated Municipality, including any elected officials, employees and agents and any
heirs, executors, successors and assigns, as the case may be, from and against all actions, claims,
suits, demands, proceedings, losses, liabilities, damages, injuries (including death), costs and expenses (including legal costs), which may be brought against or made upon the County and/or any Associated Municipality and resulting from or arising out of the Contractor’s performance of or rendering of any Services pursuant to the Contract.
The Contractor shall also indemnify the County and any Associated Municipality from all claims arising out of unpaid accounts relating to the Contract. The County and any contracted Associated Municipality shall have the right at any time to require satisfactory evidence that the Equipment (or any part of it) in respect of which any payment has been made or is to be made as contemplated by
this RFT or any contract hereunder is free of and clear of construction or other liens, attachments,
claims, and demands, charges or other encumbrances.
3.7 CONTRACTOR'S LIABILITY AND WSIB COVERAGE
Any work performed by the Contractor upon the lands of the County or any Associated Municipality
or otherwise in connection with the proposed work, shall be solely at the Contractor's own risk and the County and the Associated Municipalities shall not be liable to the Contractor or the Contractor's employees, agents or invitees for any damage, injury or loss sustained by them, including death, or to their property as a result of working or operating hereupon.
The Contractor shall be responsible for any damage, injury (including death) or loss sustained by the Contractor or any other person, or to its or any other person's property as a result of working or operating upon the lands of the County or the Associated Municipalities and providing the goods and services of this project and shall obtain public liability insurance, property damage insurance
and automobile insurance all to the satisfaction of the County and the Associated Municipalities in
every respect including without limitation, amount of coverage and deductible amounts. Such
insurance shall be in accordance with section 3.5. The Contractor shall provide a certificate of insurance evidencing the foregoing requirements to the satisfaction of the County and its agencies prior to issuance of the Purchase Order and Commencement of work.
The Contractor must obtain and forward to the County and any Associated Municipality a letter of clearance from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board stating that the Contractor is in good standing with the Board as of the current date and every 60 days thereafter ensuring ongoing good standing with the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. This is also required for all
subcontractors. If the Contractor is unable to submit this clearance because a claim of independent operator status is being made, with no insurable workers, the Contractor must submit to Financial Services a written confirmation from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board of its status as an
independent operator for the contract. Work will not be authorized to begin until this document
is received in Financial Services.
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 25
The Contractor shall at all times pay, or cause to be paid, any assessment or compensation
required to be paid pursuant to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act and upon failure to do so, the County and/or a contracted Associated Municipality may pay such assessment or compensation to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, and the Contractor shall forthwith reimburse the County or such Associated Municipality. The County or the said Associated
Municipality may at its option deduct such expenses from any monies owed to the Contractor.
3.7.1 Safety i. The Contractor, his/her workers, sub-Contractors, and their workmen, must have a good knowledge of, and abide by, the provisions of all legislative enactment's, by-laws and
regulations in regards to safety in the Province of Ontario.
ii. All work shall comply with all applicable safety regulations, codes and general safe working practices of the trade.
iii. The Contractor shall provide and maintain adequate barricades, warning signs, out of order signs, and all reasonable protection when required.
iv. All electrical equipment which must be used by the Contractor shall be safe to use, properly grounded, CSA approved, and be of no hindrance to the building electrical system or equipment.
3.7.2 COVID-19 Pandemic
i. Road Construction Tenders The Contractor shall comply with current COVID health and safety measures in place during the term of this contract. The Contractor submit a health and safety plan one week
in advance of construction that demonstrates compliance with COVID 19 health and safety
measures as prescribed by the Government of Ontario and its agencies. Should current measures change during the term of the contract, the Contractor shall provide an updated safety plan to the County and any Associated Municipality.
ii. Building Construction Tenders – Not Applicable to this Contract
The Contractor shall comply with current COVID health and safety measures in place during the term of this contract. The Contractor submit a health and safety plan one week in advance of construction that demonstrates compliance with COVID 19 health and safety measures as prescribed by the Government of Ontario and its agencies. Should current
measures change during the term of the contract, the Contractor shall provide an updated
safety plan to the County. During the current COVID-19 pandemic, all employees of the contractor and subcontractors, must wear a face mask while performing work at this facility.
All Contractors/Sub-Contractors (hereinafter including all individual employees, agents or other representatives) must obtain and review the County’s COVID-19 Vaccination Verification Policy, 8.390. This policy requires any individual attending a County workplace to submit proof of a full course of a Health Canada approved COVID-19 vaccination OR to
provide the negative result of a rapid antigen test, or PCR test if available, taken within the
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 26
immediate preceding forty-eight (48) hours, before being admitted to the County workplace
to perform work. Each individual will have to show proof of identification that corresponds to their proof of vaccination. The County will not keep a copy of the proof of vaccination or any other personal health information of the Contractor/Sub-Contractor. The Contractor/Sub-Contractor must ensure that all individuals attending a County workplace to perform work
or deliver services are aware of the policy and these requirements, to ensure that the
individual arrives at the County workplace with the proper documentation for screening. Any individual arriving at a County workplace on behalf of a Contractor/Sub-Contractor that does not have the required documentation will be refused entry to the County workplace and the County will not pay any fee or cost to the Contractor for call-out or for the
undelivered work or service where the Contractor/Sub-Contractor is turned away for failure
to adhere to the County’s COVID-19 Vaccination Verification Policy.” 3.7.3 Workplace Hazardous Material Information System (WHMIS) i. Prior to commencement of work the Contractor shall provide, to the County or any Associated Municipality, a list of those products controlled under WHMIS and the required
Safety Data Sheets, which they expect to use on this Contract. All containers used in the
application of products controlled under WHMIS shall be labeled.
ii. The Contractor shall notify the Purchasing Coordinator of changes to the list in writing and provide the relevant Safety Data Sheets. 3.7.4 Spills Reporting i. Spills or discharges of pollutants or contaminants under the control of the Contractor, and
spills or discharges of pollutants or contaminants that are a result of the Contractor’s
operations that cause or are likely to cause adverse effects shall forthwith be reported to the County or any Associated Municipality. Such spills or discharges and their adverse effects shall be as defined in the Environmental Protection Act, Chapter E.19, R.S.O., 1990.
ii. All spills or discharges of liquid, other than the accumulated rain water from luminaries,
internally illuminated signs, lamps and liquid type transformers under the control of the
Contractor, and all spills or discharges from this equipment that are a result of the Contractor’s operations shall, unless otherwise indicated in the Contract, be assumed to contain PCB’s and shall forthwith be reported to the County.
iii. This reporting will not relieve the Contractor of his/her legislated responsibilities regarding such spills or discharges.
3.8 CARE AND HANDLING
The Contractor will assume full responsibility for the safe handling and delivery of materials, in accordance with the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, the Occupational Health and Safety Act including amendments (WHMIS), and any other municipal, provincial or federal legislation applicable during the term of this Contract.
Prior to commencement of the work the Contractor shall provide a list of products controlled under
WHMIS which he expects to supply on this Contract. The Contractor will provide Material Safety
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 27
Data Sheets (M.S.D.S.) to the County or any contracted Associated Municipality prior to Contract
commencement.
The Contractor(s) shall be aware of and conform to all governing regulations, including those established by the County or any contracted Associated Municipality, related to employee health and safety. The Contractor shall keep employees and sub-Contractors informed of such regulations. The Contractor will be responsible for obtaining a Workplace Safety and Health Policy and to adhere to the policy, including the dress code for on-the-job safety.
3.9 DEFECTS TO BE MADE GOOD If, in the final inspection of the work, any broken or crushed pipes or specials or any defects are
found in connections or in any equipment and appurtenances, the Contractor shall cause the same to be repaired or removed and replaced by proper materials and workmanship, without extra compensation for labour and materials required.
3.10 COUNTY NOT EMPLOYER
The Bidder agrees that the County and all Associated Municipalities are not to be understood as the employer to any contractor nor to such contractor’s personnel or staff for any work, services, or
supply of any products or materials that may be awarded as a result of this bid document. Also, in
accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the successful Contractor herewith agrees to be the “constructor” as defined under this act.
3.11 PATENTS AND COPYRIGHTS
The Contractor shall, at its sole expense, defend all claims, actions or proceedings against the County and any Associated Municipality based on any allegations that the Equipment (or any part of it) constitutes an infringement of any patent, copyright or other proprietary right, and shall pay to the County and/or any Associated Municipality all costs, damages, charges and expenses,
including its lawyers' fees on a solicitor and his own client basis occasioned to the County in this regard.
The Contractor shall pay all royalties and patent license fees required for the Equipment.
If the Equipment (or any part of it) is in any action or proceeding held to constitute an infringement
of any patent, copyright or other proprietary right, the Contractor shall either secure for the County
or any Associated Municipality the right to continue using the Equipment or shall, at the Contractor’s sole expense, replace the infringing Equipment with non-infringing Equipment or modify it so that the Equipment no longer infringes.
3.12 CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Each Tender shall include a statement indicating whether or not the firm or any individuals working on the contract has a possible conflict of interest (e.g. employed by the County or any Associated
Municipality) and, if so, the nature of that conflict. The County and any Associated Municipality
reserves the right to cancel the award if any interest disclosed from any source could either give the appearance of a conflict or cause speculation as to the objectivity of the program to be developed
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 28
by the bidder. The determination of the County or any Associated Municipality regarding any
questions of conflict of interest shall be final.
3.13 STANDARDS AND LEGISLATION: FAILURE TO COMPLY
The Contractor shall comply with relevant federal, provincial and municipal statutes, regulations
and by-laws pertaining the Contract and its performance. The Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring similar compliance by its suppliers and Sub-Contractors. The Contract shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario. The contractor may be required to provide written documentation that all material proposed meet Municipal, Provincial and
Federal Government standards, legislation and laws. Failure by the contractor to comply with these
laws, legislation, regulations and provisions shall be just cause for the County or any Associated Municipality at its discretion to stop performance of this contract, until such times as the contractor complies with these laws, etc. Also, the County and/or any Associated Municipality may at its discretion award the contract to any other compliant bidder or may re-issue the Tender. The
County and/or any Associated Municipality may assess against the contractor any damages
whatsoever as a result of failure to comply.
3.14 FAILURE OF EXECUTION OF CONTRACT
Failure to execute the contract and to file satisfactory insurance policies and Workplace Safety and
Insurance Board documentation as required herein within the specified time period shall be just cause for the cancellation of the contract award.
3.15 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND ACTS
The Contractor shall comply with all Federal, Provincial and Municipal Laws, statutes, regulations and by-laws, relevant to this Tender including but not limited to:
i. The Construction Lien Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.30, as amended ii. The Environmental Protection Act., R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19, as amended iii. The Occupational Health and Safety Act., R.S.O. 1990, c.O.1, as amended
iv. Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, effective January 1, 1998, as amended
v. The Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1999, c.M.56, as amended vi. Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended vii. Fairness is a Two-Way Street Act (Construction Labour Mobility), 1999, R.S.O. 1999, c.4
viii. Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, S.O. 2005,c.11, as amended
The Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring similar compliance by its suppliers and sub-Contractors.
3.16 PERMITS AND FEES
The Contractor shall pay for all permits, licenses and fees, and give all notices and comply with all by- laws and regulations of the County and any Associated Municipality, and any other governing
body.
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 29
3.17 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
All information obtained relative to this Request for Tender is the property of the County and the Associated Municipalities and shall be treated as confidential and not used for any purpose other than for replying to this Request for Tender. All information is subject to the provisions of the
Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and records retention policy of the
County and the Associated Municipalities.
Submissions of Bids as a result of this Tender are in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of
Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA).
Release of information contained in the Tender may be requested by anyone under the MFIPPA unless they contain either a trade secret or information that if disclosed would result in harm to the
Bidder. This would include scientific, technical, financial or labour relations information.
All requests for information must be made in writing and submitted to the Chief Administrative
Officer of the County and the Associated Municipalities.
In addition, certain contractual information must be disclosed to Council for the County and Associated Municipalities and accordingly may become part of the public record.
Bidders may mark any part of their submission as confidential except the Total Contract Price and their name. A watermark or rubber stamp imprint is suitable for this purpose. The County will use
its best efforts not to disclose any information so marked, except for the Associated Municipalities, but shall not be liable to a Bidder where information is disclosed by virtue of an order of the Privacy Commissioner or otherwise as required by law.
3.18 ACCESSIBILITY REGULATIONS FOR CONTRACTED SERVICES
The County is committed to the accessibility principles of preventing and removing barriers in accessing goods and services for people with disabilities and is bound by the Standards under the
Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 as may be amended from time to time.
Regulations enacted under the Act apply to every designated public sector organization and other third parties that provide goods and services to the members of the public.
The Contractor and all sub-contractors hired by the Contractor in the completion of its work will meet or exceed compliance with all applicable regulations under the Accessibility for Ontarians with
Disabilities Act, 2005 as may be amended from time to time.
It is the Contractors responsibility to ensure they are fully aware of and meet all the requirements under the Act. A Declaration of Accessibility Compliance will be required by the successful bidder.
3.19 ORIGIN OF GOODS AND SERVICES
Whenever possible, the equipment or services specified or called for in or under this Tender shall be of Canadian origin and manufacture.
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 30
If patented or proprietary goods, material, articles, or equipment are mentioned in this RFT,
Tenders submitted on approved equivalents will be considered, but the mark or brand of them must be specified in the Tender.
The County and any Associated Municipality will be the sole and final judge as to whether an
alternate product is equivalent or not and this decision will be final and non-reviewable by any court or tribunal.
3.20 SAMPLES
Samples, when required, must be submitted strictly in accordance with the instructions. If samples are requested after opening of Tenders, they shall be delivered within three (3) working days following request, unless additional time is granted. Samples must be submitted free of charge and will be returned at the Bidder’s expense, if so requested, provided they have not been destroyed by
tests, or provided they are not required for comparison purposes.
The acceptance of samples by the County and any Associated Municipality shall be at its sole discretion and any such acceptance shall in no way be construed to imply relief of the Contractor from its obligations under the Contract.
3.21 FAIR WAGES All persons employed by the Contractor and his Sub-Contractors or in connection with the work shall be paid fair wages and shall have hours in conformity with Section GC7.11 of the current
edition of the Ontario Ministry of Labour’s Roads and Structures Fair Wages Schedule and any
amendments thereto.
3.22 EMPLOYMENT
The Contractor or any sub-Contractor of the Contract, will, irrespective of the construction to be
carried out under this Contract:
a) Employ only residents of Canada; b) In employing persons, refrain from discrimination against any person by reason of race, colour, religious views or political affiliations; and. c) Give preference to local labour if it is necessary to augment regular forces.
3.23 ERRORS, OMISSIONS IN THE COUNTY DOCUMENTS
The County and/or any Associated Municipality shall not be held liable for any errors or omissions in any part of this RFT. While the County and Associated Municipalities has used considerable
effort to ensure an accurate representation of information in this RFT, the information contained in
the RFT is supplied solely as a guideline for Bidders. The information is not guaranteed or warranted to be accurate by the County and/or any Associated Municipality, nor is it necessarily comprehensive or exhaustive.
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 31
PART FOUR – SPECIAL TERMS & CONDITIONS
4.1 GENERAL WORK The Contractor shall perform all items of work covered and stipulated in the Specifications, Tender, Contact Drawings, together with any authorized alterations, special provisions, extra work and supplemental agreements. The Contractor shall furnish all materials, implements, machinery,
equipment, tools, supplies, transportation and labour necessary to the prosecution and completion of the work.
4.2 WORK LOCATIONS
Part 1 – County of Elgin Roads Work will occur on various Elgin County Roads, identified below:
Road Name From To m2 Treatment Type
Dunborough Road (CR 5) Pioneer Line (CR 2) Queens Line 7,500 Single – Class 5
Springfield Road (CR 40) Nova Scotia Line (CR 42) South limits of Mt. Salem 25,500 Micro – Type 3
Richmond Road (CR 43) Nova Scotia Line (CR 42) South limits of Calton 27,750 Micro – Type 3
Part 2 – Township of Malahide Roads
Work will occur on various Township of Malahide roads as identified below:
Road Name From To m2 Length Average
Width
Treatment
Type
Conservation Line Springwater Road Imperial Road 37,170 4.13 9.0 Single
Glencolin Line Hacienda Road Walker Road 44,110 4.01 11.0 Single
Whittaker Road Lyons Line Wilson Line 23,940 2.85 8.4 Single
Wilson Line Putnam
Road Pigram Road 26,790 2.85 9.4 Single
Yorke Line Whittaker Road Putnam Road 15,810 1.86 8.5 Single
Pressey Line Catherine Street Walker Road 14,940 1.66 9.0 Double
Springer Hill Road Heritage Line Talbot Line 6,750 0.75 9.0 Double
Walker Road Pressey Line Ron McNeil Line 4,590 0.51 9.0 Double
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 32
Part 3 – Municipality of Bayham Roads
Work will occur on various Municipality of Bayham roads as identified below:
Road Name From To m2 Surface
Treatment Type
Pressey Line Springerhill Road Culloden Road 14,000 Single
Springerhill Road Pressey Line Glencolin Line 31,500 Single
Maple Grove Line Heritage Line Plank Road 39,000 Single
Stafford Road Glen Erie Line Dead End Lakeshore Line 9,100 Single
Eden Line Springerhill Road Culloden Road 14,700 Single
Clarke Road Lakeshore Line Glen Erie Line 9,100 Double
Coyle Road Jackson Line Heritage Line 28,000 Double
Murray Road Eden Line Highway 3 14,000 Double
Part 4 – Municipality of Central Elgin
Work will occur on various Municipality of Central Elgin roads as identified below:
Road Name From To m2 Surface
Treatment Type
Southdale Line Centennial Ave Yarmouth Centre Road 16000 Single Class 6
John Street (Orwell) Springwater Road Prior Street 735 Single Class 6
Prior Street (Orwell) Talbot Line Dead End 665 Single Class 6
Truman Line Highbury Avenue Yarmouth Centre Road 19200 Single Class 6
Thomson Line 200m E of Highbury Avenue Carr Road 4000 Single Class 6
Fruit Ridge Line Fairview Road Centennial Road 12000
Single Class 6
(Provisional for
Double Surface
Treatment)
Brouwers Line Hobson Road Springwater Road 8800 Double Class 2 & 6
Seventh Ave (Belmont) 170m W of Belmont Road Belmont Road 1360 Micro Type 3
4.3 MAP / DRAWINGS
No maps or drawings have been issued for this RFT.
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 33
4.4 SITE EXAMINATION
The Bidder shall examine the contract documents, make a personal examination of the site and make all measurements in order to acquaint and satisfy themselves with the conditions under which they will be obliged to work prior to submitting a bid.
Staff from the County and Associated Municipalities shall assume no responsibility whatsoever in providing site measurements or details on site conditions. The Bidder is not to claim at any time after the submission of bid that there was any misunderstanding of the terms and conditions of the Contract relating to the site conditions.
The Bidder shall make all the investigations necessary to thoroughly be informed with regard to access to the site as this will be required for construction operations.
4.5 START OF CONSTRUCTION
Bidders are advised that they will be required to commence construction within one week of the written order to start construction from the County or an Associated Municipality.
A description of material suppliers, subcontractors and site safety plans must be submitted by the
Contractor for review and approval prior to commencing construction.
Before starting construction, the Contractor shall give the County or contracted Associated Municipality with at least 48 hours’ notice.
4.6 WORK COMPLETION SCHEDULE
The total Contract so awarded shall be completed within the specified finish date. Penalties will be charged against the contractor if the work remains incomplete after this specified date and is further
defined under section 4.9 “Liquidated Damages”.
Tentative Start Date: July 4, 2022
Completion Date: August 26, 2022
The work is to be performed during daylight hours from Monday to Friday, between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. Once the contractor has commenced operations, the work shall be continuous and
uninterrupted to completion of the project.
4.7 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
The Contractor shall before commencement of work submit his proposed construction schedule to the County and all contracted Associated Municipalities for approval. This schedule will be based on a ten (10) hour work day and a five (5) day work week. Working Saturdays will be considered
on an “as needed” basis and requests to do so must be conveyed to the County no later than 12:00 p.m. on the preceding Friday. There will be no work performed on Sundays in the County unless it is of an emergency nature as determined by the County or Associated Municipality.
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 34
4.8 ERRORS AND OMISSIONS OF THE CONTRACTOR
Errors, mistakes, or omissions made by the Contractor, its agents, employees, sub-contractors or workmen shall be rectified by the Contractor at its sole expense.
4.9 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
It is agreed by the parties to the Contract that in case all the work called for under the Contract is
not finished or completed within the specified time frame, a loss of damage will be sustained by the
County and/or any contracted Associated Municipality. Since it is and will be impractical and extremely difficult to ascertain and determine the actual loss or damage which the County will suffer in the event of and by reason of such delay, the parties hereto agree that the Contractor will pay to the County and/or any contracted Associated Municipality, the sum of $1000.00 as Liquidated
Damages for each and every calendar day’s delay in finishing the work in excess of the number of
working days prescribed. It is agreed that this amount is an estimate of the actual loss or damage to the County and/or any contracted Associated Municipality which will accrue during the period in excess of August 26, 2022.
4.10 FORCE MAJEURE If the contractor is delayed in the performance of the work by: a) Labour disputes, strikes, lockouts; b) Fire, unusual delay by common carriers or unavoidable casualties;
c) Abnormally adverse weather conditions; or d) Any cause beyond the contractor’s control other than one resulting from a default or breach of contract by the contractor (ie COVID-19 pandemic); then the contract time shall be extended for such reasonable time as the County or Associated Municipality may recommend in consultation with the contractor. The extension of time shall not be less than the time lost as the result of the event causing the delay, unless the contractor agrees to a shorter extension. The contractor shall not be entitled to payment for costs incurred by such delays,
unless such delays result from actions by the County, Associated Municipality or anyone employed
or engaged by them directly or indirectly. The contractor’s right to claim an extension of time is subject to the communication of a written notice to the County or any Associated Municipality not later than 10 working days after the
commencement of the delay caused by the force majeure event.
4.11 MAINTENANCE/WARRANTY PERIOD The Contractor guarantees that the said work shall, for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of substantial completion, remain in such condition as will meet with the approval of the County and/or Associated Municipality. The County or contracted Associated Municipality will arrange for a final inspection of the Works prior to the end of the warranty period. The Contractor will be required
to make good in a permanent manner, satisfactory to the County or contracted Associated
Municipality, any imperfections due to materials or workmanship used in the Works. The decision of the County or contracted Associated Municipality is to be final as to the nature and cause of such
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 35
imperfection and the necessity for removing the same. Should the Contractor fail to comply with
the direction by the County or Associated Municipality, the latter may, after giving the Contractor 14 calendar days written notice, perform the necessary work and the cost may be deducted by the County or contracted Associated Municipality from monies owing the Contractor, or to recover the cost from the Contractor.
4.12 CHANGES TO EQUIPMENT OR SERVICES
The County or contracted Associated Municipality may, without invalidating the Contract, direct the Contractor to make changes to the Equipment or Services. When a change causes an increase or decrease in the Equipment or Services, the Contract price shall be increased or decreased by the applicable unit price, or in the absence of applicable unit prices, by an amount to be agreed upon in writing between the County or contracted Associated Municipality and Contractor. All changes
must be in writing.
4.13 TERMS OF PAYMENT
Payments for materials supplied and work completed shall be on a monthly basis at the rate of
90% providing a 10% holdback in accordance with the Construction Act, 1990 as amended. After completion and acceptance of the work, the holdback will be paid to the Contractor upon receipt of a Statutory Declaration that all accounts and labour have been paid in full, receipt of a WSIB Clearance Certificate and receipt of all “As Built” drawings and documents as required.
All payments will be made within twenty-eight (28) days from receipt of a proper approved invoice
unless the County or contracted Associated Municipality delivers a notice of non-payment to the Contractor.
Payment will only be issued if there is a valid WSIB Clearance Certificate and Statutory
Declaration attached to each invoice submitted.
Payments made by the County or contracted Associated Municipality, including final payment, shall
not relieve the Contractor from its obligations or liabilities under the Contract. Vendors must note that payments will be made in accordance with the authorized prices and upset limit (estimate) outlined in the RFT. No other payments will be made without prior express, written
justification to and authorization by the County or contracted Associated Municipality.
Acceptance by the Contractor of the final payment shall constitute a waiver of claims by the Contractor against the County, except those previously made in writing in accordance with the
Contract and still unsettled.
The County or contracted Associated Municipality shall have the right to withhold from any sum
otherwise payable to the Contractor any amount sufficient to remedy any defect or deficiency in the
Equipment, pending correction of the deficiencies or any amount sufficient to satisfy any claim the County or such Associated Municipality has against the Contractor resulting from a previous Contract, a legal proceeding or unpaid accounts, including property or business taxes. The County and/or contracted Associated Municipality will deliver notices of non-payment within fourteen (14)
days from receipt of a proper invoice.
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 36
4.14 AGREEMENT
A written agreement, prepared by the County and/or contracted Associated Municipality, shall be executed by the County and/or contracted Associated Municipality and the successful Contractor. The County’s sample form of agreement for Part 1 work is included as Appendix A.
Agreements with any one or more Associated Municipalities for Works forming Parts 2, 3, and 4 may
vary.
4.15 CONTINGENCY AND PROVISIONAL ITEMS Bidders are advised that this tender may have a contingency value in the pricing table. The
contingency value will be calculated as part of the total tender price as applicable.
It is understood and agreed that such Contingency Allowance is merely for the convenience of
accounting by the County and the Contractor is not entitled to payment thereof except for extra or
additional work carried out by them in accordance with the Contract and only to the extent of such extra or additional work. This tender may also contain provisional items. If provisional pricing is requested, this pricing shall be carried forward in the total tendered price unless directed otherwise. The County reserves the right to delete from the Base Bid Price (Total Contract Price) one or more of the items identified as provisional items in the Schedule of Prices (bid forms) for credit at the price shown. All prices are inclusive of all duties and taxes, except HST.
4.16 EXTRA WORK If the County or any contracted Associated Municipality orders in writing the performance of any work not covered by the Specifications that cannot be classified as coming under any of the contract units and for which no unit price, lump sum, or other basis can be agreed upon, then such extra work shall be performed on a Cost-Plus Percentage basis. Any extra work ordered by the County or any contracted Associated Municipality to be done on a cost-plus basis shall be so done by the Contractor, who shall be paid therefor only the actual cost thereof, as determined by the estimation of the County or any contracted Associated Municipality
plus 15 per cent for use of plant, tools, etc., and to cover Contractor's profits, and the Contractor
must furnish the County or any contracted Associated Municipality with satisfactory vouchers for all labour and material expended on the work. Where rental charge is made for trucks, equipment, etc. no percentage will be allowed on such rental. When such extra work is required, and is performed by a Sub-contractor, the percentage paid by the County or any contracted Associated
Municipality for overhead, profit, etc., shall be no greater than the sum that would have been paid
had the Contractor himself performed the work.
The Contractor will only be monetarily compensated for performing "extra work" for the actual
labour, machinery, and materials requested to perform the work. All attempts shall be made by the Contractor to ensure the labour and machinery not required to perform the extra work is constructing other works outside of the extra work.
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 37
All extra work must be approved by the County or any contracted Associated Municipality prior to
commencing construction in the field.
The Contractor must inform the County 's or any contracted Associated Municipality’s site
representative (inspector) as soon as extra work is anticipated, to ensure the County 's approval is
received in a timely fashion. The Contractor must also notify the Inspector when the extra work is being constructed to allow verification of time and materials required to perform the work.
4.17 PIGGYBACK CONTRACTS – ASSOCIATED MUNICIPALITIES
It must be clearly understood that, by submitting a Tender in accordance with this document, the respective bidder is agreeing that specified Associated Municipalities (specifically Elgin County Municipal Partners) will review the bidders tender document and further thereto, may determine
that it is in their best interest to contract with the successful bidder, utilizing the same terms and conditions, for completion of works specified herein upon its local roads.
Should any Associated Municipality agree to award the work contemplated by this RFT upon any roads within its municipality to the successful bidder herein, it will be the consequential responsibility of that successful bidder to negotiate and execute a separate Contract with each such Associated Municipality, provided at all times that the terms and conditions of such Contract
shall be in keeping with the terms and conditions of this RFT, unless otherwise agreed upon between the successful bidder and that specific Associated Municipality.
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 38
PART FIVE – CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS
5.1 GENERAL These contract specifications shall apply and be part of any Contract based upon this RFT process, and shall take precedence over all General Conditions pertaining to the Contract. The Contractor shall provide all labour, equipment, materials and supervision necessary to complete the work as
described in the Contract.
5.2 MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS - MICROSURFACING The Ontario Provincial Standard Specifications (OPSS.MUNI 336, November 2018) for
Microsurfacing shall apply and be part of this Contract and shall govern except as may be extended or amended by the General or Special Provisions.
The Contractor will design the mixes, supply the mix designs and supply preproduction sample of
each mix to the County. Work will not commence until the mix designs are approved by the County.
At various times throughout the contract, samples will be taken at the discretion of the County to verify the material is in compliance with O.P.S.S. 1003, 1003 HL1. Any material not qualifying to these specifications shall be removed, replaced and disposed of (off site) at the Contractor’s own expense.
5.2.1 Aggregate
The aggregate is to be TYPE 3 Microsurfacing, 100% crushed bedrock, physical requirements
OPSS 1003 Superpave 12.5 FC1 (Table 3, OPSS.MUNI 336). The gradation requirements shall
follow Table 4 in OPSS.MUNI 336. The Contractor shall provide documentation from a certified laboratory confirming the aggregate meets these requirements.
The application rate is to be 8 to 10 kg per square metre. Documentation may be requested to
verify/confirm daily application rates.
Mineral Filler shall conform to the requirements of ISSA Section 4.3 Mineral Filler. Portland cement, hydrated lime, limestone dust, fly ash or other approved filler meeting the requirements of AMTM D242 shall be used if required by the mix design. They shall be considered as part of the dry
aggregate.
5.2.2 Polymer Modified Emulsified Asphalt
The emulsified asphalt shall be according to OPSS 1103 for a quick set modified cationic type CSS-1H emulsion and conform to the test requirements in Table 2. A copy of the test results from a certified laboratory shall be submitted to the County along with the mix design.
5.3 MIX DESIGN AND CONTROL
The Contractor shall forward to the Engineer, in writing, his proposed job mix formula designed by a certified laboratory with the following stated:
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 39
(a) Source and location of materials (b) The proportions of all materials; these shall be expressed as follows, where each is applicable (c) Residual Asphalt, as a percentage by weight of the total mixture (d) Sand, as a percentage by weight of the total aggregate
(e) Screenings, as a percentage by weight of the total aggregate
(f) Mineral Filler, including mineral filler where used (g) The single definite percentage for each sieve fraction
The Contractor shall also forward samples of the materials proposed to be used at the request of the
Engineer and at no additional cost.
5.4 COMPOSITION OF MICROSURFACING The amount of asphalt emulsion to be blended with the aggregate shall be adjusted to secure a residual asphalt content of 7.5 to 13.5 percent by weight of dry aggregate in the finished seal coat.
Only the least amount of water necessary to obtain a fluid and homogeneous mixture without segregation shall be added. At all times segregated mixes will be rejected. The Contractor shall, at his own expense, make trial batches to determine the ultimate blend of mineral aggregate and residual asphalt. The emulsion shall be created by a Certified Lab and Engineer shall give final approval to the design used.
Samples of the actual mixture in use will be taken as many times as necessary at the discretion of the Engineer, and the mixture must be maintained uniform within the above tolerances. If an additional source of supply for materials is approved, the job mix formula will be readjusted to the satisfaction of the Engineer. Samples of the emulsion and aggregate used in the mix will be supplied
to the Engineer at least 3 weeks prior to commencing the project.
It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to abide by the specifications and to meet the job mix formula at all times. Failure of the Contractor to consistently meet the job mix formula or any other part of the specifications shall be deemed sufficient cause for the Engineer to prohibit the use of any
material produced. Production shall not be resumed until the Contractor has demonstrated the ability to supply an approved mix.
5.5 PLANT AND EQUIPMENT
5.5.1 General All equipment, tools and machines used in the performance of this work shall be maintained in satisfactory working condition subject to the approval of the Engineer.
5.5.2 Auxiliary Equipment All compressors, if required, shall be a 2 cubic metres per minute capacity or more to ensure an adequate supply of air to effectively clean the joints. The Contractor shall also supply squeegees, shovels, brooms and other hand and/or power tools as required to perform the work specified.
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 40
5.5.3 Microsurfacing Mixing/Placing Machine
The machine shall be specifically designed and manufactured to lay Microsurfacing. The Modified Slurry Seal mixing equipment shall be a continuous flow mixing unit equipped for
delivering accurately metered proportions of water, aggregate, fines and asphalt emulsion to a
revolving spiralled multiblade mixer tank and to discharge the thoroughly mixed product on a continuous basis. The multiblades of the mixing unit shall be capable of thoroughly blending all ingredients together without foaming. The aggregate shall be pre-wetted immediately prior to mixing with the emulsion.
The mixing machine shall be equipped with a water pressure system and fog type spray bar adequate for uniform fogging of the surface immediately preceding the spreading equipment with a maximum application of 0.2 litres per square metre.
Speed of the machine shall be adjustable between not less than 20 metres per minute and not more
than 55 metres per minute during application. Capacity of hoppers on the machine shall be sufficient for continual mixing and application of not less than 4.5 tonnes of the Modified Slurry Seal.
5.6 SPREADING EQUIPMENT
Attached to the mixer machine shall be a mechanical type squeegee distributor equipped with a flexible band in continual touch with the road surface to eliminate a loss of slurry from the distributor. It shall be maintained so as to prevent loss of slurry on varying grades and crown by adjustments to assure a uniform speed. There shall be a steering device and a flexible strike-off.
The strike-off shall be cleaned thoroughly daily to prevent drag marks on the finished surface. Also, any burlap used to create a uniform surface shall be continuously cleaned to prevent drag marks on the surface. The presence of drag markings in the finished surface may necessitate the
contractor to refinish the surface solely at his cost. The decision to enforce the visual
acceptance of drag marks and direct the contractor to remedy the surface is the County’s to
make and is indisputable.
5.7 CONSTRUCTION
Processing Aggregates
The aggregates shall be processed to meet all requirements of the specifications. Aggregate shall be crushed, screened and separated with approved equipment.
All aggregates shall be handled so as to prevent segregation and to obtain uniformity of materials during all operations. Stockpiles shall be built in layers not to exceed 2 metres in depth. Each layer shall be completed
over the entire area of the stockpile before beginning the next layer. Coning of the stockpiles or spilling material over the edges of the stockpile will not be permitted. Aggregates delivered to the stockpile in trucks shall be uniformly spotdumped and the stockpile built as specified above.
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 41
Aggregates shall not be removed from stockpiles within 300mm of the ground. Aggregates which
have become contaminated with other material will be removed from the stockpile and not used. All aggregates must be pre-screened prior to loading onto trucks prior to placement to ensure uniformity and removal of contaminants.
5.8 PREPARATION OF THE SURFACE All cleaning required to ensure proper application of the slurry mixture will be the Contractor’s responsibility and these costs shall be included in his unit price. This may involve mechanical sweeping and or power washing debris from the roadway as required. Any delamination of the
Microsurfacing, for any reason, shall be the Contractor’s responsibility and expense to remedy during the 2-year warranty period.
Any depressions and large cracks shall be cleaned by directing a jet of compressed air into the
cracks and depressions and shall be repaired by hand with a squeegee before applying Microsurfacing. There will be no additional payment for this hand work.
The Contractor may be directed by the Engineer to “scratch coat” sections of road prior to the placement of the final surface. The Contractor will be compensated at the unit cost for the areas receiving a “scratch coat”.
5.9 SURFACE TREATMENT 5.9.1 Supply and Application of Emulsions
OPSS MUNI 303, 304 and 1006 (November 2016) shall apply and govern except as amended and/or extended herein. Application rates shall generally be as follows, but may be adjusted depending on the aggregates used on the basis of results of the trial areas:
HF-150SP or HP200P ~> On Hard Top - 1.3 to 1.7 kg/m² ~> On Loose Top - 1.70 kg/m²
5.9.2 Surface Treatment
OPSS MUNI 303, 304 and 1006 (November 2016) shall apply and govern except as amended and/or extended herein. The surface treatment shall be scheduled and be coordinated with road reconstruction activities completed by others. The Contractor shall begin work upon 3 weeks’ notice. The contractor prior to commencing work shall submit current aggregate testing on all types of
aggregate to be used during the execution of this contract. The County may require samples of materials to be used for testing purposes prior to application. Approval by the Engineer of aggregate sources does not relieve the Contractor of his obligation to ensure that all granular materials meet the contract requirements for physical properties, aggregate/emulsion compatibility, etc.
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11
Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
County of Elgin | 2022 E-Bid Edition | Construction 42
No overloading will be tolerated and the Contractor will not be paid for that portion of the load in excess of the legal licensed amount of the vehicle. The Contractor shall be restricted to the use of Provincial Highways and County Roads to arrive at the work sites.
5.9.3 Aggregates
OPSS MUNI 303, 304 and 1006 (November 2016) shall apply and govern except as amended and/or extended herein.
For Double Surface Treatments, a Class 2 aggregate shall be used on the bottom lift and a Class 6
(HL3) stone shall be used on the surface lift. For Single Surface Treatments, a Class 5 (1/4” Quarry Granite) stone or Class 6 (HL3) stone shall be used as specified and directed. Application rates shall generally be as follows, but may be adjusted on the basis of results of the trial
areas:
- Class 2 Aggregate on HF-150SP or HP200P @ 16.0 kg/m² on loose surface - Class 6 Aggregate (HL3) on HF-150SP or HP200P @ 17.0 kg/m² on hard surface - Class 5 (1/4” Quarry Granite) on HF-150SP or HP200P @ 13.0 kg/m² on hard surface
Payment at the contract price on the Form of Tender for this item shall be full compensation for all labour and equipment for the supply, handling, spreading, rolling, protection of the work, traffic control and brooming for application of the various cover aggregates required to complete the surface treatment.
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11 Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
43
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – SAMPLE FORM OF AGREEMENT (4 Pages) BID FORMS (Attached)
Notes: 1. The attached sample form of agreement shall apply to Part 1 Work only. 2. Agreements with any one or more Associated Municipalities for Works forming Parts 2, 3, and 4 may vary.
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11 Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
44
APPENDIX A - SAMPLE FORM OF AGREEMENT
CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF ELGIN Surface Treatment and Microsurfacing – Tender No. 2022-T11
THIS AGREEMENT made this ________ day of ________________, 2022.
BETWEEN:
CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF ELGIN
(hereinafter called “County”)
OF THE FIRST PART
- AND -
____________________________________
(hereinafter called “Contractor”)
OF THE SECOND PART
WITNESSETH:
The County and the Contractor in consideration of the fulfillment of their respective promises and obligations hereinafter set forth covenant and agree with each other as follows:
ARTICLE 1
a) A general description of work is to provide all the labour, equipment and materials required for the <Insert Project Name> Tender;
b) In respect of such work and except as otherwise specifically provided, the Contractor, at his own
expense, shall provide all and every kind of labour, machinery, plant, structures, roadways and
materials necessary for the due execution and completion of all the work set out in this Contract and
shall forthwith according to the instructions of the Engineer commence the works and diligently
execute the respective portions thereof; and deliver the works complete in every particular to the
County within the time specified in the Tender.
ARTICLE 2
The County covenants with the Contractor that the Contractor, having in all respects complied with the
provisions of this Contract, will be paid for and in respect of all the work, at the tendered unit prices after
measurement approved by the Engineer, the total which is presently estimated at $XXX,XXX.XX excluding
HST, together with such additional sum up to a maximum of $XX,000.00, excluding HST, for extra or
additional work at the unit rates or the amounts, as the case may be, stipulated in the written orders of the
Engineer authorizing extra or additional work; such payment, however, shall be subject to Article 3 hereof
and subject to such additions and deductions as may be properly made under the terms hereof and further
subject to the provisions that the County may make payments on account monthly or otherwise as may
be provided in the Special Terms and Conditions.
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11 Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
45
ARTICLE 3
In the event that the Tender provides for and contains a Contingency Allowance, it is understood and
agreed that such Contingency Allowance is merely for the convenience of accounting by the County and
the Contractor is not entitled to payment thereof except for extra or additional work carried out by them in
accordance with the Contract and only to the extent of such extra or additional work.
ARTICLE 4
Where any notice, direction or other communication is required to be or may be given or made by one of
the parties hereto to the other or to the Engineer or to his agent, it shall be deemed sufficiently given or
made if mailed or delivered in writing to such party or the Engineer at the following addresses:
COUNTY: CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF ELGIN
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1
CONTRACTOR: _______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
ARTICLE 5
In case of any inconsistency or conflict between the provisions of this Agreement and the Specifications
or General Conditions or Tender or Drawings or any other document or writing, the provisions of such
documents shall take precedence and govern in the following order, namely:
a) Agreement
b) Addenda
c) Contract Specifications d) Contract Drawings e) Special Terms and Conditions f) Standard Terms and Conditions
g) Bid Submission Forms
h) General Terms and Conditions
ARTICLE 6
A copy of each of the Contract Specifications, Bid Submission Forms and Addendum No. ___ are hereto
annexed and together with the Drawings, General Terms and Conditions, Standard Terms and Conditions
and Special Terms and Conditions relating to the work contemplated herein, even though not attached,
all as listed in the Tender document, form part of and are deemed to be incorporated into this Agreement.
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11 Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
46
ARTICLE 7
The Contractor agrees to begin the works no sooner than __________, 2022 and substantially complete
the work no later than ________________, 2022. The Contractor also agrees to pay the County the sum
of ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,000) per calendar day as liquidated damages for each calendar day
that the work remains incomplete after the specified date above, in accordance with the Tender
documents, and more specifically Part Four (Special Terms and Conditions) Section 4.9 (Liquidated
Damages).
ARTICLE 8
The Contractor declares that he has either investigated for himself the character of the work and all local
conditions that might affect his Tender or his acceptance of the work, or that not having so investigated,
he is willing to assume and does hereby assume all risk of conditions arising or developing in the course
of the work which might or could make the work, or any items thereof, more expensive in character or
more onerous to fulfill, than was contemplated or known when the tender was made of the Contract
signed. The Contractor also declares that he did not and does not rely upon information furnished by
any methods whatsoever, by the County or its officers or employees, being aware that any information
from such sources was and is approximate and speculative only, and was not in any manner warranted
or guaranteed by the County.
ARTICLE 9
The Contractor shall indemnify and save harmless the County from all loss, damages, costs, charges,
expenses or claims arising out of the Contract and the Contractor shall take due and proper precautions
for the prevention of accidents to persons and property during or in consequence of the work and should
the County incur, pay or be put to any such loss, damages, costs, charges or expenses or claims, the
Contractor shall forthwith, upon demand, repay the same to the County.
ARTICLE 10
This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which, when so executed, shall
constitute but one and the same document. This Agreement may also be signed in paper form, by
facsimile signature or by electronic signature in accordance with section 11 of the Electronic Commerce
Act, 2000 (Ontario). It may also be signed, whether or not in counterpart, scanned to Adobe® Portable
Document Format (PDF) and delivered by way of electronic mail.
(Remainder of page left blank intentionally)
Request for Tender No. 2022-T11 Surface Treatment & Microsurfacing
47
ARTICLE 11
The Contract shall apply to and be binding on the parties hereto, their heirs, executors, successors,
administrators, and assigns jointly and severally.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and seals the day of the year
first above written or cause their corporate seals to be affixed, attested by the signature of their proper
officers, as the case may be.
<Insert Contractor Name>
___________________ Per: ____________________________
DATE Name:___________________________
Position:________________________
I have the authority to bind the corporation
Corporation of the County of Elgin
___________________ Per:__________________________
DATE Name: Mary French
Position: Warden
Per:___________________________
Name: Julie Gonyou
Position: Chief Administrative Officer
We have the authority to bind the corporation
2022-T11 - Surface Treatment and Microsurfacing - Overview of Schedule of Prices
Duncor Enterprises Inc.MSO Construction, a division
of Miller Paving Limited
Schedules Total Total
Part 1 - County of Elgin Roads $222,195.00 $392,325.00
Part 2 - Township of Malahide $663,783.00 $1,018,487.00
Part 3 - Municipality of Bayham $683,446.00 $1,004,145.00
Part 4 - Municipality of Central Elgin $306,900.80 $464,126.00
Subtotal Contract Amount:$1,876,324.80 $2,879,083.00
Part 1 - County of Elgin Roads
Item #Description of Work Surface Type Unit Est. Qty.Unit Price Total Unit Price Total
1.1
Supply all labour equipment and materials to place SINGLE
Surface Treatment (SST) using CLASS 5 stone (1/4" Quarry
Granite)
SST - Class 5 m2 7500 $ 3.6400 $27,300.00 $ 5.4500 $40,875.00
1.2 Supply all labour equipment and materials to place
Microsurfacing Type 3 Single Application
Micro Type 3 m2 53250 $ 3.4200 $182,115.00 $ 6.1500 $327,487.50
1.3 Supply and Install Tack Coat on all existing surfaces prior to
placement of Microsurfacing
n/a m2 53250 $ 0.2400 $12,780.00 $ 0.4500 $23,962.50
Subtotal:$222,195.00 $392,325.00
Duncor Enterprises Inc.MSO Construction, a division of Miller
Paving Limited
Part 3 - Municipality of Bayham
Item #Description of Work Surface Type Unit Est. Qty.Unit Price Total Unit Price Total
3.1
Supply all labour equipment and materials to place SINGLE
Surface Treatment (SST) using CLASS 5 aggregate (1/4" Quarry
Granite)
SST - Class 5 m2 108300 $ 3.3900 $367,137.00 $ 5.4500 $590,235.00
3.2
Supply all labour equipment and materials to place DOUBLE
Surface Treatment (DST) using CLASS 2 base and CLASS 6 top
DST - Class 2 & 6 m2 51100 $ 6.1900 $316,309.00 $ 8.1000 $413,910.00
Subtotal:$683,446.00 $1,004,145.00
Duncor Enterprises Inc.MSO Construction, a division of Miller
Paving Limited
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
BY-LAW NO. 2022-032
A BY-LAW TO AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION
OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM AND
ELGIN PROPERTY MAINTENANCE
FOR PROVISION OF WASHROOM MAINTENANCE SERVICES
WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham is desirous of entering
into an agreement for the provision of Washroom Maintenance at the following Municipal owned
locations in the Municipality of Bayham;
o Port Burwell East Beach, 1 Robinson Street, Port Burwell, ON; and
o Port Burwell Community Park, 55461 Nova Scotia Line, Port Burwell, ON
AND WHEREAS RFP-21-01 was awarded to PK Property Maintenance and an agreement
executed for washroom maintenance services on April 1, 2021;
AND WHEREAS PK Property Maintenance requested termination of its contract with the
Municipality on March 23, 2022;
AND WHEREAS Council received report PS-08/22 on April 7, 2022 indicating interest from
Elgin Property Maintenance to take over these services;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF
BAYHAM ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. THAT the Mayor and Clerk be and are hereby authorized to execute the Agreement
attached hereto as Schedule “A” and forming part of this by-law between the Municipality
of Bayham and Elgin Property Maintenance for the provision of washroom maintenance
services;
2. THAT By-law No. 2021-023 be repealed;
3. THAT this By-law shall come into full force and effect on May 1, 2022.
READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 5th DAY OF MAY,
2022.
___________________________ _____________________________
MAYOR CLERK
AGREEMENT
PORT BURWELL EAST BEACH & PORT BURWELL COMMUNITY
PARK WASHROOM MAINTENANCE
THIS AGREEMENT DATED THE DAY OF May, 2022
BETWEEN:
The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham
(Hereinafter called the "Municipality"
and
Elgin Property Maintenance
(Hereinafter called the "Contractor")
of the First Part
of the Second Part
WHEREAS The Municipality contracts for Washroom Maintenance at the following Municipal
owned locations:
o Port Burwell East Beach, 1 Robinson Street, Port Burwell, ON; and
o Port Burwell Community Park, 55461 Nova Scotia Line, Port Burwell, ON.
NOW THEREFORE IN CONSIDERATION OF the mutual covenants herein contained, the
payments required hereby, and such other consideration as the parties hereto deem
acceptable, the parties agree as follows:
Section 1- Definitions
For the purposes of this Agreement,
1.1 "Council" shall mean the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham;
1.2 "CAOIClerk" shall mean the Chief Administrative OfficerlClerk of the Municipality of
Bayham or designate;
Section 2 - General Provisions
2.1 The Contractor shall be solely responsible for Port Burwell East Beach, 1 Robinson
Street, Port Burwell, ON & Port Burwell Community Park, 55461 Nova Scotia Line,
Port Burwell, ON Washroom Maintenance within the Municipality of Bayham for a four
(4) year time period from 2022 - 2025 in accordance with this Agreement with two
additional one year municipal mutual options to extend the contact, and agrees to
carry out said services in accordance with this Agreement and in accordance with the
reasonable directions given by the Manager of Public Works, or designate from time
to time.
2.2 Pursuant to Section 2.1 of this Agreement should the contract be extended for the
option years, the 2025 fees, indicated in Appendix 'C' shall be indexed by 1.5% in
2026 and an additional 1.5% in 2027.
2.3 The Contractor hereby covenants to perform such services in accordance with the
Service Guideline attached hereto as Appendix 'A'. This appendix may be modified
only upon mutual written agreement.
2.4 The Municipality hereby covenants to pay the agreed upon price as per Appendix 'C'
to the Contractor thirty (30) days from the receipt of invoice for services Invoices will
be based on actual services provided the previous month.
2.5 The Contractor shall be responsible for any damage made to Municipal or private
property. Any damage will be repaired at the expense of the Contractor and
approved by the Municipality.
2.6 6 The Contractor shall maintain and pay for Comprehensive General Liability Insurance
in an amount of not less than two million ($2,000,000.00) naming the Municipality of
Bayham as an additional insured in respect of all operations performed by or on
behalf of the Municipality. The coverage shall not be altered, cancelled or allowed to
expire or lapse without thirty (30) days prior written notice to the Municipality. A
Certificate of Insurance shall be filed with the Municipality upon the signing of the
Agreement and annually thereafter throughout the term of the Agreement.
2.7 The Contractor shall furnish to the Municipality, upon the execution of this
Agreement, copies of the certificate of Insurance showing it has complied with the
provisions of Section 2.6 including naming the Municipality as an additional inured.
2.8 The Contractor shall agree to fulfil all of his obligations in compliance with the
Occupational Health and Safety Act and further agrees to take responsibility for any
health and safety violation that may occur. The Contractor shall indemnify and save
harmless the Municipality from any and all charges, fines, penalties and costs that
may be incurred or paid by the Municipality.
2.9 The contractor shall provide a Certificate from Workplace Safety and Insurance
Board indicating that all payments by the Contractor to the WSIB in conjunction with
this Agreement have been made and that the Municipality will not be liable to the
Board for future payments in connection with the Agreement. The Certificate shall be
provided upon signing of the Agreement and yearly thereafter until the expiry or
termination of this Agreement.
2.10 The Contractor shall indemnify and save harmless the Municipality from all injuries
and accidents from any work undertaken as a result of this Agreement save and
except from damage caused by the negligence of the Municipality or their employees.
Section 3 - Administration
3.1
3.2
This Agreement shall take effect on the 1st day of May, 2022 and shall remain
in effect for a period of four (4) years.
Payment shall be made in accordance with the attached Appendix 'A' net
thirty (30) calendar days following receipt of invoice.
3.3 The Municipality or Contractor may terminate this Agreement upon forty-five
(45) days notice in writing to the other party. Such notice may be mailed by
ordinary prepaid mail to the other party, and this Agreement shall terminate on
the forty-fifth day following the date of the mailing.
3.4 Any notice required to be given under this Agreement must be in writing to the
applicable address set out below:
in the case of the Municipality:
Attention: CAOIClerk
Municipality of Bayham
PO Box 160
56169 Heritage Line
Straffordville, ON N0J 1Y0
Office: (519) 866-5521
(b) in the case of the Contractor:
Attention: Elgin Property Maintenance
50088 Glencolin Line
Aylmer, ON N5H 2R3
Section 4 - Agreement Definition
4.1 In construing this Agreement, words in the singular shall include the plural and vice
versa and words importing the masculine shall include the feminine, and the neuter and
vice versa, and words importing persons shall include corporations and vice versa.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have duly executed this Agreement
this day of May, 2022.
Authorized by
Bayham By-law No. 2022- 0 ) THE CORPORATION OF THE
) MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
) ) ) }
)
)
)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the party of the Second Part has hereunto set their hand and seal.
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED, this _____ day of May, 2022.
In the presence of )
)
)
)
)
_______________________ ) _______________________________
Witness Elgin Property Maintenance
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
BY-LAW NO. 2022-033
A BY-LAW TO CONFIRM ALL ACTIONS OF
THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF
THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM FOR THE
COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 5, 2022
WHEREAS under Section 5 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 S.O. 2001, Chapter 25, the powers of
a municipal corporation are to be exercised by the Council of the municipality;
AND WHEREAS under Section 5 (3) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the powers of Council are to be
exercised by by-law;
AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham deems it
advisable that the proceedings of the meeting be confirmed and adopted by by-law.
THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF
BAYHAM ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. THAT the actions of the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham in
respect of each recommendation and each motion and resolution passed and other
action by the Council at the Council meeting held May 5, 2022 is hereby adopted and
confirmed as if all proceedings were expressly embodied in this by-law.
2. THAT the Mayor and Clerk of The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham are hereby
authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the action of the
Council including executing all documents and affixing the Corporate Seal.
READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 5th DAY
OF MAY 2022.
____________________________ _____________________________
MAYOR CLERK