Peterborough Memorial Centre Ice Pad Replacement Report

General Committee Meeting Agenda

August 27, 2018
Council Chambers, City Hall
Pages
1. Closed Session - 5:15 p.m., Carnegie Room
1.a Resolution to meet in Closed Session
1.b Closed Session Minutes for Approval
1.b.1 July 16, 2018
1.c Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest
1.d Section 239(2)(c) A proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of
land by the municipality or local board - Pioneer Road
1.e Resolution to adjourn Closed Session
2. Open Session - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers
3. Opening of Meeting
4. Thirty Seconds of Reflection
5. National Anthem
6. Adoption of minutes:
6.a June 25, 2018 1 - 12
6.b July 16, 2018 13 - 14
7. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest
8. Report of Closed Session
9. Consent Agenda for Reports and Communications
The following items listed may approved by one common motion.
12.a., 12.b., 12.c., 13.a., 14.a., 14.b., 14.c., 14.d., 14.e.
10. Presentations
10.a City of Peterborough Holdings Inc. Presentation 15 - 56

Report CLSFS18-035
11. Public Meeting under the Planning Act
11.a Application for Official Plan Amendment O1802, Zoning By-law 57 - 142

Amendment Z1704SB and Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval 15T-
17501 "Ashborough Village" (Phase 1)
YiZheng Ltd., The Biglieri Group Ltd.
2320 Ashburnham Drive, 2159 Old Norwood Road,
500, 510 and 516 Maniece Avenue
Report IPSPD18-023
12. CAO, Corporate and Legislative Services
12.a Purchasing Policy By-law Update 143 - 188

Report CLSFS18-037
12.b Increase to the Pre-commitment of the 2019 Capital Budget for the 189 - 279

Peterborough Memorial Centre Ice Pad Replacement
Report CLSFM18-021
12.c June 30, 2018 Financial Report (Unaudited) 280 - 300

Report CLSFS18-036
13. Community Services
13.a Listing of Properties on the Heritage Register 301 - 323

Report CSACH18-004
14. Infrastructure and Planning Services
14.a Application for Site Plan Approval, 475 George Street North, Seven 324 - 343

Storey Building with 136 Dwelling Units (Atria)
Report IPSPD18-020
14.b Request for Minor Variance Consideration within 2 years of Zoning 344 - 349

Amendment for 186 Romaine Street
Report IPSPD18-022
14.c Recycling Contract Update and Amendment 350 - 366

Report IPSWM18-004
14.d BethuneScape Project Update and Increase in Agreement for Detailed 367 - 375

Design and Contract Administration
Report IPSEC18-024
14.e Update on Source Separated Organics Program - Grant Funding and 376 - 381
next steps
Report IPSCOM18-012
15. Other Business
16. Adjournment
1
General Committee Minutes

Council Chambers, City Hall
June 25, 2018
Present: Mayor Bennett

Councillor Baldwin
Councillor Beamer, Chair
Councillor Clarke
Councillor Haacke
Councillor McWilliams
Councillor Parnell
Councillor Pappas
Councillor Riel
Councillor Therrien
Councillor Vassiliadis
Staff: Sandra Clancy, Chief Administrative Officer

Jeffrey Humble, Director of Planning and Development Services
John Kennedy, Clerk
Patricia Lester, Commissioner of Corporate and Legislative Services
Blair Nelson, Manager, Design and Construction, Engineering
David Potts, City Solicitor/Manager of Legal Services
Allan Seabrooke, Commissioner of Community Services
Open Session - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers

Opening of Meeting
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall.
Thirty Seconds of Reflection
National Anthem
Adoption of minutes:
Moved by Councillor Parnell
That the minutes of the meetings of General Committee held on May 22, May 28
and June 6, 2018 be approved.
Carried
1
2
General Committee minutes of June 25, 2018
Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest

Councillor Parnell declared an interest in agenda item 12.g, Report IPEC18-019, as her
family has employment in the construction zone.
Consent Agenda for Reports and Communications
Moved by Councillor Vassiliadis
That items 10.a., 10.c., 11.a., 11.b., 12.b., 12.c., 12.e. and 12.h. be passed as
part of the Consent Agenda.
Carried
Downloading of Prosecution of Part III Offences to Municipalities

Report CLSPOA18-001
Mvoed by Councillor Vassiliadis
That Council approve the recommendations outlined in Report CLSPOA18-001
dated June 25, 2018, of the Commissioner of Corporate and Legislative Services,
as follows:
a) That Council approve the addition of a .5 FTE Municipal Prosecutor to meet
the increased responsibility of the downloading of Part III offences under
the Provincial Offences Act and funding for the position be included in the
2019 and subsequent years budgets.
b) That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to do all such acts and things and
to execute and deliver all such documents as in their opinion may be
necessary or desirable to formalize the downloading of Part III offences
from the Province.
Carried
Peterborough Housing Corporation Board Appointments

Report CLSCLK18-001
That Council approve the recommendations outlined in Report CLSCLK18-001
dated June 25, 2018, of the City Clerk, as follows:
a) That Linda Kehoe and Ken Smith be reappointed to the Peterborough
Housing Corporation Board of Directors, for a 3 year term from April 1,
2018 to March 31, 2021.
2
3
b) That Dave Tilley be appointed to the Peterborough Housing Corporation

Board of Directors, for a 3 year term from April 1, 2018 to March 31, 2021.
Carried
Passage and Amendment of Heritage By-laws

Report CSD18-009
That Council approve the recommendations outlined in Report CSD18-009, dated
June 25 2018, of the Commissioner of Community Services, as follows:
a) That the enabling By-Law 11-086 for the Heritage Property Tax Rebate
Program (HPTRP) be amended to reflect current provincial legislation and
City practice with regard to the administration of the program;
b) That a by-law be passed, attached as Appendix A, as permitted by Section
10 of By-Law 11-086, being a by-law to provide for a tax rebate in respect of
designated heritage properties, allowing the property at 503 Homewood
Avenue to be included in the HPTRP, and;
c) That By-Law 1981-165 enabling the designation of 266 Burnham Street
under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, be amended to capture the
change in legal title for the property as the result of a severance.
Carried
Revisions to the Age-friendly Peterborough Advisory Committee Terms of Reference

Report CSSS18-006
That Council endorse the recommendations outlined in Report CSSS18-006 dated
June 25, 2018, of the Commissioner of Community Services, as follows:
a) That Curve Lake First Nation and Hiawatha First Nation be added to the
AFPAC Terms of Reference as highlighted in Appendix A;
b) That the number of Members on AFPAC be increased by one Member for a
total of twelve (12) Members;
c) That the new Member be a Community Seat assigned to Hiawatha First
Nation;
d) That the existing First Nation Community Seat be assigned to Curve Lake
First Nation;
3
4
e) That Councillor Slade McCalip be appointed to AFPAC as a member of

Hiawatha First Nation Council; and
f) That Staff be directed to forward an amending report to City, County, and
First Nations Councils for approval.
Carried
Award of RFP P-19-18 for the Supply and Delivery of a CCTV Pipeline Inspection Truck
Report IPSPW18-007
That Council approve the recommendation outlined in Report IPSPW18-007 dated
June 25, 2018, of the Commissioner of Infrastructure and Planning Services, as
follows:
That the Supply and Delivery of a CCTV Pipeline Inspection Truck as per RFP P-
19-18 be awarded to Cues Canada Inc., 2-1675 Sismet Road, Mississauga, ON,
L4W 1P9 at a cost of $384,310.10 plus HST of $49,960.32 for a total cost of
$434,270.42.
Carried
Award of RFP P-16-18 for Routine Maintenance and Construction of Traffic Control
Signals/Devices and Street Lights
Report IPSTR18-017
That Council approve the recommendation outlined in Report IPSTR18-017 dated
June 25, 2018, of the Commissioner of Infrastructure and Planning Services, as
follows:
That Proposal P-16-18 for Routine Maintenance and Construction of Traffic
Control Signal/Devices and Street Lights be awarded to Guild Electric Limited,
470 Midwest Road Toronto, Ontario M1P 4Y5 at an estimated cost of $526,700.00
plus $68,471.00 HST for an estimated total of $595,171.00 per year increased by
the lower of 3% or the Average Annual Provincial Consumer Price index for years
2 through 4, for a period of four years starting October 1, 2018 until September
30, 2022, with the option of an additional four year extension at the sole
discretion of the City.
Carried
4
5
Precommitment of 2019 Capital Budget Funding and Site Plan Approval, 54 Row
Dwellings at 1637 Hetherington Drive
Report IPSPD18-019
That Council approve the recommendations outlined in Report IPSPD18-019
dated June 25, 2018, of the Commissioner of Infrastructure and Planning
Services, as follows:
That the Site Plan Application submitted by MHBC Planning for the construction
of 54 two-storey row dwellings at 1637 Hetherington Drive be approved, subject
to the following conditions:
a) The submission of revised drawings and additional technical information to
the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Infrastructure and Planning
Services;
b) The receipt of a clearance letter from Hydro One Networks Inc.;
c) The deposit of security for the future road improvements in an amount to
be determined by the Commissioner of Infrastructure and Planning
Services;
d) The precommitment of $780,000 in the 2019 Capital Budget to cover the
City’s share of the road and intersection improvements at Woodland Drive
and Water Street;
e) The conveyance of a 12.0 metre by 12.0 metre day-lighting triangle at the
corner of Woodland Drive and Water Street at no cost and free of
encumbrances to the City;
f) The conveyance of land dedicated to the Storm Water Management Pond at
no cost and free of encumbrances to the City;
g) The deposit of a Parkland Levy in the amount of $78,000.00; and
h) The deposit of a site work performance security in an amount of
$2,358,291.
Carried
Development Charges Rebate Program

Report IPSHD18-005
That Council approve the recommendations outlined in Report IPSHD18-005
5
6
a) That the City of Peterborough participate in the Development Charges

Rebate Program, offered by the Province of Ontario;
b) That a By-law be passed authorizing the Mayor and Clerk to execute
Transfer Payment Agreements with the Ministry of Housing for the
Development Charges Rebate Program;
c) That the Administrative Staff Committee be delegated authority to approve
a Take-Up Plan which will identify rental housing developments and units
eligible to receive rebate funding; and
d) That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign any agreements that may
be necessary to effect a Take-Up Plan approved under Recommendation c).
Carried
Increase of Contract Amount RFT T-30-17 for Donegal Street Bridge Rehabilitation and
Reconstruction of Donegal Street, McDonnel Street and Gilchrist Street
Report IPSEC18-019
Councillor Parnell, due to her previously declared interest, did not discuss or vote on the
matter.
Moved by Councillor Pappas
That Council approve the recommendations outlined in Report IPSEC18-019
a) That the 2018 Capital budget 5-2.03 for McDonnel Gilchrist Rehabilitation
be increased by $1,216,032 from $5,591,500 to $6,807,532;
b) That the additional $1,216,032 be funded as follows:
i) $767,785 be transferred from the FRMP Reserve - Sewer Surcharge;
ii) $228,247 be transferred from the FRMP Reserve - Capital Levy; and
iii) $220,000 be recovered from the County/City Landfill Tipping Fees;
c) That the Contract T-30-17 for the Donegal Street Bridge Rehabilitation and
Reconstruction of Donegal Street, McDonnel Street and Gilchrist Street
with Coco Paving Inc., 2317 Television Road, Peterborough, ON, K9J 7H5
be increased by $1,154,000 from $4,645,730.59 to $5,799,730.59 plus
$753,964.98 HST for a total of $5,249,675.57; and
6
7
d) That a provisional work value of $41,000 be committed to the project and

the Commissioner of Infrastructure and Planning Services be provided the
authority to adjust the purchase order value awarded to G.D. Jewell
Engineering Inc., 71 Millennium Parkway, Unit 1, Belleville, Ontario K8N 4Z5
for Contract Administration and Inspection Services to an upset limit of
$335,000 plus HST of $43,550 for a total of $378,550.
Carried
Holy Cross New Artificial Athletics Field

Report CLSFPI18-002
Moved by Councillor Baldwin
That Council approve the recommendations outlined in Report CLSFPI18-002
dated June 25, 2018, of the Commissioner of Corporate and Legislative Services,
as follows:
a) That a presentation by John George for the preliminary design concept

be received.
b) That Council approve the conceptual design and the partnership with
the Peterbrough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District
School Board for the conversion of the Holy Cross Secondary School
sport field from natural truf to an artificial athletics field with lights and an
eight lane running track.
c) That John George Associates Inc, be approved as the prime consultant for
the project and consulting frees for the detailed design and contract
administration at a cost of $198,740 plus HST of $25,837 for a total of
$224,577 be approved.
d) That John George Associates Inc. be sole sourced as per purchasing By-
law 14-127 Part 9.1.2.d. whereas; in certain situations, goods and/or
services, that might reasonably be expected to be solicited through a Bid
Solicitation process, may be obrtained through a non-competitive bidding
process; when it is necessary to ensure continuity of responsibility,
compatibility with existing products and or previous work, or to avoid
violating warranty/guarantee requirements when service is required.
e) That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the funding and
operating agreement with PVNCCDSB.
Carried
7
8
Report from the Peterborough Public Library Board - Strategic Planning and Rebrand
Report CSACH18-003
Paul Stern, Library Board Chair, introduced Greg Young from TCI.
Moved by Councillor Riel
That Council approve the recommendation outlined in Report CSACH18-003
dated June 25, 2018, of the Commissioner of Community Services as follows:
That the presentation by TCI Management Consultants on behalf of the
Peterborough Public Library Board on the new Library strategic planning
framework and rebrand be received for information.
Carried
Increase of Budget and Contract Amount Awarded to J.J. McGuire General Contractors
Inc. for the City Hall Interior Renovations and Elevator Installation
Report CLSFM18-015
Moved by Councillor McWilliams
That Council approve the recommendations outlined in Report CLSFM18-015
dated June 25, 2018, of the Commissioner of Corporate and Legislative Services
as follows:
a) That the budget for the City Hall Interior Renovations and Elevator
Installation project be increased by $361,961 frm $2,623,600 to $2,985,561
and that the increase be funded from the Capital Levy Reserve.
b) That the contract for T-47-17 with J.J McGuire General Contractors Inc., 880
Farewell Street, Oshawa, Ontario, L1H 6N6, for the City Hall Interior
Renovations and Elevator Installation, be increased by $191,329 from
$2,450,000 to $2,641,329 plus HST of $343,373 for a total cost of $2,984,702.
Carried
8
9
Brock Street Mission Redevelopment - Capital Budget Increase

Report CLSFS18-033
a) That report CLSFS18-033 be referred back to staff and that, given the
updated cost estimate, the CAO direct City Staff to work with PHC and
Brock Mission staff to review the PHC Request for Tenders design along
with potential alternatives for the provision of a men’s emergency shelter
facility and report back on the benefits and costs associated with each
option; and
b) That City Staff work with Brock Mission to ensure contingency plans are in
place for the continued provision of men’s emergency shelter services
while a longer-term solution for men’s emergency shelter services is being
developed.
Carried
Municipal Incentives for Affordable Rental Housing, DeafBlind Ontario Services, 86

Earlwood Drive
Report IPSHD18-004
Moved by Councillor Clarke
That Council approve the recommendations outlined in Report IPSHD18-004
a) That the Affordable Housing Community Improvement Plan program
application be approved for the proposed two unit affordable rental
housing project at 86 Earlwood Drive Peterborough, in accordance with
Report IPSHD18-004;
b) That the project be approved for $250,000 in capital funding for two
affordable rental units using Investment in Affordable Housing - Extension
program funding; and
c) That a By-law be adopted authorizing City Council to designate the portion
of the property related to affordable rental housing (two units) at 86
Earlwood Drive Peterborough as a Municipal Housing Facility, in
accordance with By-law Number 12-094, and authorizing the Mayor and
Clerk to sign agreements and other documents so necessary to provide
municipal incentives in accordance with Report ISPHD18-004.
Carried
9
10
Increase to Contract Agreement with The Ventin Group for Peterborough Public Library
Project
Report CSD18-008
That Council approve the recommendation outlined in Report CSD18-008 dated
June 25, 2018, of the Commissioner of Community Services, as follows:
That the contract with The Ventin Group for the design and contract
administration for the renovation and expansion of the Peterborough Public
Library be increased by $110,000 from $619,000 to $729,000 plus HST of $94,770
for a total cost of $823,770.
Carried
Pre-commitment of Funds and Award of Internal Servicing of Cleantech Commons -

Phase 1 and 2
Report IPSEC18-018
That Council approve the recommendations outlined in Report IPSEC18-018
a) That the $1,796,000 budget amount previously proposed for the 2019
Capital budget for Cleantech Commons be increased to $3,100,000 and be
pre-committed;
b) That Tender T-12-18 for the Cleantech Commons - Phase 1 and 2 be
awarded to Drain Bros. Excavating Limited, 2130 8th Line Road, North
Dummer, Douro-Dummer, Ontario, K0L 2H0 at a cost of $4,454,337.15 plus
$579,063.83 HST for a total cost of $5,033,400.98;
c) That a provisional work value of $400,000 be committed to the project and
the Commissioner of the Infrastructure and Planning Services Department
be provided the authority to adjust the purchase order value to an upset
limit of $4,854,337.15, excluding HST as necessary to complete this project;
and
d) That, given the additional capital costs to be incurred, City staff work with
Trent staff to update the financial model and closely monitor the various
factors such as estimated costs for Phase 3 construction, timing of Phase
3, ground lease rates, indexing of rates, etc in order to recover the City’s
costs at least within the term of the Head Lease.
Carried
10
11
Downtown Business Improvement Area Vibrancy Project

Report IPSPD18-018
Moved by Mayor Bennett
That Council approve the recommendations outlined in Report IPSPD18-018
a) That the Downtown Business Improvement Area Vibrancy Project to make
landscape improvements at the Chambers Street Parking Lot be approved
in principle with implementation to proceed upon acceptance of the
detailed landscape design by the Commissioner of Infrastructure and
Planning Services;
b) That the concept of the Downtown Business Improvement Area Vibrancy
Project located along the east side of 230 George Street North, to remove
unnecessary road pavement, install a low impact development storm water
management feature and create additional open space area for a potential
Public Art installation be approved in principle;
c) That the Administrative Staff Committee be authorized to approve
implementation of the Vibrancy Project along the side of 230 George Street
North when all necessary approvals from the various approval agencies
have been received and the detailed design for the area has been approved
by the Commissioner of Infrastructure and Planning Services; and
d) That the Downtown Business Improvement Area and the City enter into any
agreements necessary to mitigate financial or other risk to the City related
to the subject Vibrancy Projects.
Carried
Other Business
That staff review the Community Grants Program Policies and report to Council in
the second quarter of 2019.
Carried
Adjournment
That this meeting adjourn at 7:20 p.m.
Carried
11
12
_________________________
John Kennedy
City Clerk
_________________________
Councillor Beamer
Chair
12
13
General Committee Minutes

Doris Room, City Hall
July 16, 2018
Present: Mayor Bennett

Councillor Baldwin
Councillor Beamer
Councillor Clarke
Councillor Haacke
Councillor McWilliams
Councillor Parnell
Councillor Pappas
Councillor Riel
Councillor Therrien
Councillor Vassiliadis
Staff: Alan Barber, Associate City Solicitor

Sandra Clancy, Chief Administrative Officer
Natalie Garnett, Deputy Clerk
Ken Hetherington, Manager, Planning
Wayne Jackson,Commissioner of Infrastructure& Planning Services
Patricia Lester, City Solicitor and Director of Legal Services
Allan Seabrooke, Commissioner of Community Services
Closed Session - 5:00 p.m., Doris Room

That Committee move into Closed Session to discuss one item under Section
239(2)(c) A proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the
municipality or local board.
Carried
Adjournment
Moved by Councillor Parnell
That this meeting of Closed Session General Committee adjourn at 5:20 p.m.
Carried
1
14
General Committee minutes of July 16, 2018
_________________________
Natalie Garnett
City Clerk
_________________________
Councillor Beamer
Chair
2
15
To: Members of the General Committee
From: Patricia Lester,

Commissioner of Corporate and Legislative Services
Meeting Date: August 27, 2018
Subject: Report CLSFS18-035

City of Peterborough Holdings Inc. Presentation
Purpose
A report to inform Council that the City of Peterborough Holdings Inc. President & CEO
will attend the August 27, 2018 General Committee meeting to provide their annual
update.
Recommendations
That Council approve the recommendations outlined in Report CLSFS18-035, dated
August 27, 2018, of the Commissioner of Corporate and Legislative Services, as
follows:
a) That the City of Peterborough Holdings Inc. (COPHI) presentation be received;
b) That the 2017 Annual Report and Consolidated Financial Statements of the City
of Peterborough Holdings Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017,
attached as Appendix A to Report CLSFS18-035, be received;
c) That the election of the following persons as Directors of COPHI be and the
same are hereby confirmed for the terms set out in prior resolutions of the
Council of the Corporation of the City of Peterborough: Arlynn Dupuis, David
Bignell, David Paterson, Ross Garland, Dan McWilliams, Scott Baker, Louise
Lalonde, Nancy Brown Andison, and Daryl Bennett;
16
Report CLSFS18-035 – City of Peterborough Holdings Inc. Presentation Page 2
d) That the election of the following person as Director of Peterborough Distribution

Inc. be and the same are hereby confirmed for the term set out in prior
resolutions of the Council of the Corporation of the City of Peterborough: Bryan
Weir; and
e) That Collins Barrow Kawarthas LLP, Chartered Accountants, are hereby

appointed auditors of the Corporation, until the next annual resolution of the
Shareholder is signed or until their successors are duly appointed.
Budget and Financial Implications

There are no budget or financial implications associated with the recommendations in
this report.
Background
As the City of Peterborough is the sole Shareholder of the City of Peterborough
Holdings Inc. (COPHI), it is appropriate for City Council to approve the
recommendations of this report to fulfill the annual requirement of the Ontario
Business Corporations Act.
In addition to this requirement, representatives from COPHI will take the opportunity to
update Council on the events of 2017 and future initiatives in 2018.
Submitted by,
Patricia Lester
Contact Name:
Patricia Lester,
Phone: 705-742-7771, Ext 1863
Toll Free: 1-855-738-3755
Fax: 705-748-8839
E-Mail: [email protected]
Attachments:
Appendix A: 2017 Annual Report
17
Appendix A
City of Peterborough Holdings Inc.
ANNUAL REPORT
2017
18
Appendix A
Our 2017 Annual Report 1
Environmental Stewardship 2
Energy Conservation 4
Water Conservation 5
We Start with Safety 6
Community Involvement 6
Proud to Be an Employer of Choice 7
Business Overview 8
2017 CoPHI Financial Performance 10
Operational Performance 15
Independent Auditor’s Report 31
Board of Directors and Executive Team 36
Companies and Committees 37
FRONT COVER: To help our summer students combat the vegetation growth around the solar modules at our Lily Lake solar
facility, we deployed more than 100 sheep, as a natural and eco-friendly method of weed control.
19
Appendix A
Our 2017 Annual Report

We are very pleased to provide the Annual Report for the City of Peterborough Holdings Inc.
(CoPHI) for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2017. The City of Peterborough Holdings Inc. operates
electricity and water distribution systems in the City of Peterborough and surrounding
communities. The Company also develops and operates renewable hydro and solar generation
facilities and operates a wholesale metering business. The Company and its related entities
operate as the Peterborough Utilities Group.
Fiscal 2017 financial results reflect a very strong year for the Company, with earnings and
shareholder returns at their highest levels in our history. The Company’s investment in the
unregulated business space over the past several years has provided the foundation for this
strong performance. In 2017, the combination of positive weather conditions and strong
operating availability of our portfolio of generation assets yielded these unprecedented
financial results.
Beyond the numbers, Peterborough Utilities Group strives to deliver best-in-class service and
value to our customers. We do this by listening to our customers and continuing to challenge
the way we deliver service, to meet and exceed their expectations. In 2017, a significant
extension of our social media outreach to our customers has proven to be invaluable to us in
connecting and communicating with them, and gaining their input.
As always, our first consideration is the safety of the public and our staff and contractors. Safety
is the starting point for everything we do; the industries we work in can be dangerous. In 2017,
this was underscored with several fatalities in Ontario, and two unfortunate incidents on our
system within our own service territory. It was a stark reminder of the potential risks involved
in all of our utility-related operations. We thank our employees and the public for being vigilant
and driving our long-term safety success.
Industry change continues to be at the forefront of discussion at the provincial and local levels.
The development of technology and innovation to improve conservation and control future
energy price escalation is driving industry change. Industry consolidation in Ontario remains
a desirable outcome to create efficiencies for customers. In preparation for these changes,
the Company has worked through fiscal 2017 to address the disposition of Peterborough
Distribution Inc., and we expect that in 2018 this repositioning of the City of Peterborough
Holdings Inc. will be complete.
We are proud of our accomplishments in 2017. They have come from the individual and
collective contributions of our dedicated employees and the input from our customers and
communities we serve.
Thank you to the Board of Directors for their leadership and oversight in making fiscal
2017 another strong year for the Peterborough Utilities Group. Additional thanks go to the
Commissioners of the Peterborough Utilities Commission for their oversight of the water
operations of our business.
Please enjoy this Annual Report; we look forward to a great future for the Peterborough Utilities
Group.
John Stephenson David Bignell

President and CEO Chair
Peterborough Utilities Group City of Peterborough Holdings Inc.
20
Appendix A
Environmental Stewardship – 2017 Highlights

One of PUG’s core values is to “promote and support resource conservation, sustainability and
conduct business in an environmentally responsible manner.”
• In 2017, we installed nine Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations in Peterborough,
Lakefield and Norwood, as part of a larger, ongoing initiative with the Ontario
government that will see 500 stations installed across the province. The new stations
in our communities will allow people to travel further and adopt a cleaner mode of
transportation.
• We continued to work toward our aggressive—but, we believe, achievable—conservation
goal: to reduce energy consumption by 37,880,000 kWh by 2020. That is a 90% increase
over our successful 2016 target.
• We promoted energy and water conservation at more than 30 community events, helping
customers understand how to better manage their electricity and water consumption.
• The implementation of water meters allows us to monitor consumption and advise
customers about water conservation and how to look for leaks around the house.
• We hosted PUG Environment Day during Earth Week and collected household hazardous
waste, such as batteries, to ensure it is disposed of responsibly.
• Our “No Return Envelope” initiative has reduced the number of envelopes sent out by 67%
so far.
• Internally, we continue to practice what we preach. Our internal composting program
continued in 2017. We also upgraded the lighting in our Ashburnham Dr. office to more
energy-efficient LEDs and we installed solar panels at that office. Our staff volunteers
spent Earth Day this year at Riverview Park & Zoo, helping to clean up litter around the
park, along the adjacent roadway and in the parking lot.
2
21
Appendix A
Riverview Park & Zoo

• We participated in species survival plans and Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA)
animal care programs for the African red-billed hornbill, red-necked wallaby, bobcat,
slender-tailed meerkat, squirrel monkey, two-toed sloth, greater rhea, Sichuan takin and
the Brazilian agouti.
• Riverview Park & Zoo has had excellent success in breeding the critically endangered
Sulawesi forest turtle. Ours may be the only facility in Canada to do so, and one of just five
in North America.
• We provided more than 20 educational programs to visiting schools and groups.
• The TD Tree Planting event, assisted by volunteers from Otonabee Region Conservation
Authority (ORCA), GE Canada and TD, featured the planting of 300 trees and shrubs
and the removal of three truckloads of invasive species at the Park & Zoo. Thank you to
everyone who helped with this worthwhile endeavour!
• Conservation and Customer Service, in partnership with the zoo, have invested in two
digital signs. We post conservation programs and tips as well as their impact on our
beloved animals, along with information about community events for families.
3
22
Appendix A
Energy Conservation
In 2017, the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) continued to change the
conservation landscape in the province. Some fine-tuning to many of the programs, and the
introduction of new rules, resulted in a considerable number of challenges for our staff.
Late in 2017, the IESO determined that the residential and small-commercial demand response
program would end on December 31, 2017. This brought to a close a program that had run for
more than 10 years. It was a program that had given our customers the first two-way Internet-
based thermostat which could be controlled from any computer or smart phone, and the
distribution of more than 8,000 In-Home Displays (IHD) that were embedded and received
real-time pricing and energy usage data directly from the smart meter. It was an extremely
successful program and its discontinuation will abandon $250 million worth of assets in the
province, with no impact to the company. Although the program, which sought to control
demand during critical peak events, has ended, the system will continue to operate as it does
now. Access to the thermostat via the Internet will end in 2018.
The IESO also announced that it was going to centralize the delivery of the Home Assistance
Program (HAP) in response to the many Local Distribution Companies (LDCs) that chose
not to offer a full low-income program as part of their portfolio. This was a setback for our
conservation team. We had ensured that the HAP program was offered in our area because
we believed in its importance for the community. It is unfortunate that the program was
pulled back as the conservation team was realizing a success rate of 147% of our target for the
program. In fact, our program was running so efficiently, the IESO called on us to share our
methodology with the LDCs in the rest of the province.
Even with these setbacks, our conservation team knocked our targets out of the park once
again. Once all the 2017 projects have been accounted for, we will be at 55% of target for the
mid-term review. We have significant projects that will be realized in the next two years, which
will push us over our targets (again) and will likely result in a search for another LDC that is
willing to exchange some of their target and associated funding.
These robust and diverse programs achieved 8,883,000 kWh in energy savings this year alone
and a total of 19,555,000 kWh since the IESO Conservation First Framework started in 2015.
8.9M kWh saved in 2017

enough to power 8,900 houses
4
23
Appendix A
Water Conservation
In 2017, the Water Services department hosted a very successful Seasonal Conservation Exhibit
at Riverview Park & Zoo and held two community events promoting water conservation
to more than 500 interested visitors. We also hosted the Water Wagon at the Peterborough
Chamber of Commerce’s Green Business zone’s Love Local Expo for its thousands of attendees.
We created and provided children’s activity sheets to Peterborough’s Housing Resource Centre
and Peterborough Risk Management. The activity sheets promote and encourage water and
electricity conservation through fun activities and provide an important message about dam
safety.
We funded the creation of rainwater-fed rooting beds for young trees at GreenUP Ecology Park.
This infrastructure will use up to 70% less water during the peak season and will help to create
even healthier roots for our stock.
The department purchased two three-dimensional EnviroScape Watershed demonstration
boards that give children a hands-on overview of a watershed and how it works. We also
funded the cost of a local artist to create a Trent Severn Waterway board for use in the Ecology
Park.
The Water Wise Landscape Recognition Program celebrates residents in the City of
Peterborough who demonstrate “water-wise” strategies. For instance, using a rain barrel,
planting native species, and mulching to encourage water conservation. People who are
nominated via the Peterborough Utilities website are awarded garden signs acknowledging
their efforts. The signs feature the Peterborough Utilities and GreenUP logos. In 2017, 12
gardens were honoured (and graded, using a matrix based on their effectiveness in terms of
water savings). The recognized water-wise residents were given moisture meters for their lawn,
water-saving kits and hose timers. We also installed a Water Wise demonstration garden at the
zoo, to help everyone learn how to be more water wise.
In 2017, we gave more than 500 energy-saving light bulbs and water conservation kits to
Kawartha Food Share for people in need. We also subsidized the cost of 170 rain barrels (for any
resident in Peterborough), offering a total of $4,250 in subsidies.
5
24
Appendix A
We Start with Safety

PUG is committed to protecting the health and safety of our 170 employees, customers,
contractors, suppliers and the communities we serve. We believe that all workplace injuries,
accidents and occupational diseases are unacceptable and preventable, and we promote a
culture of continual improvement. Our safety performance has been exemplary, with one lost-
time injury in the past 11 years.
The ISO 18001 Health & Safety Management Standard was selected by PUG to align the
program with a high standard that provides opportunities for continuous improvement.
A third-party audit was completed in late 2016 that confirmed PUG’s safety management
system is in good standing and is ISO-compliant.
PUG’s safety performance has been recognized nationally. Canadian
Occupational Safety, a Thomson Reuters publication, recognizes Canadian
companies that achieve excellent safety performance. PUG was awarded
Canada’s Safest Employer in 2012, and was recognized with a Silver Award in
2017. It was also recognized with Silver Awards in 2013, 2014 and 2015.
Community Involvement
One of PUG’s core values is Community Focus. Our employees regularly show the importance
of this value by volunteering and giving back to the communities we live in and serve.
In 2017, our employees continued to offer strong support for the United Way in their efforts
to provide services to those in need in our community. They raised more than $15,000 for the
United Way in 2017 and more than $100,000 over the past five years combined.
Employees participated in the Dragon Boat Festival for the first time and raised a total of
$3,700.
PUG staff continued the annual tradition in 2017 of shopping early for the Children’s Aid Angel
Tree Program to help add a little magic to a local child’s Christmas. Thirty-five children received
gifts from an employee sponsor in 2017.
Our employees value our community,

and volunteer in many ways.
6
25
Appendix A
Proud to Be an Employer of Choice in Peterborough

Peterborough Utilities’ vision is to be the investment of choice for our shareholder, the utility of
choice for our customers, and the employer of choice for exceptional people.
In order to achieve this mission, PUG strives to build and maintain a workplace culture that
includes values that are developed by, and important to, our employees.
PUG Values
Respect: We will be considerate of the opinions, values,
beliefs and dignity of others and cultivate an environment of
teamwork and collaboration.
Environment: We will promote and support resource conservation and sustainability, and
conduct business in an environmentally responsible manner.
Safety: We will be leaders in safety and conduct our business in a way that protects the health
and safety of employees, contractors and the communities we serve.
Professionalism: We will conduct our business with integrity and the highest ethical standards
and be accountable for our behaviours and actions.
Excellence: We are committed to giving our full effort in all that we do. We strive for a culture
that embraces continual improvement.
Customer and Community Focus: We will provide value to the customers and communities
we serve by providing reliable, efficient and high-quality service. We will contribute to the
betterment of the communities we serve.
Through these core values, PUG will be a great place to work, a respected corporate citizen
and a leader within its industries.
Colin Todd (right), 2017 Employee of the

Year, with John Stephenson, President and
CEO, Peterborough Utilities Group.
7
26
Appendix A
Business Overview
The City of Peterborough Holdings Inc. (CoPHI) and Peterborough Utilities Commission (PUC),
operating as the Peterborough Utilities Group, is wholly owned by the Corporation of the City
of Peterborough. CoPHI includes three wholly owned subsidiaries: Peterborough Distribution
Inc. (PDI), Peterborough Utilities Inc. (PUI) and Peterborough Utilities Services Inc. (PUSI).
INVOICE
Human Resources
Office Facilities and Equipment
Customer Service
Billing
Electricity Distribution
Energy Conservation Programs
8
27
Appendix A
CoPHI
Generation
Rental Equipment
Metering Services
Trent Energy Inc.
9
28
Appendix A
2017 CoPHI Financial Performance
Overview
The 2017 audited financial statements, a condensed summary of which is included in this
report, have been prepared on the basis of Peterborough Distribution Inc. (PDI) being treated
as a discontinued operation. Given that the expectation as of December 31, 2017, was that the
purchase commitment for PDI would be finalized within 2018, all PDI-related accounts have
been included in this report, and segregated as activities from discontinued operations on the
financial statements. The 2016 audited financial statements were also prepared on the basis of
PDI being treated as a discontinued operation.
Revenue
PUG’s ongoing commitment to grow its business by increasing its renewable generation
business and delivering value-added services to the community has resulted in a 139% growth
in CoPHI’s revenue since 2009 (excluding PDI). As a result of the continued expansion of the
number of renewable generation facilities, as well as efforts to optimize already existing
facilities, total revenue (excluding PDI revenues) has increased from $18 million in 2009 to $43
million in 2017.
The chart below illustrates the components of revenues since 2009, including PDI but
excluding the cost of power, which increased from $32.1 million in 2009 to $58.9 million in
2017.
Sources of Revenue
PUI – Generation and other unregulated businesses
60 PDI – Regulated Electric (excluding the cost of power)

PUSI – Services
50
Millions
of $ 40
30
20
10
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Note: Chart includes PDI, which has been classed as a discontinued operation for financial statement purposes.
10
29
Appendix A
Net Earnings and EBITDA

Net income for 2017 was $8.49 million compared to $4.95 million in 2016.
In 2017, Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (EBITDA) increased
to $29.58 million compared to $22.54 million in 2016. The results in 2017 were positively
impacted by weather conditions throughout the year, which resulted in increased hydroelectric
generation. Over the past eight years, primarily as a result of investment in renewable
generation assets, EBITDA has grown 160% from $11.37 million in 2009, to its current level of
$29.58 million. Management considers EBITDA a strong measure of cash flow performance and
our ability to fund future growth and commitments to our capital providers.
Total comprehensive income for 2017, which includes comprehensive income from
discontinued operations, was $9.10 million compared to $5.46 million in 2016.
EBITDA and Net Income

30 EBITDA
Net Income
25
20
Millions 15
of $
10
0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
EBITDA, an important metric of our success,

has increased 160% since 2009.
11
30
Appendix A
Shareholder Returns
During the year, the company paid the City of Peterborough dividends of $5.55 million
(2016: $5.44 million), a 2% increase over the previous year. Cumulatively, $79.30 million in
distributions (dividends and interest) has been paid to the City of Peterborough by the utility
since its incorporation in 2000. The distributions to the City are funded by dividends from the
operating companies of CoPHI. As a result of capital requirements and regulatory restrictions
impacting cash flow in PDI, the majority of the distribution in 2017 was provided by PUI and
the unregulated business, as illustrated in the chart below.
Source of Dividends
PUSI
18%
PUI
PDI 68% PUSI – Services
14%
PDI – Regulated Electric
In addition to receiving dividends from CoPHI each year, the City also benefits as the value of its
investment in CoPHI increases. Since 2000, the carrying value of the City’s total investment in
CoPHI has increased from approximately $57 million in 2000 to over $100 million presently. This
value does not reflect fair market value premiums that may exist if the assets of the company
have appreciated beyond their cost.
Book Value of Investment in CoPHI

120
100
Millions
of $ 80
60
40
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
12
31
Appendix A
Total Assets
Since 2009, the company has strategically increased its non-regulated business and, in
particular, its renewable generation portfolio. These investments are environmentally
positive, without increasing local distribution rates. Continuing to expand these new assets
provides the company with new sources of cash flow and reduces the dependence on the
regulated business, which will enable the company to continue to fund distributions to the
City following the sale of the regulated business. Total company assets have increased 177%
from $118 million in 2009 to $327 million in 2017. The vast majority of this growth has been in
the renewable generation business. Composition and growth of company assets by principal
business segment is illustrated in the chart below.
CoPHI Total Assets

350 PDI – Regulated Electric
300 PUSI – Services
250
Millions 200
of $
150
100
50
0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
In addition to the direct assets owned by CoPHI, the PUG, through its service company
PUSI, also manages the assets of the Peterborough Utilities Commission (PUC). Assets under
management, represented by the direct holdings of CoPHI and the PUC, have increased from
$220 million in 2009 to $466 million in 2017. In 2009, the regulated PDI business represented
36% of the total group assets. The development of generation assets, as well as expansions at
the PUC’s water treatment facility, has resulted in the regulated PDI business now accounting
for 22% of the total group assets. The composition of assets under management by the Group
is illustrated below.
Per Cent of Utility Group Total Assets

2009 2017
10%
30% PUI – Generation and other unregulated businesses
46% 45% PUC – Water

36% PUSI – Services
PDI – Regulated Electric
3%
22%
8%
13
32
Appendix A
Revenues
Revenue from continuing operations (excluding PDI) increased by 32%, from $32.6 million in
2016 to $43.02 million in 2017. Details of the sources of revenue are as follows:
• Total revenues from operations in PUI were $29.31 million (2016: $19.54 million) with
generation revenue being the largest component. In 2017, PUI experienced strong river
flows compared to the drought conditions experienced in 2016, resulting in $7.09 million
in increased hydrology revenue.
• Total revenues earned in the services company (PUSI), net of inter-corporate eliminations,
were $13.71 million compared to $13.06 million in the previous year. This increase
was driven by PUSI’s expansion of its professional services offerings to neighbouring
municipalities.
Revenue from discontinued operations (PDI) decreased by 10.4% from $119.9 million to $107.4
million.
• Total regulated electricity, which is the cost of electricity, transmission and wholesale
charges collected on behalf of and remitted to the Independent Electricity System
Operator (IESO), was $91.5 million in 2017 compared to $103.6 million in 2016.
• Total distribution revenues were $14.4 million in 2017 compared to $14.6 million in 2016.
• Total other non-distribution revenue in PDI in 2017 was $1.6 million compared to $1.8
million in 2016.
Operations and Administration Expense

The company’s operations and administration expense from continuing operations (excluding
PDI) was $19.36 million in 2017, an 8.7% increase from $17.81 million incurred in 2016. The
increase is mostly the result of increased materials and operating costs associated with the
expanding portfolio of assets and service contracts.
Expenses relating to the discontinued PDI operations of $99.99 million (2016: $109.36 million)
decreased by $9.4 million compared to the previous year. The largest component of this
expense is the cost of power and other wholesale market charges invoiced to the company
and rebilled to customers. In 2017, the cost of power was $90.97 million compared to $100.69
million in 2016, accounting for the majority of the decrease.
Amortization Expense
In 2017, the company’s amortization expense for continuing operations (excluding PDI) of
$8.59 million was $730,000 higher than in the previous year (2016: $7.86 million). With the
exception of one-time items, amortization continues to increase as the value of the company’s
capital assets increases.
The company’s amortization expense for discontinued operations (PDI) of $3.59 million was
$170,000 higher than in the previous year (2016: $3.42 million).
Financing Expense
Financing and other costs for continuing operations (excluding PDI) of $5.0 million increased
$1.96 million from $3.04 million in the previous year. Increased borrowings taken during 2017,
required in order to finance the growth in assets, resulted in increased finance charges of $1.12
million. One-time impairment charges and disposition of capital assets resulted in an increase
of $837,000 from 2016.
Financing and other costs for discontinued operations of $1.59 million decreased $30,000 from
the previous year.
14
33
Appendix A
Operational Performance
Peterborough Distribution Inc. (PDI) – Regulated Operations
CUSTOMER RATES AND REGULATIONS

The regulated business (PDI) charges distribution rates as reviewed and approved by the
Ontario Energy Board (OEB). The component of rates directly controlled by PDI represents
approximately 20% of the residential customer’s electricity bill. PDI’s distribution rates for a
typical residential customer consuming 800 kWh of electricity a month are, on average, lower
than those of our peers.
The electricity distribution rates charged by the company to its customers are approved
annually by the OEB. The Board’s mission is to promote a viable, sustainable and efficient
energy sector that serves the public interest and assists consumers in obtaining reliable, cost-
effective energy delivery. The rate-setting format currently in place for the company provides
for a detailed review of its costs every four years, plus annual rate adjustments based on an
inflationary factor reduced by an amount to encourage productivity savings.
As a result of this process, the increase in the distribution rate component of our customers’
electricity bills was limited to 1.65% in 2016. In May 2016, PDI was the seventh lowest-cost
distributor in the comparative group; we were fourth the previous year. The lower ranking for
2016 is not a result of the nominal rate increases noted above. The change in relative ranking
is primarily a result of temporary rate charges implemented in 2016 to compensate PDI for
energy charges it paid to the IESO which were not charged to customers in previous years.
Those temporary charges ended on April 30, 2017.
Consistent with the OEB’s mission, the OEB’s Renewed Regulatory Framework is a performance-
based approach that seeks: customer focus, operational effectiveness, public policy
responsiveness and financial performance. Since 2014, PDI has issued a scorecard which tracks
these outcomes. PDI’s 2015 scorecard, published in 2016, is available on the OEB website.
37,392 customers
571 km distribution line
8,801 poles
4,069 transformers
15
34
Appendix A
REGULATORY CHANGES
The OEB introduced many regulatory changes in 2017. For Residential customers and General
Service Customers under 50 kW and under 250,000 kWh per year, the Ontario Energy Board
introduced the Ontario Rebate for Electricity Consumers (OREC) on January 1, 2017, which
provides an 8% rebate before taxes. The government also issued a moratorium on disconnects
in February 2017. It is unknown at this time whether or not this will be a yearly event, as the
Ministry is actively working to gather and potentially augment service disconnection practices
for Residential customers.
Changes to Global Adjustment

As part of the Fair Hydro Plan, the Ministry of Energy, through the Ontario Energy Board
(OEB), introduced changes to the thresholds allowing companies to qualify for Class A Global
Adjustment.
Class A Global Adjustment had been reserved for Large Users only (5,000 kW demand or
greater). Under the new rules in 2017, industries that have a demand of just 3,000 kW or more
now qualify for Class A Global Adjustment. This equates to a significant savings for these large
industrial customers. PUG had two customers that made this shift to Class A and are reaping
the financial benefits of this move.
Ontario Minister of Energy Glenn Thibeault tours Dynacast in Peterborough,

one of the companies that has been able to take advantage of the new
change in regulations.
16
35
Appendix A
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT
PDI has continued to invest, with capital expenditures of $5.8 million in infrastructure,
development and operational improvements. Major projects completed last year included the
Cumberland to University Heights 27.6 kV Conversion, the 27.6 kV Distribution Automation
project, and the Parklands Underground Feeder project.
The University Heights 27.6 kV conversion project has resulted in the de-commissioning of
Municipal Station #21 at 1500 Water Street. It has also enhanced our readiness to service the
new developments in the Trent University endowment lands such as the new multi-sports
arena and Cleantech Commons Research Park.
The 27.6 kV Distribution Automation project was started in 2017 and will be fully implemented
in 2018. This system will improve our fault location, isolation and service restoration
capabilities. This system rapidly identifies faults and isolates them. It then automatically
resupplies as many customers as possible. With this new technology, sustained outages will be
turned into momentary events, resulting in greater network reliability and increased customer
satisfaction.
This was the final year of the Underground Rehabilitation project in the Edmison Heights
subdivision. The total project scope included 34 transformers, 7 km of high-voltage cable, and
12 km of low-voltage cable. This project marked a major change in scope in our rehabilitation
projects by including the replacement of low-voltage distribution cables.
The Underground Feeder project through the Parklands subdivision created an underground
feeder extension from our Hilliard Street subdivision to Chemong Road. This new feeder utilizes
the power supply from our new Hilliard Street subdivision and improves the system reliability
to the major businesses along Chemong Road.
A medium-voltage cable testing program was introduced in 2017. Based on test results, eight
50-year-old 44,000-volt underground cables were successfully injected with a silicone-based
fluid. The cost of cable injection was dramatically lower than a full cable replacement. It also
meant fewer service interruptions for our customers. This cable injection project will provide an
additional 40 years of warrantied life for these cables.
The IESO’s microFIT rooftop solar program ended in December 31, 2017. This resulted in a rush
of 58 microFIT projects that were processed last year, with 21 projects connected by the end of
the year. The connection of these projects has expanded the reach of renewable energy sources
in our service territory.
Our line losses continued a downward trend last year. Our meter reverification program,
voltage conversion projects, and installation of lower loss transformers have all factored into
these improvements.
Line Losses
6.0
5.0
%
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
2014 2015 2016 2017
17
36
Appendix A
OUTAGE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

A windstorm swept through our service territory on October 15, resulting in multiple feeder
outages due to tree contacts and loss of the Hydro One supply. Our crews responded
immediately, focusing on re-energizing the main feeders and isolating the problem areas.
Customers were returned to service in sequence as the problem areas were eliminated. Overall,
customer feedback on our outage response was excellent.
While extreme weather represents an uncontrollable element that can impact our service,
the company works to continually deploy its asset management program, invest in new
infrastructure, and target initiatives such as our tree trimming program, that can heavily impact
system reliability. Including the effects of major events, the average number of hours that
power to a customer was interrupted was 1.77 and the average number of times power was
interrupted was 2.52. Since 2012, power interruptions have decreased in length, largely due to
the company’s ability to rapidly respond to incidents and send out crews quickly to deal with
situations.
The combination of a cooler-than-average summer, continued conservation programs, and the
addition of embedded generation resulted in 3.7% lower overall power consumption than in
2016. The peak loading for our Peterborough service territory was 121 MW on September 25.
This is much lower than the previous year’s peak of 142 MW, on July 13.
Power Interruptions
Average Number of Incidents per Customer

Average Length of Interruption in Hours
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
18 1.5
1.0
0.5
37
Appendix A
150 million kWh

renewable energy
generated
= enough to power
15,000 homes
19
38
Appendix A
Peterborough Utilities Inc. (PUI) – Unregulated Operations

The unregulated business is continuing to invest in new renewable generation projects with
long-term power purchase agreements. By optimizing production from existing generation
facilities, these investments will yield substantial revenues for the foreseeable future. The
annual growth in revenue and EBITDA are reflected in the chart below.
Annual Growth in Revenue and Capital Assets

(in millions of $)
Revenue Capital Assets
30 180
25 150
20 120
15 90
10 60
5 30
0 0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Favourable hydrological conditions throughout the year resulted in PUI’s hydroelectric

generating stations exceeding electricity production targets by more than 34 million kWh in
2017.
Total generation from PUI’s four hydroelectric, four solar and two biogas facilities exceeded
150 million kWH in 2017, sufficient to meet the needs of approximately 15,000 residential
customers. Revenue from PUI’s renewable generation facilities exceeded our target by more
than $2.8 million.
2017 Hydroelectric Generation (Cumulative)
150
Target
120 Actual
Millions
of kWH 90
60
30
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
20
39
Appendix A
LONDON STREET GENERATING STATION

Final commissioning of the 6 MW expansion of the London Street Generating Station occurred
early in 2017, following drought conditions that had persisted since this facility achieved
commercial operation in July 2016. This facility incorporates two highly efficient, double-
regulated Kaplan turbines that will optimize the production of hydroelectric energy from
this location for the next 80 to 100 years. In 2017, revenue from the net 10 MW London Street
Generating Station exceeded $7 million, more than $2 million above target.
In addition, in 2017 PUI initiated replacement of the aging timber deck of the London Street
dam, the repair of the dam’s south abutment wall and a comprehensive lead remediation
program within the existing 4 MW London Street Generating Station, which was constructed in
1920. PUI’s investment of approximately $2.2 million in this work ensures that the reliability and
safety of this facility will meet or exceed industry standards.
BIOGAS GENERATION
Performance at PUI’s Bensfort Road Landfill Gas Generation Facility did not meet expectations
in 2017. PUI engaged a consultant to do a comprehensive assessment of this facility and
provide recommendations for enhancing its performance. Based on the study, PUI has taken
a $500,000 write-down on this asset in 2017, but has established a plan to enhance the
performance of the facility going forward.
10 generation facilities in operation

40.8 MW generation capacity
+ 7.5 MW solar projects to be completed
within the next year
+ 5.5 MW under development
21
40
Appendix A
LILY LAKE SOLAR FARM

As part of the optimization of the electricity production and streamlining of the facility
operation and maintenance of the Lily Lake Solar Farm, there were two notable events in 2017.
An infrared scan of the solar photovoltaic (PV) modules from a fixed-wing aircraft identified
failed and underperforming modules. As a result, nearly 2,300 modules were replaced.
In addition, to help the summer students combat the vegetation growth around the solar
modules, we deployed more than 100 sheep, as a natural and eco-friendly method of weed
control. These undertakings were extremely successful and will become part of PUI’s recurring
operation and maintenance program.
GENERATION GROWTH
PUI’s focus on generation growth continued through two key initiatives: construction
commenced on a portfolio of fifteen 500 KW ground-mounted solar PV projects located
northeast of Peterborough; and engineering, environmental assessment and stakeholder
engagement progressed on the development of two new hydroelectric projects on the
Otonabee River.
The new ground-mounted solar projects will achieve commercial operation between June 2018
and January 2019, increasing PUI’s generating capacity by 7.5 MW. PUI has established a limited
partnership with the Curve Lake First Nation for the development of the two new hydroelectric
projects that have a combined capacity of 5.5 MW. Collectively, these projects represent an
investment of approximately $70 million over the next three to four years.
WHOLESALE METER SERVICES

The company’s other primary unregulated business provides wholesale metering services to
clients throughout Ontario. This business unit had another successful year in 2017, exceeding
financial targets by approximately 20%.
22
41
Appendix A
PUSI Services Operations
WATER SERVICES
Through the operation of the services company (PUSI), we provide full municipal water services
for the PUC to City of Peterborough customers. This includes water utility operations and
capital asset planning, rehabilitation and replacement; water and wastewater services to the
Township of Selwyn to operate both the Village of Lakefield and Woodland Acres systems; and
the operation, maintenance and capital upgrades for Riverview Park & Zoo. In January 2017,
Peterborough Utilities commenced a five-year contract with the Township of Cavan Monaghan
to operate and maintain the water and wastewater system in the Village of Millbrook as well as
to provide the Township of Asphodel-Norwood with operational assistance for their water and
wastewater systems.
With single-family residential water metering completed in 2013, work on new multi-residential
metering and Industrial, Commercial & Institution (ICI) meter replacements was completed in
early 2017. At this time, the majority of locations in the City are metered with the exception of
plumbing in poor condition or locations which are impractical to install.
The Peterborough, Millbrook, Lakefield and Woodland Acres Drinking Water Systems
maintained full accreditation with the Drinking Water Quality Management Standard (DWQMS).
The accreditation body, NSF International, conducted an on-site audit of the DWQMS for
all four of the water systems in August 2017, along with an internal audit. The audit report
concluded that all management systems operated by PUSI are well documented and continue
to be effective.
In addition to the external and internal audits, the province’s Ministry of the Environment
performed inspections throughout 2017 of the Millbrook, Peterborough and Lakefield Water
Treatment Plants, and the Woodland Acres distribution system. All water systems achieved a
100% inspection rating.
A major capital project to replace the Greenhill Booster Pumping Station was undertaken
in 2017. The purpose of this project was to replace aging infrastructure, as the original
underground pump station was past its design life, and to improve safety by eliminating a
confined space. The rebuild included a new building structure at the corner of Sherbrooke St.
and Greencrest Dr., housing a duplex booster pump design with pressure gauges and radio
communication for remote monitoring. This new pump design and control system will provide
safe and reliable drinking water to the residents of Peterborough.
23
42
Appendix A
Capital works, within the Peterborough water system, included approximately 4.7 km of
existing water main rehabilitation using cement-mortar lining and 0.8 km of structural lining
to existing distribution water mains. Also, as part of the new capital water trunk mains, the
construction of an 18-inch water main across Nassau Mills Bridge and underneath the canal
was started, to service the newly created Cleantech Commons on Pioneer Road.
The Peterborough Water Treatment Plant has continued its partnership with the University of
Toronto’s Drinking Water Research Group to conduct pilot scale studies.
Our research in 2017 focused on ozone as a pre-treatment for enhancing biofiltration, in an
effort to facilitate the degradation of organics and reduce concentrations of geosmin and
2-MIB. Ozone and biofiltration were shown to be very effective in improving water quality. The
findings were presented at the 2017 Ontario Water Works Association Conference in May.
The opportunity to study ozonation, in conjunction with conventional treatment, and
biofiltration, will provide important insight into advanced oxidation and the treatment
technology’s potential to improve water quality and optimize production costs.
In addition to advanced oxidation, current studies are examining the effectiveness of pH
adjustment using sulphuric acid prior to coagulation. Enhanced coagulation through pH
adjustment has the potential to reduce organics, ameliorate taste and odour compounds, and
improve the quality of water under a wide range of water temperatures, without extensive
infrastructure upgrades.
The knowledge and information gathered over the next several years will provide a foundation
that will chart the future course of water treatment in Peterborough.
28,491 customers
447 km of water mains
2,276 water hydrants
11.1 million litres of water processed
24
43
Appendix A
RIVERVIEW PARK & ZOO

In 2017, Riverview Park & Zoo was open and operating
during regular hours (8:30 a.m. to dusk) from January 1 to
December 31.
After a somewhat cold and rainy start to the year, which
always affects attendance, things picked up in the summer.
There were more than 231,000 visitors to the zoo in 2017.
Ongoing improvements to the zoo’s facilities and equipment
continued in 2017 including:
• upgrades to several animal exhibits;
• accessibility upgrades;
• a new postmortem facility; and
• ongoing rehabilitation of the miniature train rail bed.
The zoo’s animal collection saw many changes in 2017 with
the deaths of some of our older animals and some new acquisitions. Deaths included several
birds of different species. New animals included a young Bactrian camel and two Goeldi’s
monkeys; 2017 saw the birth of a baby wallaby.
Park Operations and Facilities

The miniature train ride opened for the Victoria Day long weekend and ran daily (when the
weather permitted) from May 19 until September 4. Ridership was strong, in spite of poor
weather in the early part of the season, with an estimated 66,000 train riders in 2017.
The Kiwanis Club of Peterborough operated our snack bar again in 2017 daily from May
through September 4 and on weekends in the fall until Thanksgiving Day. Snack bar profits
remained high for the third year in a row and proceeds were shared between the Park & Zoo
and the Kiwanis Club of Peterborough. The Kiwanis Club’s accountant also identified HST
overpayments over several years and successfully obtained a significant reimbursement, of
which 50% was included in our portion of the 2017 revenue.
Zoo Operations and Facilities

Regular and emergency veterinary care was provided by consulting veterinarian Dr. John
Sallaway throughout 2017. Park & Zoo animal care staff worked with Dr. Sallaway throughout
the year to provide planned animal healthcare to the animals in our collection. This included
physical exams, surgery, numerous vaccinations and treatments, blood samples, the trimming
of many hooves/claws/beaks/tusks, dentistry and dental cleaning.
One of our female reindeer was removed from her exhibit and treated for a serious trauma to
her eye (likely due to interaction with another reindeer).
In 2017 there were five births and 14 deaths of animals during the year. Postmortems were
performed on the animals that had died, to determine cause of death. There were no deaths
attributed to communicable disease. Twelve new animals were acquired during the year.
As of December 31, 2017, the animal collection on-site consisted of 133 animals, representing
a total of 61 species (including fish and invertebrates). The collection had 30 animals in on loan
and eight animals out on loan.
25
44
Appendix A
Conservation and Education

The 2017 education program continued to grow, with strong support from our volunteers
and our partnership with the School of Education at Trent University. The program included
educators using roving touch-tables, giving public speaking engagements and behind-the-
scenes tours, the parent and tot Zoo Crew program, formal guided tours, our Zoo Academy
and Zoo Trek half-day, curriculum-based sessions as well as the new Turtle Trek joint-facility
program developed in partnership with the Ontario Turtle Conservation Centre.
The Park & Zoo also collaborated with Otonabee Region Conservation Authority (ORCA) to
deliver the renowned Bondar Challenge education program at Riverview Park & Zoo and the
Warsaw Caves Conservation Area. Developed by The Roberta Bondar Foundation, the Bondar
Challenge is a unique experiential program that helps children make a connection to nature
through the art of photography.
Other programming included Meet the Keeper sessions, custom sessions for visiting groups,
and our seasonal conservation exhibit. This year, the Community of Conservation exhibit
featured contributions from PDI and PUC as well as local conservation organizations such
as Camp Kawartha, GreenUP, ORCA, and the Ontario Turtle Conservation Centre. The exhibit
included a series of conservation events and activities.
The Park & Zoo’s conservation program included cooperative projects with the Otonabee
Region Conservation Authority and supported the Ontario Turtle Conservation Centre’s
conservation work by donating heat lamp bulbs and turtle feed (smelt). The Park & Zoo also
participated in the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) Stud Book for the red-necked
wallaby, Sichuan takin and bobcat. We also participated in AZA Species Survival Plans for the
African red-billed hornbill, Goeldi’s monkey, meerkat and squirrel monkey and Population
Management Plans for the emu and Brazilian agouti.
Research
In 2017 the Park & Zoo participated in the Ontario Turtle Conservation Centre’s Blanding’s turtle
research project and hosted research projects by university biology and conservation biology
students.
26
45
Appendix A
Special Events
The 2017 Peterborough Children’s Water Festival was held at the Park & Zoo
on May 25 and 26, with staff doing set-up and tear-down as well as providing
logistical support during the event.
The Riverview Park & Zoo Fun Run was held on June 3 and had a record-
setting 284 participants. For the first time, the event was organized and run
by Park & Zoo staff and volunteers. More than $8,500 was raised for the Park
& Zoo.
The Father’s Day Car Show was held on June 18 and was run for the first time by Park & Zoo
staff and volunteers. Impacted by a mix of weather conditions, the event was only somewhat
successful, with about 80 registered exhibitors and a modest profit of approximately $500.
The 2017 Summer Concert Series included eight musical groups performing throughout
the summer at the Gazebo. Regular Sunday afternoon concerts were provided every other
weekend from late May through Labour Day weekend.
Capital Program
The 2017 capital program included the second phase of a three-year rehabilitation of the
miniature train rail bed, paving of the north parking lot driveway, and a long-term accessibility
plan for the playground.
Staff also completed a renovation of the former south storage building to provide a new
necropsy room. Other capital items included an ultrasound machine for the animal health
centre, new emergency lighting in zoo buildings and load beams and hoists for the upper level
of the barn.
There was also a significant amount of unplanned electrical work associated with an Electrical
Safety Authority facility inspection that identified numerous deficiencies in the Park & Zoo’s
electrical systems. They have all now been addressed and rectified.
27
46
Appendix A
CUSTOMER SERVICE
Once again, 2017 was a politically charged year, with many changes to the electricity markets
in Ontario. Continual news coverage of electricity rates sparked ongoing political discussions
about the necessity to provide relief for electricity customers; this climate tends to create new
and interesting challenges for Customer Service, and it was certainly the case in 2017.
The Ontario Energy Board (OEB) introduced a moratorium from November 1, 2017 to March 31,
2018, on disconnecting electricity accounts that had fallen into arrears. This change will assist
those who struggle to keep their account in good standing. We will continue to monitor and
work with these customers.
A few years ago the OEB, as part of their utility scorecard, developed a tracking system for
customer complaints reported to the OEB. Since its inception, the number of complaints by PDI
customers to the OEB has always been low, but in 2017 there was just one. This speaks to the
level of service our staff provide in the face of some very difficult conversations and situations.
(Incidentally, that one complainant was quickly assisted by our staff, to a successful conclusion.)
The Customer Service team provides services to all departments within the PUG group and is
always at the ready should assistance be required. The Independent Electricity System Operator
(IESO) announced that the Home Assistance Program was going to be run centrally for the
Province. Knowing this and knowing there is always a need to help low-income consumers, our
conservation team wanted a final push before year end. We contacted 400 customers by phone
to put the application process in motion – customer service completed this task in less than a
week. Impressive work on top of their always hectic day-to-day duties.
Our social media efforts continue to attract more and more followers. Social media is our main
avenue for communication to our customers to keep them informed during power outages
(both planned and unplanned) and water main breaks. Late this year we sent out our 10,000th
tweet! We thank all of our customers for the success of this initiative and for following us.
Our staff fielded 56,521 calls in 2017, answering 93.1% of them within 30 seconds and only
0.71% of calls were abandoned by the customer.
56,521 phone calls

93% answered within 30 seconds
<1% abandoned by caller
28
47
Appendix A
BILLING INTEGRATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

In January 2017, the Ontario Rebate for Electricity Consumers (OREC) was implemented, which
removed the 8% tax from most rate classes. This required a bill print change to handle the new
OREC program.
The OEB’s requirements for billing large multi-residential locations changed in 2017. Customers
in this category were required to be switched from Weighted Average Cost of Electricity
(WACOE) to Time-of-Use (TOU) rates. Additionally and more challenging, was the switch of
large commercial customers from WACOE to Hourly Ontario Energy Price (HOEP). This required
specific meter configurations and system set-ups in order to bill these customers under the
new model. This was a requirement under OEB regulations to accommodate the metering
system upgrades. The deadline to have the metering changed and the billing in place is the
end of 2020.
PUG began the billing of metered water in September 2014. Our water meter system is
equipped with leak detection; if a customer has water running for 72 consecutive hours, it
alerts staff in Billing Integration (BI). Since we began this billing, we also started issuing high
water consumption letters (also known as “leak letters”) to customers that had this alert. This
process has worked well, but due to processing and delivery times, we found that the customer
could experience another week of high usage before the letter arrived at their door. This year,
BI began using an auto-dialer, which calls the customer immediately after 72 hours of non-stop
consumption, allowing them to take action immediately. The Billing Integration group turned a
good customer interaction into an even better solution.
Even amid this year of significant change, the Billing department achieved a billing accuracy
rate of more than 99% on 448,188 bills produced.
448,188 bills produced

99.5% accuracy
29
48
Appendix A
SOCIAL MEDIA
PUG’s social media feeds continue to gain popularity with our customers. Every day we have
new customers join and follow our feeds.
In 2017, we had our fair share of electric outages and water main breaks. When this happens,
the best way to mitigate customer concern is to communicate as quickly as possible what the
situation is and how we are handling it. Social media is ideal for that; no matter what the time
of day, when there is a problem we can reach out to our customers.
We reach many more people than just our followers each time we sent out a notification on
social media. Due to retweets and message forwarding in Facebook and on Twitter, we have
reached more than 250,000 viewers with one message.
In 2017, our field staff in both the electric and water departments rose to this relatively new
challenge by providing live pictures and video from the field during outages or main breaks
when it was safe to do so. This provides clarity to our followers and helps us to manage their
expectations by letting them know how we are resolving the situation.
3,900 Facebook followers

8,764 followers on Twitter
10,200 tweets since 2011
30
49
Appendix A
31
50
Appendix A
Consolidated Statement of Financial Position

As at December 31, 2017
($s in thousands)
2017 2016
$ $
ASSETS
Current assets
Cash 22,970 2,608
Restricted cash 30,137 4,472
Accounts receivable 2,187 2,079
Unbilled revenue on customer accounts 295 258
Inventories 1,038 1,026
Prepaid expenses 352 309
Income taxes receivable – 170
Assets held by discontinued operations 103,417 107,486
160,396 118,408
Other assets
Intangible assets 4,067 4,214
Property, plant and equipment 156,695 159,424
Deferred tax assets 6,137 8,515
166,899 172,153
327,295 290,561
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDER’S EQUITY

Current liabilities
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities 6,073 4,407
Income taxes payable 56 –
Current portion of long-term debt 4,743 4,111
Operating loan – 2,700
Liabilities held by discontinued operations 69,936 75,228
80,808 86,446
Long-term liabilities
Provisions 252 241
Employee future liabilities 5,686 5,218
Deferred tax liabilities 15,183 15,029
Long-term debt 123,402 85,207
144,523 105,695
Shareholder’s equity
Share capital 60,098 60,098
Accumulated other comprehensive loss (1,783) (2,390)
Retained earnings 43,649 40,712
101,964 98,420
327,295 290,561
32
51
Appendix A
Consolidated Statement of Income

and Comprehensive Income
For the year ended December 31, 2017
($s in thousands)
2017 2016
$ $
Revenue 43,020 32,601
Expenses
Operations and administration 19,355 17,809
Amortization 8,590 7,863
27,945 25,672
Income from operations 15,075 6,929
Other expense (income)
Net finance charges 4,001 2,881
Loss on impairment of property, plant and equipment 500 –
Loss on disposal of property, plant and equipment 498 161
4,999 3,042
Income before income taxes and discontinued operations 10,076 3,887
Provision for income taxes
Current 273 338
Deferred 2,635 666
2,908 1,004
Income from continuing operations, after tax 7,168 2,883
Income from discontinued operations, after tax 1,323 2,065
Net income for the year 8,491 4,948
Other comprehensive income

Items that will not be reclassified subsequently to net income
Employee benefit plan actuarial losses (390) –
Related deferred tax 103 -–
Other comprehensive income from discontinued operations, 894 515
net of tax
Other comprehensive income for the year 607 515
Total comprehensive income for the year 9,098 5,463
33
52
Appendix A
Consolidated Statement of Changes in Equity

($s in thousands)
Accumulated
Other
Share Retained Comprehensive Total
Capital Earnings Income (Loss) Equity
$ $ $ $
Balance, January 1, 2016 60,098 41,207 (2,905) 98,400

Net income for the year – 4,948 – 4,948
Dividends paid – (5,443) – (5,443)
Other comprehensive income from discontinued operations, – – 515 515
net of tax
Balance, December 31, 2016 60,098 40,712 (2,390) 98,420
Balance, January 1, 2017 60,098 40,712 (2,390) 98,420

Net income for the year – 8,491 – 8,491
Actuarial loss on accrued employee benefit liabilities, – – (287) (287)
net of tax
Dividends paid – (5,554) – (5,554)
Other comprehensive income from discontinued operations, – – 894 894
net of tax
Balance, December 31, 2017 60,098 43,649 (1,783) 101,964
34
53
Appendix A
Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows

($s in thousands)
2017 2016
$ $
CASH PROVIDED FROM (USED FOR)
Operating activities
Income from continuing operations 7,168 2,883
Charges to operations not requiring a current cash payment
Amortization 8,590 7,863
Deferred income tax 2,635 666
Current income tax 273 338
Net finance costs 4,001 2,881
Capitalized asset retirement provisions – 145
Loss on impairment of property, plant and equipment 500 –
Loss on write-down of property, plant and equipment 509 161
23,676 14,937
Change in non-cash working capital items 1,522 (5,205)
Taxes paid (48) (631)
Interest received 238 104
Increase (decrease) in employee future liabilities 77 (820)
Cashflows from operating activities of discontinued operations 9,979 9,561
35,444 17,946
Investing activities
Purchase of property, plant and equipment (6,499) (12,863)
Purchase of intangibles (69) –
Transfers to restricted cash account (25,665) (519)
Cashflows used in investing activities of discontinued operations (5,296) (2,887)
(37,529) (16,269)
Financing activities
Proceeds from operating loan – 2,700
Proceeds from long-term debt, net of loan origination fees 73,710 9,485
Repayment of long-term debt and operating loan (37,610) (4,009)
Interest paid (4,216) (3,390)
Dividends paid (5,554) (5,443)
Cashflows used in financing activities of discontinued operations (3,229) (1,670)
23,101 (2,327)
Net increase (decrease) in cash 21,016 (650)
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year – continuing operations 2,608 6,426
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year – discontinued operations 5,335 2,167
Cash and cash equivalents – beginning of year 7,943 8,593
Cash and cash equivalents, end of year – continuing operations 22,970 2,608
Cash and cash equivalents, end of year – discontinued operations 5,989 5,335
Cash and cash equivalents – end of year 28,959 7,943
35
54
Appendix A
Board of Directors
The Board of Directors is devoted to keeping the community and our customers front and
centre as our main priority when making decisions, as well as ensuring that our shareholder,
the City of Peterborough, receives the maximum return possible. The Board is focused on good
governance and risk management for all of the PUG businesses.
After a three-year term on PDI, we would like to thank Dave Clark for his service to the PDI
board, where he served as an independent director.
We welcomed Arlynn Dupuis and Ross Garland to the CoPHI Board in 2017.
David Bignell, Scott Baker, Mayor Nancy Dave Clark Arlynn Dupuis
Chair Vice-Chair Daryl Bennett Brown Andison
Ross Garland Louise Lalonde Dan McWilliams David Paterson Bryan Weir
Executive Team
John Stephenson Bill Davie Patrick Devlin Mike Ploc David Whitehouse John Wynsma
President & Chief Financial Vice-President Vice-President Vice-President Vice-President
Chief Executive Officer Water Services Electric Services Customer & Generation
Officer Corporate Services & Retail Services
Carrissa McCaw Carrie Rucska

Director Director
Human Resources Information
36 & Safety Technology
55
Appendix A
Companies and Committees

CITY OF PETERBOROUGH HOLDINGS INC. AUDIT COMMITTEE
David Bignell, Chair Louise Lalonde, Chair
Scott Baker, Vice-Chair Nancy Brown Andison
Louise Lalonde Arlynn Dupuis
Nancy Brown Andison Ross Garland
Mayor Daryl Bennett
Councillor Dan McWilliams GOVERNANCE & NOMINATING COMMITTEE
David Paterson Scott Baker, Chair
Arlynn Dupuis David Bignell
Ross Garland Mayor Daryl Bennett
PETERBOROUGH DISTRIBUTION INC. HUMAN RESOURCES COMPENSATION COMMITTEE

David Paterson, Chair David Paterson, Chair, PDI Representative
Bryan Weir, Vice-Chair and David Bignell, PUI and PUSI Representative
Independent Director for OEB Requirements Arlynn Dupuis
Councillor Dan McWilliams Mayor Daryl Bennett
David Bignell
Dave Clark, Independent Director for OEB Requirements RISK COMMITTEE
Nancy Brown Andison, Chair
PETERBOROUGH UTILITIES INC. Louise Lalonde
Scott Baker, Chair David Bignell
David Bignell, Vice-Chair Scott Baker
Mayor Daryl Bennett
PETERBOROUGH UTILITIES SERVICES INC.

Scott Baker, Chair
David Bignell, Vice-Chair
Mayor Daryl Bennett
37
56
Appendix A
1867 Ashburnham Dr.

P. O. Box 4125
Station Main
Peterborough, Ontario
K9J 6Z5
General Inquiries
705-748-9300
Account Information
and Customer Service
705-748-6900
peterboroughutilities.ca
57
From: W. H. Jackson
Commissioner of Infrastructure and Planning Services

Report IPSPD18-023
Subject: Application for Official Plan Amendment O1802, Zoning By-law
Amendment Z1704SB and Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval
15T-17501 “Ashborough Village” (Phase 1)
2320 Ashburnham Drive, 2159 Old Norwood Road,
500, 510 and 516 Maniece Avenue
Purpose
A report to evaluate the planning merits of an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law
Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision application for the properties at 2320
Ashburnham Drive, 2159 Old Norwood Road, and 500, 510 and 516 Maniece Avenue.
Recommendations
That Council approve the recommendations outlined in Report IPSPD18-023 dated
August 27, 2018, of the Commissioner of Infrastructure and Planning Services as follows:
a) That the Official Plan be amended by adding Schedule ‘S’ – Lift Lock Secondary
Land Use Plan, attached to Report IPSPD18-023 as Schedule ‘A’ of Exhibit B.
b) That Schedules “A” – Land Use, “B”- Roadway Network, “C” – Natural Areas &
Flood Plain, “D” – Development Areas, “E” – Residential Density, and “F” – Key
Map to Secondary Land Use Plans of the Official Plan be amended in accordance
with Exhibit B of Report IPSPD18-023 in order to reflect the land use planning
objectives of the Lift Lock Secondary Land Use Plan.
58
Report IPSPD18-023
Application for Official Plan Amendment O1802, Zoning By-law
Amendment Z1704SB and Draft Plan of Subdivision
Approval 15T-17501 “Ashborough Village” (Phase 1) Page 2
c) That Section 10 - Secondary Plans of the Official Plan be amended in accordance

with Exhibit B of Report IPSPD18-023.
d) That Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval for Plan 15T-17501 (Phase 1), Project No.
16383, Drawing No.: DP-01 dated March 10, 2017 and revised July 20, 2018 by
The Biglieri Group Ltd., be granted, subject to the Conditions of Draft Plan Approval
attached to Report IPSPD18-023, as Schedule 1.
e) That Section 3.9 Exceptions of Zoning By-law 97-123 be amended by adding

exceptions 325 and 326 in accordance with Exhibit C of Report IPSPD18-023.
f) That the subject property be rezoned from R1 (Otonabee) to R.1-“H”, R.1,1r,2r-“H”,

R.1,1o,2o-“H”, SP.366,3n-318-“H”, R.1-325-“H”, R.1,1r,2r-325-“H”, R.1,1o,2o-325-
“H”, SP.366,3n-318-325-“H”, SP.365-326 – Residential Districts, OS.1, and OS.2 –
Open Space Districts in accordance with the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Exhibit C
of Report IPSPD18-023.
g) That a budget of $250,000.00 be included in the 2019 Capital Budget for the
completion of an East Side Transportation Study and be pre-committed.

External road improvements will be required to accommodate full build-out of the
proposed draft plan of subdivision and the Lift Lock Secondary Plan area. Many of the
road improvements noted in Report IPSPD18-023 are not included in the City’s current
City-Wide engineering services development charge by-law, By-law 14-135, which will
expire on January 1, 2020. These improvements include: urbanization of Old Norwood
Road; installation of traffic signals and turn lanes at the intersections of Television Road
with Parkhill Road, Old Norwood Road, Paul Rexe Boulevard and Maniece Avenue; and
the installation of a continuous two-way left turn lane on Television Road.
Currently, staff is seeking $70,000.00 in the 2019 budget and an additional $480,000.00
in the 2020 budget to install traffic signals on Television Road at Paul Rexe Boulevard in
advance of construction on the subject lands. The City currently has $120,000.00 from
the developer of the Burnham Meadows subdivision toward this work and the developer
of the Ashborough Village lands (the subject lands) will be required to reimburse the City
50% of the project cost once the proposed plan has received Final Approval.
Additionally, the City needs to complete a transportation review of the area east of the
Trent Severn Waterway, north of Lansdowne Street, to address broader transportation
needs and, in particular, movement across the Trent Severn Waterway. The costs for
this study are estimated at $250,000 and are required in the 2019 Capital Budget.
59
Report IPSPD18-023
Approval of this report will pre-commit that project. Pending the outcome of the study, it
is anticipated that additional road improvements, beyond what is currently identified in the
Transportation Master Plan and City-wide Development Charge Study, will be required to
support the build-out of the Liftlock Secondary Plan area.
City-wide engineering services development charge By-law 14-135 will be updated in

2019. Road improvements identified in Report IPSPD18-023 that are not a direct
developer responsibility will need to be included in the updated development charge.
Additionally, funding to complete the East Side Transportation Study and any required
EAs, will need to be included in the development charge as well. It is anticipated that the
transportation study will take approximately 12 months to complete and will therefore not
be finished before the 2019 City-wide development charge update is finalized.
Consequently, a subsequent update to the City-wide development charge by-law will be
required to include any projects recommended by the study.
Should external road improvements be required prior to their inclusion in the City-Wide
Development Charge By-law and an approved capital budget, development proponents
may be required to front-end the work and would be eligible for reimbursement once the
projects are included in the development charge calculation and an approved capital
budget.
Presently, the Lift Lock Area Specific Development Charge includes a component that is
intended to fund the creation of centralized stormwater management facilities. Based on
the preliminary stormwater management plan prepared by the Applicant, it appears their
proposed stormwater management facility will only serve the Ashborough Village lands
and will not serve other upstream areas. Should this be the case, the Applicant will be
eligible to receive development charge funding for their stormwater management facility.
Providing transit service to the Study Area will require additional operating budget
requirements, which will be identified in the upcoming Transit Route Review and Long
Term Growth Strategy and reflected in future operating budgets. In the interim, additional
operating funding to extend TransCab service to this new growth area will be required
until such time as full service is implemented.
Background
The Applicant’s land holdings are approximately 71.1 hectares in size. The lands are
located at the east limit of the City and are bounded by the City limit and Television Road
to the east, Ashburnham Drive to the west, Old Norwood Road to the north, and Maniece
Avenue and existing rural residential properties to the south. The site is located
approximately 70 metres east of the Peterborough Lift Lock. Adjacent land uses include
rural residential to the north (Naish Drive and Thornbury Drive) and south (Maniece
60
Report IPSPD18-023
Avenue), open space (Trent-Severn Waterway) and rural residential to the west, and
residential and open space to the east. The Burnham Meadows subdivision which is
currently under construction is located directly east of the site within Otonabee-South
Monaghan Township.
Approximately 60 percent of the site is under agricultural use while the remainder of the
site is developed as part of the Lift Lock Golf Club. Two branches of North Meade Creek
(also known as Whitlaw Creek) cross through the site: one near the site’s southeast
corner and the other near the site’s northeast corner. The site contains a farmhouse,
barn and pond located just south of Old Norwood Road, near the northwest corner of the
site. The site ranges in elevation from 215m at its north/northwest extent to 192 m at its
southern limit. Slopes on the site range from approximately 0.25% to approximately
11.5%.
Most of the subject lands were annexed from the former Township of Otonabee in 1998.
Consequently, the majority of the site remains subject to the Township Official Plan
designations and zoning that were in effect at the time of annexation. Specifically, the
majority of the site is designated as Village in the former Township of Otonabee Official
Plan while the Lift Lock Golf Club lands which became part of the city in 1900, are
designated Major Open Space in the City’s Official Plan. The lands are recognized as
Designated Greenfield Area on Schedule A1 – City Structure of the Official Plan in
accordance with the provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
To implement the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision, the proponent has requested that
the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law be amended. The details of these requested
amendments are described herein. Furthermore, in response to comments received
during the staff and agency review process, the proponent is only seeking approval for
the first phase of development that excludes the lands associated with the Lift Lock Golf
Club until such time as realignment options can be considered for Ashburnham Drive.
Accordingly, Phase 1 of draft plan of subdivision 15T-17501 that is being
considered for approval at this time only pertains to approximately 43.63 hectares
of the site which consists of the farmhouse, barn and fields at 2159 Old Norwood
Road (see Exhibit D).
Independent from the receipt of a Council decision on the proposed plan of subdivision
presented herein, the Applicant intends to integrate an Environmental Assessment (EA)
process with the ongoing Planning Act review of Phase 2 of Draft Plan of Subdivision
application 15T-17501 and Zoning By-law amendment application Z1704SB as they
pertain to the golf course lands. The EA process will establish a recommended alignment
for Ashburnham Drive in the vicinity of the golf course that will then be reflected in a
separate plan of subdivision when Phase 2 is brought forward for Council consideration at
a later date.
61
Report IPSPD18-023
Pursuant to Section 51(25) of the Planning Act, Council has the authority to impose
conditions to the approval of a plan of subdivision that are reasonable and have regard to
the nature of the development proposed. Issues identified through the application review
process that cannot be addressed specifically through the draft plan design, Official Plan
policy, or Zoning By-law regulation, will be imposed as conditions of Draft Plan Approval.
The proposed conditions of Draft Plan Approval for this development are detailed in
Schedule 1. These conditions must be satisfied before the City can grant Final approval
to the plan of subdivision or any phase thereof. Once Final approval is granted, the
developer would be permitted to register the plan with the Land Registry Office and to
begin selling individual lots.
Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision Description
As illustrated in Exhibit A attached hereto, the Applicant is proposing a residential

subdivision comprised of a maximum of 501 single-detached dwellings with typical lot
widths of 9.14m, 10.6m, 12.2m, 13.72m and 15.2m and a typical lot depth of 30m.
Additionally, the plan proposes the development of 56 street-fronting townhomes with a
typical lot width of 6.1m, and a high density, mixed-use multi-unit residential/local
commercial block with approximately 150 dwelling units and potentially up to 2,000
square metres of commercial floor space.
All single detached and townhouse areas are shown on the draft plan of subdivision
without individual lots (i.e. as lotless blocks) to preserve flexibility for minor adjustments of
lot width on the final plan of subdivision. The final plan of subdivision will establish a lot
pattern for all single detached lots in accordance with the zoning by-law and conditions
imposed on the draft plan of subdivision. All townhouse blocks will be subdivided into
individual parcels through a future part-lot control exemption process.
Proposed non-residential uses include a 0.98 hectare park located in the centre of the
site, a stormwater management pond located in the southwest corner of the site, adjacent
to the Lift Lock Golf Course, and 8.77 hectares of open space associated with the
floodplain and buffers along the two creeks on site. Additionally, the plan proposes to
convey an 8m road widening along Old Norwood Road, five mid-block walkways to
facilitate pedestrian and cycling access to and from the park, and a walkway block along
Television Road to facilitate access from the site to the proposed mixed use block.
The proposed local streets are illustrated as 18.5m wide road allowances and are
generally laid out in a grid pattern. Two collector streets, Streets ‘A’ and ‘C’ serve the
site. Street A will enter the site from Television Road at Paul Rexe Boulevard and will run
east-west through the site. Street C will enter the site from Old Norwood Road, just west
of Thornbury Drive, and will run north-south through the site. Street A has been planned
so that it can be extended to the west to intersect with Ashburnham Drive (either in its
current location or in a realigned location) while Street C, through the conditions of
62
Report IPSPD18-023
approval, will be planned to preserve flexibility to extend south to Maniece Avenue should
it be deemed necessary in the future and subject to appropriate environmental approvals.
Where Streets A and C intersect, a roundabout intersection will be implemented.
All collector streets within the plan are to be designed and built with on-street cycling
facilities while all streets within the development are to have sidewalks on both sides
(unless exempted by the City’s sidewalk policy).
Street-fronting townhomes are situated along Street A, west of the neighbourhood park
while the mixed use commercial/residential block is located along Television Road at the
southeast corner of the site. The mixed use block (Block 55) is isolated from the rest of
the site by a creek and its associated floodplain and is located across from a planned
7,900 square metre local commercial development in the Burnham Meadows subdivision
in Otonabee-South Monaghan Township. Pedestrian access to this block will be
facilitated by the creation of a sidewalk/trail along the west side of Television Road, south
of Street A.
Stormwater management for the site is proposed to be accommodated in a pond located

at the south limit of the property, adjacent to the Lift Lock Golf Club. The pond is
proposed to outlet to the main branch of North Meade Creek, upstream of Maniece
Avenue.
Sanitary wastewater is proposed to be conveyed to the existing trunk sewer in

Ashburnham Drive at Maria Street by extending the trunk sewer north to Maniece
Avenue, east along Maniece Avenue and then north into the site along the east edge of
the golf course.
Water is proposed to be extended to the site from an existing 300mm watermain located
within Ashburnham Drive at Maniece Avenue. The watermain can be extended along
either Ashburnham Drive or Maniece Avenue to the site.
Because the subdivision encompasses only a portion of the Proponent’s lands and the
adjacent golf course lands have been excluded from the current version of the Draft Plan
of Subdivision, the plan protects two street accesses to the west, Collector Street A, and
Local Street J.
63
Report IPSPD18-023
Land Use Summary
Land Use Block No. Area (ha)
Residential Singles Blocks 1 to 33, 37, 39, 43 to 53 18.86

(501 units max.)
Residential Townhomes Blocks 34 to 36, 38, 40 to 42 1.17
(56 units)
Mixed Use Block 55 (150 units) 1.48
Residential/Commercial
Parkland Block 64 0.98
Walkway Blocks 60 to 63, 65 0.16
Stormwater Management Block 66 2.50
Pond
Open Space/Natural Heritage Blocks 54, 56, 59 8.77
Road Widening Blocks 57, 58 0.47
Streets 9.24
Total 707 units max. 43.63
Analysis
Provincial Policy Statement, 2014
Any decision on the proposed development must be consistent with the Provincial Policy
Statement, 2014 (PPS). The PPS provides general direction to municipalities with
respect to a number of land use planning issues. For example, Section 1.1.3.2 requires
municipalities to ensure that land use patterns are based on densities and a mix of land
uses that (among other things):
 efficiently use land and resources;
 support active transportation; and
 are transit supportive.

64
Report IPSPD18-023
Additionally, the PPS requires municipalities to plan for an appropriate range and mix of
housing types and densities to meet the needs of current and future residents by:
 establishing and implementing minimum targets for the provision of housing that is
affordable to low and moderate income households;
 permitting and facilitating all forms of housing and all forms of intensification;
 directing new housing to locations where appropriate levels of infrastructure and

public service facilities are or will be available; and
 promoting densities for new housing which efficiently use land, resources,
infrastructure and public services and support the use of active transportation and
transit.
Furthermore, the PPS states that a land use pattern, density and mix of uses should be
promoted that minimizes the length and number of vehicle trips and support current and
future use of transit and active transportation.
In staff’s opinion, the proposed plan is consistent with this direction because it provides a
variety of housing options and densities, provides connectivity to adjacent lands, and
includes walkway, sidewalk and cycling facilities that will promote active transportation.
Because the adjacent golf course lands to the west are planned for urban development,
promoting pedestrian and cycling access to Ashburnham Drive, the Lift Lock, and Hunter
Street East will be a key factor in ensuring that the subject lands realize their active
transportation potential. The west stub of Street A is located approximately 340 metres
from the Lift Lock, and approximately 700 metres from King George Public School.
Additionally, the Hunter Street East business district is located another 560 metres west
of the Lift Lock, and downtown is located approximately 1.4 km west of the Lift Lock.
Accordingly, the majority of the lands are located within 2km of downtown.
Collector streets within the development will be designed to accommodate future transit
service. Transit service plans for this area will be considered as part of the upcoming
Transit Route Review and Long Term Growth Strategy, set to begin in the fall of 2018.
Until such time as full transit service is implemented in the developing neighbourhood, the
City’s Trans-Cab service will be provided to the area at an additional cost to the operating
budget.
65
Report IPSPD18-023
Additionally, the PPS requires municipalities to support energy conservation and

efficiency, improved air quality, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and climate change
adaptation by promoting:
 compact form;
 active transportation and transit in and between residential, employment and

institutional uses and other areas;
 design and orientation that maximizes energy efficiency and conservation, and
considers the mitigating effects of vegetation; and
 maximized vegetation within settlement areas, where feasible.
In staff’s opinion, the proposed development is compact and will be conducive to transit.
When the neighbourhood is complete and the adjacent golf course lands are developed,
the plan will facilitate active transportation both within the neighbourhood and to
destinations beyond the neighbourhood such as downtown.
The plan will preserve trees where feasible and will include street trees in front of ground-
oriented dwellings to promote shade. Significant tree planting in compensation for trees
removed during the development process will be included.
All dwellings are required to meet the minimum efficiency standards of the Ontario
Building Code (OBC). Presently, the OBC requires new homes to meet an energy
efficiency rating of 80 (out of 100) on Natural Resources Canada’s EnerGuide rating
system. A rating of 80 and above is considered an energy efficient home. As of January
1, 2017, the OBC requires new homes to achieve an additional 15% increase in energy
efficiency. Staff is satisfied that all housing to be developed in the proposed plan will be
energy efficient.
Approximately 57% of the proposed single detached and townhouse dwellings are
oriented in a north-south direction that would allow for the placement of larger windows
toward the south to take advantage of passive solar heating opportunity. The remaining
43% of the proposed single detached and townhouse dwellings are oriented in an east-
west direction which could potentially provide suitable south-facing rooflines for the future
installation of solar panels by homeowners should they wish.
The PPS requires municipalities to promote stormwater management best practices,

including stormwater attenuation and re-use, and low impact development (LID –
measures that promote water infiltration). As a condition of approval, the Applicant will be
required to establish and implement LID strategy to the satisfaction of the City and
Otonabee Region Conservation Authority (ORCA). LID measures considered in the
66
Report IPSPD18-023
Functional Servicing Report prepared by Valdor Engineering for the site (March 2017,
revised March 2018) include allowing roof downspouts to discharge to the surface and
the construction of infiltration trenches on private property.
The PPS prohibits development and site alteration within:
 Provincially significant wetlands (PSWs);
 Significant woodlands;
 Significant valleylands;
 Significant wildlife habitat;
 Significant areas of natural and scientific interest;
 Fish habitat (except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements); or
 Lands adjacent to these features unless it can be demonstrated that there will be
no negative impacts on the features or on their ecological functions.
Additionally, the PPS prohibits development and site alteration within habitat of
endangered and threatened species except in accordance with provincial and federal
requirements.
As part of the application, the proponent has submitted an Environmental Impact Study
(EIS) prepared by Beacon Environmental (dated March 2017, revised March, 2018) and a
letter from Beacon dated June 14, 2018 in response to natural heritage comments
received from ORCA. The EIS concludes that the property does not contain significant
wetlands, significant woodlands, significant valleylands, significant wildlife habitat, or
significant areas of natural and scientific interest. Furthermore, the site is not identified as
being adjacent lands to any of these features (the Downers Corners PSW, located
approximately 200 metres southeast of the site, is the closest significant feature to the
site).
The EIS does, however, identify the presence of Barn Swallows, a threatened species,
associated with the barn on the property and potential habitat for endangered species of
bats associated within the forest areas along North Meade Creek at the southeast corner
of the site and in an isolated wetland pocket in the centre of the site. Additionally, the
study identifies the potential for Blanding’s Turtle (endangered species) and Eastern
Musk Turtle (threatened species) habitat in the existing pond on site. The pond is to be
maintained with a buffer varying between 15 metres and 120 metres from the
development.
67
Report IPSPD18-023
To address potential impacts on Barn Swallow and bat habitat, the conditions of approval
require the Applicant to work with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF)
to ensure that the development proceeds in conformity with the Endangered Species Act.
Additionally, the EIS notes the potential for the two branches of North Meade Creek to act
as warm water fish habitat. The plan provides for a minimum 30 metre buffer from these
watercourses as recommended in the MNRF’s Natural Heritage Reference Manual, 2010.
Street A is proposed to cross the southeastern branch of North Meade Creek on the
property. As a condition of approval, the Applicant will be required to obtain written
confirmation from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada that the watercourse
crossing is consistent with fisheries policies.
Although no provincially significant wetlands have been noted on site, the EIS does
identify the presence of several unevaluated wetlands along both branches of North
Meade Creek and an isolated wetland near the centre of the site that is proposed to be
removed. Given the proximity of the Downers Corners PSW, Beacon Environmental
reviewed whether these features should be complexed with the nearby PSW and
concluded that there is no essential functional connection between the two that would
justify their complexing. Furthermore, Beacon notes that this conclusion is consistent
with previous studies conducted in the area including the Downers Corners Wetland
Comprehensive Environmental Impact Study prepared in 2007 on the City and ORCA’s
behalf.
As a provider of technical advice to the City on matters of natural heritage, ORCA advised
that it has no objections to Beacon’s rationale. The MNRF, the authority responsible for
determining wetland significance in Ontario, has been provided Beacon Environmental’s
review. As of the writing of this report, the MNRF has not expressed any concerns
regarding the wetlands on site.
Section 2.6 of the PPS states that significant built heritage resources and significant
cultural heritage landscapes will be conserved. Furthermore, the PPS states that
development and site alteration shall not be permitted on lands containing archaeological
recourses or areas of archaeological potential unless significant archaeological resources
have been conserved.
As part of the application the Proponent has prepared a Cultural Heritage Assessment
Report (AECOM, July 2017, and updated February 2018) which recommended that
consideration be given to the visual transition from the Trent Severn Waterway and Lift
Lock to the proposed development, including a landscaping strategy. Such a strategy will
be required as part of Phase 2 of the development. Additionally, the report recommended
68
Report IPSPD18-023
that the barn and the surrounding landscape on the lands be documented
photographically and that the document be deposited with the Peterborough Museum and
Archives to form an archival record of the property. This will be required as a condition of
approval.
Additionally, the Proponent has submitted a Stage 1 and a Stage 2 Archaeological

Assessment of the property prepared by AECOM dated November 28, 2016 and
February 8, 2017 respectively. The reports did not assess portions of the Phase 1 lands
nor any of the Phase 2 lands. As a condition of approval, the Proponent will be required
to prepare an Archaeological Assessment that assesses all proposed development areas
and clears them from any future archaeological concern to the satisfaction of the City.
Through both the design of the plan, implementation of zoning and implementation of
approval conditions, staff is satisfied that the proposed plan is consistent with the PPS.
Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017
Any decision on the proposed Draft Plan must conform with the Growth Plan for the
Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017(the Growth Plan). The Growth Plan builds upon the
policy foundation of the PPS by providing land use planning policies to address specific
issues in the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH). The subject lands are located within the
Designated Greenfield Area as defined in the Growth Plan. Accordingly, the lands are
subject to both general policies in the plan and to policies that are specific to the
Designated Greenfield Area.
When considering Designated Greenfield Areas, the Growth Plan states that such areas
will be planned to:
 support the achievement of complete communities;
 support active transportation (e.g. walking, cycling); and
 encourage the integration and sustained viability of transit services.
Complete communities are places that offer and support opportunities for people of all
ages and abilities to conveniently access most of the necessities for daily living, including
an appropriate mix of jobs, local stores, and services, a full range of housing,
transportation options and public service facilities. The proposed plan is located in close
proximity to various shops, services and amenities located within the Hunter Street East
business district and well as the cultural and recreational amenities associated with the
Lift Lock and Armour Hill. The plan, when developed in conjunction with the adjacent golf
course lands, will facilitate convenient pedestrian and cycling access to these areas.
69
Report IPSPD18-023
Additionally, the plan provides flexibility for up to 2000 square metres of local commercial
floor space along Television Road and it facilitates access to the adjacent Burnham
Meadows subdivision which also permits up to 7,900 square metres of local commercial
floor space. Potential local commercial uses in these facilities could include convenience
stores, a food store, a pharmacy, a restaurant, a bank, a medical or dental clinic, and
other local commercial uses.
With respect to housing, the plan provides for a variety of housing types and densities.
As land use planning continues for the adjacent golf course lands, opportunity exists to
introduce more housing variety to meet current and future housing needs. For single
detached and street-fronting townhomes in the development, the City’s zoning by-law
provides flexibility for the introduction of secondary suites subject to building permit
approval.
In staff’s opinion, the proposed subdivision contributes toward the achievement of a

complete community.
Additionally, the Growth Plan also establishes a minimum density target for greenfield
areas. Presently, the density target for Peterborough’s greenfield areas is 50 persons
and jobs per hectare, combined. The proposed plan can achieve this density. Given the
flexibility that the lotless blocks can provide with respect to range of density, the
Proponent will be required to demonstrate that lotting on the final plan for registration
achieves an average density of 50 residents per hectare using population assumptions
consistent with the City’s current development charge background studies.
In 2017, the Growth Plan was updated to establish a minimum density target of 80
residents and jobs per hectare for greenfield areas which is to take effect when
municipalities comprehensively review their official plans. The Growth Plan also permits
outer ring municipalities, like the City of Peterborough, to negotiate an alterative density
target subject to Provincial approval. The City is currently preparing a new Official Plan.
In a resolution dated March 19, 2018, Council authorized staff to seek an alternative
greenfield density target in the range of 55 to 65 residents and jobs per hectare, subject
to Provincial approval. The new Official Plan, which is anticipated to be complete in
2019, will contain a new greenfield density target, either as stipulated in the Growth Plan
or as negotiated with the Province. Should Phase 2 of the development seek Council
approval after the new Official Plan is in effect, any portion of that phase that is
considered designated greenfield area will be subject to the new density target.
The Growth Plan also emphasizes the protection of water quality and quantity by
requiring the design and servicing of new large scale developments such as plans of
subdivision to be informed by a subwatershed plan or equivalent, to include LID
measures and green infrastructure. To date, staff has reviewed a preliminary stormwater
management report prepared for the site that is informed by a stormwater management
70
Report IPSPD18-023
assessment that was completed by the City as part of the Lift Lock Functional Planning
Study in 2005, the Meade Creek Flood Reduction Study completed in 2010, as well as
geotechnical (Haddad Geotechnical Inc., March 2017) and hydrogeological (Groundwater
Science Corp., March 2017) reports completed in support of the application. As a
condition of approval, the Applicant will be required to prepare a detailed stormwater
management report to the satisfaction of the City and ORCA that will include LID
measures.
In staff’s opinion, the proposed plan conforms with the direction of the Growth Plan.
Official Plan
The subject lands are designated as follows:
Schedule A - Land Use: Major Open Space, Village (Otonabee Township)
Schedule A1 - City Structure: Designated Greenfield Area
Schedule B - Roadway Network: High Capacity Arterial (Television Road)

High Capacity Collector (Ashburnham Drive,
Maniece Avenue)
Low Capacity Collector (Old Norwood Road)
Schedule C Lands Adjacent to Fish Habitat

Natural Areas and Floodplain: Natural Areas and Corridors
Flood Plain Area
Schedule D – Development Areas: Stage 2
Schedule F Partially within No. 14 – Lift Lock

Key Map to Secondary Land Use
Plans:
Plans Schedule H – Community Partially within Community Improvement Area
Improvement:
71
Report IPSPD18-023
To facilitate the proposed development, the proponent has requested that the Official
Plan be amended as follows:
Schedule A - Land Use: From Major Open Space and Village (Otonabee
Township) to Residential and Major Open Space
Schedule B - Roadway Network: Add Streets A and C as Low Capacity Collector
Schedule C Add Lands Adjacent to Fish Habitat

Natural Areas and Floodplain: Add Natural Areas and Corridors
Add Flood Plain Area
Schedule D – Development Areas: Add lands to Stage 2 area
Schedule E – Residential Density Add Medium Density and High Density
Schedule F Expand Boundary of Area No. 14 – Lift Lock

Key Map to Secondary Land Use
Plans:
Schedule S – Lift Lock Secondary Adopt a partial secondary plan that encompasses
Plan the development lands
Additionally, to facilitate the development of the proposed mixed-use

residential/commercial facility, a secondary plan-specific policy is proposed to encourage
the mixing of residential and commercial uses notwithstanding the provisions of Section
4.2.6 that would seek to maintain residential use as secondary to commercial uses. A
similar policy has most recently been implemented in the Lily Lake Secondary Plan.
Secondary Plans
Section 9.5.1 of the Official Plan states that Secondary Plans shall be prepared for any
major physical, social or economic issue, for any major development or redevelopment,
or for any area within the municipality for which it is deemed necessary to undertake a
comprehensive study and to formulate detailed policies. Prior to considering
development applications on annexed lands such as the Lift Lock area, it has been the
City’s position that such areas should be subject to a secondary plan that is based on a
comprehensive area wide review of the major planning issues.
The Lift Lock planning area encompasses the area bounded by Parkhill Road, Television
Road, the Trent Severn Waterway, and the Canadian Pacific Railway located just south
of Maniece Avenue. In 2005, the City completed the Lift Lock Functional Planning Study
72
Report IPSPD18-023
which was intended to serve as the technical basis for a secondary land use plan for the
area. The study reviewed the major issues affecting the development of a secondary
plan including natural environment, transportation, municipal servicing, stormwater
management, hydrogeology and soils, and archaeology. The study was received by
Council in 2006 and Council, at the time, authorized staff to initiate an Official Plan
Amendment process to adopt a Secondary Plan for the area. To date, a secondary plan
has not been adopted for the area.
Concurrent with the processing of the subject applications, staff initiated a process to
prepare and adopt a Lift Lock secondary plan. To that end, a public open house was held
to present a draft secondary plan concept to area residents and property owners in June
2017. At the open house, concerns were raised with respect to the effect of development
on area roadways, flooding/stormwater management, groundwater resources and
basement flooding, and the availability of municipal services to existing homes.
Through the review of the traffic impact study prepared in support of the subject
development, it became apparent that many of the transportation issues affecting the Lift
Lock area are of a scale that are much larger than the proposed subdivision itself and
include transit service and trail connectivity challenges. The Lift Lock Functional Planning
Study focused on promoting traffic movement from the subject lands to Television Road
and to Parkhill Road by proposing a collector road through the subject lands to Television
Road, and by proposing an extension of Ashburnham Drive to Parkhill Road. The
concern at the time, which still remains today, is that traffic generated from the site will
have a tendency to travel west over the Trent Severn Waterway via either McFarlane
Street, Hunter Street, or Maria Street, all of which are either single lane or swing bridge
crossings that are not conducive to high volumes of traffic.
Further complicating this issue is the fact that the traffic using these crossings will
ultimately infiltrate through the roadways within East City to reach the Hunter Street
corridor or the Hunter Street bridge across the Otonabee River, which is already
congested during peak periods. The notion of promoting traffic movement to Parkhill
Road also needs to recognize that Parkhill Road also has a swing bridge crossing over
the Trent Severn Waterway which can disrupt traffic flow during the summer boating
season.
Furthermore, through their review of the proposed development, Parks Canada has
advised that any review of long-term traffic planning in the area should not assume that
vehicular access through the Lift Lock tunnel will be permanently available in the future
given the age of the Lift Lock structure and considering that the crossing is controlled by
Parks Canada rather than the City.
73
Report IPSPD18-023
To address traffic and transit service constraints associated with crossing the Trent
Severn Waterway, a transportation study is needed that looks at a much broader area
than just the proposed subdivision. Specifically, the analysis must extend all the way to
the nearest two-way, fixed Trent Severn Waterway crossings which are Lansdowne
Street and Nassau Mills Road, and include all of the single lane and swing bridge
crossings in between. The analysis would identify options for addressing the
transportation constraints in the area, which would then need to be followed by the
completion of one or more Class Environmental Assessments (EAs) to establish the
feasibility of the options and obtain approval for the preferred solution(s). In staff’s
opinion, this work must be complete before a full secondary plan can be prepared for the
Lift Lock area, and is beyond the scope for the proponent to undertake as part of this
development. Through this report, staff is recommending that Council pre-commit
$250,000.00 in the 2019 Capital Budget for the completion of an East Side Transportation
Study.
In instances where development is proposed in the absence of an approved secondary

plan, staff has supported such developments where the development is both appropriate
and will not adversely affect the creation of a secondary plan. This approval approach
has previously been taken in the Carnegie Area and the Coldsprings Area. In this
particular case, staff is satisfied that the proposed development does not adversely affect
the City’s ability to complete a secondary plan for the broader Lift Lock area and that the
development can be accommodated prior to implementation of a full secondary plan
subject to the completion of certain road improvements concurrent with the development.
Moving forward, the Applicant has proposed a partial secondary plan to address the land
use designations and specific policy considerations for their development.
Notwithstanding that staff believes it is appropriate to consider the proposed development

in advance of completing a full secondary plan for the area, staff also believes that
approval of this development should signal a commitment on the part of Council to
support the ongoing implementation of a secondary plan for the area. This commitment
would include ensuring that sufficient funds are being collected in the City-wide
Development Charge By-law when it is updated in 2019 to cover the cost of the East Side
Traffic Study and any required EAs, an acknowledgement that additional updates to the
Development Charge By-law may be required to include any EA-approved road works,
and support in future capital budgets for implementing Lift Lock area-related projects.
In the absence of a full secondary plan for the Lift Lock area, Section 4.2.5.7 of the
Official Plan establishes a number of items that Council must consider when reviewing an
application for residential development:
 proposed housing types;
 compatibility with surrounding land uses;

74
Report IPSPD18-023
 adequacy of municipal services;
 traffic impacts;
 adequacy of amenities, parks and recreation opportunities;
 parking, buffering and landscaping; and,
 significant natural/environmental features.
A detailed review of the proposed development in light of these criteria is attached hereto
as Exhibit F.
With the approval of the proposed Official Plan Amendment, staff is satisfied that the
proposed development will conform to the Official Plan. The plan provides for a variety of
housing forms and densities, will be municipally serviced, and provides adequate
protection to the key natural features on the site, namely the two branches of North
Meade Creek and their associated wetlands and floodplains. Additionally, the plan will be
developed to promote traffic movement to Television Road, will implement necessary
road improvements along Old Norwood Road and at the intersection of Old Norwood
Road and Ashburnham Drive to accommodate anticipated traffic, and will maintain
options for implementing a broader arterial and/or collector street network for the Lift Lock
planning area.
Transportation Improvements to Support Development
The traffic studies completed in support of the development application have identified a
number of external road network improvements that will be needed to support this
development and background growth in traffic in the study area. These improvements
would be reviewed and confirmed as part of the East Side Transportation Study, but an
initial list of improvements includes:
 Widening Television Road to provide a Two-Way-Left-Turn-Lane between Maniece

Avenue and Old Norwood Road;
 Installation of traffic signals at Television Road / Paul Rexe Boulevard / Street A;
 Installation of traffic signals at Television Road / Maniece Avenue;
 Installation of traffic signals at Television Road / Old Norwood Road;
 Installation of traffic signals and right turn lanes at Television Road / Parkhill Road;
 Old Norwood Road urbanization and profile improvements;

75
Report IPSPD18-023
 Installation of traffic signals at Ashburnham Drive / West Entrance or Old Norwood

Road;
 Ashburnham Drive realignment, urbanization and extension to Parkhill Road; and
 New 2 lane bridge crossing of Trent Severn Waterway at McFarlane Street.
Additional improvements to upgrade and urbanize Maniece Avenue, McFarlane Street,

Parkhill Road, and Television Road may also be identified following completion of the
East Side Transportation Study.
Zoning By-law Amendment
To implement the proposed plan of subdivision, the Applicant has requested that the
Zoning By-law be amended as follows:
Block Existing Proposed Land Use Minimum Number Maximum

Zoning Zoning Type Lot Width of Units Height
(Storeys)
Blocks 5, 6, R1 R.1 Single 12 metres 269 max. 2

8, 11 to 14, (Otonabee) Detached
19 to 23, 25
to 32, 44, 46,
47, 50 to 52
Blocks 7, 9, R1 R.1,1r,2r Single 10.6 95 max. 2
10, 24, 37, 39 (Otonabee) Detached metres
Blocks 1 to 4, R1 R.1,1o,2o Single 9 metres 137 max. 2

15 to 18, 33, (Otonabee) Detached
43, 45, 48,
49, 53
Blocks 34 to R1 SP.366,3n- Street fronting 6 metres 56 2

36, 38, 40 to (Otonabee) 318 townhouse
42
Block 55 R1 SP.365 + Mixed use 45m Max. 150 6

(Otonabee) new Residential/
exception Commercial
76
Report IPSPD18-023
Blocks 54, R1 OS.1 Open Space/

56, 59 (Otonabee) Flood Plain/
Natural
Heritage
Block 64 R1 OS.2 Parkland

(Otonabee)
Blocks 60 to R1 match Walkways

63, 65 (Otonabee) adjacent
residential
lots
Block 66 R1 OS.2 Stormwater

(Otonabee) Management
For both single detached and townhouse dwellings on corner lots, the Applicant has
requested that a new exception, Exception No. 325, be used to reduce the minimum
building setback from the streetline that doesn’t have a driveway from 6 metres to 4.5
metres. This new exception is modeled after Exception No. 190 which was used on
corner lots along Wentworth Street. Generally, staff has no objection to the Applicant’s
request.
For townhouse dwellings, the Applicant is proposing to use the SP.366 zoning district
which has been used in the Lily Lake area. However, to create greater flexibility for these
dwellings, the Applicant is seeking permission to construct buildings in groupings of up to
8 units, to reduce the minimum lot area per unit from 200 square metres to 185 square
metres. Staff has no objection to these requests and note that similar flexibility was
granted to Durham Building Corporation in their Lily Lake subdivision. These requests
have been reflected in the recommended Zoning By-law through the use of alternative
regulation 3n and Exception No. 318.
For mixed use Block 55, the Applicant proposes to use the SP. 365 zoning district.
SP.365 provides permission for a variety of housing forms including multi-unit dwellings,
apartments, multi-suite residences, and nursing homes. Additionally, the district provides
an ability to accommodate a limited amount of small-scale commercial uses on the
ground and basement floors of such buildings that would be intended to serve residents
of the building and the immediate area. The district also reduces the amount of parking
required for residential uses by requiring 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit and 0.75 spaces
per residential suite instead of 1.75 spaces per unit.
77
Report IPSPD18-023
To provide greater flexibility for development on these blocks, the Applicant has
requested that the minimum and maximum lot area per dwelling unit be reduced to 91
square metres (46 square metres for a suite) and 133 square metres (67 square metres
for a suite) which is consistent with the lower and upper limits of the high density
residential designation. Additionally, the Applicant has requested that the minimum
building setback from the rear lot line be reduced from 12 metres or 6 metres per storey
to 12 metres or 3 metres per storey. Finally, the Applicant has requested that the
maximum floor area per commercial purpose be increased from 140 square metres to
300 square metres and that the maximum commercial floor area for the site be capped at
2000 square metres, consistent with the Local Commercial policies of the Official Plan.
Staff has no objection to these requests and have reflected them in the recommended
Zoning By-law as Exception No. 326.
Lands that are intended to be used for parkland and stormwater management purposes
will be zoned OS.2 – open space district while lands that are intended to be set aside for
environmental protection purposes (e.g. the areas along North Meade Creek) will be
zoned OS.1which is a more restrictive open space district.
As is customary with plans of subdivision, a Holding Symbol is proposed to be placed on

the zoning for areas to be developed that will only be removed upon registration of the
plan at the Land Registry Office.
Responses to Notice
A detailed review of agency and public responses to the proposed development is
attached hereto as Exhibit G.
Summary of Agency Responses
As part of staff’s processing of the application, and pursuant to the Planning Act, staff
provided notice of the application to, and sought comments from, the prescribed
commenting agencies on April 24, 2017 and on March 19, 2018 (by email) and March 22,
2018 (by mail). Additionally, notice of the Public Meeting was provided to the prescribed
agencies on July 27, 2018 (by mail) and July 31, 2018 (by email).
Agency comments were received from: the Infrastructure Planning Division, the
Transportation Division, the Peterborough Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC) –
Transportation Sub-committee; Parks Canada; ORCA, Peterborough Utilities Services
Inc.; County of Peterborough; Township of Otonabee-South Monaghan; Canada Post;
Hydro One Networks Inc.; Bell Canada, Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc.; Alderville First
Nation; Hiawatha First Nation; Curve Lake First Nation; the Mississaugas of Scugog
78
Report IPSPD18-023
Island First Nation; the Downtown Business Improvement Area; Peterborough Public
Health; and the Peterborough Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (PACAC).
Agency comments were generally supportive of the proposed development with some
agencies requesting that conditions of approval be imposed. Alderville and Hiawatha
First Nations raised some concern with the quality of a Cultural Heritage Impact
Assessment (AECOM, July 2017) prepared in support of the development however those
comments were addressed in a revised version of the report dated February, 2018.
Some agencies made comments regarding the need to ensure proper road, sidewalk and
trail connectivity both within the site and to surrounding areas such as the Ashburnham
Drive and the Lift Lock, Old Norwood Road, Paul Rexe Boulevard, and for better
integration between the site and the proposed mixed use block along Television Road.
Through the conditions of approval and detailed design approval process,
accommodation will be made to require sidewalks throughout the development, including
to the mixed use development, signalization of the intersection of Street A and Television
Road/Paul Rexe Boulevard, and the provision of proper sightlines at the intersection of
Street C and Old Norwood Road. Ensuring proper connectivity to Ashburnham Drive and
the Lift Lock will become a key consideration for the ongoing subdivision planning for the
adjacent golf course lands as alternative alignments for Ashburnham Drive are
considered.
Parks Canada has noted that they are particularly interested in the planning for the golf
course lands and the realignment of Ashburnham Drive and want to ensure that the
cultural significance of the Lift Lock and the Trent Severn Waterway as National Historic
Sites are not diminished by the development. Conditions of approval are recommended
herein to reflect specific requests from Parks Canada and moving forward planning for
the golf course lands will ongoing collaboration between the Applicant, the City, and
Parks Canada.
Generally, staff is satisfied that the various agency comments have either been
addressed through the design of the proposed subdivision and the proposed zoning by-
law, or are addressed as conditions of approval.
Summary of Public Responses
In accordance with Planning Act requirements, notice of a complete application for the
proposed plan of subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment was published in the
Peterborough Examiner on May 1, 2017 while Notice of a Complete Application for the
proposed Official Plan Amendment was published on July 30, 2018.
On June 21, 2017 the City hosted a neighbourhood open house at the Baker’s Hill
Banquet Centre to gather public feedback on a concept for a Lift Lock Secondary Plan.
79
Report IPSPD18-023
At the same time, the Applicant was on hand to present the proposed plan of subdivision.
The City delivered a notice of the meeting to all persons that own property within 120m of
the Lift Lock Planning Area. The meeting was attended by approximately 100 people.
Furthermore, on August 2, 2018, the Applicant hosted an additional neighbourhood open

house at the Living Hope Christian Reformed Church to present the revised plan of
subdivision attached hereto as Exhibit A. Notice was provided to all persons that own
property within 120m of the Lift Lock Planning Area as well as to any others who had
requested to receive notices regarding the subdivision.
A number of public comments have been received that question:
 The ability for area roadways and Trent Severn Waterway crossings to handle
traffic from the development;
 The impact that development will have on existing homes, wells and septic
systems with respect to groundwater flow; and,
 The potential for flooding on adjacent properties; and
 The ability for area schools to accommodate student growth.
Additionally, other public comments requested that:
 The development preserve and complement the historical cultural aspects of the
Lift Lock area;
 The development foster all modes of travel to East City, downtown, and to area
parks and trails;
 The golf course be preserved; and,
 That municipal services be made available to unserviced properties.
Some of the public concerns with the proposal are being addressed in part by conditions
of approval while other concerns are to be addressed at a later date through the
completion of the broader Lift Lock Secondary Plan. Specifically, the proposed plan will
be implemented in a way that mitigates traffic impacts on the surrounding area by
directing traffic to Television Road and by making necessary interim improvements to Old
Norwood Road however long-term concerns related to Trent Severn Waterway crossings
will be addressed by the City through the broader East Side Traffic Study, subsequent EA
and Lift Lock Secondary Plan processes.
80
Report IPSPD18-023
Additionally, issues related to maintaining compatibility between the development and the
Lift Lock area and preserving connectivity to the Lift Lock, downtown, and area parks and
trails will be addressed through the ongoing planning for the golf course lands. Although
staff anticipates that part of the golf course will be redeveloped for urban purposes in the
future, it is also expected that the southern part of the golf course will remain following
development.
In staff’s opinion, the proposed plan addresses those public comments that are within its
ability through its design and through conditions of approval.
Summary
Approval of the applications for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and
Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval is recommended for the following for the following
reasons:
1. The development can be accommodated without compromising the City’s ability to

implement a comprehensive secondary plan for the Lift Lock planning area;
2. The development will be implemented both with, and concurrent with, internal and
external infrastructure improvements that will mitigate impacts on the surrounding
neighbourhood;
3. The plan will provide additional residential land for the City thus helping to ensure
that the City has an appropriate lot inventory pursuant to the Provincial Policy
Statement;
4. The plan facilitates the planned build-out of the Lift Lock planning area;
5. The plan is consistent with the matters of Provincial Interest as established under
the Planning Act, does not conflict with any Provincial Plan, and complies with the
City Official Plan; and,
6. The plan has addressed all matters considered during the review pursuant to
Section 51(24) of the Planning Act and/or will address any outstanding matters
through the Conditions of Draft Plan Approval prior to the issuance of Final
approval.
81
Report IPSPD18-023
Submitted by,
W. H. Jackson, P. Eng.
Contact Names:
Brad Appleby
Planner, Subdivision Control and Special Projects
Phone: 705-742-7777, Ext. 1886
Toll Free: 1-855-738-3755
Fax: 705-742-5218
E-mail: [email protected]
Ken Hetherington
Manager, Planning Division
Phone: 705-742-7777, Extension 1781
Toll Free: 1-855-738-3755
Fax: 705-742-5218
Attachments:
Schedule 1 – Conditions of Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval
Exhibit A – Draft Plan of Subdivision 15T-17501 (Phase 1)
Exhibit B – Draft Official Plan Amendment
Exhibit C – Draft Zoning By-law Amendment
Exhibit D – Land Use Map
Exhibit E – Notice of Public Meeting
Exhibit F – Detailed Review of Official Plan Conformity
Exhibit G – Detail Review of Agency and Public Comments
82
Schedule 1, Page 1 of 16
Schedule 1
Draft Plan of Subdivision Application 15T-17501 (Phase 1)
2159 Old Norwood Road
File Numbers 15T-17501, Z1704SB, O1802
Conditions of Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval

The City of Peterborough Conditions and Amendments to Final Plan Approval for
registration of this Subdivision File No. 15T-17501 (Phase 1) are as follows:
Identification
1. That this approval applies to the Draft Plan of Subdivision 15T-17501, Project No.
16383, Drawing No.: DP-01 dated March 10, 2017 and revised July 20, 2018 by
The Biglieri Group Ltd., which shows the following:
Land Use Block No. Estimated Unit

Count
Residential Singles Blocks 1 to 33, 37, 39, 43 to 53 501 max.
Residential Townhomes Blocks 34 to 36, 38, 40 to 42 56
High Density Residential/ Block 55 150
Local Commercial
Parkland Block 64
Walkway Blocks 60 to 63, 65
Stormwater Management Block 66
Pond
Open Space/ Natural Heritage Blocks 54, 56, 59
Road Widening Blocks 57, 58
2. That if final approval is not given to this Plan within three (3) years of the draft
approval date, and no extensions have been granted, draft approval shall lapse.
3. That the lot pattern on the final plan for registration shall comply with the Zoning
By-law and shall achieve a minimum average density of 50 residents per hectare
across the site (excluding Blocks 54, 56 and 59) calculated using a population per
unit assumption of 2.9 for single detached dwellings, 2.5 for street-fronting
townhomes, and 1.7 for high density apartments.
4. That prior to final approval, the City Engineer will confirm the servicing allocation
for this Plan as services are allocated on a “first-come, first-served” basis.
83
Public Roads and Walkways
5. That the road allowances included in this Draft Plan shall be shown on the Final
Plan and dedicated as public highways.
6. That the streets be named in accordance with the City’s naming policy to the
satisfaction of the City of Peterborough.
7. That any dead ends and open sides of road allowance created by this Draft Plan
shall be terminated in 0.3 metre reserves to be conveyed to and held, in trust, by
the municipality.
8. That temporary turning circles be established at the termination of road allowances

as directed by the City of Peterborough.
9. That prior to Final approval, the Owner shall agree in the Subdivision Agreement to
construct sidewalks in accordance with the City’s Sidewalk Policy.
10. That Blocks 60 to 63 and 65 be conveyed to the City for walkway purposes.
11. That prior to Final Approval, the owner shall investigate the feasibility of providing
a trail connection through Block 54 to mixed use Block 55 to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer and the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority, and others, as
required. The investigation shall include:
a. An Environmental Impact Study of the proposed work on natural heritage

features; and,
b. Demonstration that any proposed connection over North Meade Creek will
not be subject to flooding during a Regulatory Storm and that the bridge
structure will be able to withstand the hydrostatic loading associated with
such a flooding event.
If a trail connection is deemed technically feasible by the City Engineer and the
Otonabee Region Conservation Authority, the owner will agree to obtain the
necessary approvals for, and to construct, the trail at their expense in accordance
with the plans and reports approved by the City Engineer, Otonabee Region
Conservation Authority and/or others, as required.
12. That, if deemed necessary by the City Engineer due to phasing, the Owner shall
establish and maintain a secondary emergency vehicular access to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer until such time as a second permanent vehicular access is
available.
13. That the Owner implement on-road cycling facilities on Streets A and C to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
84
14. That the Owner acknowledge in the Subdivision Agreement that on-street parking
may be restricted and/or prohibited at the discretion of the City Engineer.
15. That the Owner construct Street A, at its intersection with Television Road, with a
left turn lane to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
16. That the Owner agree in the subdivision agreement to pay to the City 50% of the
cost of the following required improvements to the intersection of Street A /
Television Road / Paul Rexe Boulevard:
i) Installation of traffic signals;
ii) A southbound right turn lane on Television Road; and,
iii) A northbound left turn lane on Television Road.
The Owner shall further agree that these improvements shall be in place prior to
the release of the inhibiting order and the availability of building permits in the
development.
17. That the Owner agree in the subdivision agreement to pay to the City 50% of the
cost of the following required improvements to Television Road at the entrance to
Block 55 / Safe Harbour Way:
i) A northbound left turn lane on Television Road.
The Owner shall further agree that these improvements shall be in place prior to
the release of the inhibiting order and the availability of building permits in Block
55.
18. That concurrent with Final approval, the Owner shall implement geometry
improvements and install temporary traffic signals at the intersection of
Ashburnham Drive and Old Norwood Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Furthermore, the Owner shall agree to remove the temporary traffic signals, as
directed by the City Engineer, at such time as Ashburnham Drive is realigned onto
the adjacent lands to the west.
19. That the Owner agree to reconstruct Old Norwood Road, west of Street C, to lower
the profile of the road and ensure the provision of safe decision sight distance to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to formally connecting Street C to Old
Norwood Road. Furthermore, prior to Final approval, the Owner shall provide a
preliminary profile for Old Norwood Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Should the City of Peterborough reconstruct Old Norwood Road prior to the Owner
completing the required profile work, the Owner shall agree to pay the City the cost
of lowering the road profile to ensure safe decision sight distance on Old Norwood
Road at Street C.
85
20. That prior to Final approval the shall Owner prepare a traffic brief to establish how
many residential units may be constructed in the site utilizing the Street A access
before Street C is required to connect to Old Norwood Road, to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer. Furthermore, the Owner shall agree to implement the
recommendations of the traffic brief to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
21. That a Block be created on the Final Plan for registration within Block 52 for the
purpose of maintaining the ability to extend Street C as a 23 metre wide collector
street right of way south to Maniece Avenue. The block shall be conveyed to the
City of Peterborough for Future Roadway / Future Development purposes and held
in trust until such time as it is determined whether the block is required for roadway
purposes. Any lands not required for roadway purposes shall be conveyed back to
the Owner.
Other Municipal Conditions

22. That prior to Final approval the Owner shall update the Environmental Noise
Feasibility Study prepared by Valcoustics Canada Ltd. dated July 6, 2017 to reflect
the draft approved plan of subdivision and shall agree in the subdivision
agreement to implement the report recommendations to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. Any required sound barriers shall be located on private property and
appropriate covenants shall be registered on title to ensure that homeowners
maintain the barrier in perpetuity.
23. That the Owner agree in the subdivision agreement to complete and implement an
Environmental Noise Feasibility Study in conjunction with any application for site
plan approval on Block 55 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The report shall
be prepared in accordance with the Ministry of the Environment’s Publication NPC-
300, “Environmental Noise Guideline, Stationary and Transportation Sources –
Approval and Planning”.
24. That the Owner agree in writing to convey parkland dedication to the City in
accordance with the Planning Act and Official Plan policy. Block 64 will be
considered for parkland dedication. The Owner shall agree that any City parkland
dedication entitlement over and above the land to be conveyed shall be conveyed
to the City as part of the approval of Phase 2 of Draft Plan of Subdivision 15T-
17501 located on adjacent lands owned by the Proponent at 2320 Ashburnham
Drive. For calculation purposes, lands within floodplain, natural hazards, buffers
associated with natural heritage features, and lands designated for stormwater
management purposes shall not constitute any portion of the parkland dedication.
25. That Blocks 54, 56 and 59 be conveyed at the owner’s expense to the City of
Peterborough for Open Space purposes.
26. That the Owner agree in the Subdivision Agreement to decommission any existing
drinking water wells or private septic systems within the Draft Plan in accordance
with applicable legislation concurrent with servicing of the site to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
86
27. That the Owner agrees in writing to satisfy all the requirements, financial and
otherwise, of the City of Peterborough concerning the provision of roads,
installation of services and drainage.
28. The Owner acknowledges that all works undertaken on site shall comply with
current applicable law in effect at the time of the detailed design review process for
each phase of the subdivision.
29. That such easements as may be required for temporary access, utility, or drainage
purposes, including snow storage at the end of all “stub” streets and easements to
facilitate servicing of adjacent lands, shall be granted to the appropriate authority,
prior to the registration of the Subdivision Agreement and Final Plan of
Subdivision.
30. That the Owner agree in the Subdivision Agreement to place topsoil throughout the
site that meets the City’s Engineering Design Standards (March 2016, as
amended) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
31. That prior to any development, site alteration, topsoil stripping or earth movement,
the Applicant shall prepare a phasing plan for all earth works to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer that includes methods for dust suppression and timelines for
revegetation of disturbed areas.
32. That prior to final approval, the Owner shall ensure all necessary approvals and
easements are secured to construct the required sanitary outlet, trunk watermain
connection, and stormwater outlet for the site to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. Such approval shall include, but not be limited to, making satisfactory
arrangements with the Canadian Pacific Railway (CP Rail) for the extension of the
Ashburnham Drive trunk sanitary sewer under CP Rail’s facility.
33. Prior to final approval, the Owner shall prepare an overall Composite Utility
Distribution Plan that allows for the safe installation of all utilities, including
required separation between utilities, driveways, and street trees to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer and all affected utility authorities in accordance with the City’s
approved engineering cross sections. Street lighting photometric designs as per
TAC or equivalent standards using LED lighting consistent with locations outlined
on the Composite Utility Distribution Plan shall also be prepared. The Owner shall
agree in the Subdivision Agreement to construct all streets and services in
accordance with the approved composite utility plan and to advise all builders of
the approved composite utility plan requirements and standards in writing.
34. That prior to Final approval, the Owner shall agree in the Subdivision Agreement to
prepare a Capital Asset Table for the infrastructure installed and/or removed
and/or impacted in a format approved by the City Engineer at the time of Interim
Acceptance. The information on infrastructure shall be separated into its various
components and assigned construction costs for individual items.
87
35. That prior to Final approval, the City Engineer must have reviewed and approved a
geotechnical/hydrogeological report to assess soil types, road construction, water
balance etc. as well as ground water levels relative to establishing elevations for
houses, the applicability of gravity foundation drainage services and opportunities
for implementation of Low Impact Development stormwater management
techniques as described in the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority “Low
Impact Development Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guide”, 2010,
and the February 2015 Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Stormwater
Management Interpretive Bulletin.
36. That the Owner erect a sign, to the satisfaction of the City, depicting the approved
plan of Subdivision and zoning within 90 days of the date of Draft Plan Approval.
37. That the Owner agree in the Subdivision Agreement to undertake Quality and
Quantity Monitoring of the proposed stormwater management facilities, which may
include sediment removal, if necessary, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer for
the duration of draft plan construction and until such time as the facilities have
been assumed by the City.
38. For all Lots and Blocks developed with Low Impact Development stormwater
management features, the Applicant agrees to register a restrictive covenant on
title to advise purchasers of the feature(s), their function, and of homeowners’
responsibility to maintain the feature(s).
39. That prior to Final approval, the Owner shall design and agree to implement a
program to monitor the effects of the proposed development on groundwater
quality and quantity for well users in the area. The program shall also contain
provisions for future mitigation should the program results demonstrate a causal
relationship between the proposed development and unacceptable levels of
groundwater impact as deemed by the Owner’s Hydrogeologist, all to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
40. That the Owner shall enter into an agreement with the Peterborough Utilities
Commission for the provision of water service.
41. That the Owner make satisfactory arrangements with Peterborough Distribution
Inc. for the provision of electrical service.
42. That prior to Final approval, the Owner complete an archaeological assessment of
the lands in accordance with the recommendations of the Stage 1 and Stage 2
Archaeological Assessments prepared by AECOM dated November 28, 2016 and
February 8, 2017 respectively to the satisfaction of the City.
43. That the Owner implement the recommendations of the Cultural Heritage Impact
Assessment prepared by AECOM dated July 2017 and updated February 2018 to
the satisfaction of the City by photographically documenting the barn and its
surrounding landscape at 2159 Old Norwood Road and depositing the record with
the Peterborough Museum and Archives.
88
44. That prior to final approval, the Owner shall demonstrate through the completion of
Environmental Site Assessments to the City’s satisfaction that soil and
groundwater conditions for any land to be conveyed to the City of Peterborough or
any land to be developed for residential purposes are compatible with the intended
land use as described within Ontario Regulation 153/04, as amended, made under
the Environmental Protection Act.
45. That the Owner erect permanent fencing to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
along the mutual boundary between any private property and any parkland,
walkway, open space, or stormwater management facility that is to be conveyed to
the City of Peterborough. The fencing for any properties that abut Open Space
Blocks 54, 56 and 59 shall be free of gates and will be of a suitable design to
prevent encroachment and dumping of yard waste.
46. For Lots abutting Blocks 54, 56 and 59, the Owner acknowledges that swimming
pools will not be permitted and agrees to include a clause in all Agreements of
Purchase and Sale, and registered on title, for all subsequent prospective
purchasers of the affected lots, to advise of this restriction to the satisfaction of the
City.
47. That the Owner ensure lot lines for residential lots and blocks do not encroach into
any flooding hazard.
48. That prior to final approval, the Owner shall update the Arborist Report prepared
by DA White Tree Care (February 10, 2017) to the satisfaction of City’s Urban
Forest Manager. The Report shall include a plan to compensate for trees removed
from the site based on standards established in the City’s tree preservation by-
laws, 17-120 and 17-121. Furthermore, the Owner shall agree to implement any
report recommendations, including measures for tree protection, to the satisfaction
of the City’s Urban Forest Manager.
Other Agency Conditions

49. That prior to any development, site alteration, tree clearing or building removal, the
Owner shall undertake any avoidance or mitigation measures required by the
Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry under the Endangered Species Act.
50. That the Owner complete a Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Self-
Assessment Screening that that identifies the potential for causing “serious harm
to fish” under the Fisheries Act and take any steps necessary to secure the
required any authorizations to support the proposed development.
51. That prior to any development or site alteration on the subject property, the owner
shall provide delineation of the flood plain of North Meade Creek and the West
Tributary based on the Regional (Timmins) Storm to the satisfaction of the
Otonabee Region Conservation Authority. Both hard copies and digital copies shall
be submitted for review.
89
52. That the owner obtain all necessary permits for the Street A watercourse crossing.
The road crossings of watercourses must be designed to ensure safe access while
limiting encroachment into to the flood plain, wetlands and wetland buffers to piers,
to the satisfaction of the City, the Township of Otonabee-South Monaghan and the
Otonabee Region Conservation Authority.
53. That prior to any development or site alteration, the owner shall submit a final
Environmental Impact Study that establishes protective buffers around the
wetlands present on the site to the satisfaction of the City and the Otonabee
Region Conservation Authority.
54. That the Owner agree to not undertake any clearing, grading and grubbing of the
site during the peak bird breeding season of May 1st to July 31st to the satisfaction
of the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority and the City.
55. That exclusionary fencing be installed adjacent to the riparian and wetland areas
for nesting turtles to May 15th and be maintained between May 15th and
September 30th in any given year due to the proximity of suitable habitat on site to
the satisfaction of the City and the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority.
56. That the owner develop and implement a comprehensive monitoring plan including
predevelopment monitoring for the collection of baseline data to compare pre to
post development conditions for natural heritage features on site to the satisfaction
of the City and the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority. The monitoring plan
is to be carried out for 5 years from full build out of all phases of the development.
No development or site alteration shall occur until full season of baseline data has
been collected. The monitoring plan shall be developed in consultation with the
Otonabee Region Conservation Authority.
57. That the owner distribute a “Homeowner Natural Systems Stewardship

Information” brochure to all prospective and subsequent purchasers of all lots
within the subdivision. This educational brochure will be based on the template
developed by the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority, the City of
Peterborough and the County of Peterborough and shall be customized to the
development at the developer’s expense.
58. That the owner obtain the necessary approvals for any required wetland removals
to the satisfaction of the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority.
59. That prior to Final approval, the Owner shall submit and agree to implement a
landscaping and vegetation plan to the satisfaction of the Otonabee Region
Conservation Authority and the City that includes:
i) Details for planting street trees in accordance with City’s Urban Forest
Strategic Plan including proposed street tree planting locations, species,
and street and trail cross sections containing boulevard width, utility
locations and depth of topsoil, as alternative planting locations where
90
boulevard planting is not viable and additional compensatory plantings on
lots where street tree species are limited to smaller, space-tolerant species;
ii) Details for plantings to compensate for trees approved to be removed from
the site as discussed in the final approved Arborist Report required in
Condition No. 48;
iii) Details for enhancing buffer areas within Blocks 54, 56 and 59 in
accordance with the recommendations of the Environmental Impact Study
prepared by Beacon Environmental (March 2018) or any successor
prepared pursuant to Condition No. 53;
iv) Details for compensating the removal of any wetland on-site, including a
wetland concept plan and a water balance, for an area to be determined on
the adjacent golf course lands in accordance with the recommendations of
the Environmental Impact Study prepared by Beacon Environmental (March
2018) or any successor prepared pursuant to Condition No. 53;
v) Details for landscaping associated with stormwater management facilities

and for rehabilitating any disturbance created through the provision of
infrastructure (e.g. stormwater outlet, sanitary outlet, watermain connection,
etc., watercourse crossings, etc.);
vi) Details for grading, landscaping and planting park Block 64;
vii) Details for the timing of all plantings; and,
viii) Details for monitoring the survival of all plantings.
All recommended plantings shall consist of native plants and trees.
60. That prior to final registration of the Plan of Subdivision and any on-site grading or
construction, Otonabee Region Conservation Authority, Parks Canada, the
Township of Otonabee-South Monaghan and the City must have reviewed and
approved reports describing/containing:
a) the intended means of controlling stormwater runoff in terms of quantity,

frequency and duration for all events up to and including the 1:100 years
storm;
b) the intended means of conveying storm water flow through and from the
site, including use of storm water management water quality measures,
both temporary and permanent, which are appropriate and in accordance
with the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) “Stormwater Management
Planning and Design Manual”, March 2003, the Credit Valley Conservation
and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority “Low Impact Development
Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guide”, 2010, and the
91
February 2015 Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Stormwater
Management Interpretive Bulletin;
c) the means whereby erosion and sedimentation and their effects will be
minimized on the site during and after construction. These means should
be in accordance with the Greater Golden Horseshoe Area “Erosion and
Sediment Control Guidelines for Urban Construction”, December 2006. At a
minimum, the erosion and sediment control plan shall incorporate:
i. A proactive, multi-barrier approach to erosion and sediment control,

with an emphasis of preventing erosion on site during all phases of
construction;
ii. A phased approach whereby the extent of grading and disturbed

area is limited to only those areas necessary for immediate
construction; and,
iii. Detailed construction staging plans, including installation details,

inspection, repair and maintenance requirements, a spill
management and contingency plan for additional measures.
d) detailed analysis of site soil conditions, including grain size distribution

profiles, in-situ infiltration capabilities, erosion potential, as well as bedrock
and groundwater elevations;
e) site grading plans; and,
f) detailed means of maintaining a pre-development water balance and the

natural hydrology of the site, including the use of Low Impact Development
technology on both public and private lands.
61. The Subdivision Agreement between the Owner and the City of Peterborough shall
contain the following provisions in wording acceptable to Otonabee Region
Conservation Authority and the City Engineer:
a) That the Owner agrees to implement the works referred to in Condition No.
60. The approved reports should be referenced in the Subdivision
Agreement.
b) That the Owner agrees to maintain all stormwater management, erosion

and sedimentation control structures operating and in good repair during the
construction period. During construction and on an ongoing basis,
inspection and monitoring of the installation, maintenance and performance
of all erosion and sediment controls shall be conducted by a qualified
environmental or engineering consultant.
92
c) That the Owner agrees to provide the Authority for review, all relevant
inspection and testing reports related to the construction of the stormwater
management infrastructure.
d) That the Owner notify the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority at least
48 hours prior to the initiation of any on-site development.
62. a) Bell Canada shall confirm to the City of Peterborough in writing that
satisfactory arrangements, financial and otherwise have been made with
Bell Canada for the installation of Bell Canada facilities to serve this Draft
Plan of Subdivision.
b) The Owner shall agree in the Subdivision Agreement, in words satisfactory

to Bell Canada, to grant to Bell Canada any easements that may be
required for telecommunication services.
c) If there are any conflicts with existing Bell Canada facilities or easements,
the Owner shall be responsible for re-arrangements or relocation.
63. a) Cogeco Cable Solutions shall confirm that satisfactory arrangements,

financial and otherwise have been made with Cogeco Cable Solutions for
any Cogeco Cable Solutions’ facilities serving this Draft Plan of Subdivision
which are required to be installed underground, a copy of such confirmation
shall be forwarded to the City of Peterborough.
b) The Owner shall agree in the Subdivision Agreement, in words satisfactory

to Cogeco Cable Solutions, to grant to Cogeco Cable Solutions any
easements that may be required for telecommunication services.
c) If there are any conflicts with existing Cogeco Cable Solutions’ facilities or
easements, the Owner shall be responsible for re-arrangements or
relocation.
64. That the Owner agree in the Subdivision Agreement to the following provisions in
wording acceptable to Canada Post Corporation and the City Engineer:
i) To establish community mailbox locations to the satisfaction of Canada Post

as part of the Composite Utility Distribution Plan;
ii) Inform all prospective purchasers, through a clause in all Agreements of

purchase and sale and on a map to be displayed at any site sales office, as
to those lots identified for potential Community Mailbox and/or mini-park
locations.
iii) Provide, at the Owner’s expense, curb depressions at the Community

Mailbox location 2 metres in width and no higher than 25 mm and a poured
concrete pad to City of Peterborough sidewalk specifications.
93
iv) Provide, at the Owner’s expense, a paved lay-by at the Community Mailbox
location when required by the municipality.
v) If a grassed boulevard is planned between the curb and the sidewalk where
the Community Mailbox is located, install at the Owner’s expense, a
walkway across the boulevard. The walkway is to be 1.0 metre in width and
constructed of a material suitable to the municipality (e.g. interlock, asphalt,
concrete etc.) in addition, the developer shall ensure, by forming or cutting
the curb, that this walkway is handicapped accessible by providing a curb
depression between the street and the walkway. This depression should be
1.0 metres wide and no higher than 25mm.
65. That the Owner make satisfactory arrangements with Enbridge Gas Distribution
Inc. for the provision of gas service to the site and that the Owner agree in the
Subdivision Agreement to the following provisions in wording acceptable to
Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. and the City Engineer:
i) To grade all streets to final elevation prior to the installation of the gas lines
and provide Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. with the necessary field survey
information required for the installation of the gas lines; and,
ii) To provide easements at no cost to Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. in the

event that it is not possible to install the natural gas distribution system
within the proposed road allowances.
66. That the Owner share electronic copies of all project reports and drawings with
Alderville First Nation, Curve Lake First Nation, Hiawatha First Nation, and the
Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation.
67. That the Owner circulate the Composite Utility Distribution Plan to Hydro One
Networks Inc. (HONI) and obtain confirmation that no conflicts with HONI
infrastructure will be created by the proposed development.
Clearances
1. Prior to final approval, the Director of Planning & Development Services shall be
advised by the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority that Conditions 11 and 51
to 61 inclusive have been carried out to the their satisfaction. The letter from the
Authority shall include a brief but complete statement detailing how each condition
has been satisfied.
advised by Bell Canada that Conditions 29, 33 and 62 have been carried out to
the their satisfaction. The letter from Bell shall include a brief but complete
statement detailing how each condition has been satisfied.
advised by Cogeco Cable Solutions that Conditions 29, 33 and 63 have been
94
carried out to their satisfaction. The letter from Cogeco shall include a brief but
complete statement detailing how each condition has been satisfied.
advised by Canada Post that Conditions 33 and 64 have been carried out to the
their satisfaction. The letter from Canada Post shall include a brief but complete
statement detailing how each condition has been satisfied.
advised by the Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. that Conditions 29, 33 and 65 have
been carried out to the their satisfaction. The letter from the Enbridge shall include
a brief but complete statement detailing how each condition has been satisfied.
advised by Peterborough Utilities Commission (PUC) that Conditions 29, 33, 40
and 41 have been carried out to the their satisfaction. The letter from PUSI shall
include a brief but complete statement detailing how each condition has been
satisfied.
advised by Hydro One Networks Inc. that Condition No. 67 has been carried out to
the their satisfaction. The letter from Hydro One shall include a brief but complete
statement detailing how the condition has been satisfied.
advised by the Parks Canada that Condition No. 60 has been carried out to their
satisfaction. The letter from Parks Canada shall include a brief but complete
statement detailing how the condition has been satisfied.
advised by the Township of Otonabee-South Monaghan that Conditions 52 and 60
have been carried out to their satisfaction. The letter from the Township shall
include a brief but complete statement detailing how each condition has been
satisfied.
advised by Curve Lake First Nation that Condition 66 has been carried out to their
satisfaction. The letter from Curve Lake First Nation shall include a brief but
complete statement detailing how the condition has been satisfied.
advised by Hiawatha First Nation that Condition 66 has been carried out to their
satisfaction. The letter from Hiawatha First Nation shall include a brief but
advised by the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation that Condition 66 has
been carried out to their satisfaction. The letter from the Mississaugas of Scugog
95
Island First Nation shall include a brief but complete statement detailing how the
condition has been satisfied.
advised by Alderville First Nation that Condition 66 has been carried out to their
satisfaction. The letter from Alderville First Nation shall include a brief but
advised by Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry that Condition 49 has been
carried out to their satisfaction. The letter from the Ministry shall include a brief but
advised by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) that Condition
No. 50 has been carried out to their satisfaction. The letter from DFO shall include
a brief but complete statement detailing how the condition has been satisfied.
advised by the Canadian Pacific Railway that Condition No. 32 has been carried
out to their satisfaction. The letter from the Railway shall include a brief but
Systems Planner
Otonabee Conservation Cogeco Cable Solutions
250 Milroy Drive P.O. Box 2290
Peterborough ON K9H 7M9 1111 Goodfellow Road
Peterborough ON K9J 7A4
Manager, Access Network Delivery Planner
Bell Canada Canada Post Corporation
183 Hunter St. W., Floor 2 1424 Caledon Place Box 25
Peterborough ON K9H 2L1 Ottawa ON K1A OC1
Peterborough Utilities Services Inc.
Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc.
1867 Ashburnham Drive
Attention: Land Services
PO Box 4125, Station Main
P. O. Box 650
Peterborough, ON K9J 6Z5
Scarborough, Ontario
Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Hydro One Networks Inc.
Canada
Planning Department
Fisheries Protection Program
913 Crawford Drive
867 Lakeshore Road
Peterborough, ON K9J 3X1
Burlington, ON L7S 1A1
96
Curve Lake First Nation

Township of Otonabee-South
Lands and Resources Consultation
Monaghan
Liaison
P.O. Box 70
Government Services Building
20 Third Street
22 Winookeeda Street
Keene, ON K0L 2G0
Curve Lake, ON K0L 1R0
Mississaugas of Scugog Island First
Nation Hiawatha First Nation
Supervisor, Consultation, Lands and Core Consultation Worker
Membership 123 Paudash Street
22521 Island Road Hiawatha, ON K9J 0E6
Port Perry, ON L9L 1B6
Ministry of Natural Resources and
Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Forestry
Board Peterborough District Office
1994 Fisher Drive 300 Water Street
Peterborough, ON K9J 6X6 1st Floor, South Tower
Peterborough, ON K9J 8M5
Parks Canada
Canadian Pacific Railway
Ontario Waterways Unit
Land Management
Trent Severn Waterway Office
1290 Central Parkway, Suite 800
P.O. Box 567, 2155 Ashburnham Dr.
Mississauga, ON L5C 4R3
Peterborough, ON K9J 6Z6
Notes to Draft Approval

1. It is the Owner’s responsibility to fulfill the Conditions of Draft Approval and to
ensure that the required clearance letters are forwarded by the appropriate
agencies to the City of Peterborough Planning Division quoting the City file
numbers.
2. We suggest that you make yourself aware of Section 144 of the Land titles Act and
subsection 78(10) of the Registry Act.
Subsection 144(1) of the Land Titles Act requires that a Plan of Subdivision of land
that is located in a land titles division be registered under the Land Titles Act.
Exceptions to this provision are set out in subsection 144(2).
Subsection 78 (10) of the Registry Act requires that a Plan of Subdivision of land
that is located only in a registry division cannot be registered under the Registry
Act unless that title of the Owner of the land has been certified under the
Certification of Title Act.
Exceptions to this provision are set out in clauses (b) and (c) of subsection 78(10).
3. If the Owner wishes to request an extension to Draft Approval, a written

explanation must be submitted for Council approval prior to the lapsing date.
97
Please note that an updated review of the plan and revision to the Conditions of
Approval may be necessary if an extension is to be granted.
4. The City of Peterborough and the Peterborough Utilities Commission have

established a Development Control Monitoring Program for the purpose of
managing sanitary and water services City-wide. Draft Approval does not assign a
servicing allocation to the Plan of Subdivision. Services will be allocated on a
“first-come” “first-served” basis in response to bonafide development pressure.
5. It is the Owner’s responsibility to advise the City of Peterborough Planning Division

of any changes in Ownership, agent, address, and phone and fax number.
6. Otonabee Region Conservation Authority (ORCA) advises that there is a fee

associated with their clearance of conditions on Plans of Subdivision. This fee is
(2018 rate) $1600 per developable hectare to a cap of $25,000, and is due upon
the Owner’s request of a clearance letter from ORCA. To expedite ORCA’s
clearance of conditions, a copy of the signed Subdivision Agreement should be
forwarded to ORCA once completed.
Decision History
98
Exhibit A – Draft Plan of Subdivision 15T-17501(Phase 1)

Page 1 of 2
99
Exhibit A – Draft Plan of Subdivision 15T-17501(Phase 1)

Page 2 of 2
100

Page 1 of 11
The Corporation of the City of Peterborough

By-Law Number 18-
Being a By-law to adopt Amendment No. ??? to the Official Plan of the City of
Peterborough for certain lands within the Lift Lock Planning Area
The Corporation of the City of Peterborough by the Council thereof hereby enacts as
follows:
1. Section 10 – Secondary Plans of the Official Plan of the City of Peterborough is

amended by inserting the following:
“10.10 LIFT LOCK SECONDARY PLAN
10.10.1 The Lift Lock Secondary Land Use Planning Area is generally
bounded by Parkhill Road East, Television Road, the Canadian Pacific Railway,
and the Trent Severn Waterway. The actual limits of the Planning Area are as
shown on Schedule “F” – Key Map to Secondary Land Use Plans and on Schedule
“S” of the Official Plan. It is the policy of Council that land within the Lift Lock
Secondary Land Use Plan shall be developed in accordance with the land use
pattern shown on Schedule “S”. Reference shall also be made to the policies of
section 10.10 in addition to other policies of the Official Plan. The land use
categories of Schedule “S” shall have the same meaning as in the Official Plan or
Zoning By-law.
10.10.2 DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
Development of the Lift Lock Planning Area shall take place in

conformity with detailed regulations for all properties within the
Planning Area established in the Zoning By-law and in accordance
with the following policies:
10.10.2.1 The land use designations applied to lands within the Lift Lock
Secondary Planning Area, do not imply a pre-commitment of
municipal services to future development. Conditions of Draft Plan of
101

Page 2 of 11
Subdivision Approval and “H” – Holding Provisions will be applied to

development applications to allow the consideration of development
proposals within this planning area without committing municipal
servicing. Official Plan, Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning
approvals granted to development applications within this area will
not be considered in the calculation of the City’s uncommitted
reserve capacity until Final Approval for plans of subdivision are
granted, and “H” – Holding Provisions are removed.
10.10.2.2 It is intended that the land use areas, location of streets and limits of
other features or site specific land uses shown on Schedule “S”- Lift
Lock Secondary Land Use Plan are approximate. Adjustments can
be made without amendment to the Official Plan provided the general
intent and purpose of the Secondary Plan is maintained. The
location and alignment of streets will be determined at the time of
subdivision approval without amendment to the Secondary Plan.
10.10.2.3 Development of the Planning Area will proceed in a logical sequence

having regard for the adequacy of municipal services including water,
stormwater and sanitary systems.
10.10.2.4 When reviewing development proposals, the City will require

development proponents to assess the internal and external water
and sanitary servicing needs of the proposal to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer and to secure implementation of any required
upgrades in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer either prior to
the issuance of development approval, or as a condition of
development approval.
10.10.2.5 The City will have the authority to expand designated road rights-of-
way at collector/collector street intersections and collector/arterial
street intersections if determined necessary for intersection design.
10.10.2.6 When reviewing development proposals, the City will have regard for
the existing natural features of the Secondary Planning Area,
particularly North Meade Creek, Curtis Creek, and Curtis Pond.
Development proposals adjacent to these features shall define,
through the preparation of an Environmental Study as described in
Section 3.3.7, the limit of the Natural Area, development setback
requirements, and the limit of any flood plain within the Natural Area.
Areas defined as Natural Area or required as a buffer to the Natural
Area shall be dedicated to the City at no cost.
10.10.2.7 The City may require the dedication of additional open space lands
outside of the lands designated “Major Open Space” to facilitate
useable parkland and linear open space systems.
102

Page 3 of 11
10.10.2.8 Where flood plain modeling is absent in the Planning Area,

proponents shall undertake the required modeling to the satisfaction
of the Authority. All lands deemed to be flood plain shall be zoned
Open Space District 1 and shall be deemed to be designated as
Flood Plain on Schedule “C” – Natural Areas and Flood Plain without
amendment to this Plan.
10.10.2.9 The City will co-ordinate with the County of Peterborough and the
Townships of Douro-Dummer and Otonabee-South Monaghan and
other affected authorities to ensure that adequate external roadway
capacity is provided to serve the Secondary Plan area.
10.10.2.10 When reviewing development proposals, the City will require

development proponents to assess the internal and external road
servicing needs of the proposal to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer, consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Transportation
Plan, and to secure implementation of any required upgrades in a
manner satisfactory to the City Engineer either prior to the issuance
of development approval, or as a condition of development approval.
10.10.2.11 Notwithstanding the policies of Section 4.2.6, properties designated

for High Density residential use will be encouraged to integrate small
scale, Local Commercial uses, as described in Section 4.2.6.3.
10.10.2.12 Where development within the Secondary Plan area is subject to site
plan control in accordance with Section 3.8 of this Plan, Council may
require the submission of drawings noted in paragraph 2 of
Subsection 41(4) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as
amended, including drawings that are sufficient to display matters
relating to, without limitation, the character, scale, appearance and
design features of buildings, and their sustainable design insofar as
they relate to exterior design.
10.10.2.13 Development approvals for lands that are illustrated without a land
use on Schedule “S”- Lift Lock Secondary Land Use Plan shall only
be available by way of an amendment to this plan.”
2. The Official Plan of the City of Peterborough is amended by adding Schedule ‘S’ –
Lift Lock Secondary Land Use Plan in accordance with the Schedule ‘A’ attached
hereto.
3. Schedule ‘A’ of the Official Plan of the City of Peterborough is amended in

accordance with the Schedule ‘B’ attached hereto.
4. Schedule ‘B’ of the Official Plan of the City of Peterborough is amended in

accordance with the Schedule ‘C’ attached hereto.
103

Page 4 of 11
5. Schedule ‘C’ of the Official Plan of the City of Peterborough is amended in

accordance with the Schedule ‘D’ attached hereto.
6. Schedule ‘D’ of the Official Plan of the City of Peterborough is amended in

accordance with the Schedule ‘E’ attached hereto.
7. Schedule ‘E’ of the Official Plan of the City of Peterborough is amended in

accordance with the Schedule ‘F’ attached hereto.
8. Schedule ‘F’ of the Official Plan of the City of Peterborough is amended in

accordance with the Schedule ‘G’ attached hereto.
By-law read a first, second and third time this 10th day of September, 2018.
Daryl Bennett, Mayor
John Kennedy, City Clerk

104

Page 5 of 11
105

Page 6 of 11
106

Page 7 of 11
107

Page 8 of 11
108

Page 9 of 11
109

Page 10 of 11
110

Page 11 of 11
111

Page 1 of 3

By-Law Number 18-
Being a By-law to Amend the Zoning By-law for the property known as 2159 Old Norwood
Road
The Corporation of the City of Peterborough by the Council thereof hereby enacts as
follows:
1. Section 3.9 Exceptions of By-law 1997-123 is hereby amended by adding the

following:
“.325 Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 6.9 and 6.11, no building or

part thereof shall be erected, altered or used within 4.5 metres of a
streetline which does not contain a driveway serving the lot.
.326 Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 395.3 a) and b), the minimum
lot area per dwelling unit shall be 91 square metres or 46 square metres
per suite, and the maximum lot area per dwelling unit shall be 133 square
metres or 67 square metres for a suite.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 395.3 e) ii), the minimum

building setback from the rear lot line shall be 12 metres or 3 metres per
storey, whichever is the greater.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 395.3 k) i), the maximum floor

area per commercial use shall be 300 square metres.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 395.3 k) ii), the maximum

commercial floor area for the property shall be 2,000 square metres.
2. Map 14 forming part of Schedule ‘A’ to By-law 97-123 is amended by changing the
area shown on the sketch attached hereto as Schedule ‘A’ from R1 (Otonabee) to
R.1-“H”, R.1,1r,2r-“H”, R.1,1o,2o-“H”, SP.366,3n-318-“H”, R.1-325-“H”, R.1,1r,2r-
325-“H”, R.1,1o,2o-325-“H”, SP.366,3n-318-325-“H”, SP.365-326, OS.1, and OS.2.
112

Page 2 of 3
3. The H – Holding Symbol will be removed upon registration of the Plan of

Subdivision in the Land Registry Office.
By-law read a first, second and third time this 10th day of September, 2018.
Daryl Bennett, Mayor
John Kennedy, City Clerk

113

Page 3 of 3
114
Exhibit D – Land Use Map

Page 1 of 1
115
Exhibit E – Notice of Public Meeting

Page 1 of 1
Published in the Peterborough Examiner, Monday, July 30, 2018

116

Page 1 of 12
Review of Official Plan Conformity

Section 4.2.5.7 of the Official Plan establishes a number of items that Council must
consider when reviewing an application for residential development. Each of these
factors will be considered in turn.
i) Proposed Housing Types
The proposed subdivision provides for the development of up to 707 residential units
consisting of a maximum of 501 single detached residential units with typical lot widths
ranging from 9.14 m to 15.24 m, 56 street-fronting townhomes with a typical width of 6 m,
and 150 high density (e.g. apartment) units. For all single detached dwellings and street-
fronting townhomes proposed, the City’s Zoning By-law also provides the flexibility for the
development of secondary suites, either at the time of house construction or in the future,
subject to Zoning and building code compliance.
In staff’s opinion, the diversity and range of lot widths and unit types proposed is in
keeping with both Provincial policy and Official Plan and will provide more affordable
housing alternatives.
ii) Surrounding Land Uses
Along the north side of the site, the proposed plan directly abuts two rural residential
estate lots located at 2227 and 2235 Old Norwood Road. These two properties are
located at a high point along Old Norwood Road and the surrounding lands within the
proposed development slope away from them. Consequently, the houses and their
immediate amenity areas are situated approximately 2 to 4 metres above the subject
lands. Given the difference in grade between the existing homes and the proposed
development, staff does not anticipate any land use conflict between the two.
Notwithstanding this, in 2016, a 7.62m strip of land was conveyed from the subject
property to 2227 Old Norwood Road to provide additional buffer between the existing
house and the proposed development.
North of Old Norwood Road, two rural estate subdivisions have been developed along
Naish Drive and Thornbury Drive consisting of approximately 38 homes as illustrated in
Exhibit D. The proposed subdivision includes the development of three 15.2 metre wide
lots fronting Old Norwood Road (Block 25) directly across from two existing dwellings
(2212-2224 Old Norwood Road). Although the proposed lots are narrower than the
existing lots, they are proposed with a similar lot depth that will allow the new homes to
be set back on their lots in a manner that is consistent with area dwellings.
Further east along Old Norwood Road, the plan proposes to have lots both flanking and
backing onto Old Norwood Road. This lot pattern will be located across from 5 existing
rural estate lots (2248-2274 Old Norwood Road, 2535 Thornbury Drive). Although the
117

Page 2 of 12
proposed lots will have their rear facing existing development, all but one of the lots will
be partially screened from the existing development by a 1.8 metre high sound
barrier/fence that is required as per the recommendations of an Environmental Noise
Feasibility Study prepared for the Proponent by Valcoustics Canada Ltd. (July 6, 2017).
Accordingly, staff does not anticipate any land use conflicts with this pattern of
development.
Old Norwood Road, which is currently a Low Capacity Collector street, is anticipated to
accommodate traffic levels that will require sound mitigation. Accordingly, in addition to
providing a sound barrier along the rear of lots backing onto Old Norwood Road, the
Proponent will also be required to provide all houses to be constructed along Old
Norwood Road with ducted, forced air hearing systems that are suitably sized to
accommodate central air conditioning.
The east limit of the site is bound by Television Road, a two-lane high capacity arterial
road. Four rural residential lots front/abut the east side of Television Road, across from
the northeast corner of the site. In this area, the plan proposes lots backing onto
Television Road. To address noise generated by traffic along Television Road, the
Proponent will be required to install a 2.4 metre high sound barrier along the rear of these
lots. Additionally, these lots will be required to have central air conditioning installed to
allow occupants to keep windows closed to maintain indoor sound levels within Ministry of
the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) guidelines.
Further south along Television Road, the Burnham Meadows subdivision is under
construction in the Township of Otonabee-South Monaghan. The subdivision is approved
for a total of 234 dwellings (single detached and townhomes), a retirement home, and a
local commercial plaza with up to 7900 square metres of floor space. The subdivision
currently accesses Television Road via Paul Rexe Boulevard and has approval for a
second road connection to Television Road, directly across from mixed use Block 55.
The south limit of the site abuts the rear of six large rural properties that front Maniece
Avenue. These properties are each between 260 and 290 metres deep. The rear
portions of these properties are primarily open space (floodplain) and agricultural. The
nearest dwelling to the south limit of the development is approximately 185 metres south
of mixed use Block 55.
Any development on Block 55 will be required to obtain site plan approval. As a condition
of subdivision approval, the Proponent will be required to complete an additional
Environmental Noise Feasibility at the time of site plan approval to evaluate the impact of
traffic noise on the development, the impact of noise generated in the abutting Burnham
Meadows subdivision commercial site, and the impact of any noise generated within
Block 55 on surrounding residential uses.
The west limit of the draft plan abuts the Lift Lock Golf Club. As noted in the body of this
report, the golf club is part of the Proponent’s land holdings and was part of the original
application for draft plan of subdivision approval. In time, it is expected that the north
118

Page 3 of 12
portion of the golf club will be redeveloped for urban purposes while the south portion,
which is located within floodplain, will be retained as a golf course. With the golf course
excluded from the subdivision, the proposed development is located approximately 315
metres east of the Lift Lock. Similarly, the subdivision, at its closest point, is located
approximately 200 metres away from the Trent Severn Waterway. As planning for the
golf course lands proceeds, compatibility between the planned development and the Lift
Lock and Trent Severn Waterway will require careful consideration.
Generally, staff is satisfied that the proposed land uses within the plan are compatible
with the surrounding land uses.
iii) Adequacy of Municipal Services
a) Water and Electrical Service
The subject lands are situated in the Pressure Zone 1 which has water distribution
system storage provided by the High Street Elevated Tank and the Clonsilla Avenue
Reservoir.
The existing 300mm diameter Ashburnham Drive watermain located near Maniece
Avenue is proposed to be extended to the site either along Ashburnham Drive or along
Maniece Avenue. The local water distribution system within the subdivision will consist of
watermains ranging in diameter from 150mm to 300mm. This internal water system will
connect to existing watermains on Ashburnham Drive, Old Norwood Road and Television
Road to complete necessary looping which will reinforce the overall watermain network.
The Peterborough Utilities Commission (PUC) has no major concerns with the proposed
development although it does prefer the option of extending the Ashburnham Drive
watermain along Maniece Avenue.
The design of the water distribution system for this site will be addressed either prior to or
during detailed engineering design and will include a demonstration of the achievement of
evaluation of the PUC’s domestic water and fire flow requirements. As a condition of
Draft Plan Approval, the Applicant will be required to enter into a standard servicing
agreement with the Peterborough Utilities Commission (PUC) for the provision of water
service to this site and the payment of PUC development charges.
For electrical service, Peterborough Distribution Inc. (PDI) has advised that two electrical
services connections will be required to the site. The existing electrical distribution feeder
for this area, which is 4.16kV, will need to be upgraded to 27.6 kV to service the
development. The Proponent may be required to pay a capital contribution to PDI for the
construction of the feeder expansion. Details regarding the electrical servicing of the site
will be addressed at the time of detailed engineering design. As a condition of Draft Plan
Approval, the Applicant will be required to demonstrate that it has made satisfactory
arrangements with PDI for the provision of electrical service to this site.
119

Page 4 of 12
b) Sanitary Service
The subject lands must be serviced via a trunk sanitary sewer located in Ashburnham
Drive, just south of Maria Street. That sanitary sewer discharges to the Ashburnham
Drive Sewage Pumping Station which was upgraded in 2012 to accommodate the Lift
Lock planning area.
The Applicant is proposing to extend the Ashburnham Drive trunk as a 525mm diameter
sewer from its current terminus to Maniece Avenue and then east along Maniece Avenue
as a 450mm diameter sewer where it will enter the lands at the east limit of the golf
course. Within the subdivision site, the trunk sewer will split into 3 branches and will be
stubbed at Old Norwood Road, Television Road, and at the west limit of Block 66
(stormwater management) in order to serve the future build out of the golf course and the
remainder of the Lift Lock planning area, north of Old Norwood Road. Additionally, the
trunk sewer along Maniece Avenue will be sized to accommodate any future development
along Maniece Avenue, east of the golf course.
Generally, staff has no objection to the proposed sanitary services. As a condition of

draft approval, the Applicant will be required to ensure that all necessary approvals have
been obtained for the sanitary sewer outlets prior to Final approval. As the Ashburnham
Drive sewer must be extended under an existing Canadian Pacific Railway, the Applicant
will be required to obtain approval from the Railway for that work and to grant any
easements necessary for the sewer.
The subject property contains one homestead that is serviced by a private septic system
and well. Prior to final approval, the Applicant will be required to decommission the well
and septic system in accordance with Provincial regulation.
c) Stormwater Management
Stormwater management for the site is proposed to be accommodated in a wet pond

located at the southwest corner of the site, adjacent to the golf course (Block 66). That
pond will ultimately discharge to North Meade Creek, along the north side of Maniece
Avenue. The pond will be sized to accommodate most of the development site as well as
the future development of most of the golf course lands. Mixed use Block 55 and the
portion of the golf course that is located west of the west branch of North Meade Creek
will require separate stormwater management controls on site. For Block 55, that
requirement will be addressed at the site plan approval stage while for the golf course
lands, that requirement can be addressed as part of a future subdivision approval.
The stormwater pond in Block 66 will be designed to provide Enhanced (Level 1) water
quality treatment and extended erosion control and flood control for up to a 100 year
storm event. Measures to minimize temperature impacts from the stormwater pond on
North Meade Creek will include a bottom draw pipe and a planting strategy to provide
shade around the pond perimeter. Prior to Final approval, the Applicant will be required
to ensure that the pond’s design is satisfactory to the City and ORCA.
120

Page 5 of 12
A key component of the site’s overall stormwater management system will be the
implementation of low impact development (LID) technologies which are features built
into the subdivision to facilitate stormwater infiltration and maintenance of the site’s
natural hydrologic character. A site water balance completed by Groundwater Science
Corp. for the proposed development estimates a 36.5% decrease in annual water
infiltration due to the development. To address this, the Applicant is proposing to direct
roof downspouts to the ground (rather than connecting them to a foundation drain or to
the stormsewers). Additionally, the Applicant is proposing to install infiltration trenches
along some rear yards.
As part of the final stormwater management report to be prepared in conjunction with the
detailed design of the site, the Applicant will be required to provide a detailed description
of the means for maintaining a pre-development water balance and the natural hydrology
of the site which will include the use of LID technology. As a condition of approval, the
Applicant will be required to implement these measures to the City’s satisfaction.
Additionally, where LID is implemented on private property (such as the proposed
infiltration trenches), the Applicant will be required to register a covenant on title to advise
prospective purchasers of the presence and purpose of these features on their property,
and of homeowners’ responsibility to maintain these features on their property.
iv) Traffic Impacts
The Draft Plan of Subdivision proposes a grid street pattern with a collector street access
to Television Road (Street ‘A’) at Paul Rexe Boulevard, and an additional collector street
access to Old Norwood Road, just west of Thornbury Drive. Street A will run east-west
through the site and has been planned so that it can be extended to the west to intersect
with Ashburnham Drive (either in its current location or in a realigned location). Street C
and will run north-south through the site and has been planned with flexibility to extend
south to Maniece Avenue should it be deemed necessary in the future and subject to
appropriate environmental approvals.
Both Streets A and C will be designed as 23m wide road allowances with on-street
cycling facilities while all streets within the development will have sidewalks on both sides
(unless exempted by the City’s sidewalk policy).
The Applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Study prepared by Tranplan Associates dated
February 2017, and updated February 2018. Detailed comments on the report have been
provided to the Applicant. Based on staff’s review of the report, the following road
improvements are required:
 Geometry improvements and temporary traffic signals at the intersection of

Ashburnham Drive and Old Norwood Road until such time as Ashburnham Drive is
realigned through the golf course lands;
 Widening and urbanization of Old Norwood Road between Ashburnham Drive and
Television Road;
121

Page 6 of 12
 Traffic signals at the intersection of Street A and Television Road, Old Norwood
Road and Television Road, and at Maniece Avenue and Television Road;
 A two-way left turn lane on Television Road between Maniece Avenue and Old
Norwood Road;
 Right turn lanes on Television Road at Old Norwood Road, Street A, Paul Rexe
Boulevard;
 Left turn lanes on Street A and Paul Rexe Boulevard at Television Road;
 Separate left and right turn lanes on Maniece Avenue at Television Road; and,
 Traffic signals and right turn lanes on the eastbound and northbound approaches
to the Television Road/Parkhill Road intersection.
From this list, the Proponent will be required to complete the improvements at the
intersection of Ashburnham Drive and Old Norwood Road as well as the addition of a left
turn lane on Street A at Television Road. Additionally, the Proponent will be required to
pay 50% of the cost for traffic signals and intersection improvements on Television Road
at Street A/Paul Rexe Boulevard and for a northbound left turn lane on Television Road at
the entrance to the Mixed Use Commercial Block 55 and Safe Harbour Way.
The City has requested funds in the 2019 budget to complete the required work at
Television Road/Street A/Paul Rexe Boulevard and has collected $120,000 from the
developer of the Burnham Meadows subdivision toward this work. As a condition of
approval, the Proponent will be required to agree that building permits will not be
available until traffic signals are operational at Street A and Television Road.
Additionally, the developer of the Burnham Meadows subdivision is currently installing a

southbound left turn lane on Television Road at Paul Rexe Boulevard and at their second
site entrance, Safe Harbour Way (to be located directly across from Block 55), as well as
a northbound right turn lane at Paul Rexe Boulevard. These left turn lanes may one day
be assimilated into the required continuous two-way left turn lane as described above.
All road improvements that are not a direct developer responsibility (e.g. the
reconstruction of Old Norwood Road, traffic signals and/or turn lane improvements at the
intersections of Television Road with Parkhill Road, Old Norwood Road and Maniece
Avenue, and the two-way left turn lane on Television Road) will be City led projects that
require updates to the City-wide Development Charge By-law and future capital budget
approval. The City-wide Development Charge By-law will be reviewed and updated in
2019. In lieu of paying a development charge to the City, the Burnham Meadows
subdivision has made a $24,000 cash contribution to the City for the future signalization
of the Television Road/Parkhill Road intersection.
122

Page 7 of 12
Staff will be requesting funding in the 2019 and 2020 capital budgets to complete the
necessary improvements at the Television Road/Parkhill Road intersection.
In staff’s comments to the Applicant, concern was raised with the location of the
intersection of Street C at Old Norwood Road which is located just east of the crest of a
hill, opposite the driveway at 2248 Old Norwood Road. The traffic impact study reviewed
the sight distance and confirmed that adequate stopping sight distance should be
available (i.e. the distance required for an eastbound vehicle on Old Norwood Road to
stop in reaction to a hazard at Street C). However, the study notes that the intersection
will have substandard decision sight distance (i.e. the distance required for an eastbound
vehicle on Old Norwood Road to react to a hazard at Street C and take evasive action).
To address this situation, the Proponent will be required to reconstruct Old Norwood
Road, west of Street C, to lower the profile prior to the connection of Street C to Old
Norwood Road. As a condition of approval, the Proponent will be required to prepare a
preliminary profile for Old Norwood Road.
Ideally, this work will be incorporated into the City’s urbanization of Old Norwood Road
and the Proponent will pay the City for the portion of the work associated with lowering
the road profile to accommodate Street C. However, if the connection of Street C to Old
Norwood Road is required before the City can complete the urbanization work, the
Proponent will need to complete the profile work. As a condition of approval, the
Proponent will be required to prepare a traffic brief to establish how much development
can occur in the site utilizing the Street A/Television Road intersection before the Street C
connection to Old Norwood Road is required.
The traffic impact study also assessed the operation of the existing Maria Street, Hunter
Street and McFarlane Street crossings of the Trent Severn Waterway. The Maria Street
crossing is a two-way swing bridge while the Hunter Street and McFarlane Street
crossings are both single lane. The report suggests that the Maria Street and McFarlane
Street bridges will operate satisfactorily upon buildout of the development while the
Hunter Street tunnel will approach capacity. Staff note, however, that the analysis did not
appear to consider the swing function of the Maria Street bridge and the spillover effect
that the bridge will have on the Hunter Street and McFarlane Street crossings when it is
temporarily unavailable for traffic during the boating season. When the three crossings
are reviewed in this light, staff would suggest that the McFarlane Street bridge may need
to be replaced with a new 2 lane structure to accommodate full build out of the
development area.
Furthermore, as noted in the body of the report, Parks Canada has advised that any
traffic analysis for the Lift Lock area should consider the possibility that the Hunter Street
tunnel could be closed to traffic. If the tunnel were to be closed to vehicular traffic, it
would have a significant impact not only on traffic patterns between areas east and west
of the Trent Severn Waterway, but also on the City’s transit network which currently uses
the tunnel to access Ashburnham Drive.
123

Page 8 of 12
To address this big-picture issue, staff intends to complete a transportation study for the
City’s east side (east of the Trent Severn Waterway, north of Lansdowne Street) that will
identify the constraints in the transportation network and opportunities for resolving those
constraints (such as a potential McFarlane Street bridge). The study, and the results of
any EA processes that are required to implement the study recommendations, will form
the basis for a broader Lift Lock Secondary Plan. Concurrent with the subdivision
development, staff has recommended that Council pre-commit $250,000.00 in the 2019
Capital Budget to complete the required study. Additional funding for subsequent EAs,
and any required road network improvements will be requested through future Capital
Budgets.
Currently, Peterborough Transit route 11 serves the area south of Hunter Street, along
Ashburnham Drive, to Lansdowne Street. The route crosses both ways through the
Hunter Street tunnel. The remainder of the Lift Lock planning area is currently not
serviced with a regular bus route and is instead serviced by the City’s Trans-Cab Service.
As the City conducts an area-wide transportation review, consideration will need to given
to optimizing the delivery of expanded transit service to the area. In the meantime, while
regular transit service is not available, the development area will continue to be serviced
by Trans-Cab.
v) Adequacy of Amenities, Parks and Recreation Opportunities
The proposed plan illustrates a 0.98 hectare neighbourhood park in the centre of the site.
All but 15 of the proposed residential units in the subdivision are located within a 500
metre walk to the park. The proposed park is sized at the bottom end of the Official Plan
range for a Neighbourhood Park (1ha to 3 ha). Based on the size and density of the
proposed development, it is estimated that the City could require approximately 2.9
hectares of parkland dedication from this phase of development.
Based on comments received from Parks Canada and the public, it is staff’s opinion that
parkland development in the area should focus primarily on the Lift Lock area and areas
along Ashburnham Drive. This direction is consistent with the recommendations of the
2005 Lift Lock Functional Planning Study which suggested that a new Lift Lock viewing
area be created along Ashburnham Drive. Accordingly, staff is satisfied with the
parkland proposed for the development. As a condition of approval, the Proponent will be
required to agree to dedicate the additional parkland owed from this site as part of the
subdivision approval for Phase 2 on the adjacent golf course lands. Additionally, as a
condition of approval, the Proponent will be required to prepare a park grading,
landscaping and planting plan to the City’s satisfaction and to acknowledge that any
additional parkland owing from this phase will be required as part of Phase 2.
Presently, the Lift Lock Golf Club operates with an 18-hole course, a 9-hole par three
course, and a driving range. In the long term it is expected that the 18 hole course will be
redeveloped for urban use while the 9 hole course and the driving range areas, which are
located primarily in floodplain, will be retained. Accordingly, it is expected that a golf
124

Page 9 of 12
course will continue to function at this location post development and will continue to be
valued as a prime recreation destination in the community.
King George Public School is located approximately 350 metres west of the Lift Lock and
the Peterborough Museum and Archives is located approximately 440 metres north and
west of the Lift Lock. Once the golf course lands are developed in the future, both
facilities will be approximately 600 to 1000 metres away from the subject lands. The
Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board is currently planning for the construction of a
new elementary school on the King George site that would consolidate the existing King
George and Armour Heights Public School student populations and would serve the
subject lands.
Furthermore, the Canadian Canoe Museum is currently planning to construct a new 6,970
square metre museum facility along the west bank of the Trent-Severn Waterway, at the
base of the Lift Lock. The museum holds the world’s largest collection of canoes, kayaks
and paddled watercraft. The new location will physically connect the watercraft collection
to local waterways and will create a major cultural hub with the Lift Lock and the
Peterborough Museum and Archives.
Given the proximity of these facilities to the proposed development, a significant

opportunity and obligation exists to design the new subdivision in a way that
complements the cultural and recreational significance that the Lift Lock area has. This
will need to be addressed as the planning for Phase 2 unfolds.
vi) Parking, Buffering and Landscaping
Parking, building setback, and building/driveway coverage standards are implemented as

regulations in the Zoning By-law. Consistent with traditional subdivision in the city, all
single detached dwellings and street-fronting townhomes are proposed to be subject to a
standard 6 metre building setback from all streetlines. For corner lots, the building
setback is proposed to be reduced to 4.5 metres for the streetline that does not have a
driveway.
Rear yard building setbacks are proposed to be maintained at the traditional 7.6 metres
for single detached dwellings and 9.0 metres for street-fronting townhomes that back onto
single detached dwellings. Side yard setbacks will be maintained at 1.2 metres for all
single detached dwellings and street-fronting townhomes.
In accordance with typical zoning standards, all single detached and street-fronting row
dwellings will be required to provide a minimum of two off-street parking spaces. The
Applicant is proposing to provide 1.5 parking spaces per unit (instead of 1.75) for high
density residential units and 0.75 spaces per suite for multi-suite residences. These
parking standards have become commonplace among many new multi-unit
developments and were most recently applied in the Lily Lake plans of subdivision.
125

Page 10 of 12
Setbacks for the proposed mixed use/high density block will be the greater of 12 metres
or 3 metres per storey from both the rear and side lot lines. Building orientation,
pedestrian access, vehicular parking and circulation, lighting, landscaping and stormwater
management details for this block will be addressed at the site plan approval stage.
With respect to overall site landscaping, the Applicant will be required to plant a street
tree in front of each single detached unit and each street-fronting townhome, where
feasible. As a condition of approval, the Applicant will be required to complete and
implement a street tree planting plan that shows proposed street tree planting locations
and boulevard width, utility locations and depth of topsoil into ensure street trees are to
be planted in viable locations.
As part of the application, the Applicant submitted an Arborist Report prepared by DA

White Tree Care (February 10, 2017) which identified trees to be removed from the site
and recommended a re-planting program to compensate for trees removed. Staff
provided the Applicant a number of technical comments related to the report’s
methodology that are currently outstanding. As a condition of approval, the Applicant will
be required to update the report to the City’s satisfaction and to prepare and implement a
tree planting plan to the satisfaction of the City and ORCA. Compensation for trees
removed is to be provided in accordance with the City’s tree conservation By-laws, 17-
120 and 17-121.
Additionally, as a condition of approval, the Applicant will be required to prepare and

implement a grading, landscaping and planting plan for the stormwater management
facility and any disturbed open space areas to the satisfaction of the City and ORCA.
vii) Significant Natural/Environmental Features
The subject lands contain two branches of North Meade Creek: a northwest branch and a
southeast branch. The northwest branch starts at a pond located at the northwest corner
of the site, just south of Old Norwood Road, and flows southwest through the golf course,
south along the east side of Ashburnham Drive, and then east along Maniece Avenue.
The southeast branch flows from areas to the northeast, under Television Road, and then
in a southwesterly direction through the southeast corner of the property. Both branches
converge to flow under Maniece Avenue and Maria Street and ultimately to Little Lake.
Both branches of North Meade Creek are thought to contain fish habitat although no fish
were observed in them during field observations for the EIS prepared for the
development. The draft plan of subdivision provides for a minimum 30 metre buffer from
these watercourses as recommended in the MNRF’s Natural Heritage Reference Manual,
2010.
Street A is proposed to cross the southeastern branch of North Meade Creek on the
property. As a condition of approval, the Applicant will be required to obtain written
confirmation from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada that the watercourse
crossing is consistent with fisheries policies.
126

Page 11 of 12
Additionally, unevaluated wetlands line both branches of the creek through the property
as well as the area between the pond and Old Norwood Road. An isolated wetland
feature exists near the centre of the site that is approximately 0.76 hectares in size and
another wetland feature is located immediately south of the proposed stormwater
management pond.
For the wetland areas along the two branches of North Meade Creek and around the
existing pond, the plan provides for a buffer ranging from 15 metres to 120 metres.
ORCA policies recommend a minimum buffer of 30 metres from all non-provincially
significant wetlands however their policies also provide flexibility for lesser buffers where
justified through an EIS. As a condition of approval, the Applicant will be required to
update the existing EIS to the satisfaction of ORCA and the City to justify those instances
where buffers of less than 30 metres are proposed from wetland features.
For the isolated wetland in the centre of the site, the plan proposes to remove the feature
and to compensate by creating a new wetland feature of equal size on the golf course
lands, south of the stormwater management pond. ORCA policies generally do not
permit development within a wetland however they do offer flexibility to remove small
wetlands (generally less than 0.5 hectares) subject to ORCA’s approval and
demonstration through an EIS that offsetting can be accommodated on the subject lands
resulting in a net gain in wetland function and, where applicable, maintenance of exiting
hydrologic and ecological linkages. As a condition of approval, the Applicant will be
required to obtain a permit from ORCA for any wetland removal on site. Additionally, in
conjunction with obtain that approval, the Applicant will be required to prepare and
implement a wetland compensation plan, informed by a water balance, that details the
wetland restoration design and planting to the satisfaction of ORCA and the City.
The Functional Servicing Report prepared for the site (Valdor Engineering Inc., March
2017, revised March 2018) proposes to locate the outlet for the stormwater management
pond, and the trunk watermain and sanitary sewer connections to the site, in the vicinity
of the wetland area located south of the stormwater management pond. This work will
require a permit from ORCA under Ontario Regulation 167/06.
As part of the application submission, the Valdor Engineering Inc. modeled the floodplain
associated with the two branches of North Meade Creek. The floodplain delineation will
require approval from ORCA as a condition of approval. Generally, the plan ensures that
no development will encroach into floodplain area except for the proposed Street A
crossing of North Meade Creek as it approaches Television Road. As a condition of
approval, the Applicant will be required to obtain a permit from ORCA for the crossing and
must limit any encroachment into the floodplain, wetland areas or buffers to piers.
All creeks, wetlands, floodplain and any associated buffers that are to remain post-
development will be zoned as open space and conveyed to the City for open space
purposes. These areas will also be designated as Major Open Space on Schedule A of
the Official Plan and as Natural Areas and Corridors on Schedule C of the Official Plan.
127

Page 12 of 12
The EIS prepared for the site (Beacon Environmental, March 2017, updated March 2018)
recommends the creation of a buffer planting plan and a stormwater management pond
planting plan to enhance adjacent natural features and to buffer the stormwater pond
from the adjacent development and natural features. These plans will be required as a
condition of approval.
The EIS also concluded that the property does not contain significant wetlands, significant
woodlands, significant valleylands, significant wildlife habitat, or significant areas of
natural and scientific interest. Furthermore, the site is not identified as being adjacent
lands to any of these features (the Downers Corners PSW, located approximately 200
metres southeast of the site, is the closest significant feature to the site).
The EIS did identify the presence of Barn Swallow, a threatened species, associated with
the barn on the property and potential habitat for endangered species of bats associated
within the forest areas along North Meade Creek at the southeast corner of the site and in
an isolated wetland pocket in the centre of the site. Additionally, the study identified the
potential for Blanding’s Turtle (endangered species) and Eastern Musk Turtle (threatened
species) habitat in the existing pond on site. The pond is to be maintained with a buffer
varying between 15m and 120m from the development.
To address potential impacts on Barn Swallow and bat habitat, the conditions of approval
require the Applicant to work with the MNRF to ensure that the development proceeds in
conformity with the Endangered Species Act.
Although no provincially significant wetlands have been noted on site, the EIS does
identify the presence of several unevaluated wetlands along both branches of North
Meade Creek, and an isolated wetland near the centre of the site that is proposed to be
removed. Given the proximity of the Downers Corners PSW, Beacon Environmental
reviewed whether these features should be complexed with the PSW and concluded that
they should not. As a provider of technical advice to the City on matters of natural
heritage, ORCA advised that it has no objections to Beacon’s rationale for excluding the
wetlands on site from the nearby PSW. The MNRF, as the authority responsible for
determining wetland significance in Ontario, has been provided Beacon Environmental’s
review. As of the writing of this report, the MNRF has not expressed any concerns
regarding the wetlands on site.
Subject to obtaining necessary approvals from ORCA, DFO and MNRF, and subject to
conditions of approval requiring wetland restoration, buffer and stormwater plantings, staff
is satisfied that adequate protection is being provided for natural heritage.
128
Exhibit G – Detailed Review of Agency and Public Comments

Page 1 of 15
Review of Agency and Public Comments Submitted

Agency Comments
i) Infrastructure Planning Division
Infrastructure Planning (IP) staff provided comments on several occasions throughout the
application review period. Generally, IP’s main concerns relate to servicing, stormwater
management, and urban forestry and have been reflected in the Official Plan review
contained in Exhibit E of this report. Other concerns, which are more technical in nature,
have been provided to the Applicants for review and action and will be addressed either
at the detail design stage.
IP staff did request, however, that additional work be undertaken as part of the
geotechnical and hydrogeological studies conducted for the site prior to the detailed
design of the site. This work will be required as a condition of approval.
ii) Transportation Division
Transportation Division staff reviewed the Traffic Impact Study prepared by Tranplan
Associates (February 2017, updated February 2018). Transportation’s main concerns
have been reflected in the Official Plan review contained in Exhibit E of this report.
iii) Alderville First Nation
Alderville First Nation commented on a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment prepared in

support of the development by AECOM dated July, 2017. Concern was expressed with a
lack of acknowledgement in the report of First Nations’ history and Treaty signatories.
A revised Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment dated February 2018 was circulated to
Alderville First Nation on March 19, 2018. No additional comments were received.
iv) Bell Canada
Bell Canada advises that, prior to commencing any work within the Plan, the Developer
must confirm that sufficient wire-line infrastructure is currently available to provide
communication/telecommunication service to the plan. In the event that such
infrastructure is not available, Bell advises that the Developer may be required to pay for
the connection to and/or extension of the existing communication/telecommunication
infrastructure. If the Developer elects not to pay for such connection to and/or extension
of the existing communication/telecommunication infrastructure, Bell will require the
Developer to demonstrate that sufficient alternative communication/telecommunication
facilities are available to enable, at a minimum, the effective delivery of
129

Page 2 of 15
communication/telecommunication services for emergency management services (i.e.,

911 Emergency Services).
Bell Canada’s requirements are included as conditions of Draft Plan of Subdivision

Approval.
v) Canada Post
Canada Post requires the owner to make satisfactory arrangements for the provision of
mail delivery services to the plan of preliminary detailed design. Additionally, Canada
Post requires the owner to inform all prospective purchasers, through a clause in all
Agreements of Purchase and Sale and on a map to be displayed at the sales office, those
lots identified for potential Community Mailbox and/or mini-park locations.
Canada Post’s requirements are reflected in the proposed conditions of Draft Plan of
Subdivision Approval.
vi) County of Peterborough
The County of Peterborough has advised that improvements to County Road 4 (Parkhill
Road/Warsaw Road) are not included in their ten year capital construction forecast.
Accordingly, any improvements on County Road 4 at its intersection with Television Road
will not be at the County’s expense. The County notes that the east leg of the
intersection will need to be upgraded to accommodate the road geometric improvements
needed to support signalization as recommended by the Applicant’s traffic impact study.
Implementation of improvements at the intersection of Television Road/Parkhill
Road/County Road 4 will be a city-led project funded by City-wide development charges
and other City sources.
vii) Curve Lake First Nation
In a letter dated June 14, 2017, Curve Lake First Nation commented on a previous
version of the draft plan of subdivision and advised that insufficient information was
available to comment in regards to environmental impacts, archaeology, traffic impacts
etc. They also questioned impacts that the development may have on the creeks within
the site and on the nearby Downers Corners PSW and the Otonabee River.
Staff met with Curve Lake First Nation staff on June 22, 2017 and shared all technical
reports associated with the project on June 30, 2017. Additionally, staff shared a revised
copy of the plan of subdivision and all updated technical reports submitted in support of
the revised plan on March 19, 2018. No additional comments have been received.
Curve Lake First Nation has noted that should bones, remains or other such evidence of
a native burial site or any other Archaeological findings be found, Curve Lake First Nation
must be notified immediately. Furthermore, Curve Lake First Nation advised that under
the Cemeteries Act, the City and the developer is obliged to notify the nearest First Nation
130

Page 3 of 15
Government or other community of Aboriginal people which is willing to act as a

representative and whose members have a close cultural affinity to the interred person.
A representative is needed on site before the remains and associated artifacts can be
removed. Curve Lake First Nation notes that they have trained Archeological Liaisons
who are able to actively participate in the archaeological assessment process as a
member of a field crew, the cost of which will be borne by the proponent.
Curve Lake First Nation has requested to be kept appraised throughout all phases of this
project. As a condition of draft approval, the Applicant will be required to provide a digital
copy of all reports and drawings to Curve Lake First Nation.
viii) Downtown Business Improvement Area
The Downtown Business Improvement Area (DBIA) requested to receive additional

information regarding the size and nature of the specific commercial uses proposed for
mixed use Block 55.
As part of the Notice of Public Meeting, a description of the draft zoning by-law for Block
55 was included which describes the size and nature of uses to be permitted.
ix) Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc.
Enbridge Gas Distribution advises that they do not object to the proposed application.
Enbridge requests that the Applicant contact their Customer Connections Department for
service and meter installation details and to ensure all gas piping is installed prior to the
commencement of site landscaping (including, but not limited to: tree planting, silva cells,
and/or soil trenches) and/or asphalt paving.
Enbridge notes that if a gas main needs to be relocated as a result of changes in the
alignment or grade of the future road allowances or for temporary gas pipe installations
pertaining to phased construction, all costs are the responsibility of the Applicant. In the
event that easement(s) are required to service this development, the Applicant will
provide the easement(s) to Enbridge Gas Distribution at no cost.
Additionally, in the event that a pressure reducing regulator station is required, the
Applicant will be required to provide a 3 metre by 3 metre exclusive use location that is
within the municipal road allowance.
Prior to the installation of gas piping, road allowances must be graded as close to final
elevation as possible. Enbridge’s requirements are included in the proposed conditions
Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval.
131

Page 4 of 15
x) Hiawatha First Nation
Hiawatha First Nation commented on a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment prepared in

support of the development by AECOM dated July, 2017. Concern was expressed with a
lack of acknowledgement in the report of First Nations’ history and Treaty signatories.
A revised Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment dated February 2018 was circulated to
Hiawatha First Nation on March 19, 2018. No additional comments were received.
xi) Hydro One Networks Inc.
The subject lands are not located within Hydro One’s service territory. Hydro One
advised that it owns and existing distribution pole line on the west side of Television Road
and on the south side of Old Norwood within the limits of the plan. Hydro One advises
that if it does any rehabilitation to the existing line, they will require anchoring space for
the line on the west side of Television Road. As a condition of approval, the proponent
will be required to circulate a composite utility plan to Hydro One to ensure no conflicts
will be created with their infrastructure.
xii) Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation
Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation expressed an interest in reviewing all

archaeological assessment reports and functional servicing/stormwater management
reports for the site.
Copies of the archaeological and functional servicing/stormwater management reports

prepared for the application have been provided as requested. As a condition of
approval, the applicant will be required to share any future archaeological, servicing and
stormwater management reports with the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation.
xiii) Otonabee Region Conservation Authority
In a letter dated July 16, 2018, ORCA advised that:
 the floodplain modeling submitted with the application requires additional

information prior to its approval by the Authority;
 the Street A watercourse crossing must be designed to provide safe access while
limiting encroachment on floodplain to bridge piers;
 it has no objections to the rationale provided by the Applicant for excluding the
wetlands on site from the nearby Downers Corners PSW and that the ultimate
confirmation of the rationale is the responsibility of the MNRF;
132

Page 5 of 15
 additional EIS justification is required for any buffers from wetlands on site that are
less than 30 metres;
 the Applicant will need to work with MNRF to ensure compliance with the
Endangered Species Act;
 permits pursuant to Ontario Regulation 167/06 will be required for any work within:
30 metres of non-PSWs; 120 metres of PSWs; floodplain; watercourses; wetlands;
or wetland interference areas.
These comments will be addressed through conditions of approval.
Additionally, ORCA recommended a number of approval conditions including:
 fencing, without gates, along the rear of lots that back onto floodplain and wetland
buffers;
 temporary fencing for riparian and wetland areas for potential turtle nesting habitat;
 development and implementation of a comprehensive environmental monitoring

plan;
 distribution of a homeowner natural system stewardship manual;
 prohibition of swimming pools on lots backing onto watercourses/wetland buffers;
 timing restrictions on vegetation clearing during peak bird breeding season;
 obtaining any required approvals from the DFO to support the development;
 approval of landscaping and planting plans for stormwater ponds, any trails, and
any mitigative plantings; and,
 approval of the final stormwater management plan and erosion and sediment
control plan.
The requested conditions have been included in the recommended conditions of approval
in Schedule 1.
xiv) Parks Canada
Parks Canada (PC) advised that Trent-Severn Waterway and the Peterborough Lift Lock
are both designated national historic sites. The Waterway, which is part of Canada’s
national canal system, has associative value as a component of the country’s inland
water transportation system, both for military and commercial use. The Lift Lock, on the
133

Page 6 of 15
other hand, is the highest hydraulic lift lock in the world and is an engineering
achievement of national and international renown.
PC has requested that greater separation between the Trent Severn Waterway and
Ashburnham Drive be provided. Presently, the steep berm along the east side of the
canal is located partially within the Ashburnham Drive road allowance. This situation
causes challenges for slope stability and dam safety as well as for ongoing maintenance
with respect to vegetation clearing. PC intends to rehabilitate this berm in 2019 which
could include modifications to reduce the steep slope if greater separation from
Ashburnham Drive were available.
In response to this comment and City comments regarding the current state of
Ashburnham Drive and its suitability for accommodating significant traffic growth, the
Applicant has removed the golf course from the Phase 1 development plan in order to
evaluate options for realigning Ashburnham Drive through the golf course site.
Accordingly, development approvals for the golf course will follow once this analysis is
complete.
PC noted there is an existing treed buffer along the west limit of the golf course property
that helps to screen the subdivision lands from the Lift Lock and Waterway. PC has
requested that a landscape plan be prepared with a particular interest in maintaining and
enhancing a vegetated buffer along the west limit of the development area that will
integrate the development into the lock station and golf course landscape. This plan will
be required through future planning approvals on the golf course lands.
Additionally, PC expressed a desire to see building heights capped at 3 stories along the
west limit of the site to ensure a low profile is maintained on site and that the visual
character of the Lift Lock remains as the dominating visual character in the landscape.
Building heights in the vicinity of the Lift Lock and Waterway will also be addressed
through future planning approvals for Phase 2.
PC noted a desire to ensure a thoughtful transition from one land use and activity area to
another. PC does not want the Lift Lock and its associated canal cut to be isolated from
their surroundings. Additionally, PC supported the idea of establishing a Lift Lock viewing
area on the golf course lands through the development approval process. These
considerations will be addressed through future planning approvals for Phase 2.
PC reviewed the traffic impact study prepared for the development and recommended
that an analysis be undertaken assuming that the Hunter Street tunnel under the Lift Lock
is unavailable for traffic. PC is currently completing a Lift Lock Impact Study that is
reviewing the ongoing impact of traffic on the integrity of the Lift Lock and is to provide
direction on how to best manage traffic in the future to protect the national historic site
(which could include a closure of the tunnel). Additionally, PC recommended including an
analysis of swing bridge operations during boating season on future traffic patterns. As
discussed in the body of the report, the City will be completing a study to assess these
scenarios.
134

Page 7 of 15
Finally, PC has requested that it be given an opportunity to review an Erosion and

Sediment Control Plan for the site to ensure that sufficient and appropriate mitigation
measures are in place to prevent suspended sediment from being transported off side
and into the Trent-Severn Waterway via North Meade Creek. This request is reflected as
a condition of draft approval.
xv) Peterborough Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC) – Transportation Sub-

committee
The Transportation Sub-committee of the AAC requested that:
 options be reviewed to relocate the park away from the anticipated future bus route
through the neighbourhood;
 all sidewalks have curb cuts;
 flooding issues in the area be addressed;
 staff confirm the farm house is not a designated heritage structure; and,
 staff determine whether a trail can be established to the mixed use block from the
main part of the site.
In accordance with Section 6.4.3 of the Official Plan, bus access is not a prerequisite for
locating neigbhourhood parks. However, in planning for a balanced transportation
system, staff believes it is beneficial to provide a mix of land uses along bus routes,
including parkland. Staff supports the proposed location of the park on Street A because
it is centrally located, is easily accessible from all parts of the plan, and because it
provides a welcome break in the urban streetscape along Street A.
With respect to sidewalks, all sidewalks will be designed to current City standards which
include curb drops at intersections.
Generally, areas within the development will be adequately protected from flooding by
stormwater management controls including sewers, a pond, and water infiltration
methods. Areas in proximity to the development including Maniece Avenue and Naish
Drive have experienced flooding problems in the past. The development will not
necessarily address existing problems external to the site however the development will
be required to control runoff from the site to pre-development levels for the 100 year
storm event.
The existing house at 2159 Old Norwood Road is not currently designated under the
Ontario Heritage Act.
As a condition of approval, the Applicant will be required to explore opportunities for

establishing a trail to Block 55 (high density residential/mixed use). Any trail to that block
135

Page 8 of 15
will have to cross through floodplain and wetland areas, and over the southeast branch of
North Meade Creek. Generally, ORCA policies prohibit such crossings unless the
crossing can be provided in a way that it avoids floodplain and wetland areas. The
feasibility of such a crossing will be explored at the detailed design stage.
Additionally, the committee has recommended that:
 adequate room be provided on collector streets for public transit and bus shelters;
 benches be places along walkways on accessible pads;
 parkland and walkways are well lit;
 collector streets incorporate traffic calming measures.
At the detailed design stage, the City will require that all streets, walkways, and parkland
be developed in accordance with City standards.
xvi) Peterborough Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (PACAC)
PACAC recommends that:
 planning staff work closely with Parks Canada and the Applicant to ensure that the
historically rural landscape viewed from the Lift Lock and the Trent Severn
Waterway are protected;
 an easterly realignment of Ashburnham Drive be explored to provide additional

open space between the Lift Lock/canal and Ashburnham Drive; and,
 that height restrictions be required for all buildings along the west side of the
subdivision.
PACAC’s comments will be addressed through the planning for the development of the
golf course lands located adjacent to Ashburnham Drive.
xvii) Peterborough Public Health
Peterborough Public Health has recommended the following:
 that a complete streets design approach is applied to the roads in this community,
which would mean there are accommodations for all modes of travel (pedestrian,
cycling, transit, automobile);
 that pedestrian and cyclist routes be linked to the rest of the citywide network,
particularly to Hunter St. and Ashburnham Dr.;
136

Page 9 of 15
 that a cycling link to Old Norwood be provided as well as a safe crossing at Old
Norwood Road and Television Road to accommodate the existing attraction to
Harold Town Conservation Area;
 provide enhanced safety measures at the intersection of Street A/Paul Rexe

Boulevard which is currently located in the middle of a hill and has poor site lines;
 look at doing something unique with the areas close to Ashburnham Drive to blend
with the natural features of the Trent Severn Waterway and the Lift Lock such as
commercial features to attract tourists, or maintaining green space to continue the
natural features of the Trent Severn Waterway; and,
 better integrate mixed use block 55 with the rest of the community to facilitate
access to the site.
Comments related to facilitating access to the Hunter Street and Ashburnham Drive area
and planning for areas in proximity to Ashburnham Drive will be address in future
planning approvals for the golf course lands.
Within the site, the City will require a complete streets approach to street design. The
Television Road intersections noted will have safety improvements made through the
installation of traffic signals and turn lanes.
With respect to Block 55, the Applicant is required to explore opportunities for creating a
direct trail connection from site to the neighbourhood. Should such a connection be
unfeasible due to existing natural hazards and natural heritage features, a pedestrian
connection will be created along the west side of Television Road to Street A.
xviii) Peterborough Utilities Services Inc.
Peterborough Utilities Commission and Peterborough Distribution Inc. provided

comments on water and electrical servicing that are reflected in Exhibit E.
xv) Township of Otonabee-South Monaghan
The Township of Otonabee-South Monaghan (OSM) advised that the proposed

subdivision appears to be compatible with the Burnham Meadows subdivision and notes
that the mixed use block fronting Television Road is consistent with commercial and office
blocks in the Burnham Meadows subdivision. OSM supports the connection of Street A
to Paul Rexe Boulevard and notes that it supports the installation of traffic signals at that
intersection as soon as practicable to provide a safe entrance onto Television Road for
both subdivisions.
OSM recommends that any access to Television Road from Block 55 be aligned with
Safe Harbour Way in the Burnham Meadows subdivision and requests that it be
137

Page 10 of 15
circulated on any site plan for Block 55. As an adjacent municipality, OSM will be
circulated on any site plan application for Block 55.
OSM notes that there has been historic flooding in the vicinity of North Meade Creek and
the existing residential properties along the east side of Television Road, south of Old
Norwood Road. Consequently, OSM would like confirmation that these properties will be
taken into account as part of the stormwater management plan and/or Street A crossing
design. As a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to prepare the final
stormwater management report and the Street A crossing design to the Township’s
satisfaction.
OSM advised that in 2017 the developer of the Burnham Meadows subdivision installed a
watermain in the City portion Old Norwood Road to provide the subdivision with a
watermain loop. Burnham Meadows’ servicing agreement with the PUC contains a
clause requiring a financial contribution to be provided back to Burnham Meadows should
any new development in the City connect to that watermain. Any financial contribution
from the Applicant to the developer of Burnham Meadows will be determined in the
Proponent’s servicing agreement with the PUC and administered by the PUC.
Finally, OSM advised that under previous annexation agreements with the City, the City is
committed to paying the Township 10% of any development charges collected by the City
for development within the development area which was annexed from the Township in
1998. According to the original annexation order dated March 27, 1997, this
compensation arrangement expired as of January 1, 2018. Notwithstanding this, OSM
advised that it is the Township’s understanding that the compensation agreement was
extended as part of the City’s annexation of the Coldsprings settlement in 2013 and
therefore it is OSM Council’s expectation that compensation payments will continue for
this development.
As detailed in report PLPD11-066, the compensation agreement as described in the 1997

annexation order was extended to December 31, 2027 for lands within the Coldsprings
area. According to the City’s records, the extension did not include lands within the Lift
Lock area. Based on this, it is staff’s understanding that the 1997 compensation
agreement is now expired as it relates to the Lift Lock area. Staff is in active conversation
with the Township regarding the status of compensation payments for development in the
Lift Lock annexation area.
Public Responses
i) Traffic Impacts
Many residents have expressed concern with the impact that additional traffic will have on
area roadways. Specifically, they are concerned with the ability of existing Trent Severn
Waterway crossings to handle traffic, particularly in the summer time when the Maria
138

Page 11 of 15
Street and Parkhill Road bridges frequently swing for boat traffic. Additionally, residents
are concerned with the current physical state of area roads, their ability to withstand the
impact of additional traffic, and the safety of area residents.
Presently, Ashburnham Drive, Maniece Avenue, Old Norwood Road, Naish Drive,
Thornbury Drive and Trentview Road are paved rural roadways while MacFarlane
Avenue is a gravel roadway. None of these roads have sidewalks. Additionally,
Television Road is a two lane arterial roadway with gravel shoulders. The intersection of
Television Road and Parkhill Road is a four-way stop controlled intersection.
As noted in Exhibit F, a number of road improvements are required in the area including
urbanization and grade changes on Old Norwood Road, traffic signals on Television Road
at Parkhill Road, Old Norwood Road, Street A and Maniece Avenue, additional turn lanes
on Television Road and at a number of approaches to Television Road, and a
realignment of Ashburnham Drive. Some of these road improvements, like the
realignment of Ashburnham Drive and the urbanization of Old Norwood Road, will result
in the addition of sidewalks and/or trails along these roads.
Some of these projects, like the installation of signals on Television Road at Street A and
grade improvements on Old Norwood Road, will occur in conjunction with the subdivision
development while other improvements, like installing traffic signals at other intersections
along Television Road and the urbanization of Old Norwood Road, may occur concurrent
with the subdivision development but will be City-led projects. The realignment of
Ashburnham Drive will be completed as part of the future development of Phase 2.
With respect to the existing Trent Severn Waterway crossings, the City will be
undertaking an East Side Traffic Study to assess traffic patterns at a high level and a
subsequent EA(s) to implement the study recommendations. Although MacFarlane
Avenue and Maniece Avenue are currently not identified for improvement, future
improvement may be required to implement the recommendations of the area-wide
transportation review.
At the August 2, 2018 open house, many residents expressed a desire to see the City’s
long-term plan for improving the area road network finalized before approving
development and, preferably, that the required road improvements be completed before
development proceeds. In staff’s opinion, it is not feasible to implement a broad array of
road network improvements in advance of development because revenues collected from
development are needed to fund the work. As a condition of approval, the Proponent will
be required to implement specific improvements and to restrict development until other
improvements are made that are necessary to facilitate the Phase 1 development. As
part of this report, staff has recommended that funding be pre-committed in the 2019
Capital Budget to complete an East Side Transportation Review. Additional funding to
complete any subsequent EAs and road improvements will be requested in future Capital
Budgets.
139

Page 12 of 15
ii) Groundwater
Some residents have expressed concern regarding the impact that the development may
have on groundwater in the area. Specifically, some are concerned that development
may adversely impact the quality of water in their wells while other residents are
concerned that groundwater levels could fluctuate and cause basement flooding. Many
residents along Naish Drive have noted that the water table is high at their properties and
that their properties are regularly at risk of basement flooding.
The Applicant has submitted a Hydrogeologic Assessment for the proposed development
prepared by Groundwater Science Corp. dated March 2017 and an update letter dated
February 26, 2018. The report notes that the property primarily serves a groundwater
recharge function and that, post-development, it is anticipated that water infiltration could
be reduced by 36.5% on the site. To maintain local groundwater conditions, the report
recommends that LID measures be implemented on site. Provided groundwater
conditions are maintained, the proposed development should not impact groundwater
levels at nearby properties. The recommended conditions of approval require
implementation of LID.
With respect to impacts on nearby wells, the report does not identify any expected
impacts. Notwithstanding this, the City is unable to guarantee that existing wells will not
be impacted by the proposed development. Therefore, in order to provide protection of
health and safety for nearby wells users, staff has recommended that the Applicant
establish a well monitoring program to assess any potential well impacts pre-, during and
post-development.
If it can be conclusively demonstrated that the proposed development has adversely

impacted groundwater quality or quantity to the point where affected residents’ wells
become unsuitable for continued use either due to health, safety, or quantity concerns,
the City would have an obligation to ensure a safe and adequate supply of water is made
available to impacted residents in keeping with Sections 2(f) and 2(o) of the Planning Act.
At the public open housed dated August 2, 2018, one resident of Naish Drive requested
that the water table be lowered in the area to address basement flooding issues. In staff’s
opinion, permanently lowering the water table in the area is not a feasible solution and
would contradict the PPS which requires planning authorities to protect, improve or
restore the quality and quantity of water.
In 2013, the City hired AECOM to review flooding issues in the area of Naish Drive and
Old Norwood Road. AECOM noted that several homes in the area have had their
basements flood on a number of occasions, that many homes have sump pumps that
continuously run and battery backups that become overwhelmed during lengthy power
outages, and that many homes have weeping tiles and pumps that are clogged with silt.
140

Page 13 of 15
To address these problems, AECOM recommended that the City construct a local
foundation drainage system for the area. This system would outlet water to the existing
tributary of North Meade Creek located within Block 59 of the proposed development.
Upon registration of the proposed plan of subdivision, the City will acquire ownership of
Block 59. Once Block 59 is in City ownership, the City will have the ability to implement
improvements that direct additional water to Block 59 subject to ORCA approval.
iii) Stormwater management and flooding
A number of area residents have been affected by flooding events in the past and are
concerned that the proposed development will exacerbate flooding problems in the area.
The proposed plan will be required to implement stormwater management measures to
control the amount of water runoff from the site to pre-development levels for up to the
100 year storm. Accordingly, the proposed development should not aggravate existing
flood conditions.
Some nearby areas, such as the corner of Old Norwood Road and Naish Drive, and
areas along Maniece Avenue, have been subject to localized flooding in the past. The
problems at Old Norwood Road and Naish Drive are documented in the City’s Meade
Creek Detailed Flood Reduction Study (MMM Group, May 2010) along with options for
addressing the situation including replacing existing undersized culverts,
cleaning/dredging existing ditches, or possibly re-designing existing ditches.
In their 2013 review, AECOM recommended that the City reset and/or replace existing
culverts and re-grade ditches to convey runoff away from the area to North Meade Creek
located within Block 59 of the proposed development. As already noted Block 59 will
become City property upon registration of the proposed plan of subdivision. Once Block
59 is in City ownership, the City will have the ability to implement improvements that
direct additional water to Block 59 subject to ORCA approval. Preferably, this work would
be coordinated with the urbanization of Old Norwood Road that is required concurrent
with this development. Staff will request funding through future Capital Budgets to
implement the recommended ditch and culvert improvements.
Along Maniece Avenue, all properties west of approximately address No. 519 (south side
of road) and address No. 524 (north side of road) have dwellings that are either within or
adjacent to floodplain associated with North Meade Creek. The extent of the floodplain in
this area is not expected to change as a result of the proposed development.
iv) School capacity
Some residents question whether area schools have sufficient capacity to handle
students from the proposed development. The Kawartha Pine Ridge District School
Board (KPRDSB), the Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic
District School Board (PVNCCDSB) and the Conseil scolaire catholique MonAvenir have
been circulated on the proposed development throughout the review period and have not
provided comments.
141

Page 14 of 15
KPRDSB is currently planning to construct a new elementary school on the King George
site that would consolidate the existing King George and Armour Heights Public School
student populations and would serve the subject lands.
v) Compatibility with the Lift Lock and Trent Severn Waterway
Similar to agency comments received, many residents wish to preserve the cultural
heritage qualities of the Lift Lock and its surroundings. Detailed planning for integrating
development with the Lift Lock area will be undertaken as part of the planning review and
approval of Phase 2.
vi) Fostering alternative modes of travel
Some area residents have expressed a desire to see alternative modes of travel such as
walking, cycling and transit promoted in this development. In particular, there is a strong
desire to foster connections to Ashburnham Drive, Hunter Street and the Lift Lock. Staff
supports these principles and will work to ensure that such connections are facilitated in
the planning of Phase 2. With the possible realignment of Ashburnham Drive east into
the golf course lands, potential exists to create new, safe, accessible pedestrian facilities
along the east side of the Trent Severn Waterway through the area.
Within Phase 1, all streets will have sidewalks on both sides and collector Streets A and
C will also have on-street cycling facilities. Both Streets A and C will be capable of
accommodating transit service however the routing and timing of providing transit through
the neighbourhood will be determined at a later date once the area road network is
capable of accommodating transit and the demand for transit is in place.
vii) Preservation of Lift Lock Golf Club
Some residents have requested that the Lift Lock Golf Club be preserved as a valued
recreation amenity/attraction for the area. Presently, the golf course is not included in
Phase 1 of the development and is instead to be considered as part of Phase 2. It is
anticipated that the golf course will remain open for as long as possible while Phase 2 is
under review.
As noted in Exhibit F, the southern portion of the golf course which contains a driving
range and a 9 hole par three course is located within floodplain. Accordingly, urban
development will not be permitted on those lands. It is anticipated, therefore that the
southern portion of the golf course will remain open for the long term, possibly in a
reconfigured format.
viii) Servicing of unserviced areas
There are currently no sanitary sewers in the Lift Lock area while municipal water is
available on Naish Drive, Trentview Road, and portions of MacFarlane Avenue, Old
Norwood Road and Maniece Avenue. Area residents have expressed concern that they
142

Page 15 of 15
pay City taxes but do not have access to City services. Some residents have requested
that the City consider extending services to unserviced properties or that the City
consider requiring the Proponent to extend services to unserviced properties.
Generally, development Proponents are responsible for servicing the development site
and are not obligated to service adjacent lands. For the subject development, the
Proponent will be required to extend services into their lands and to make adequate
provision in their design to accommodate future service expansion to adjacent areas. As
part of extending services to their site, the Proponent is proposing to install a trunk
sanitary sewer and a watermain along the west half of Maniece Avenue. Property owners
wishing to connect to those services may be permitted to do so at their own cost subject
to approval from the appropriate utility (i.e. the City for sanitary service and the
Peterborough Utilities Commission for water).
In 2012, staff presented an option to Council to begin a process for extending services to
unserviced annexed lands (USEC12-004, May 28, 2012). At the time, it was estimated
that each property owner in the Lift Lock area would be required to pay, on average,
$72,800.00 to have services extended into the area.
On June 4, 2012 Council received staff’s report and requested staff to report on
establishing an ad hoc committee, comprised of staff and Councillors, whose purpose
would be to consult with affected residents and to review and report on alternate servicing
mechanisms. To date, no further decisions have been made on servicing unserviced
areas.
ix) Parking and safety within new development
At the public open house in 2017 concern was raised with the amount of parking available
in new subdivisions and, in particular, safety concerns with on-street parking in new
subdivisions. All single detached dwelling and street-fronting townhomes in the
subdivision will be provided with a minimum of 2 parking spaces in accordance with the
Zoning By-law. These regulations have been in effect for new suburban subdivisions in
the city since 1994.
With respect to on-street parking, the City maintains and enforces By-law 09-136, as
amended, which regulates on-street parking. Through the detailed design of the
subdivision, staff will review the on-street parking capabilities of the plan and may restrict
on-street parking as deemed necessary.
143
From: Patricia Lester


Purchasing Policy By-law Update
Purpose
A report to recommend that an updated Purchasing Policy By-Law be passed and to
provide a summary of bid solicitations awarded under By-Law 14-127.
Recommendations
That Council approve the recommendations outlined in Report CLSFS18-037 dated
follows:
a) That the Purchasing Policy By-Law 14-127 be repealed effective November 1,

2018.
b) That the new Purchasing Policy By-law appended to Report CLSFS18-037 as

Appendix B be approved and take effect November 1, 2018; and
c) That the summary of Bids awarded under By-law 14-127 be received for
information.

There are no budget and financial implications stemming from the recommendations.
144
Report CLSFS18-037 Purchasing By-law Update Page 2
Background
The City’s Purchasing Policy By-law 14-127 was passed by Council on September 30,
2014 based on recommendations outlined in Report CPFS14-028 dated September 22,
2014. Section 18.1 of the current By-law 14-127, requires that the Treasurer review and
report to Council, prior to the end of its term, with any recommended amendments.
For this review, a more fulsome examination has taken place as a result of the
Procurement Compliance Review project approved by Council through Report CPFS18-
008 dated February 5, 2018 and as such, included the engagement of external legal
counsel who specializes in procurement issues for municipalities.
The changes are reflected in the new Purchasing Policy By-Law appended to this report
as Appendix B.
The fundamental purchasing principles remain unchanged:
• Council retains ultimate control over all procurement through the annual budget
approval process and by establishing its Purchasing Policy through the By-law.
• The Chief Administrative Officer and the Treasurer are charged with the
responsibility of ensuring Council’s Purchasing Policy is followed.
• Procurement remains an open, fair, accessible and accountable process.
• Employees cannot have a pecuniary interest either directly or indirectly in any
evaluation.
• All employees who are authorized to carry our procurement shall adhere to a
Purchasing Code of Ethics as set out in Part 4.2 of the proposed by-law.
There are numerous amendments being proposed. The following highlights those that
are considered significant in nature:
1) Separating policy from procedure: The Purchasing By-law has historically

contained a combination of both policy and procedural statements. With the
assistance of legal counsel, the new proposed By-law removes the procedural
elements into a separate document, leaving a By-law that is policy in nature and
more in alignment with what Council would typically approve.
2) Compliance with Trade Agreements: The new By-law is compliant with both
the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA – a free trade
agreement between Canada, the European Union and its member states) and
the Canadian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA – the intergovernmental trade
agreement signed by Canadian Ministers).
3) Restructured – the By-law has been reorganized with certain clauses and
sections being moved for greater clarification. For example, the Purchasing Code
of Ethics Section 12.2 in By-law 14-127 has been moved to Part 4 of the new By-
law and is included along with other general Purchasing Principles. A second
145
example is Accessibility, previously included in Purchasing Principles has now

been moved to Part 12 Specifications.
4) Definitions – the definitions have been simplified and pared down to include only
those terms used in the By-law that require defining in accordance with principles
of statutory interpretation.
5) Roles and Responsibilities - Part 6 – now contains a new Section 6.3 on the
Separation of Roles and the Role of Council.
6) Standard Procurement Methods – the current By-law 14-127 refers to specific

types of bid documents such as Request for Tenders and Request for Proposals
(Part 6). The types of bid documents/templates are now being addressed through
the procedural documents. The new By-law (Part 10) gives guidance on
conducting an Invitational Competition, Open Competition, Open Framework
Competition (to establish Qualified Supplier Roster) and a Roster Competition.
The new approach provides more flexibility for staff to select the relevant bid
template that is applicable in each procurement situation.
7) Procurement Approval and Contracting Authority – the new By-law proposes

to increase the limits of Approval Authority as per Appendix A. The existing limits
had remained unchanged throughout both the two previous iterations of the By-
law: 10-132 and 14-127.
As per Section 7.4, Council approval is proposed to be required in any of the

following circumstances:
a) The City’s Schedule of Approval Authority indicates Council is the

approval authority.
b) Any of the applicable conditions of delegated authority are not met.
c) A senior government (i.e. Provincial, Federal) requires Council to approve

the procurement.
d) The procurement value cannot be accommodated within an Approved

Budget and therefore requires a budget transfer or a pre-commitment
against a future years’ budget.
e) The Chief Administrative Officer or Treasurer deems it in the City’s best

interest that Council approve the procurement.
f) Council has specifically directed that Council approve the procurement.
8) Circumstances under which a Bid Solicitation Process is Not Required – a

revised version of the Non- Standard Procurement is now in Part 11 of the new
By-law. The content has been updated to reflect the Trade Agreements.
146
9) Authority to Transfer Budgets – the delegated authority to approve budget

transfers has remained unchanged (Part 9) with the Chief Administrative Officer
or the Treasurer authorized to transfer approved budgets, including any
uncommitted General Contingency, or Capital Levy Reserve up to $50,000. The
transfers will continue to be reported to Council in the next Quarterly Financial
Update Report.
10) Housekeeping – numerous changes have been made that are of a

housekeeping nature. Examples would include updated references from
“Directors” to “Commissioners” and other minor wording changes.
Related Topics:
The work of the Procurement Office (external legal Counsel) is anticipated to provide
exceptional value to the City’s procurement function helping to ensure that procurement
risk is mitigated, that the policies and protocols being used are robust and reflect best
practice and generally speaking, ensure that the City’s procurement interests are
protected.
Along with the proposed By-law, the following documents are in the final stages of
completion or in the process of being developed:
• Procurement Procedure, including the following protocols
o Procurement Planning Protocol
o Format Selection Protocol
o Document Drafting Protocol
o Negotiation Protocol
o Bidder debriefing Protocol
o Procurement Protest Protocol
o Supplier Suspension Protocol
o Contract Management Protocol
o Supplier Performance Evaluation Protocol
• Various Bid Templates – Eg. Request for Quotation, Request for Tenders, No-
Negotiation Request for Proposal (RFP), Consecutive Negotiation RFP
• Standard Term Contracts
• Revised Terms for a Standard Purchase Order
Bids Awarded under By-law 14-127
Also, as part of this review, staff have prepared a summary as set out in Appendix C, of
all Bid Solicitations awarded under By-law 14-127. Approximately 286 Bid Solicitations
have been awarded under this by-law. The analysis revealed that of the 286 Bid
Solicitations, 20 required an increase in budget, signifying that 93% of the work resulting
from Bid Solicitation is completed within budget.
147
Summary
As required in the City Purchasing Policy By-Law 14-127, staff have reviewed the
Purchasing Policy and recommend an updated Purchasing Policy be adopted.
Submitted by, Prepared by,
Patricia Lester, Commissioner Richard Freymond

Corporate and Legislative Services Manager of Financial Services
Contact Name:
Richard Freymond
Manager of Financial Services
Toll Free: 1-855-738-3755
Fax: 705-876-4607
Attachments
Appendix A
Summary of the Approval Authority in the proposed Purchasing Policy By-law
Appendix B
New Purchasing Policy By-law
Appendix C
Summary of Bid Solicitations awarded under By-law 14-127
148
Appendix A
Standard Procurement
14-127 Proposed
Procurement
Method1 Procurement Approval Procurement Approval
Value Authority Value2 Authority 3,4
Low Value At or below Manager or other At or below Manager or

Purchase Process $10,000 “delegated” staff $10,000 other
as specifically “delegated” staff
designated by the as specifically
Director and designated by
approved by the the
Director of Commissioner
Corporate and approved
Services in writing by the Treasurer
in writing
Informal Quote $10,000 - Director At or below Designate as

Process $25,000 $25,000 approved by
Commissioner
and Treasurer
At or below Commissioner
$50,000
Invitational $25,000 - Chief Below $100,000 Chief

Competition or $50,000 Administrative Administrative
Open Competition Officer Officer
Open $50,000 - Administrative Any value Administrative

Competition, $100,000 Staff Committee Staff Committee
including Pre-
Qualification
RFT $100,000 – No Administrative Any value Administrative

Limit Staff Committee Staff Committee
RFP $100,000 – No Council Any value Administrative

Limit Staff Committee
Open Framework No value Administrative No value Administrative

Competition to associated Staff Committee associated Staff Committee
establish Qualified
Supplier Roster
Roster $10,000 - Director At or below Designate as

Competition for $25,000 $25,000 approved by
Deliverables from Commissioner
existing Qualified and Treasurer
Supplier Roster
At or below Commissioner
$50,000
$25,000 - Chief Below $100,000 Chief

$50,000 Administrative Administrative
Officer Officer
$50,000 - Administrative At or above Administrative

$100,000 Staff Committee $100,000 Staff Committee
149
Appendix A
Non-Standard Procurement
Procurement 14-127 Proposed

Method
Procurement Approval Procurement Approval
Value Authority Value1 Authority 3,4
Non-Competitive At or below Manager At or below Designate as

or Limited $10,000 $25,000 approved by
Competition under Commissioner
the circumstances $10,000 - Director and Treasurer
permitted in the $25,000
Non-Standard
Procurement $25,000 - Chief At or below Commissioner
Protocol and $50,000 Administrative $50,000
approved by the Officer
Treasurer
$50,000 - Administrative Below $100,000 Chief
$100,000 Staff Committee Administrative
Officer
$100,000 – No Council At or above Council

Limit $100,000
150
Appendix A
Contract Amendment
• Council approval is required in all cases where the Total Cumulative Increase5 is
both more than $100,000 and more than 10% of the original contract value.
If the Total Cumulative Increase5 is either less than $100,000 or less than 10% of the original
contract value, Approval Authority is determined as follows:
14-127 Proposed
Total Value of Approval Total Cumulative Approval Authority 3,4

Original Plus Authority Increase5 + Original
Proposed Contract Value
At or below Director At or below $50,000 Commissioner

$25,000
At or below Chief
$50,000 Administrative
Officer
At or below Administrative Below $100,000 Chief Administrative Officer

$100,000 Staff Committee
Below $10,000 Chief

to No limit Administrative
Officer
Below 10% or Administrative At or above $100,000 Administrative Staff Committee

$100,000 Staff Committee
At or above 10% Council

or $100,000
Cannot be Council
accommodated
within Approved
Budget
CAO or Director Council

of Corporate
Services
determines
Council should
approve
amendment
Notes:
1. The procurement process must be conducted in accordance with this By-law and all
applicable procedures and protocols.
2. The authority to initiate a procurement process is based on the estimated procurement

value. The authority to approve a contract award is based on the actual procurement
value. Procurement Value includes the value of any Contract Renewal Options.
3. All Approval Authorities are subject to all applicable conditions set out in Part 7 of this
By-law, including the requirement that the Contract Value can be accommodated within
the Approved Budget. Contract Value is the value of the initial term of the Contract and
does not include the value of any Contract Renewal Options.
4. The authority to approve the procurement or the contract amendment does not include
the authority to sign the Agreement or the amending agreement and/or to issue the
Purchase Order to the supplier, as applicable. The authority to sign Agreements and/or
issue Purchase Orders on behalf of the City is set out in Section 7.4 of this By-law.
5. Total Cumulative Increase is the total value of all increases to the original contract value,
including the value of any previously approved increases and the value of the proposed
increase that is to be approved.
151
Appendix B
By-Law Number [#]
Being a By-law governing Procurement Policies
Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the City of Peterborough deems it desirable
to provide for fair, transparent and accountable procurement policies;
And Whereas Section 271 of The Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, states that a
municipality and a local board shall adopt policies with respect to its procurement of
goods and services;
And Whereas the City is updating its procurement policies and procedures to
ensure alignment with current legal standards and trade treaty obligations;
Now Therefore, The Corporation of the City of Peterborough by the Council thereof
hereby enacts as follows:
152
City of Peterborough DRAFT REVISED PROCUREMENT BY-LAW Page 2
Table of Contents
Part 1: Purposes, Goals and Objectives ............................................................................... 4
1.1 Purposes, Goals and Objectives of By-law ............................................................. 4
Part 2: Definitions ..................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Definitions .................................................................................................................... 5
Part 3: Application and Scope of By-law .............................................................................. 8
3.1 Application ................................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Exempt Expenditures ................................................................................................. 8
3.3 Total Costs Considered ............................................................................................. 8
3.4 Before Tax Amounts ................................................................................................... 8
3.5 Co-operative Purchasing ........................................................................................... 8
Part 4: Purchasing Principles ................................................................................................ 9
4.1 General Principles ...................................................................................................... 9
4.2 Purchasing Code of Ethics ........................................................................................ 9
4.3 Supplier Conduct and Conflicts of Interest........................................................... 10
Part 5: Prohibitions ................................................................................................................ 11
5.1 Prohibited Actions .................................................................................................... 11
Part 6: Roles and Responsibilities ....................................................................................... 12
6.1 De-centralized Purchasing ...................................................................................... 12
6.2 General Responsibilities.......................................................................................... 12
6.3 Separation of Roles and the Role of Council ........................................................ 12
6.4 Responsibility of the Administrative Staff Committee ........................................ 12
6.5 Responsibilities of Commissioners ....................................................................... 12
6.6 Responsibilities of the Treasurer ........................................................................... 13
Part 7: Procurement Approval and Contracting Authorities ............................................ 15
7.1 Procurement Approval Authority ........................................................................... 15
7.2 Conditions of Approval Authorities ....................................................................... 15
7.3 All Bids Exceed Approved Budget ......................................................................... 15
7.4 Council Approval ...................................................................................................... 15
7.5 Contracting Authority............................................................................................... 16
7.6 Conditions of Contracting Authority ...................................................................... 16
7.7 Exercise of Contract Renewal Options .................................................................. 16
Part 8: Authority for Emergency Procurement................................................................... 17
8.1 Authorized Actions Related to an Emergency...................................................... 17
Part 9: Authority to Transfer Approved Budgets or Commit Future Years’ Budget ..... 18
9.1 Delegated Authority to Approve Budget Transfers ............................................. 18
9.2 When Council Must Approve Budget Transfers or Creation .............................. 18
Part 10: Standard Procurement Methods............................................................................ 19
10.1 Low Value Procurement – (Up to $10,000) ......................................................... 19
10.2 Informal Quote Process – ($10,000 to $50,000) ................................................. 19
10.3 Invitational Competition (Over $50,000 and less than $100,000) .................... 19
10.4 Open Competition ($100,000 or more)................................................................ 20
10.5 Open Framework Competition (to establish Qualified Supplier Roster) ....... 21
153
10.6 Roster Competition ............................................................................................... 21

Part 11: Non-Standard Procurement ................................................................................... 22
11.1 Non-Standard Procurement Methods ................................................................. 22
11.2 Approval of Non-Standard Procurement............................................................ 22
11.3 Circumstances for Non-Standard Procurement................................................ 22
Part 12: Specifications ........................................................................................................... 24
12.1 Commissioner Responsible for Preparing Specifications and Scope ........... 24
12.2 Specifications Not to be Brand Specific ............................................................ 24
12.3 Seeking Information from Suppliers ................................................................... 24
12.4 Supplier Who Assists in Developing Specifications ........................................ 24
12.5 Accessibility ........................................................................................................... 25
12.6 Sustainable Procurement ..................................................................................... 25
Part 13: In-House Bids ........................................................................................................... 26
13.1 Circumstances for In-House Bids ....................................................................... 26
13.2 Solicitation of In-House Bids ............................................................................... 26
13.3 Authorization for In-House Bids .......................................................................... 26
Part 14: Supplier Relations ................................................................................................... 27
14.1 Debriefings ............................................................................................................. 27
14.2 Procurement Protests ........................................................................................... 27
14.3 Contract Management........................................................................................... 27
14.4 Supplier Suspension............................................................................................. 27
14.5 Rejection of Bid when City/Bidder Relationship Impaired .............................. 27
14.6 Document Retention ............................................................................................. 28
14.7 Confidentiality and Access to Information ........................................................ 28
Part 15: Disposal of Surplus and Obsolete Goods ............................................................ 29
15.1 Authority for Disposal of Surplus and Obsolete Goods .................................. 29
15.2 Means of Disposal of Surplus and Obsolete Goods: ....................................... 29
Part 16: Review of By-law...................................................................................................... 30
16.1 Review to be Undertaken Prior to the End of Each Council Term .................. 30
16.2 Factors to be Considered During Review .......................................................... 30
16.3 By-Law Repealed ................................................................................................... 30
16.4 Effective Date ......................................................................................................... 30
16.5 Short Title ............................................................................................................... 30
Appendix A – Schedule of Approval Authority .................................................................. 31
Appendix B – Exempt Expenditures .................................................................................... 33
B.1 List of Exempt Expenditures ................................................................................... 33
B.2 Payment of Exempt Expenditures .......................................................................... 35
B.3 Approval Authority for Exempt Expenditures ...................................................... 35
Appendix C – Supplier Code of Conduct ............................................................................ 36
C.1 Illegal or Unethical Bidding Practices.................................................................... 36
C.2 Conflicts of Interest ............................................................................................... 36
C.3 Ethical Business Practices ...................................................................................... 37
154
Part 1: Purposes, Goals and Objectives

1.1 Purposes, Goals and Objectives of By-law
The purposes, goals and objectives of this By-law are to:
a. Ensure openness, accountability and transparency while protecting the financial

best interests of the City of Peterborough;
b. Maximize savings for taxpayers;
c. Ensure service and product delivery, quality, efficiency and effectiveness;
d. Encourage competitive bidding for the acquisition and disposal of Deliverables

where practicable;
e. Ensure fairness among Bidders;
f. Encourage the procurement of Deliverables with due regard to the preservation

of the natural environment;
g. Provide City staff, which have purchasing responsibilities, clear direction on the
policy principles, goals and objectives to be met through the City’s purchasing
activities; and
h. Authorize the City's Treasurer to develop detailed procurement procedures and

protocols that are consistent with this By-law and, to supplement, amend and
implement those procedures and protocols, as and when approved by the
Administrative Staff Committee, to uphold the procurement principles, goals and
objectives set out in this By-law.
155
Part 2: Definitions
2.1 Definitions
Administrative Staff Committee means a committee comprised of the Chief Administrative

Officer, Commissioners of the City Departments, and other staff the Chief Administrative
Office deems appropriate, which has Approval Authority as set out in this By-law.
Agreement means a binding Contract between the City and one or more other parties,
which has been duly authorized and executed in accordance with this By-law.
Approval Authority means the authorization to proceed with procurement.
Approved Budget means a budget approved by Council in a budget document and/or

by specific Council resolution to acquire a Deliverable, including pre-commitments and
any subsequent change to the budget approved either by Council or by delegated
authority as set out in this By-law, including expenditures to be approved in future
budgets assuming the same level of service as that of the current year.
Bid means a submission in response to a Bid Solicitation, and includes proposals,

quotations, or responses.
Bidder means a Supplier that submits a Bid.
Bid Solicitation means the document issued by the City to solicit Bids from Bidders.
Broader Public Sector means organizations that receive government funding, but are
not part of the government itself, examples include school boards and publicly-funded
academic, health and social service entities.
Chief Administrative Officer means the most senior staff position in the administrative
structure and includes other employees that may be designated to act in this capacity.
City means The Corporation of the City of Peterborough.
Clerk means the City Clerk, or Deputy Clerk as appointed by City Council.
Commissioner means the head of a Department within the Corporation of the City of
Peterborough, or Designate.
Company means a corporation, sole proprietorship or partnership.
Competitive Process means the solicitation of Bids from multiple Suppliers.
Contract means a commitment by the City for the procurement of Deliverables from a
Supplier, which may be evidenced by an Agreement executed by the Supplier and the City,
and/or a Purchase Order issued by the City to the Supplier.
Contract Amendment means a change to an existing Contract, including any extension,

renewal or increase in the scope of the Contract that was not provided for in the original
Contract.
Contract Renewal Options means options that are included in an existing Contract to
permit the City to extend the initial term of the Contract and/or to purchase additional
Deliverables under the Contract. Exercising Contract Renewal Options does not constitute a
Contract Amendment.
Contract Value means the value of the initial term of the Contract, exclusive of sales taxes,
and does not include the value of any Contract Renewal Options.
Cooperative Purchasing means coordinating City purchases with purchases from other
government entities, Broader Public Sector entities or organizations dedicated to
156
sourcing and/or providing municipal Deliverables and taking advantage of Public Sector
Pricing available through the Federal or Provincial Government.
Council means the City of Peterborough’s duly elected municipal council.
Deliverables means any goods, services or construction, or combination thereof.
Designate means the authorized designate of a person identified in this By-law who
has specific approval or signing authority. Authorization to become a designate is
effective only when made in writing by the person delegating the authority and must be
approved by the Treasurer or the Chief Administrative Officer.
Disposal means an act through which the City gives up title to real or personal
property, and includes a sale, a gift, or discarding an item.
Emergency means a situation, or the threat of an impending situation, which may affect
the environment, the life, safety, health, welfare and/or property of the general public,
and which requires actions to be taken to prevent serious damage, disruption of work, or
to restore or maintain essential service to a minimum level. It includes, but is not limited
to, a situation where, under the Emergency Management Act, as amended, and the
City’s Emergency Plan By-law 15-119, the Mayor has declared that a State of
Emergency exists in the City or in any part thereof, and may take such action and make
such orders as he or she considers necessary and are not contrary to law to implement
the emergency plan of the municipality and to protect property and the health, safety and
welfare of the inhabitants of the emergency area.
Immediate Family means the spouse, common-law spouse, children, parents and
brothers and sisters of an employee.
Indebted means owing the City money. Examples include but are not limited to
unpaid overdue taxes, unpaid overdue fines, outstanding claims, judgments,
executions, arrears of rent and interest and penalty thereon.
In-House Bidding means a process whereby a division or department competes

with external entities for procurement opportunities in a Competitive Process.
Invitational Competition means a Competitive Process in which an invitation to submit

Bids is issued to at least three Suppliers.
Manager means the Manager of a division within the City of Peterborough.
Mayor means the duly elected Mayor of the City of Peterborough or the person(s)
appointed by Council to act in the Mayor’s stead.
Master Framework Agreement means a master agreement entered into between the City
and the prequalified Suppliers that have been included on a Qualified Supplier Roster.
Municipal Councillor means the individual elected as a Councillor or Mayor for the
City.
Non-Standard Procurement means the acquisition of Deliverables through a process or

method other than the process or method normally required for the type and value of the
Deliverables. Non-standard procurement processes include:
a. A Non-Competitive Procurement, where the Deliverables are acquired directly from

a particular Supplier without conducting a Competitive Process when an Invitational
Competition or an Open Competition would normally be required; or
b. A Limited Competition, where Bids are solicited from a limited number of Suppliers
when an Open Competition would normally be required.
Open Competition means a Competitive Process in which Bids are solicited through a
publicly advertised Bid Solicitation.
157
Open Framework Competition means a Competitive Process used to establish a Qualified

Supplier Roster.
Procurement means the acquisition of Deliverables by purchase, rental or lease.
Procurement Value means the maximum total value of the procurement over the entire
duration of the Contract, including the value of any Contract Renewal Options,
and must include all costs to the City for all Deliverables, including, if applicable, acquisition,
delivery, installation, training, operation, maintenance, replacement and disposal, less
applicable rebates or discounts and exclusive of sales taxes.
Public Body means a government entity, a Broader Public Sector entity, or a corporation or
entity owned or controlled by a government entity or Broader Public Sector entity.
Purchase Order means the City’s written document issued by a duly authorized employee
of the City to a Supplier for the purchase and supply of the Deliverables identified on the
face of the Purchase Order.
Purchase Requisition means an internal written or online request for procuring

Deliverables.
Purchasing Card means a procurement card provided by the City for use as a payment
method to purchase directly from Suppliers where permitted under the By-law and in
accordance with any cardholder agreement and applicable procedures.
Purchasing Administrator means the staff person responsible for the Purchasing Section.
Purchasing Card Administrator means the Treasurer, or Designate, responsible

for the administration of the Purchasing Card program.
Purchasing Section means the administrative unit within the City’s Financial
Services Division that is responsible for administering the City’s purchasing policies,
including the Treasurer and other delegated staff.
Qualified Supplier Roster means a list of Suppliers that have participated in and
successfully pre-qualified to perform discrete work assignments involving the delivery of a
particular type of Deliverable.
Roster Competition means an expedited Competitive Process between Suppliers that have
been included on a Qualified Supplier Roster for the selection of a Supplier to perform a
discrete work assignment.
Sub-contractor means a person or company engaged by the principal or general

contractor to provide or perform a portion of the Deliverables under a Contract between
the City and the principal or general contractor.
Supplier means a person or Company carrying on the business of providing Deliverables.
Treasurer means the person charged with the responsibility of directing the financial
affairs of the Corporation as set out in the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, or
Designate.
158
Part 3: Application and Scope of By-law

3.1 Application
This By-law applies to the procurement of all Deliverables. Procurement includes the
acquisition of Deliverables by purchase, rental or lease.
This By-law does not apply to:
a. Contracts or agreements relating to hiring employees or employee

compensation or reimbursement of employee expenses; or
b. Contracts or agreements for the sale, purchase, lease or license of land or

existing buildings.
3.2 Exempt Expenditures
The expenditures set out in Appendix B of this By-law are exempt from the
requirements set out in Parts 7 through 14 of this By-law.
Such expenditures may be approved and paid in accordance with the

requirements set out in Appendix B of this By-law.
The Treasurer is authorized to add similar expenditures to the list of exempt

expenditures in Appendix B.
3.3 Total Costs Considered
The City will consider all costs, including, but not limited to, acquisition, operating,
training, maintenance, quality, warranty, payment terms, disposal value and
disposal costs in evaluating Bids. Where costs are submitted for more than one
year, the net present value of the annual costs will be used to evaluate the costs.
3.4 Before Tax Amounts
Procurement values and authority levels stated in this By-law do not include
any applicable sales taxes.
3.5 Co-operative Purchasing
3.5.1 Where the best interests of the City will be served, the City may participate in Co-
operative Purchasing with the written prior approval of the Treasurer.
3.5.2 If the City participates in cooperative purchasing initiatives, the City may adhere to
the policies and procedures of the entity conducting the purchasing process,
provided that the Treasurer is satisfied that such policies and procedures comply
with the purchasing principles set out in Part 4. If the City is leading a cooperative
purchasing initiative, this By-law and all applicable City procedures and protocols
will be followed.
3.5.3 Each entity participating in a cooperative purchase will obtain appropriate approval,
prepare and execute an Agreement, where required, order, receive, inspect and pay
for the Deliverables it uses.
3.5.4 Approval authorities for cooperative purchases will be the same as the approval
authorities for Standard Procurement, as set out in Appendix A of this By- law.
159
Part 4: Purchasing Principles
4.1 General Principles
In order to ensure that integrity is maintained in the procurement process, and to

protect the interests of the City, the public and persons participating in a
procurement process, the following general principles shall be adhered to for any
procurement:
a. Open Process
Requirements are clearly communicated to Bidders. The method of evaluating the

Bid and the evaluation criteria used to evaluate the Bid, and the method and format
of submitting Bids, are clearly addressed in the Bid Solicitation document.
b. Fairness
Standard documents such as Bid Solicitation templates and standard term

contracts, are used, to ensure consistency of content and format within documents
issued by the City. All details regarding the procurement process are clearly
specified in the Bid Solicitation, and the rules of bid acceptance are applied
consistently. All Bidders and all Bids are treated equally and without bias or
favouritism.
c. Accessibility
Specifications and terms of reference, whenever possible, are not restrictive and
allow for open competition from the marketplace. Where possible, Bid Solicitations
are advertised on the City’s website or through online portals that aid in connecting
Suppliers with the City and where practical, the documents are available for down
loading. At the discretion of the Treasurer, the competitive bidding opportunity may
also be advertised in local newspapers, and national newspaper where deemed
appropriate, to promote competition.
d. Accountability
All Bids are kept secure prior to the closing date, during the evaluation period, and
following the award of the Contract. All proprietary information and Bids submitted in
confidence are handled in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information
and Protection of Privacy Act, as amended (“MFIPPA”) or applicable legislation.
Where practicable, Requests for Proposals are evaluated by representatives from
more than one Division or Department to allow for various perception and opinions
when reviewing and evaluating proposals prior to the award of the Contract. All Bids
rating results and related supporting documentation are kept on file in accordance
with the City’s Records Retention By-law for future reference, audit or examinations.
Procurement procedures are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure the procedures
are clear, logical, current, and in accordance with accepted industry standards.
e. Employee Conflict of Interest
Employees of the City shall not have a pecuniary interest, either directly or
indirectly, in any Bid or Contract with the City or with any person acting for the City
in any Contract for the supply of Deliverables for which the City pays or is liable,
directly or indirectly to pay unless such interest has been declared. Employees of
the City are required to declare any pecuniary interest, either direct or indirect, in
writing, to their Department Commissioner with a copy to the Treasurer indicating
the specific nature of the conflict. Any conflict of interest that cannot be isolated and
resolved will be reported to the Chief Administrative Officer.
4.2 Purchasing Code of Ethics
In addition to the above general principles, all employees who are authorized to
carry out procurement on behalf of the City shall adhere to the following Code of
Ethics:
160
a. Open and honest dealings with everyone involved in the purchasing

process. This includes all businesses with which the City contracts or
from which it purchases Deliverables, as well as all members of staff and
of the public who utilize the services of the Purchasing Section;
b. Fair and impartial award recommendations for all Competitive Processes.

City staff may not extend preferential treatment to any Supplier, including
local Suppliers; and
c. An irreproachable standard of personal integrity. No gifts or favours may

be accepted as set out in Section 5.1(c). No public endorsement of any
potential Supplier may be made, in order to give that Supplier an
advantage over others.
4.3 Supplier Conduct and Conflicts of Interest
The City requires its Suppliers to act with integrity and conduct business in an
ethical manner. All Suppliers participating in a procurement process or providing
Deliverables to the City must declare any perceived, possible or actual conflicts of
interest and must conduct themselves in accordance with the Supplier Code of
Conduct in Appendix C of this By-law. The City may refuse to do business with any
Supplier that has engaged in illegal or unethical bidding practices, has an actual or
potential conflict of interest or an unfair advantage or fails to adhere to ethical
business practices.
161
Part 5: Prohibitions
5.1 Prohibited Actions
The following actions are prohibited:
a. Subdividing, splitting, separating or otherwise structuring procurement

requirements or Contracts in any way that could circumvent the requirements
or intent of this By-law;
b. Procurement by the City of any Deliverables for personal use by or on

behalf of any member of Council, appointed officer, employee of the City
or their immediate families, unless specifically approved by Council;
c. Acceptance of any gift, benefit, money, favour, hospitality or other

assistance from any Supplier or potential Supplier;
d. Negotiating with a Supplier, or accepting an offer from a Supplier, to purchase

Deliverables for personal use at the same price that is being offered by the
Supplier to the City;
e. Asking a Supplier to alter the invoice date or shipping date from what would
otherwise be shown to accommodate City accounting needs;
f. Other than the employee or other designated individual who is the official
contact person identified in the Bid Solicitation document, discussing any
aspect of the Bid Solicitation with a prospective Supplier from the time the
Bid Solicitation document is first issued until such time as an award report
has been prepared and submitted to the appropriate Approval Authority;
g. Accepting a Bid from a City employee, or the employee’s immediate family,

if any of the following are true:
i. The employee is at or above the level of Commissioner;
ii. The employee was involved in the development of the need for the
work;
iii. The employee will be on the Evaluation Committee; or
iv. If the employee is the successful Bidder, they will be in a conflict

with the City’s Code of Conduct, with the Collective Agreement
provisions for their position or any other terms and conditions of
their employment with the City; and
h. Accepting a Bid from a City of Peterborough Municipal Councillor.

162
Part 6: Roles and Responsibilities

6.1 De-centralized Purchasing
The City uses a de-centralized approach in its purchasing operations whereby

Purchasing Section staff, under the direction of the Treasurer provide oversight to
the procurement process, but with the exception of goods purchased and
distributed through Central Stores, City departments are delegated the authority to
procure Deliverables below a specified dollar threshold through informal
procurement methods in accordance with this By-law.
6.2 General Responsibilities
Procurement shall be subject to all applicable City policies and By-laws, any
specific provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, all other
relevant Federal and Provincial legislation and applicable trade treaties.
6.3 Separation of Roles and the Role of Council
6.3.1 In accordance with best practices in municipal procurement, Council recognizes the
need for a clear separation of political and administrative functions in relation to the
City’s procurement operations. It is the role of Council to establish policy and to
approve expenditures through the City’s budget approval process. Through this By-
law, Council delegates to the City’s officers and employees the authority to incur
expenditures in accordance with Approved Budgets through the procurement of
Deliverables in accordance with the rules and processes set out in this By-law.
6.3.2 To facilitate Council’s oversight role in respect of significant projects, Council may
require Commissioners to obtain Council’s authority to initiate specific procurements
by identifying projects of interest, such as those that are of a high value or involve
significant risk, security concerns or significant community interest.
6.3.3 To avoid the potential appearance of bias or political influence in procurement

decisions, members of Council will not be involved in Competitive Processes from the
time the Competitive Process has been initiated through the advertisement or
issuance of the Bid Solicitation, through the review and evaluation process, until a
Contract has been entered into with the successful Bidder, except where Council is
required to approve the award of the Contract in accordance with Section 7.4 of this
By-law.
6.4 Responsibility of the Administrative Staff Committee
The Administrative Staff Committee shall have the following responsibilities:
a. Approve procurement procedures and protocols;
b. Approve procurements in accordance with the Approval Authority delegated to

it under this By-law;
c. Make determinations under the City’s Procurement Protest Protocol and

Supplier Suspension Protocol; and
d. Consider and provide input on other procurement matters that may be referred
to it by the Treasurer.
6.5 Responsibilities of Commissioners
Commissioners shall have the following responsibilities relating to the

procurement policies:
a. Ensure procurement is carried out in accordance with this By-law and all
applicable procedures and protocols;
b. Determine appropriate delegated signing authority of staff in their

departments as authorized by this By-law;
163
c. Ensure sufficient Approved Budget exists for planned purchases before a

procurement process commences;
d. Prepare, in consultation with the Purchasing Section, specifications

and scope of work to be included in all Bid Solicitations;
e. Ensure that all Bid Solicitation documents originating from their

departments have been prepared in conjunction with, reviewed by, issued
by and administered by the Purchasing Section;
f. Prepare award reports, where required, in accordance with formats

satisfactory in content to the Treasurer; and
g. Ensure that after award, and prior to the commencement of the work, all
mandatory documentation has been obtained, including but not limited to
a signed Agreement unless in the opinion of the City Solicitor and the
Treasurer exceptional circumstances exist.
6.6 Responsibilities of the Treasurer
6.6.1 The Treasurer shall coordinate a purchasing methodology, on behalf of the City
in accordance with the provisions of this By-law. In carrying out this
responsibility, the Treasurer may appoint designated persons to act on his/her
behalf.
6.6.2 The Treasurer shall have the following specific responsibilities:
a. Be responsible for the administration of this By-law, including the

development and implementation of procedures and protocols;
b. Manage and oversee the City’s procurement processes in accordance

with this By-law and applicable procedures and protocols;
c. Advise on the suitability of specifications to ensure a maximum number of

competitive Bids, and to ensure a Supplier’s ability to supply;
d. Keep apprised of best purchasing practices for responsible

environmental procurement and assist operating departments in
incorporating environmental considerations in solicitations for
Deliverables where feasible;
e. Review the corporate use of Deliverables to ensure the City is receiving

the best quality, quantity, service and price;
f. Ensure that business transactions are conducted ethically and

professionally;
g. Process Purchase Orders;
h. Be responsible for establishing and maintaining a Central Stores operation

for the provision of items that must be readily available, and:
i. Require a long lead-time for ordering, or
ii. Are required for repair of vehicles or equipment on a 24-hour basis,

or
iii. Are bulk items for which economies are realized by purchasing in
large quantities;
i. Assist the originating department and the City Solicitor in the preparation
of Agreements when requested;
164
j. Ensure City staff has access to current procurement procedures and

protocols and provide procurement training to City staff, as required, to
ensure a clear understanding of the purchasing procedures and protocols;
k. Maintain accounting records as required;
l. Process monthly Purchasing Card payments; and
m. Provide written authorization of Designates as requested by

Commissioners.
165
Part 7: Procurement Approval and Contracting Authorities

7.1 Procurement Approval Authority
The City’s Schedule of Approval Authority in Appendix A of this By-law sets out the
Approval Authority for:
a. Initiating a procurement;
b. Awarding a Contract; and
c. Amending an existing Contract.
7.2 Conditions of Approval Authorities
Delegated Approval Authority is subject to all of the following conditions:
a. No procurement may be initiated unless the Contract Value can be

accommodated within the Approved Budget;
b. No award of a Contract may be approved unless the Contract Value can be

accommodated within the Approved Budget and the procurement process was
conducted in accordance with this By-law and all applicable procedures and
protocols;
c. Where a Competitive Process was conducted, no award of a Contract may be

approved unless the award is made to the top-ranked Bidder established in
accordance with the evaluation and selection process set out in the Bid
Solicitation; and
d. No Contract Amendment may be approved unless the amendment is determined

by the Treasurer in consultation with the City Solicitor to be in the City’s best
interest and the increased value of the Contract can be accommodated within
the Approved Budget.
7.3 All Bids Exceed Approved Budget
In the event that all Bids exceed the Approved Budget, and staff are not prepared to
seek additional funding, the originating Commissioner must consult with both the
Treasurer and the City Solicitor to determine the most appropriate approach for
proceeding with the procurement.
7.4 Council Approval
Council approval is required in any of the following circumstances:
a. The City’s Schedule of Approval Authority in Appendix A of this By-law indicates

Council has the Approval Authority;
b. Any of the applicable conditions of delegated Approval Authority are not met;
c. A senior government (i.e. Provincial, Federal) requires Council to approve the

procurement;
d. The Contract Value cannot be accommodated within an Approved Budget and

therefore requires a budget transfer or a pre-commitment against a future years’
budget;
e. The Chief Administrative Officer or Treasurer deems it in the City’s best interest
that Council approve the procurement; or
f. Council has specifically directed that Council approve the procurement.

166
7.5 Contracting Authority
7.5.1 Contracting authority is the authority to enter into a Contract with a Supplier
on behalf of the City where the award of a Contract has been approved in
accordance with the Schedule of Approval Authority.
7.5.2 A Contract may be entered into through signing an Agreement and/or the
issuance of a Purchase Order evidencing the Contract.
7.5.3 An Agreement shall be required when the terms and conditions associated
with the City’s standard Purchase Order are not sufficient to outline the
contractual obligations and protect the City’s interests. The determination
must be made in accordance with applicable procedures and protocols and
in consultation with the City Solicitor, as required.
7.5.4 The Treasurer or Purchasing Administrator has the authority to issue

Purchase Orders to Suppliers on behalf of the City.
7.5.5 Agreements with a Procurement Value of greater than $50,000 shall be

signed by the City Clerk and either the CAO or the Treasurer.
7.5.6 Agreements with a Procurement Value of $50,000 or less may be signed by

a Commissioner.
7.5.7 Contracting authority includes the authority to sign an amending Agreement

and/or issue an amended Purchase Order, where a Contract Amendment
has been approved in accordance with the Schedule of Delegated Approval
Authority.
7.6 Conditions of Contracting Authority
Delegated contracting authority is subject to all of the following conditions:
a. No Contract may be entered into, through the issuance of a Purchase Order

and/or the execution of an Agreement, unless the Contract Value can be
accommodated within the Approved Budget and the award of the Contract has
been approved in accordance with this By-law; and
b. No Agreement may be executed unless the Agreement and any ancillary

documents have been prepared in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor.
7.7 Exercise of Contract Renewal Options
Contract Renewal Options may be exercised with the approval of the Treasurer
under the following circumstances:
a. The Supplier’s performance in supplying the Deliverables is satisfactory in the

opinion of the Commissioner and the Treasurer;
b. The Commissioner and the Treasurer agree that the exercise of the option is in
the best interest of the City; and
c. Funds are available in appropriate accounts within the Approved Budget.

167
Part 8: Authority for Emergency Procurement
8.1 Authorized Actions Related to an Emergency
As the result of an Emergency, the following actions are authorized:
a. During the emergency:
i. The Chief Administrative Officer or the requesting Commissioner,

shall approve the purchase of Deliverables deemed necessary to
remedy the emergency;
ii. Procurement shall take place by the most expedient and

economical means given the relevant circumstances; and
iii. The Purchasing Section will provide cooperative assistance when

requested to expedite any purchasing documents necessary to deal
with the emergency.
b. As soon as possible after the Emergency, if an Emergency purchase

greater than $50,000 has been made pursuant to this Part, and where the
expenditure would normally have been subject to a Competitive Process,
a report shall be prepared by the requesting Commissioner, explaining the
action taken and reasons therefore, and submitted as follows:
i. For amounts greater than $50,000 but less than $100,000, to the
Chief Administrative Officer; or
ii. For amounts equal to or greater than $100,000, to Council.

168
Part 9: Authority to Transfer Approved Budgets or Commit Future

Years’ Budget
9.1 Delegated Authority to Approve Budget Transfers
9.1.1 Other than when Section 9.1.2. applies, the Chief Administrative Officer or the
Treasurer are authorized to transfer Approved Budgets, including any
uncommitted General Contingency, or the Capital Levy Reserve where the net
required transfer is equal to or less than $50,000. All such transfers will be
reported in the Quarterly Financial Report.
9.1.2 During the period of an election year, when the actions of the outgoing Council
have become restricted in accordance with Section 275 of the Municipal Act
2001, as amended, or when there are no meetings of the outgoing Council held
after nomination day during which budget transfers can be authorized by Council,
the Chief Administrative Officer, in consultation with the Treasurer, is authorized
to transfer Approved Budgets, including any uncommitted General Contingency,
or the Capital Levy Reserve, and to pre-commit future year(s)’ budget(s). All
such budget transfers or budget pre-commitments will be reported in the
December 31 Quarterly Financial Report.
9.1.3 The Chief Administrative Officer or the Treasurer are authorized to create a
budget where 100% funding has become available, subsequent to the annual
budget approval, for a specific Deliverable, and where no new full-time staff
are required. All such budget creation will be reported in the Quarterly
Financial Report.
9.2 When Council Must Approve Budget Transfers or Creation
9.2.1 Other than when Section 9.1.2 applies, Council must approve budget transfers
or creation when any of the following applies:
a. Commitments against future years’ budget(s) is required; or
b. Net transfers of Approved Budgets are greater than $50,000
9.2.2 Council must approve budget transfers or creation when a budget transfer or
creation requires additional full-time staff complement.
169
Part 10: Standard Procurement Methods

10.1 Low Value Procurement – (Up to $10,000)
10.1.1 The Low Value Procurement Process is used when the Procurement Value is
expected to be $10,000 or less, the Deliverables are required on a one-time
(non-repetitive) basis, and the end-user of the Deliverables has identified a
clear or single solution.
10.1.2 The process may, but does not necessarily, include informal price comparison
from known Suppliers through phone, Supplier advertisements, Supplier
catalogues or other similar communication methods. Price is the primary factor
and is usually not negotiated.
10.1.3 Low Value Procurement may be made by the Purchasing Card or Direct
Acquisition method.
a. Purchasing Card
Based on the approval of the Department Commissioner or Manager and the

Purchasing Card Administrator, certain City employees are provided with
City Purchasing Cards to be used solely for the purchase of Deliverables for
the City. The employee’s immediate supervisor shall review and sign each
employee’s monthly Purchasing Card transaction listing and the Purchasing
Card Administrator or designate shall review all monthly transactions for
compliance.
b. Direct Acquisition
Although the encouraged method of payment for all low value procurement is
the Purchasing Card, it is recognized that certain Suppliers are not equipped
with such functionality. Employees with appropriate authority, as set out in
this By-law, may approve an invoice indicating that the Deliverables have
been received and the Supplier may be paid.
10.2 Informal Quote Process – ($10,000 to $50,000)
10.2.1 The Informal Quote Process is used when the Procurement Value is expected
to be more than $10,000 but less than or equal to $50,000, the Deliverables
are required on a one-time (non-repetitive) basis, and the end-user of the
Deliverable has identified a clear or single solution. Price comparison shall be
sought, where practicable, from a minimum of three (3) Suppliers. Price is the
primary factor and may be negotiated.
10.2.2 The requesting Department shall obtain three informal quotes, where
practicable. For Deliverables with a value up to $25,000, quotes can be
obtained through advertisements, Supplier catalogues, direct solicitations to
Suppliers, and other similar methods. If the value is between $25,000 and
$50,000, written quotes which may be obtained by email or fax or other
electronic means.
a. A Purchase Requisition shall be prepared and authorized by the

Commissioner (less than or equal to $50,000) or Manager (less than or equal
to $10,000) with the results of price comparison attached and forwarded to
the Purchasing Section for processing;
b. When permitted by the Supplier, the payment transaction may be processed

on the Purchasing Administrator’s Purchasing Card.
10.3 Invitational Competition (Over $50,000 and less than $100,000)
10.3.1 An Open Competition must be used when the Procurement Value is expected
to be $100,000 or more, unless a Non-Standard Procurement is justified in
accordance with Part 11 of this By-law and applicable procedures and
protocols.
170
10.3.2 Invitational Competition may be used when the Procurement Value is expected
to exceed $50,000 and be less than $100,000 and it is possible to obtain
competitive Bids based on precisely defined requirements for which a clear or
single solution exists.
10.3.3 There may be instances when the Procurement Value is expected to be less
than $100,000 where, at the discretion of the Treasurer and the respective
Commissioner, it will be more appropriate to solicit Bids using an Open
Competition.
10.3.4 The Bid Solicitation is issued to at least three Suppliers. The Invitational
Competition may be based solely on price or may consider other evaluation
criteria included in the Bid Solicitation.
10.3.5 Invitational Competitions will be managed by the Purchasing Section, with the
cooperation and involvement of the Department, unless the Treasurer has
delegated the authority to conduct an Invitational Competition to a
Commissioner, on either a standing basis or a case-by-case basis.
10.3.6 Where a Commissioner has been delegated authority to conduct an Invitational

Competition, the Commissioner is responsible and accountable for ensuring
that the process is conducted in accordance with applicable procedures and
protocols, and must provide an approved Purchase Requisition, with the
results of the Invitational Competition attached, to the Purchasing Section for
processing.
10.4 Open Competition ($100,000 or more)
10.4.1 An Open Competition must be used when the Procurement Value is expected
to be $100,000 or more, unless a Non-Standard Procurement is justified in
accordance with Part 11 of this By-law and applicable procedures and
protocols.
10.4.2 A notice of procurement and the Bid Solicitation document must be publicly
posted on the City’s prescribed electronic tendering site and/or other forms of
media deemed appropriate by the Purchasing Section.
10.4.3 The Open Competition may be based solely on price or may consider other
evaluation criteria included in the Bid Solicitation. The specific process to be
followed will be determined by the form of Bid Solicitation document selected
for the procurement in accordance with the City’s procedures and protocols.
Where provided for in the Bid Solicitation, the Open Competition may include
negotiation with one or more top-ranked Bidder(s).
10.4.4 Open Competitions will be managed by the Purchasing Section, with the
cooperation and involvement of the Department, in accordance with all
10.4.5 Open Competitions may include two-stage procurement processes in which a

prequalification process is conducted by soliciting and evaluating submissions
from all interested Suppliers in order to establish a short-list of prequalified
Suppliers that will be eligible to submit a Bid in response to a second-stage Bid
Solicitation. A pre-qualification process may be used whenever determined
appropriate by the Treasurer, in consultation with the Department
Commissioner.
10.4.6 When a pre-qualification process is used, the Administrative Staff Committee

shall approve a short list of acceptable Suppliers who will be invited to
participate in the subsequent procurement process.
171
10.5 Open Framework Competition (to establish Qualified Supplier Roster)
10.5.1 An Open Framework Competition may be used when the Treasurer, in

consultation with the originating Commissioner, has determined it is
appropriate to establish a Qualified Supplier Roster for Deliverables that are
needed on a recurring basis.
10.5.2 An Open Framework Competition is a form of Open Competition in which

Suppliers are pre-screened based on the qualification criteria and evaluation
process specified in the Bid Solicitation.
10.5.3 Selected Suppliers will be invited to enter into a Master Framework Agreement
that will include the terms of the Qualified Supplier Roster and the general
terms and conditions that will govern any future work assignments.
10.5.4 The Qualified Supplier Roster will be managed in accordance with the Master
Framework Agreement and applicable procedure or protocols.
10.5.5 A Qualified Supplier Roster does not result in any commitment by the City to
purchase Deliverables from the Suppliers.
10.5.6 As the need for the Deliverables arises, the City will select one or more of the
Suppliers on the Qualified Supplier Roster in accordance with the process
established in the Master Framework Agreement.
10.6 Roster Competition
10.6.1 A Roster Competition may be used to solicit quotes from Suppliers for
Deliverables available through an established Qualified Supplier Roster.
10.6.2 Suppliers on the Qualified Supplier Roster are invited to compete for a
particular assignment or scope of Deliverables in accordance with applicable
procedures and protocols and the terms of the Qualified Supplier Roster.
10.6.3 Roster Competitions will be managed by the Purchasing Section, with the
cooperation and involvement of the Department, unless the Treasurer has
delegated the authority to conduct a Roster Competition to a Commissioner,
on either a standing basis or a case-by-case basis.
10.6.4 Where a Commissioner has been delegated authority to conduct a Roster

Competition, the Commissioner is responsible and accountable for ensuring
that the process is conducted in accordance with applicable procedures and
protocols, and must provide an approved Purchase Requisition, with the
results of the Roster Competition attached, to the Purchasing Section for
processing.
172
Part 11: Non-Standard Procurement
11.1 Non-Standard Procurement Methods
Non-Standard Procurement means the acquisition of Deliverables through a method

or process other than the method or process normally required for the type and
value of the Deliverables. Non-standard procurement methods include:
a. Non-Competitive Procurement, where the Deliverables are acquired directly from

a particular Supplier without conducting a Competitive Process when an
Invitational Competition or an Open Competition would normally be required; or
b. Limited Competition, where Bids are solicited from a limited number of Suppliers
without conducting an open prequalification process when an Open Competition
would normally be required.
Where a Limited Competition is approved, it will be conducted in the same manner

as an Invitational Competition.
11.2 Approval of Non-Standard Procurement
Non-Standard Procurements must be approved in accordance with the Schedule of

Approval Authority in Appendix A. Prior to seeking the approval of the Approval
Authority and prior to any discussion with the Supplier, the Department must obtain
the Treasurer’s approval to initiate a Non-Standard Procurement in accordance with
all applicable procedures and protocols.
11.3 Circumstances for Non-Standard Procurement
11.3.1 Non-Standard Procurement of $100,000 or more
Non-Standard Procurements with a Procurement Value of $100,000 or more may

only be approved in the following circumstances:
a. Where a standard procurement process conducted in accordance with this By-

law and applicable procedures and protocols has not resulted in the receipt of
any Bids;
b. Where only one Supplier is able to meet the requirements of a procurement in

order to:
i. Ensure compatibility with existing products;
ii. Recognize exclusive rights, such as exclusive licenses, copyright and

patent rights; or
iii. Maintain specialized products that must be maintained by the

manufacturer or its representative;
c. Where there is an absence of competition for technical reasons and the

Deliverables can only be supplied by one particular Supplier and no alternative
or substitute exists;
d. The procurement is for additional deliveries by the original Supplier of

Deliverables that were not included in the initial procurement if a change of
Supplier:
i. Cannot be made for economic or technical reasons such as requirements

of interchangeability or interoperability with existing equipment, software,
services or installations procured under the initial procurement; and
ii. Would cause significant inconvenience or substantial duplication of costs

for the City;
173
e. For the procurement of Deliverables relating to matters of a confidential or

privileged nature where the disclosure of those matters through an open
competition could reasonably be expected to compromise government
confidentiality, cause economic disruption or otherwise be contrary to the
public interest;
f. When the Deliverables can be provided by any of the subsidiaries of the City of
Peterborough Holdings Inc., and City staff elect to use their services;
g. For the procurement of Deliverables from a Public Body;
h. For the procurement of goods under exceptionally advantageous

circumstances such as bankruptcy or receivership, but not for routine
purchases;
i. For the procurement of a prototype of a first good or service to be developed in

the course of and for a particular contract for research, experiment, study or
original development, but not for any subsequent purchases;
j. For the procurement of Deliverables that is financed primarily from donations

that are subject to conditions that are inconsistent with a standard procurement
process conducted in accordance with this By-law and applicable procedures
and protocols; or
k. The procurement is otherwise exempt from the requirements to conduct an

Open Competition under all applicable trade agreements and it is in the best
interests of the City to proceed with a Non-Standard Procurement.
Under no circumstances will a Non-Standard Procurement be used for the

purpose of avoiding competition among Suppliers or in a manner that
discriminates against or advantages Suppliers based on geographic location.
11.3.2 Non-Standard Procurement of less than $100,000
If the Procurement Value is less than $100,000, and provided that the total
cumulative cost of all recurring Contracts for the same Deliverables is less than
$100,000 in a twelve-month period, a Non-Standard Procurement may be approved
in any of the following circumstances:
a. Under any of the circumstances set out above in Section 11.3.1;
b. For the procurement of consulting services from persons who have worked for
the City or other municipalities in related fields and are interested in undertaking
short-term assignments for the City on an as-required basis; or
c. Where there is a need for continuity or compatibility with existing Deliverables,

and it is in the best interests of the City to proceed with a Non-Standard
Procurement.
174
Part 12: Specifications
12.1 Commissioner Responsible for Preparing Specifications and Scope
The Commissioner whose budget provides for the procurement of Deliverables

shall be responsible for the preparation of all specifications and/ or the scope of
work to be used for the procurement of such Deliverables.
12.2 Specifications Not to be Brand Specific
Where practical, specifications or the scope of work or terms of reference shall

be detailed but not brand specific, so that potential Suppliers may provide
alternatives in the event an equal or better-proven product or method is available.
12.3 Seeking Information from Suppliers
12.3.1 Preparation of the operating or capital budget or specifications for procurement may
require information from potential Bidders to determine what is available. When
seeking information in connection with a specific procurement, a publicly posted
Request for Information (RFI) should be used whenever possible to ensure
transparency and provide all potential Suppliers and opportunity to provide
information.
12.3.2 A Request for Information can be used to build Supplier interest and to obtain
information about the availability of Deliverables in the marketplace and the level of
interest from Suppliers able to provide the Deliverables to the City. The Request for
Information may request detailed information including, but not limited to, company
background, who the interested parties are, what they can offer and what they can
do for the City.
12.3.3 Direct contact with Suppliers should be limited to seeking basic information in a
manner that does not preclude them from submitting a Bid Solicitation that may be
subsequently issued. To maintain the integrity of the Competitive Process, seeking
information from Suppliers outside of an RFI process is only permitted on the
following conditions:
a. Staff may contact potential Suppliers or meet with potential Suppliers informally
to gather information. Meetings could be in the form of office sales calls,
demonstrations, trade shows, site visits, etc.;
b. When discussing, requesting, or receiving information from Suppliers, staff must

inform the Suppliers that the nature of the undertaking is exploratory and for
information or budgetary purposes only, and that any subsequent request to
purchase will be conducted according to the City's Purchasing By-law;
c. No commitment can be made to any Supplier; and
d. No information can be given to a Supplier that would give the Supplier an

advantage in a future Bid Solicitation.
12.4 Supplier Who Assists in Developing Specifications
12.4.1 Where a Request for Information is not used, and it is necessary to do more than
seek basic information from a Supplier, as described in Section 12.3, it may be
desirable to ask a potential Supplier to help City staff design or develop
specifications, or to be used at a preliminary stage in a project, or otherwise help
define a requirement for the purposes of a procurement process. When such
services are utilized:
a. The Supplier shall not be eligible to bid, directly or indirectly, or to assist any
Bidder in bidding, whether or not a fee is paid to the Supplier unless in the
opinion of the Treasurer exceptional circumstances exist; and
175
b. The detailed specifications shall be approved by the Commissioner of the

originating Department and shall become the property of the City for use in
obtaining competitive Bids.
12.5 Accessibility
When preparing the specifications, the originating Department shall consider the
requirements of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2001, as amended, and the
Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2005, as amended, and apply
those requirements with respect to procuring Deliverables and in the
development of the Specifications.
12.6 Sustainable Procurement
The City is committed to purchasing environmentally friendly Deliverables with

due regard to the protection of the environment and public health, conservation
of natural resources, reduction of toxicity, and the minimization of waste. All
departments, in conjunction with the Purchasing Section, are encouraged to
seek additional ways of achieving the goal of being environmentally friendly and
responsible by thorough review of each procurement process to ensure that
wherever possible and economically feasible, specifications/terms of reference
provide for:
a. Expanded use of Deliverables that contain post-consumer recyclable

content to the maximum level allowable, without significantly affecting
the intended use or performance of the Deliverables;
b. Consideration of products, certified by an independently accredited

organization, that prevent the over consumption of energy and other
resource and reduce the production of waste, and the release of
substances harmful to the environment and/or public health;
c. Consideration of products certified by an independently accredited

organization, which favour environmentally-benign, post-consumer, bio-
degradable, and non-toxic ingredients;
d. Consideration for the process by which products are manufactured,

operated, transported, stored, packaged and the method of disposal. It is
also recognized that a cost analysis may be required to ensure that the
products are made available at competitive prices;
e. Consideration of energy efficiency and water conservation where

applicable; and
f. Consideration of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)

for new buildings and renovations.
176
Part 13: In-House Bids
13.1 Circumstances for In-House Bids

In-House Bids may be used for the procurement of Deliverables in the following
circumstances:
a. Where an external Supplier has historically provided Deliverables, and

Council determines that it is in the City’s best interest to allow City
departments to compete for the provision of Deliverables;
b. Where a department has historically provided Deliverables, and Council

determines that it is in the City’s best interest to allow the department to
compete for the provision of the Deliverables; and
c. In any other circumstances that Council determines may be appropriate.
13.2 Solicitation of In-House Bids
In-House Bids shall only be used where external Suppliers have also been
requested to submit Bids.
If any Bid Solicitation permits In-House Bids, all Bidders shall be made aware
of this fact in the Bid Solicitation documents.
13.3 Authorization for In-House Bids
Council shall authorize all In-House Bids, in advance. In determining whether an

In-House Bid is in the City’s best interest, Council shall consider the following
criteria:
a. Whether the In House-Bid will result in a significant increase or decrease in

capital equipment and infrastructure expenditures by the City;
b. The extent to which the In-House Bid will affect the future ability of the City to
deliver essential health, emergency or other vital services to the public, in a
cost effective and efficient manner;
c. The extent to which the In-House Bid will affect the personnel complement of
the City; and
d. The extent to which the In-House Bid will affect service levels provided to
the public.
After an In-House Bid has been authorized, the procurement method will be
determined in accordance with Part 10, and the approval and contracting
authorities will be in accordance with Part 7.
177
Part 14: Supplier Relations
14.1 Debriefings
Unsuccessful Bidders may request a debriefing. If a debriefing is requested, it

should be scheduled and conducted in accordance with applicable procedures and
protocols. Bidders are entitled to an explanation of the reasons why its Bid was not
selected and the relative advantages of the successful Bidder’s Bid; however,
Bidders will not be provided with information that might prejudice fair competition
between Suppliers.
14.2 Procurement Protests
Suppliers may formally protest the outcome of a procurement process. Procurement

protests must be managed and responded to in accordance with the City’s
Procurement Protest Protocol.
14.3 Contract Management
All Contracts for Deliverables must be managed by the Department and

performance of the Supplier must be monitored and tracked in accordance with
14.4 Supplier Suspension
Suppliers may be suspended from participating in future procurement processes for

a specified period of time in accordance with the City’s Supplier Suspension
Protocol.
14.5 Rejection of Bid when City/Bidder Relationship Impaired
14.5.1 The City may reject a Bid from a Supplier where in the opinion of the Treasurer
in consultation with the City Solicitor, the commercial relationship between the
City and the Supplier, including any sub-contractor the Supplier intends to use,
has been impaired by the act(s) or omission(s) of the Supplier or sub-contractor,
within the five-year period immediately preceding the date on which the Bid is to
be awarded.
14.5.2 The act(s) or omission(s) that are deemed to have impaired the commercial
relationship include, but are not limited to:
a. Threatening litigation, or pursuing litigation against the City, in relation to

any previous Contract awarded to the Supplier by the City, threatening
litigation means transmitting a written threat to commence an arbitration
action, application or other judicial proceeding;
b. Being a Supplier against whom the City is pursing litigation;
c. A claim has been made against the City by the Supplier under a surety
bond or security deposit submitted by the Supplier, such as a Bid Deposit,
Performance Bond or Materials and Labour Bond;
d. The Supplier has not performed satisfactorily under prior or current

Contracts or has refused to follow reasonable directions of the City or to
cure a default under any Contract with the City;
e. The Supplier has communicated, directly or indirectly, with any other

Supplier about the preparation of the Supplier’s Bid for the same work;
and
f. The Supplier or any person or Company that is affiliated, associated or

controlled, as defined in the Canadian Business Corporations Act,
R.S.C., 1985, c.C-44, as amended, by the Supplier, has been
convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code, as amended, or
178
other legislation, including but not limited to legislation in respect of

taxation, financial securities; environmental protection, and health and
safety.
14.5.3 The City reserves the right to reject a Bid from a Supplier, or from any person or
Company that is affiliated, associated or controlled, as defined in the Canadian
Business Corporations Act, R.S.C., 1985, c.C-44, as amended, by the
Supplier that is indebted to the City, except in relation to property taxes that are
not in default. In accordance with applicable law. In accordance with applicable
laws, the Treasurer in consultation with the City Solicitor may choose to accept a
Bid and exercise the City’s legal or equitable right to deduct the indebted amount
from amounts owing to the Supplier.
14.6 Document Retention
Responses to Bid Solicitations received shall be retained for inspection by the

City’s auditors and appropriate City officials, in accordance with the City’s
Document Retention By-law # 12-156 or successor By-law.
14.7 Confidentiality and Access to Information
The disclosure of information contained in a Bid or Agreement shall be made by the

appropriate officers of the City in accordance with the provisions of the MFIPPA and
any other applicable legislation.
If a Bidder considers any part of their Bid proprietary, the Bidder shall clearly mark
such page or section of the Bid as confidential. This procedure will not automatically
protect the information from release, but will assist the City in making a
determination on release if a request is made under MFIPPA.
179
Part 15: Disposal of Surplus and Obsolete Goods
15.1 Authority for Disposal of Surplus and Obsolete Goods
The disposal of surplus and obsolete goods shall be evaluated on a case-by-

case basis. The Commissioner, in conjunction with the Treasurer, have the
authority to sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of goods declared as surplus to
the needs of the City, where it is cost effective and in the best interest of the City
to do so.
15.2 Means of Disposal of Surplus and Obsolete Goods:
15.2.1 Surplus and obsolete goods may:
a. Be offered to other departments or Public Bodies;
b. Be sold by external advertisement, formal request, auction or public sale

(where it is deemed appropriate, a reserve price may be established);
c. Be sold or traded to the original Supplier or others in that line of

business where it is determined that a higher net return will be obtained
than by following other procedures;
d. Be donated to a registered charity;
e. Be recycled; or
f. Be scrapped, in the event that all efforts to dispose of goods are

unsuccessful.
15.2.2 If a good is sold through a formal competitive process, the approval limits for
the sale shall be in accordance with the Approval Authority as set out in Part 7.
15.2.3 The sale or offer of such goods to employees, Municipal Councillors, or

their family members, is prohibited.
180
Part 16: Review of By-law

16.1 Review to be Undertaken Prior to the End of Each Council Term
The Treasurer, in consultation with the appropriate City staff, will conduct a
detailed review of this By-law on an as-required basis, but at a minimum, shall
report to each Council, prior to the end of its term, with any recommended
amendments.
16.2 Factors to be Considered During Review
The review conducted by the Treasurer shall take into consideration current
and future professional practices, industry standards, market conditions,
Federal/Provincial Government directions/policies, technological developments
and advancements, policies in the By-law where, through application, it
becomes apparent that clarification is needed, and the impact that any
recommended changes may have on potential Suppliers to the City.
16.3 By-Law Repealed
By-law 14-127 is repealed.
16.4 Effective Date
This By-law becomes effective November 1, 2018
16.5 Short Title
This By-law may be referred to as the “Procurement By-law”.

181
Appendix A – Schedule of Approval Authority
STANDARD PROCUREMENT
Procurement Method1 Procurement Value2 Approval Authority3,4
Low Value Purchase Process At or below $10,000 Manager or other “delegated”

staff as specifically designated
by the Commissioner and
approved by the Treasurer in
writing
Informal Quote Process At or below $25,000 Designate as approved by

Commissioner and Treasurer
At or below $50,000 Commissioner
Invitational Competition or Open Below $100,000 Chief Administrative Officer

Competition
Open Competition (including pre- $100,000 or more Administrative Staff Committee

qualification stage, if applicable)
Open Framework Competition to Any value Administrative Staff Committee

establish Qualified Supplier Roster
Roster Competition for Deliverables At or below $25,000 Designate as approved by

from existing Qualified Supplier Commissioner and Treasurer
Roster
Below $100,000 Chief Administrative Officer
At or above $100,000 Administrative Staff Committee
NON-STANDARD PROCUREMENT
Procurement Method Procurement Value1 Approval Authority3,4
Non-Competitive or Limited At or below $25,000 Designate as approved by

Competition under the Commissioner and Treasurer
circumstances permitted in the
Non-Standard Procurement At or below $50,000 Commissioner
Protocol and approved by the
Treasurer. Below $100,000 Chief Administrative Officer
At or above $100,000 Council

182
CONTRACT AMENDMENT
Council approval is required in all cases where the Total Cumulative Increase5 is both
more than $100,000 and more than 10% of the original Contract Value.
If the Total Cumulative Increase5 is either less than $100,000 or less than 10% of the
original Contract Value, Approval Authority is determined as follows:
Total Cumulative Increase5 + Original Contract Value Approval Authority3,4
Below $100,000 Chief Administrative Officer
At or above $100,000 Administrative Staff Committee
NOTES:
1. The procurement process must be conducted in accordance with this By-law and all
2. The authority to initiate a procurement process is based on the estimated

Procurement Value. The authority to approve the award of a Contract for the
procurement is based on the actual Procurement Value. Procurement Value includes
the value of any Contract Renewal Options.
3. All Approval Authorities are subject to all applicable conditions set out in Part 7 of this
By-law, including the requirement that the Contract Value can be accommodated
within the Approved Budget. Contract Value is the value of the initial term of the
Contract and does not include the value of any Contract Renewal Options.
4. The authority to approve the award of the Contract or the Contract Amendment does
not include the authority to sign the Agreement or the amending agreement and/or to
issue the Purchase Order to the Supplier, as applicable. The authority to sign
Agreements and/or issue Purchase Orders on behalf of the City is set out in Section
7.5 of this By-law.
5. Total Cumulative Increase is the total value of all increases to the original Contract
Value, including the value of any previously approved increases and the value of the
proposed increase that is to be approved.
183
Appendix B – Exempt Expenditures
The expenditures set out in this Appendix B are exempt from the requirements set
out in Parts 7 through 14 of this By-law.
B.1 List of Exempt Expenditures
1. General Expenses
a. Workers Safety Insurance Board payments
b. Payroll Deduction Remittances such as Income Tax, Unemployment Insurance

Premiums Employer Health Tax
c. Debt principal and interest payments
d. Loan and mortgage payments
e. HST remittances
f. Licenses (e.g. vehicles, elevators, radios, and computer hardware and software)
g. Real Property payments including purchases, leases, easements, encroachments

and licenses, or the like
h. Insurance claims, legal agreements or settlements and arbitration awards
i. Employee/Council travel expenses
j. Other training related expenses such as memberships in professional

organizations, staff attendance at seminars, workshops, conferences or courses,
subscriptions, periodicals or magazines
2. Professional Services
a. Employee training, facilitators, or speakers
b. Medical Professional Services
c. Expert Witnesses
d. Outside Legal Counsel
e. Municipal Tax Equity (MTE) as approved in annual budgets
f. Fees related to real estate transactions such as commissions and professional

fees
g. Otonabee Region Conservation Authority fees for services rendered
3. Payments to other Organizations/Individuals
a. Other Municipalities, for example; the County of Peterborough for EMS, property
taxes
b. Fire hydrant costs to Peterborough Utilities Commission
c. Street light maintenance costs payable to the Peterborough Utilities Group of

Companies
d. Annual requisitions approved as part of the budget process to a local board or

agency such as Otonabee Region Conservation Authority, Peterborough Humane
Society, Peterborough Public Health, Little Lake Musicfest, Showplace, Canadian
Canoe Museum, Race Relations Committee, Peterborough Green-Up and Greater
Peterborough Area Economic Development Corporation (GPAEDC)
184
e. Sewer surcharge collection fees payable to Peterborough Utility Services Inc.
f. Social Services agencies that provide service to the City through Service
Agreements such as Daycare and Hostel Operators
g. Tenants and promoters using the City arenas
h. Social Housing providers and other related support organizations such as the
Housing Resource Centre and Access Peterborough
i. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation fees for property assessment

services and support costs
j. Organizations on whose behalf the City has received donations and issued
income tax receipts
k. Capital grants to other organizations, as approved in budgets
l. Annual maintenance, support or equipment parts/supplies for software or

hardware that is only available through a sole source
m. Refurbishing components of equipment by the authorized manufacturer of the

equipment
n. Transportation, recycling and disposal of municipal Household Hazardous Waste

and recyclables as per Agreement with Stewardship Ontario
o. Services that can be provided directly by the City’s Cooperative Purchasing Group
members (such as printing the City’s budget documents by the Trent University
Print Shop)
4. Special Services
a. Various transfers to Social Services clients
b. Postal services
c. Payments to developers as stipulated in Subdivision or other Development

Agreements
d. Investments
e. Bank charges
f. Expenses related to an event which will be recovered in full from a third party
g. Relocation of utilities within the right-of-way
h. Rail crossing maintenance and required fees
5. Utilities
a. Electricity
b. Water
c. Natural gas
d. Cable
6. Refunds
a. Property tax refunds
b. Building permit refunds

185
c. Cancelled services, program, events, tickets
7. Transfer of Funds Collected on behalf of a third-party
Such as:
a. Go Transit Revenue
b. Ticket Revenue – Peterborough Memorial Centre Events
c. School Board taxes
B.2 Payment of Exempt Expenditures
Payments for the exempt expenditures may be made on the basis of an

invoice, or based on an internal cheque request, with the appropriate account
number(s) indicated and which has been signed by an employee with
applicable Approval Authority, as set out in B.3. In some cases, a Purchase
Order or an Agreement may be required.
B.3 Approval Authority for Exempt Expenditures
The following approval limits apply to exempt expenditures, where sufficient

Approved Budget exists:
a. Less than or equal to $10,000 may be approved by a Manager;
b. Less than or equal to $10,000, and which is to be charged to a Council or

Civic Functions account, may be approved by the Mayor;
c. Greater than $10,000 and less than or equal to $50,000 may be approved by
the Commissioner; and
d. Greater than $50,000 may be approved by the originating Department

Commissioner and by either the Chief Administrative Officer or
Treasurer.
186
Appendix C – Supplier Code of Conduct

The City requires its Suppliers to act with integrity and conduct business in an ethical
manner. The City may refuse to do business with any Supplier that has engaged in illegal
or unethical bidding practices, has an actual or potential conflict of interest or an unfair
advantage, or fails to adhere to ethical business practices.
Suppliers are responsible for ensuring that any employees, representatives, agents or sub-
contractors acting on their behalf conduct themselves in accordance with this Code of
Conduct. The City may require the immediate removal and replacement of any individual or
entity acting on behalf of a Supplier that conducts themselves in a manner inconsistent
with this Code of Conduct. The City may refuse to do business with any Supplier that is
unwilling or unable to comply with such requirement.
C.1 Illegal or Unethical Bidding Practices
Illegal or unethical bidding practices include:
a. Bid-rigging, price-fixing, bribery or collusion or other behaviours or practices

prohibited by federal or provincial statutes;
b. Offering gifts or favours to the City’s officers, employees, appointed or elected

officials or any other representative of the City;
c. Engaging in any prohibited communications during a procurement process;
d. Submitting inaccurate or misleading information in a procurement process; and
e. Engaging in any other activity that compromises the City’s ability to run a fair
procurement process.
The City will report any suspected cases of collusion, bid-rigging or other offenses
under the Competition Act, as amended to the Competition Bureau or to other
relevant authorities.
C.2 Conflicts of Interest
All Suppliers participating in a procurement process must declare any perceived,

possible or actual conflicts of interest.
The term “Conflict of Interest,” when applied to Suppliers, includes any situation or
circumstance where:
a. In the context of a procurement process, the Supplier has an unfair advantage or

engages in conduct, directly or indirectly, that may give it an unfair advantage,
including but not limited to:
i. Having, or having access to, confidential information of the City that is not
available to other Suppliers;
ii. Communicating with any person with a view to influencing preferred

treatment in the procurement process (including but not limited to lobbying
decision makers involved in the procurement process); or
iii. Engaging in conduct that compromises, or could be seen to compromise,

the integrity of an open and competitive procurement process or render that
process non-competitive or unfair; or
b. In the context of performance under a potential Contract, the Supplier’s other

commitments, relationships or financial interests:
i. Could, or could be seen to, exercise an improper influence over the

objective, unbiased and impartial exercise of its independent judgement;
or
187
ii. Could, or could be seen to, compromise, impair or be incompatible with

the effective performance of its contractual obligations.
Where a Supplier is retained to participate in the development of a Bid Solicitation or

the specifications for inclusion in a Bid Solicitation, that Supplier will not be allowed
to respond, directly or indirectly, to that Bid Solicitation.
C.3 Ethical Business Practices
In providing Deliverables to the City, Suppliers are expected to adhere to ethical

business practices, including:
a. Performing all Contracts in a professional and competent manner and in

accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract and the duty of honest
performance;
b. Complying with all applicable laws, including safety and labour codes (both
domestic and international as may be applicable); and
c. Providing workplaces that are free from harassment and discrimination.

188
Appendix C
Bid Solicitations Issued under Purchasing By-Law 14-127
Of total % of
Awarded by or To Be Awarded (TBA) Awarded Local
Total this Many to Total
Total Bids were "Local" Awarded
Ref Description Council ASC CAO Director Manager Awarded (Note 2) (Note 3)
Col 1 Col 2 Col 3 Col 4 Col 5 Col 6 Col 7 Col 8 Col 9 Col 10 Col 11
Number of bids awarded or TBA by type

1 Tender 17 124 18 8 - 167 167 62 37%
2 Proposal 51 29 6 5 - 91 91 19 21%
3 Quote - 2 19 6 1 28 28 13 46%
4 Total 68 155 43 19 1 286 286 94 33%
Number of tenders awarded by ASC > $100,000

5 Number of tenders awarded by ASC > $100,000 94
Number of bids awarded by year of award

6 Awarded during 2014 6
-
11 Total Awarded 286
$ Value of Award
12 Value awarded (Note 1) 73,020,370 84,774,711 5,298,515 267,339 9,720 163,370,655 - 0%
Average days from closing date to final award

13 Average days to award after closing 54 18
$ Difference between award amount and second lowest bidder

14 Sum of difference (where known) between amount awarded and next lowest bidder 13,498,000
# of Valid bids Received

15 Tender (Average # of Valid Bids received) 3
16 Proposal (Average # of Valid Bids received) 4
17 Quote (Average # of Valid Bids received) 2
18 Number of solicitations where only one bid received 34
19 Number of bids requiring increase in budget 20
20 Percentage of work resulting from bids completed within budget 93
Notes
1 This value excludes any bid submissions shown on Appendix C that were based on unit price and not easily converted to estimated total value
2 Bid solicitation listed on Appendix C, include only those actually awarded or are expected to be awarded and where award data was available as of print date
3 "Local" means Bidders with Peterborough, Bridgenorth, Ennismore, Lakefield, Norwood, Cavan or Bowmanville Postal Code.
In cases where Bid Solicitation awarded to multiple bidders only one bidder's Postal Code used in calculation of "Local"
Bids awarded to non local bidders can still have a significant local impact through the use of sub contractors.
4 Appendix C listing does not include Pre-Qualification Documents
189

Subject: Report CLSFM18-021

Increase to the Pre-commitment of the 2019 Capital Budget for
the Peterborough Memorial Centre Ice Pad Replacement
Purpose
A report to recommend an increase to the pre-commitment of the 2019 Capital Budget
for the Peterborough Memorial Centre Ice Pad Replacement.
Recommendation
That Council approve the recommendation outlined in Report CLSFM18-021, dated
August 27, 2019 of the Commissioner of Corporate and Legislative Services as follows:
That the pre-committed 2019 Capital Budget for the Peterborough Memorial Centre Ice
Pad Replacement be increased by $1,500,000 from $2,000,000 to $3,500,000.

The estimated cost of the Peterborough Memorial Centre Ice Pad Replacement is
$3,500,000 and includes the budget required to provide consulting services to design,
tender and administer the work and the actual construction itself. The cost, net of HST
rebate, has been included in the 2019 Draft Capital Budget. Approval of this report will
pre-commit that project and allow staff to tender the project in November 2018.
190
Report CLSFM18-021 - Increase to the Pre-commitment of the 2019 Capital Budget for
Peterborough Memorial Centre Ice Pad Replacement Page 2
Line Description Amount

1 Peterborough Memorial Centre Ice Pad Replacement $2,310,000
2 Dasher Boards and Glass System $400,000
3 Design and Contract Administration Fees $108,000
4 Building Permit Cost $52,000
5 Abatement Work $130,000
6 Contingency $500,000
7 Total Project Cost $3,500,000
Background
Summary
The purpose of this report is to provide a comprehensive overview of the deterioration of

the self supporting wall and ice slab at the south end of the rink and seek a pre-
commitment so the project can be tendered this fall. Staff have taken remedial actions
to maintain the structural integrity of the ice rink pad and support structure until the
scheduled replacement in June 2019.
History of the Peterborough Memorial Centre floor
The Peterborough Memorial Centre was constructed in 1955 with an ice pad cast on a
steel deck. The pad is supported by concrete block foundation walls with a crawl space
below. In 1979, a new concrete pad was constructed over the existing pad complete
with new refrigeration piping, headers and dasher boards.
In 2009 – 2010 City staff hired a third party consultant to perform Building Condition
Audits (BCA’s) on most City Facilities. The BCA’s detailed all components of a facility
and provided a life cycle to each building component and an estimated budget to
replace. The Peterborough Memorial Centre’s ice slab floor was given a life cycle of 40
years with a scheduled replacement for 2019. The refrigeration plant was given varying
life cycles on components, from 25 – 40 years and was originally scheduled for
replacement in 2022.
Over the last ten years arena staff have made many concrete repairs to the upper
surface of the ice slab at the south end because of deterioration and spalling concrete
from the freeze thaw cycle each season. The existing dasher board system was
designed to be removable for special events. Due to the concrete deterioration, the
dasher board supports at the south end were no longer structurally sound and steel
plates were installed and welded to the dasher boards permanently fixing them in place.
191
In July 2016, arena staff asked for a structural review of the ice rink pad. Staff was
considering options to offer different types of events, such as monster trucks. CSE Inc.
was hired by the City to investigate and establish the allowable working load limitations
of the existing slab. The original construction of the slab is a 5" thick suspended
concrete slab cast on a steel deck. The slab is supported along its length by a series of
8" thick concrete block foundation walls, which are spaced at 8'-8" o/c. below the slab is
a crawl space. The existing slab was structurally modified in 1979. The structural
modifications included the complete removal of all the dasher boards and the complete
installation of a new 4 ½” – 5” thick concrete slab (topping) with a hard "trap rock"
surface hardener complete with new brine pipes. The new topping was cast on top of
the original slab. The existing rink pipes were abandoned, and new PVC pipes were re-
routed into the new topping and connected to the brine pipes. The PVC pipes run from
south to north and loop back at the north end of the rink to return to the brine headers.
Modifications also included building up the perimeter of the slab around the ice pad at
various locations. The build-up included non-structural concrete, which has been sloped
to achieve the elevation of the new slab.
The inspection in July 2016 found the top surface of the ice slab to be in very good
condition. Spalls/cracking was, however, noted at the south end of the slab along its
edge at the dasher board locations and around the perimeter edge of the rink slab
where staff had made previous repairs. Only the first (south) interior masonry block wall
was accessible. In general, the wall was in fair to good condition. There were some
minor cracks along the length of the wall, but they did not pose any structural concerns.
On the other hand, the concrete foundation wall below the dasher boards at the south
end was found to be in poor condition. Many large cracks were noted along the length
of the wall, as well as evidence of severe water leakage and efflorescence. This wall
was also severely delaminated, and corrosion/rust and concrete spalls were noted
along the complete length of the wall. The condition of this solid concrete foundation
wall was of high concern, and the wall would require repairs.
The extent of the visual review of the underside of the slab was limited to the first
(south) bay. Overall, the underside of the slab was covered by the steel deck and cork
insulation and was not visible. At locations where the deck had corroded and the
insulation had peeled off, the condition of the slab was found to be in poor to very poor
condition. At some locations the rebar was exposed and visible, and was extremely
corroded. The condition of the steel deck varied widely from one area to the next. Some
locations of the deck were severely corroded, and there were areas of complete section
loss. There were other areas where the deck was in fair condition and was only mildly
rusted.
The condition of the ice rink slab and topping was found to be in good condition with the
exception of the perimeter foundation wall and adjacent rink slab/topping. Along the
south side of the rink, the PVC cooling pipes are fed from the header pipe which
penetrates the topping edge. The topping edge coincides with the location of the dasher
board anchorage system, and an expansion joint and a thermal break is also present at
this location. The slab/topping at this location is exposed to severe freeze-thaw and
water penetration exposure which has caused the slab/topping and supporting wall to
192
become structurally deteriorated. This condition in 2016 was not considered a structural
safety concern, but yearly monitoring was to be scheduled and structural rehabilitation
repairs to be scheduled in 2018 - 2020.
Based on the information provided in the Report by CSE Inc., City staff were of the
opinion that structural repairs were warranted immediately and consulted with TS
Engineering (one of the City’s consulting firms of record) who also have 20 plus years
experience with the Arena design and construction. Initial conversations with TS
Engineering indicated the proposed repair work was complicated by the issue that the
slab and foundation repairs would also require work on the brine header and piping in
the slab. Because the refrigeration lines running through the slab and brine header were
approximately 38 years old, it was recommended by the City’s Refrigeration Preventive
Maintenance Contractor (Cimco) not to perform any repairs, unless staff was prepared
to replace the entire concrete slab and in-floor piping inclusive of the brine headers and
branch piping. The concern is with the in-floor PVC piping and over time the piping
becomes brittle. If the piping were cut and then tried to be reconnected, the coupling
fitting inserted into the pipe end would likely split the pipe and the City would have to
continue to chase the pipe into the floor to try and make the connections (50 plus) and
would be unsuccessful and would need to make major floor repairs.
In consideration of the above, staff presented Report CPPS17-008 to Council and it was
approved on March 6, 2017. The report identified issues with the various roofs, HVAC
equipment and the need for the replacement of the Ice Rink Pad in 2018 (Attachment 1
– Report CPPS17-008).
Impact on Major Tenants
At one point, it was discussed whether the work could be completed in the summer of
2018. Staff would design the work and coordinate schedules with the Peterborough
Petes and Peterborough Lakers for any disruptions in their 2018 schedules. Staff
recommended a premium work schedule of 24/7 to shorten the down time of the
Peterborough Memorial Centre and minimize the impact on the Petes and Lakers’
schedule. The project was estimated to take approximately 16 weeks with a start date of
mid May and completion by the end of August 2018.
This would have required the relocation of the Lakers for the 2018 season, however, the
MANN cup could be held in September. It would have affected some early season
Petes’ events such as their Training Camp and Exhibition games but would not have an
impact on their regularly scheduled games. Staff would work with the Petes and Lakers
to find alternate facilities to accommodate their needs. Council asked that City staff
meet with the Lakers, Petes and the Agricultural Society to discuss options and viability
of timing to replace the concrete ice slab.
193
Meetings with Stakeholders
City staff met with the Lakers, Petes and the Agricultural Society on three separate
occasions in February and March 2017. Staff presented three options for 2017, 2018
and 2019 with expected construction time lines of 16 weeks, 24/7 if the work was done
immediately in 2017. No matter when the work was to be performed, it would require
participation from all parties to facilitate this work and would provide disruption to
schedules and/or entire seasons for the Lakers, summer exhibition of the Agricultural
Society and the Petes.
It was agreed by the Lakers and Petes that 2017 could not be accommodated due to
the immediate timing and schedules already in place. It was also decided that 2018 was
not a viable option because, if the Petes were to go all the way in the playoffs,
construction would not be able to start until mid to late May and the construction
schedule would not be complete in time to play the MANN Cup.
It was agreed to by all parties, that the work would be done in 2019 and the start date
for the project would be immediately after the end of the Petes 2018–2019 season.
Consequently staff came to Council with Report CPPS17-015 as this would require the
Lakers’ 2019 season to be played at another venue and staff agreed to work directly
with the Lakers to find a viable option within the City of Peterborough.
It was also suggested that a monthly structural review of the ice pad slab at the south
end of the rink be performed and that a written report complete with photographs be
provided to the Lakers and the Petes monthly, to reassure everyone, there are no
immediate concerns. If at any time the concrete pad became structurally unstable, City
staff agreed to inform all parties and immediately start the construction process to
replace the slab and refrigeration lines.
It was also agreed by all parties, that if the ice pad refrigeration system was to fail prior
to its replacement in 2019, that a temporary ice surface would be installed to allow the
completion of the Petes then current season and immediate replacement would be
done. It was understood that this could then affect the 2018 season for everyone if this
failure was to occur. In providing this temporary ice pad option the City would pre-
purchase long lead time equipment and have them available if needed.
Pre-commitment Report to Council
Report CPPS17-015 was approved by Council on April 25, 2017 (Attachment 2).
Council pre-committed $2,000,000 in the 2019 capital budget for the replacement of the
ice pad in 2019. The purpose of the pre-commitment was to ensure Council’s
commitment to the major ice pad work in 2019. Although none of the $2.0 million would
be incurred prior to 2019, all tenants required a commitment from Council, well in
advance, due to the complex re-scheduling and pre-planning that is required.
194
2019 Ice Rink Pad Replacement Budget
The 2017 Capital Budget pre-commitment request of $2,000,000 was a high level
estimate of the construction cost to serve as a 2019 Capital Budget placeholder. City
staff has been working with TS Engineering Inc. since late 2017 to create a design and
construction schedule for the Ice Pad Replacement. The design is 80% complete and a
formal Class C cost estimate has been performed by the Cost Consultant A.W. Hooker.
The estimated construction cost inclusive of design/contract administration and permit
fees, abatement remediation and contingency is $3,500,000.
The increase in the construction budget is due partially to various unknowns when staff
and the consultant estimated the original $2.0 million. Also increased construction costs
of 6%-10% per year ($400,000), added contingency of ($500,000) in case the outer
perimeter foundation wall requires repairs and or replacement (foundation wall is not
visible until the floor is removed), permit and abatement costs ($182,000) and additional
design requirements. City staff worked closely with the design team to control the
budget and ensure the requested budget increase is sufficient to complete the project
and allow for any possible unknowns.
Monthly Structural Review Reports
City staff hired CSE Inc. to perform monthly structural reviews of the south supporting
wall and ice slab at the south end of the rink. The purpose of the reviews was to provide
a structural professional opinion on the existing condition of the Wall at the present time
and to monitor for any further deterioration of the Wall in the future. Subsequent monthly
reviews would be scheduled to document any changes to the existing wall structure.
The scope of work for the monthly reviews is defined as follows:
 Visit the site to perform a visual survey of the Wall to identify areas of concern
(i.e. cracks, water staining and efflorescence);
 Install tell-tale crack monitors at significant cracks and record initial reading;
 Perform a delamination survey (sounding) on the concrete surface, on both the
north and south face of the Wall, and record the limits of delaminated concrete;
 Prepare a report that summarizes the conditions found.
Copies of all monthly reports have been provided to the Petes and Lakers.
Report #1, June 23, 2017
The monthly reviews started in June 2017. During the initial site visit, CSE Inc. cleared
and removed all existing debris from the header trench and installed drop sheets to
provide a better understanding of the amount of debris that would continue to fall over
the coming months and allow for better photographs and documentation of the debris
(Attachment 3). The initial monthly findings are as follows:
 A complete visual survey of the South Wall was performed (as visually
accessible) to document any significant concerns
195
 The review revealed that two wide cracks and one medium crack were present
along the length of the wall. At each of these locations, tell-tale crack monitors
were installed. The initial readings of the tell-tales were recorded and
photographs were taken to document the current conditions
 Evidence of severe water leakage and efflorescence was typically noted along
the length of the wall
 A large area of hollow sounding concrete was identified along the complete
length of the wall. The majority of the delaminations were found along the top
portion of the wall, on both the interior and exterior faces. Typically the top 12" of
the wall was found to be severely delaminated. In many locations the area of
delaminated concrete extended down towards the base of the wall
Report #3, August 31, 2017
 A hammer tap (which is performed by tapping a small hammer on the surface of

the concrete and listening to sounds to detect near surface delimitations) was
conducted around the perimeter of the previously noted delaminated areas. In
general, there was no noticeable increase in the area of delaminated concrete
 There was a significant increase in the amount of debris in the header trench
tunnel at the east end. This is the location of the Zamboni path above. The
vibrations from the travelling equipment above caused loose pieces of the
concrete wall and/or slab to dislodge
 No additional cork or deck loss was observed and there was no further concrete
deterioration of the slab underside in the first bay. Please note that the slab and
steel deck had started to freeze over due to the flooding of the ice rink, therefore
some areas were not visible
 Based on the observed concrete debris on the ground, CSE Inc. was of the
opinion that some localized shoring should be designed and installed along the
Zamboni path between the storage area and the ice rink
Report #5, October 29, 2017
 There were no noticeable increases in the amount of debris in the header trench
tunnel, with the exception of a few large concrete spalls on the floor at the west
end of the wall
Report #7, December 20, 2017
 There was a small increase in the amount of concrete debris in the header trench
tunnel since the previous review in November. Since the monthly reviews
commenced, a significant amount of debris has accumulated in the header
trench tunnel
 CSE Inc. recommended again that steel shoring be designed and installed in the
header trench at the earliest convenience as a precautionary measure
196
Report #9, March 23, 2018
 A hammer tap was conducted around the perimeter of the previously noted
delaminated areas on both the north and the south faces of the wall. The review
revealed that there had been an increase in the area of delaminated concrete
since the initial investigation
 The amount of fallen debris in the header trench was continuing to grow. Since
the monthly reviews commenced in June 2017, a significant amount of debris
had accumulated in the header trench tunnel. The source of the debris is the
original slab that has been overlaid by the newer slab on top
 Overall, the reviews had revealed that the deterioration of the wall is progressing
Report #11, May 9, 2018
delaminated areas on the south (outside) face of the wall. There has been a
significant increase in the area of delaminations since the initial investigation in
June 2017
 Since the previous site review on March 23, 2018, there has been a notable
increase in the accumulation of debris on the header trench floor
 The top of the concrete wall was reviewed since the previous build-up of ice was
gone and it revealed that there was significant deterioration and loose concrete
at the top of the wall. CSE Inc. believes this to be the result of frost damage
 CSE Inc. scheduled a more detailed review of the south wall to determine the
extent of frost damage and appropriate remedial measures.
Report #12, June 1, 2018
delaminated areas on the south (outside) face of the wall. Since the monthly
reviews commenced there had been continuous growth of the area of
delaminated concrete
 A chipping hammer was used to determine the thickness of frost damaged
concrete on both the inside and outside face of the south wall. The investigation
revealed that in general there was 2-3 inches of damaged concrete on both faces
of the 8 inch thick wall (top of wall). The damaged concrete was observed to be
loose and disintegrated easily.
 Based on the results of the investigation and the safety concern of the continued
use of the rink slab, CSE Inc. is recommending that the first bay north of the
header trench be completely backfilled with a blown aggregate material to
stabilize the ice rink slab.
One area that did not change over the year was the tell-tale crack monitors. Tell-tale
crack monitors are plastic crack gauges used to monitor horizontal or vertical movement
across a crack. The bottom plate is transparent and marked with a hairline cursor in the
form of a cross. They are typically attached with screws or adhesive and are installed in
line with an existing crack to determine any future movement. These were reviewed
197
monthly to see if there had been any movement and/or crack growth. During the initial
12 month period, no changes in the readings were noted.
July 1, 2018, Structural Updated Report, Comments and Recommendations
In June 2018, City staff asked CSE Inc. to provide an overall update of their findings
from the first year of monthly reviews (Attachment 4). As per the information provided in
Reports 1 through 12, there has been continued spalling and delamination of concrete.
The conditions have continued and the worst concerns are when the ice pad is taken
out in April and the entire area thaws out creating severe delamination and spalling.
The condition of the perimeter foundation wall along the south side of the rink where the
PVC cooling pipes are fed from the header pipe and penetrate the topping edge is in an
advanced state of deterioration and continues to deteriorate. CSE Inc. has requested
that the south wall needs to be shored/replaced prior to the next ice season.
CSE Inc.’s understanding is that the complete ice rink will be replaced in 2019 and they
provided the following recommendations for the time between now and then:
 Continue to monitor the south wall and Zamboni path slab on a monthly basis for
any signs of significant movement.
 Install shoring along the Zamboni path, as deemed possible. Significant
interferences are present along this path due to the trench header pipes.
 Install shoring for the section of ice rink that is supported by the south wall. This
shoring will need to be installed in the interior between the south wall and first
intermediate masonry wall. The shoring being recommended is to fill the first
cavity completely with a self-compacting backfill. Although it will not be possible
to attain full bearing with the slab's underside, the backfill will provide the
required shoring to prevent any significant collapse of the rink slab and any
associated Health and Safety concerns.
In mid August 2018, City staff completed all suggested remedial measures
recommended by CSE Inc. to ensure no disruptions to the 2018/2019 Petes’ hockey
season and to maintain the structural integrity of the ice rink pad and support structure
until the scheduled replacement in June 2019. This included the shoring and the first
bay north of the header trench being completely backfilled with a blown aggregate
material to stabilize the ice rink slab.
Proposed Construction Schedule
The original 2017 schedule was an accelerated schedule to perform the Ice Rink Pad
Replacement under emergency conditions working 24/7. As part of the recent design,
the consultant was requested to create a construction schedule that would allow the
work to be performed at extended hours beyond a normal 8 hour work day, but not
include for 24/7 premium work. The final agreed upon schedule was a 19 week
construction schedule with a 3 week contingency to allow for any unknowns for a total
22 week construction schedule.
198
High Level Construction Schedule
Task # of Weeks
Demolition: including mobilization, bleacher removal, demo headers
and dasher boards, demo top rink slab, demo bottom rink slab and pan, 6.5
excavation, demo pier walls and trench wall, demo misc. apron slabs
Installation of rink slab: including perimeter foundation wall prep work;
pour new trench wall; rink backfill and drainage system; underfloor
6.5
heating system; insulation; vapour barrier; cooling floor pipe; chairs and
reinforcing
Cure time and Installation of other elements after floor pour: including
dasher boards; trench covers; trench pit; miscellaneous apron slabs; 4.0
and bleacher install
Start-up: Including six day controlled pull-down and five days to make
2.0
ice and general clean up and demobilization for total completion
Three week contingency 3.0
Total Working Weeks 22.0
City staff created the 22 week schedule to begin June 3, 2019 to allow the Junior Lakers
to play their season at the Peterborough Memorial Centre and also host the Laker
Classic Tournament. As there is not a predictable end date for the Petes’ season and
there is a requirement when tendering the project to provide a firm start and end date to
the contractor, staff took into account what was practical and what venues could be
accommodated at both ends of the schedule.
City staff has confirmed with the Petes, that they are able to start their home season
after November 1, 2019, and will continue to meet and work directly with the Lakers to
find the best possible option for the 2019 season and will work with the Agricultural
Society concerning the 2019 summer exhibition.
Summary
If Council accepts the recommendation contained in this report, staff will proceed with
tendering the project in November 2018 with a proposed start date of June 3, 2019 and
total completion date of November 1, 2019.
199
Submitted by
Patricia Lester
Contact Name:
Mac MacGillivray
Property & Energy Manager
Phone: 705-742-7777 Ext 1852
Toll Free: 1-855-738-3755
Attachments
Attachment 1 – Report CPPS17-008, Dated February 27, 2017
Attachment 2 – Report CPPS17-015, Dated April 18, 2017
Attachment 3 – CSE Inc. Report No. 1, June 23, 2017
Attachment 4 – Structural Update Report South Supporting Ice Rink Wall, July 1, 2018
200
Attachment 1
To: Members of the Committee of the Whole
From: Sandra Clancy, Director of Corporate Services

Ken Doherty, Director of Community Services
Meeting Date: February 27, 2017
Subject: Report CPPS17-008

Budget Re-allocation, Creation of Peterborough Memorial
Centre Roof and HVAC Replacement Project in 2017 and
Information on Other Necessary Work in Future Years
Purpose
A report to recommend the creation of Peterborough Memorial Centre Roof and HVAC
replacement project, a capital budget re-allocation and provide information on other
necessary work in future years.
Recommendations
That Council approve the recommendations outlined in Report CPPS17-008, dated
February 27, 2017 of the Director of Corporate Services and the Director of Community
a) That staff create a sub-capital project within the Corporate Services – Property –
Community Services Capital Project (Project 3-1.02) for the Replacement of five
Roof Sections of the Peterborough Memorial Centre and six HVAC Rooftop Units
in the amount of $1,423,000, due to recent failings of the roof;
b) That, in addition to the $353,000 re-allocated within the 2017 Capital Project 3-
1.02, an amount of $1,070,000 be transferred from the following sources to fund
the required $1,423,000:
i. 2016 Capital Project (Project 3-1.02) Corporate Services – Property –

Community Services in the amount of $375,000;
201
Report CPPS17-008 – Budget Re-allocation and Approval of PMC Roof Work Page 2
ii. 2017 Capital Project (Project 3-1.01) Corporate Services – Property –

Property in the amount of $345,000;
iii. 2017 Capital Project (Project 3-1.03) Corporate Services – Property – Fire
Services in the amount of $350,000.
c) That staff be directed to work with the Petes and the Lakers regarding the timing
and impact of the proposed construction in 2018 and to assist with scheduling
and/or securing off site venues.
d) That By-law 16-141, By-law 16-146 and By-law 15-184, being By-laws to
debenture certain capital works be repealed and replaced at a future date.

The estimated cost of the roof and HVAC rooftop replacement for 2017 is $1,423,000
and includes the budget required to provide consulting services to design, tender and
administer the work and the actual construction itself. The cost, net of HST rebate, will
be funded from deferring several projects as listed in Chart 1.
Chart 1
Proposed Funding for Roofing and HVAC Rooftop Replacement in 2017
Budget Sub Project Project
Year Ref # Description Budget Budget
Memorial Centre - Elevator Sump Pit
2016 3-1.02 $150,000
Installation
Memorial Centre - Upgrade Shower Tiles
2016 3-1.02 $75,000
and Ventilation System
Kinsmen Arena - Repairs to Structural Steel
2016 3-1.02 $150,000
Columns and Beams
Corporate Services–Property–
2016 3-1.02 $375,000
Community Services
Peterborough Daycare - New HVAC, Life
2017 3-1.01 $155,000
Safety and BAS
City Buildings - Property including City Hall
2017 3-1.01 $190,000
Elevator (part of $320,000 budget)
2017 3-1.01 Corporate Services–Property–Property $345,000
Memorial Centre - Replace Ice-Pad Lighting
2017 3-1.02 $225,000
with LED and Low E Ceiling
Evinrude Centre - Replace ammonia gas
2017 3-1.02 $28,000
detection system and HWT on 2nd floor
Kinsmen Arena - Repairs to Structural Steel
2017 3-1.02 $100,000
Columns and Beams
Corporate Services–Property–
2017 3-1.02 $353,000
Community Services
Main Fire Hall - Asphalt and Sidewalk
2017 3-1.03 $325,000
Replacement
202
Budget Sub Project Project

Year Ref # Description Budget Budget
2017 3-1.03 Fire Station 3 - Install new BAS $25,000
Corporate Services–Property–Fire
2017 3-1.03 $350,000
Services
Total Project Funding $1,423,000
All projects whose funding would be utilized for this project would be included in future
year’s capital budgets.
Background
The City has agreed to undertake an OHL Study as a priority project in 2017. While part
of the study will provide direction regarding the re-purposing or decommissioning of the
Peterborough Memorial Centre, it could be a full year before the study is completed. For
a capital construction project of this magnitude, it could take at least five years before a
new facility is constructed and open for business.
In the meantime, the City remains responsible for maintaining all aspects of the
Peterborough Memorial Centre's operations so that it meets the needs of the Petes as
an OHL facility; the needs of the Lakers as part of Major Series Lacrosse; and the
needs of the Community for entertainment and trade shows for much of the next
decade.
Information has become known to staff, since the 2017 Capital Budget was approved,
that has led to a recommendation to reallocate capital funds in 2017 for the
Peterborough Memorial Centre and plan some additional work in the next two years.
Building Issues
In 2009, a Building Condition Audit (BCA) was undertaken on the Peterborough

Memorial Centre. The BCA provided life cycle analysis of all major building components
and provided life cycle costing for replacement based on industry standards, age of
equipment and most importantly actual condition of equipment and components of the
building. The roofing, which was last done in 2003, was scheduled for replacement in
2018 – 2020.
Seventeen of the eighteen HVAC rooftop units were also replaced in 2003 with a life
expectancy of 15 years and with reliable maintenance could last 20 years. The HVAC
units were scheduled to be replaced in 2020 as noted in the BCA. There have been
maintenance issues with the rooftop units over the last several years and upon recent
review they were deemed to be in poor condition and should all be replaced in the next
1 – 3 years.
There have been issues with the dasher boards at the south end of the Memorial
Centre, which lead staff to perform a specific structural review of the floor slab and
203
serious issues were noted which have lead to the recommendations included in this
report. As the floor slab also contains the refrigeration lines to make ice, any work on
the floor slab would require replacement of the refrigeration lines. The floor and
refrigeration lines were replaced in 1979 and usually can expect a life expectancy of 30
– 40 years with proper maintenance. The refrigeration equipment is of similar age and,
with the findings of the structural review, replacement of the refrigeration equipment
would be recommended at the same time as the floor.
Roofing Issues
In early January 2017, Arena staff noted roof leaks throughout the Memorial Centre
(Suites 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8, Section 15 seating area and walkway and the Peterborough
Petes Alumni Room. The City’s Roofing Consultant (Accent Building Sciences) visited
the site on January 12, 2017 to review the roof conditions throughout the facility,
investigate the roof leaks and map out the areas of concern. Several roof areas are
beyond their life expectancy and require replacement. Three of the roofs have had
repair work performed in the past five years and the recommendation for 2017 is to
perform minor repairs again and include for roof replacement in 2019.
Given the unknown future of the Memorial Centre, with a new OHL Arena study
undertaking, staff reviewed two roofing options:
Option 1 – Full roof replacement: removal of all existing roofing material down to roof
deck, installation of new vapour retarder, thermal insulation layers, high performance
roofing membrane and flashings. New assembly to have a 20 year Platinum Privilege
Warranty inclusive of materials and labour; and
Option 2 – Recovering of the existing roof assemblies, where possible. Removal of the
existing roof membrane, leaving existing thermal insulation in-place (replace any
damaged or wet sections), and installation of new coverboard and new 2-ply modified
bituminous roofing membrane over existing thermal insulation. This option has a two
year workmanship warranty by the contractor and standard ten year material warranty
by the manufacturer.
The City can also purchase a 10-year Platinum Warranty from the manufacturer
(through the contactor) for an additional cost of approximately $0.15 to $0.20 per square
feet. A Platinum Warranty covers labour costs whereas the standard warranty is
materials only.
Staff recommend Option 2 with the additional 10-year Platinum warranty.
HVAC Rooftop Issues
The Peterborough Memorial Centre has 18 HVAC units which typically have a life
expectancy of 15 years. With 13 years of continuous service, all units with the exception
of one had the potential for continued use for 1 - 3 years. However, during the
inspection in early January 2017, some of the units have aged more quickly than others.
Three units are custom rooftop air handlers that serve the rink bowl. Their various
internal components have life expectancies ranging from 15 years to 25 years. Based
204
on their current condition, it is recommended that they be replaced within 1 – 3 years.

Their physical size makes them more costly to remove and reinstall so it would be more
practical to replace these units when the roof is replaced in their respective area. There
are four other units that are also in poor condition and need to be replaced. Therefore it
is recommended that units six units be replaced when they are removed for roofing. The
balance of the rooftop units can be removed for roof work and reinstalled afterwards
and potentially be replaced in 2019 with the remaining roof replacement work.
Chart 2 below provides detailed costs of the roof and HVAC rooftop for 2017.
Chart 2
Detailed Costs of Roof and HVAC Rooftop Unit Replacement in 2017
Description of Work Budget

Replacement of 5 Roofs $359,600
Repairs to 3 Roofs $40,000
Replace Rooftop 6 HVAC Units $646,000
Remove and Re-install remaining Rooftop HVAC Units $13,500
Consulting Fees for design of all 3 projects (2017 – 2019) $232,700
Project Management Fee for 2017 $25,400
Contingency $105,800
Total Project Cost $1,423,000
The work in 2017 can be done without disruption to the events in the building.
Expected 2018 Work
The original building was constructed in 1955 with an ice pad cast on a steel deck. The
pad is supported by concrete block foundation walls with a crawl space below. In 1977,
a new concrete pad was constructed over the existing pad complete with new
refrigeration piping, headers and dasher boards. Recently, arena staff commissioned a
structural review of the ice surface concrete slab looking into the options available to
offer different types of events.
The floor slab and supporting walls were reviewed as part of the structural analysis.
The analysis found an area at the south end of the slab along the edge at the dasher
boards and around the perimeter edge of the rink slab where staff had performed
numerous repairs around the southern dasher boards. The concrete foundation wall
below the dasher boards at the south end was found to be in poor condition, with many
large cracks, as well as evidence of severe water leakage and efflorescence. This wall
is also delaminating with corrosion/rust and concrete spalls along the entire length of
205
the supporting wall. The structural engineer has recommended replacement in 1 -3

years.
The City’s 20 year capital replacement plan included the replacement of the
refrigeration compressors in 2019 and replacement of the concrete slab, brine piping,
brine headers and all other refrigeration equipment in 2022.
Based on the condition of the south edge of the ice rink slab, rink concrete topping,
supporting walls and associated dasher board support frame anchorage, staff is
recommending that significant structural repairs and rehabilitation be done in 2018 to
ensure its reliability for the next several years. The work is complicated by the issue that
slab and foundation repairs would require work on the brine header and piping in the
slab. Given the age of the brine header and slab piping, it has been recommended by
our Refrigeration Preventive Maintenance Contractor not to perform any structural
repairs to slab, unless staff is prepared to replace the entire slab and in floor piping
inclusive of the brine headers and piping.
Impact on Major Tenants
By planning this work for 2018, staff will design the work and coordinate schedules with
the Petes and Lakers for any disruptions in their 2018 schedules. Staff will recommend
a premium work schedule of 24/7 to shorten the down time of the Peterborough
Memorial Centre and affect on the Petes and Lakers schedule. The project is estimated
to take approximately 3 to 3½ months with a start date of mid May and be completed by
late August.
This will require the relocation of the Peterborough Lakers for the 2018 season,
however the MANN cup could be held in September. It may affect some early season
Petes events such as their Training Camp and Exhibition games but should not have an
impact on their regularly scheduled games. Staff will work with the Petes and Lakers to
find alternate facilities to accommodate their needs.
Chart 4 below provides detailed costs of the proposed ice pad, refrigeration plant;
dasher boards/glass replacement and refrigeration room renovations for 2018.
206
Chart 4
Detailed Costs of Ice Slab, Dasher Board and Refrigeration Replacement in 2018

Replacement of Floor Slab $1,358,000
Refrigeration Plant Equipment Replacement $660,000
Dasher Board and Glass Replacement $300,000
Refrigeration Room Code Upgrades $27,000
5% Inflation Cost for work performed in 2018 $102,250
Total Estimated Project Cost $2,747,784
Chart 5 provides the detailed estimated costs for the 2019 proposed roofing and HVAC
rooftop unit replacement.
Chart 5
Detailed Costs of Roof and HVAC Rooftop Unit Replacement in 2019

Replacement of the remainder of the Roofs $479,500
Replacement of remainder of Rooftop HVAC Units $572,500
5% /year Inflation Cost for work performed in 2019 $105,200
Total Project Cost $1,305,000
Summary
If Council accepts the recommendations, the Roof and HVAC Rooftop Unit
Replacement will be created as a 2017 Capital project and the project would be
tendered in late March with an anticipated start date of late May 2017.
207
Submitted by
Sandra Clancy Ken Doherty

Director of Corporate Services Director of Community Services
Contact Name:
Mac MacGillivray
Phone: 705-742-7777 Ext 1852
Toll Free: 1-855-738-3755
Fax: 705-876-4606
Appendices
Appendix A – Form 1s and 2s
208
2017-2026 Capital Budget Justification

Tangible Capital Assets
CAP Form 1 (TCA )
Department: Corporate Services Budget Reference #: 3-1.01
Divi sion: Finance - Property
Project Name & Description Project Detail, Justification & Reference Map
Corporate Services – Property - Property 2017 Project De scription
Commitments Made 1. Peterborough Daycare - New HVAC, Life Safety & BAS
2. City Hall Generator Replacement $420,000
The building audits have been completed. The information 3. City Hall Board Room & Women's Washroom
contained in the audits shall be prioritized in a 20 year life cycle Renovation
plan. The items identified shall then require repair and/or 4. City Hall Replac e Trans former and S witchgear $50,000
replacement and appropriat e budgets shall be designated per
facility. 5. Market Hall Lighting $268,000
6. Market Hall Exterior Facade Repairs $75,000
7. City Buildings - Property including City Hall Elevator $130,000
8. City Hall North Wing E ntrance Replacement
9. City Hall North Parking Lot Re-Paving
$943,000
Effects on Future Operating Budgets
The repairs and/ or replacements will reduc e future maintenance

and operating costs.
209

Ten Year Capital Budget Estimates (000's)
2017-2026 & Subsequent Years
Project Approved Requested 2022 to 2027 to

(1) Total Pre-2017 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2026 2041
Department Corporate Services
Division/Activity Finance - Property
Project Description Corporate Services - Property - Property
Project# 3-1.01
Expenditures
Contractural Services 34,553.3 1,120.0 943.0 3,469.0 549.0 562.2 200.8 4,443.5 23,265.8
Direct Revenue
Revenue - Canada Grant 88.0 88.0
Total Direct Revenue 88.0 88.0
Net Requirements 34,465.3 1,120.0 855.0 3,469.0 549.0 562.2 200.8 4,443.5 23,265.8
To be financed from
Debentures
Ctiy's Tax Supported 864.5 190.0 674.5
Total Debenture Financing 864.5 190.0 674.5
Reserves
Reserves & Reserve Funds -285.0 -285.0
Court House Capital Reserve 285.0 285.0
Market Hall Performing Arts 55.5 55.5
Total Reserves 55.5 55.5
Capital Levy 33,545.3 930.0 125.0 3,469.0 549.0 562.2 200.8 4,443.5 23,265.8
210

CAP Form 1 (TCA )
Corporate Services – Property – Community Service s 2017 Project Description
0. Museum - Main Office Renovations

Commitments Made
1. Memorial Centre - Replace Ice-Pad Lighting with LED and Low
The building audits have been completed. The information E Ceiling
contained in the audits shall be prioritized in a 20 year life 2. Evinrude Centre - Replace ammonia gas detection system &
HWT on 2nd floor
cycle plan. The items identified shall then require repair
3. Kinsmen Arena - Repairs to Structural Steel Columns and
and/or replacement and appropriate budgets shall be
Beams
designated per facility. 4. Kinsmen Arena - Refrigeration Room Equipment Upgrades $600,000
5. PSWC Replace Interior Lighting $210,000
6. Morrow Bldg - Replace HWT & electric force flow heaters $7,000
7. PTBO Museum - Remove and dispose of the Fine Annex
$30,000
Portable
8. PTBO Museum - Replace water service to main building $28,000
9. Memorial Centre - Roof Repairs $1,423,000
$2,298,000
The repairs and/ or replacements will reduc e future
maintenance and operating costs.
211


(1) Total Pre-2017 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2026 2041
Project Description Corporate Services - Property - Community Services
Project# 3-1.02
Expenditures
Contractural Services 68,358.6 210.0 2,298.0 2,146.7 1,465.1 6,407.1 1,047.7 12,490.4 42,293.6
Direct Revenue
Revenue - Canada Grant
Total Direct Revenue
Net Requirements 68,358.6 210.0 2,298.0 2,146.7 1,465.1 6,407.1 1,047.7 12,490.4 42,293.6
To be financed from
Debentures
Ctiy's Tax Supported 1,757.7 125.0 1,632.7
Total Debenture Financing 1,757.7 125.0 1,632.7
Reserves
Museum Renovation Reserve 45.0 45.0
PSWC Capital Reserve 75.0 75.0
Federal Gas Tax 427.3 427.3
Total Reserves 547.3 502.3 45.0
Capital Levy 66,053.6 85.0 163.0 2,101.7 1,465.1 6,407.1 1,047.7 12,490.4 42,293.6
212

CAP Form 1 (TCA )
Corporate Services – Property – Fire Services 2017 Project Description
1. Fire Station 3 - Fleming Building - replace eavestrough $6,000

Commitments Made
2. Main Fire Hall - Asphalt and Sidewalk Replacement
The building audits have been completed. The information 3. Fire Station 3 - Install new BAS
contained in the audits shall be prioritized in a 20 year life
cycle plan. The items identified shall then require repair $6,000
and/or replacement and appropriate budgets shall be
designated per facility.
The repairs and/ or replacements will reduc e future

maintenance and operating costs.
213


(1) Total Pre-2017 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2026 2041
Project Description Corporate Services - Property - Fire Services
Project# 3-1.03
Expenditures
Contractural Services 7,945.8 6.0 546.0 366.7 589.9 151.8 1,105.9 5,179.5
Direct Revenue
Revenue - Canada Grant
Total Direct Revenue
Net Requirements 7,945.8 6.0 546.0 366.7 589.9 151.8 1,105.9 5,179.5
To be financed from
Debentures
Ctiy's Tax Supported
Total Debenture Financing
Capital Levy 7,945.8 6.0 546.0 366.7 589.9 151.8 1,105.9 5,179.5
214
Attachment 2
To: Members of the Committee of the Whole
From: Sandra Clancy, Director of Corporate Services

Ken Doherty, Director of Community Services
Meeting Date: April 18, 2017
Subject: Report CPPS17-015

Creation of a 2017 Capital Budget for the Peterborough
Memorial Centre Refrigeration Equipment Replacement,
Pre-Purchase of Equipment for an Emergency Temporary Ice
Pad Replacement and Monthly Structural Reviews of the
Concrete Ice Pad
Purpose
A report to recommend creation of a 2017 Capital Budget for the Peterborough
Memorial Centre Refrigeration Equipment Replacement, Pre-Purchase of Equipment for
an Emergency Temporary Ice Pad Replacement, Monthly Structural Reviews of the
Concrete Ice Pad and to provide information on budgeting and scheduling other
necessary work in future years.
Recommendations
That Council approve the recommendations outlined in Report CPPS17-015, dated April
18, 2017 of the Director of Corporate Services and the Director of Community Services,
as follows:
a) That a 2017 Capital Budget, in the amount of $940,000, be created for the
Peterborough Memorial Centre for the proposed Refrigeration Equipment
Replacement, Pre-Purchase of Equipment for an Emergency Temporary Ice Pad
Replacement, and Monthly Structural Reviews of the Concrete Ice Pad so the
work can proceed in 2017;
b) That the $2,000,000 budget amount proposed for the 2019 Capital Budget for
the Peterborough Memorial Centre Ice Pad Replacement be pre-committed;
215
Report CPPS17-015 - Pre-commitment of 2018 Budget for PMC Refrigeration and Ice
Pad Work
Page 2
c) That staff be directed to work with all tenants, including the Peterborough Petes,
the Peterborough Lakers and Agricultural Society regarding the timing and
impact of the construction in 2019 and to assist with scheduling and/or securing
off site venues for the 2019 season.

The estimated cost of the Peterborough Memorial Centre Refrigeration Equipment
Replacement, Pre-Purchase of Equipment for an Emergency Temporary Ice Pad
Replacement, Monthly Structural Reviews of the Concrete Ice Pad is $940,000 and
includes the budget required to provide consulting services to design, tender and
administer the work and the actual construction itself. The cost, net of HST rebate, will
be funded from the Capital Levy Reserve.
Chart 1
Detailed Costs of Proposed additional 2017 Work for the Memorial Centre
Refrigeration Equipment Replacement $750,000
Pre-Purchase of Equipment for an Emergency Temporary Ice Pad $50,000

Monthly Structural Reviews of the Concrete Ice Pad until the pad is replaced
$30,000
in 2019 (24 inspections)
Consulting Fees, Design and Project Management $30,000
Contingency $80,000
Total Additional Proposed Work for 2017 $940,000
Background
Council approved Report CPPS17-008 on March 6, 2017 for the Budget Re-allocation,
Creation of Peterborough Memorial Centre Roof and HVAC Replacement Project in
2017 and Information on Other Necessary Work in Future Years. Council asked that
City staff meet with the Peterborough Lakers, Peterborough Petes and the Agricultural
Society to discuss options and viability of timing to replace the concrete ice slab.
Meetings with Stakeholders
City staff met with the Lakers, Petes and the Agricultural Society on three separate
occasions. Staff presented three options for 2017, 2018 and 2019. City staff provided
expected construction time lines of 16 weeks and as such would require participation
from all parties to facilitate this work towards the end of the Lakers season, summer
exhibition by the Agricultural Society and the start of the Petes season.
216
Pad Work
Page 3
It was agreed that 2017 could not be accommodated due to the immediate timing and
schedules already in place. It was also decided that 2018 was not a viable option
because, if the Peterborough Petes were to go all the way in the playoffs construction
would not be able to start until mid to late May and the construction schedule would not
be complete in time to play the MANN Cup.
It was also agreed to by all parties that the work should be done in 2019 and the start
date for the project would be immediately after the end of the Petes 2018–2019 season.
This will require that the Lakers 2019 season will have to be played at another venue
and staff have agreed to work directly with Lakers to find a viable option within the City
of Peterborough.
It was also suggested that a monthly structural review of the ice pad slab at the south
end of the rink be performed and that a written report complete with photographs be
provided to Lakers and the Petes monthly, to reassure everyone there are no immediate
concerns. If at any time the concrete pad becomes structurally unstable, City staff has
agreed to inform all parties and immediately start the construction process to replace
the slab and refrigeration lines.
Temporary Ice Pad as Contingency
Staff have also researched and met with a Canadian company that provides temporary
ice pads for various needs and venues. The Lakers and Petes requested that City staff
look at all options as part of the process and to assure all groups that a back-up plan in
case of an emergency was in place. As part of the project included in this report for
2017 is the required infrastructure to allow a maximum 3 week turnaround to install a
temporary ice surface to maintain the Petes season.
It has also been agreed by all parties, that if the ice pad was to fail prior to its
replacement in 2019 that the temporary ice surface be installed to allow the completion
of the Petes then current season and immediate replacement would be done. It was
understood that this could then affect the 2018 season for everyone if this failure was to
occur. In providing this temporary ice pad option the City would pre-purchase long lead
time equipment and have them available if needed.
The work requested for 2017 would involve the replacement of the Refrigeration Plant,
the necessary infrastructure to install the temporary ice pad and the ongoing monthly
structural review of the concrete pad. It is the recommendation by staff to take the
proactive approach and replace the refrigeration plant, removing one of the issues of
concern due to its age. This would also shorten the construction schedule, only
requiring the headers to be replaced when the ice pad is reconstructed.
217
Pad Work
Page 4
Pad Replacement in 2019
The purpose of Recommendation b) is to ensure Council’s commitment to the major ice

pad work in 2019. Although none of the $2.0 million will be incurred prior to 2019, all
tenants require a commitment from Council well in advance due to the complex
re-scheduling and pre-planning that is required.
Commitment to Major Sport & Entertainment Study
The Lakers and Petes would also like to be assured that the required repairs and
alterations at the Peterborough Memorial Centre would not have a negative impact on
the Major Sport & Entertainment Facility Study and should not deter the outcome or
postpone any suggestions or options of a new facility because of the financial
investment to maintain the Peterborough Memorial Centre for a further ten years or
more. Staff has assured the Lakers and Petes that the study is proceeding in 2017.
Summary
If Council accepts the recommendations, staff would proceed with the Peterborough
Memorial Centre Refrigeration Equipment Replacement, Pre- Purchase of Equipment
for an Emergency Temporary Ice Pad Replacement and Monthly Structural Reviews of
the Concrete Ice Pad in 2017 to be funded from a pre-commitment from the 2018
Capital Budget. The project would be tendered in April with an anticipated start date of
early May 2017.
Submitted by
Sandra Clancy Ken Doherty

Director of Corporate Services Director of Community Services
Contact Name:
Mac MacGillivray
Phone: 705-742-7777 Ext 1852
Toll Free: 1-855-738-3755
Fax: 705-876-4606
Attachment 3 218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
Attachment 4 237
CSE STRUCTURAL FORENSIC &

REHABILITATION SERVICES
STRUCTURAL UPDATED REPORT

SOUTH SUPPORTING ICE RINK WALL
MEMORIAL CENTRE, PETERBOROUGH (ON)
PREPARED FOR
THE CITY OF PETERBOROUGH
BY
CARVAJAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS INC.
CSE PROJECT-2022.18
Professional Engineers
Alberta-British Columbia-New Brunswick JUNE, 2018
Ontario -Nova Scotia - Saskatchewan
CSE
238 Date: July 1, 2018
Revision: 00
STRUCTURAL FORENSIC & Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... i
1.0 UNDERSTANDING OF WORK ........................................................................................ 1
2.0 DESIGN REVIEW LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................... 2
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE .................................................................................... 2
4.0 VISUAL OBSERVATIONS REVIEW & TESTING ............................................................ 2
5.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ............................................................................................... 4
7.0 COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 4
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX B – MONTHLY MONITORING REPORTS
CARVAJAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS INC

Toronto Office - 605-3500 Dufferin St. Toronto, Ontario, M3K 1N2, Fax: 416-398-2634
Barrie Office - 36 MacMillan Cres. Barrie, Ontario, L4N 7H1, Fax: 705-725-9949
Phone: 416-876-4357 E-Mail: [email protected]
CSE
239 Date: July 3, 2018
Revision: 00
STRUCTURAL FORENSIC & Page: 1 of 5
Attention: Mac MacGillivray, C.Tech., M.M.P.

500 George Street North
Peterborough (ON), K9H 3R9
Tel: 705-742-7777 Ext. 1852
eMail: [email protected]
File: 2022.18 – South Supporting Ice Rink Wall Structural - Update Report
Peterborough Memorial Centre - 151 Lansdowne St., Peterborough (ON) K9J 1Y4
As requested, Carvajal Structural Engineers Inc. (CSE) has completed an updated structural
assessment of the existing Ice Rink Pad (slab) and South Supporting Wall at the above
captioned site. The following report provides a factual summary of our understanding of the
work, our findings, and the associated recommendations for the South Supporting Wall.
1.0 UNDERSTANDING OF WORK
CSE has been retained to monitor the condition and structural performance of the south wall.
The load bearing south wall provides structural support for the trench header pipes, cooling
pipes, the original ice rink slab, the second ice rink, the suspended slab over the header trench,
and the dasher boards above. It also acts as a retaining wall for the sandy backfill material
below the ice rink slab.
The south wall is a critical component of the overall ice rink and the two (2) ice rink slabs and
needs to be replaced as scheduled prior to winter 2021.
As part of our responsibility, CSE has performed regular monthly site visits to review the
progression of the walls deterioration. Our objective is to determine when the condition has
progressed to a point where the deteriorated condition, in our Professional Opinion, is no longer
safe and imposes health & safety concerns with it's continued use.
This report will summarize the results and observations of our continued review and the
associated health & safety concerns that are now present. The results of our initial review and
recommendations were summarized in our report "Structural Assessment of Existing Ice Rink
Slab" dated July 31, 2016. Sections of this report have been duplicated in this follow up report
for ease of reading and continuity.
The purpose of our review is to provide a Structural Professional Opinion on the progression of
deterioration for the south wall (wall). Our scope of work is defined as follows:
1. Perform visual reviews of the south wall on a monthly basis.

2. Perform a delamination survey (sounding) on the south wall on a monthly basis.
3. Record any changes in the crack widths where tell-tales crack monitors that were
installed to monitor any crack growth on the wall.
4. Formulate a structural opinion on the progression of deterioration for the south wall and
its health & safety concerns.
5. Prepare a factual report that summarizes the conditions found, the areas of concern and
our associated follow up recommendations.

240
CSE STRUCTURAL FORENSIC & REHABILITATION SERVICES Project 2022.18- Page 2 of 5
2.0 DESIGN REVIEW LIMITATIONS
Please be advised that any information contained in this report is derived from our field
measurements, our own field observations and the available structural drawings. Any third-
party use of this information is restricted since our report incorporates a measure of experience
with similar structures. This report is solely provided to the City of Peterborough (City). CSE
takes no responsibilities or liabilities for any third-party use of this information without prior
consultation with CSE. Please note that CSE reserves the right to update our observations,
analysis and recommendations should additional relevant information become available.
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE
The existing building is an approximate 45,000 square foot multi-purpose arena located in
Peterborough (ON), with its main function serving as a hockey arena. The building was
constructed in 1955. The layout of the arena consists of an Ice Rink Pad in the center with
seating surrounding its perimeter. The main focus of this review was on the structural ice rink
pad.
The original construction of the slab is a 5” thick suspended structural concrete slab cast on a
steel deck. The slab is supported along its length by a series of 8” thick concrete block
foundation walls, which are spaced at 8’-8” o/c. Below the slab is a crawl space. In addition,
the underside of the slab was not visible since it is covered with the steel deck and cork
insulation. The extent of the review of the masonry foundation walls and underside of the slab
was limited to the first bay at the south end of the slab. In addition, the underside of the slab
was not visible since it is covered with the steel deck and cork insulation. Directly below the
dasher boards, the foundation walls are constructed of reinforced concrete.
Based on our review, it is our understanding that the existing slab has been structurally modified
since its original construction Circa 1979. The structural modifications included the complete
removal of all the dasher boards and the complete installation of a new 4 ½” – 5” thick concrete
slab (topping) with a hard “trap rock” surface hardener complete with new brine pipes and
header trench. The new topping was cast on top of the original slab. The existing rink pipes
were abandoned, and new PVC pipes were re-routed into the new topping and connected to the
brine pipes. The PVC pipes run from south to north and loop back at the north end of the rink to
return to the brine headers pipes.
No structural information is available for the design of this new topping since it is most likely a
non-structural slab. This report assumes that the topping is non-structural.
Modifications also included building up the perimeter of the slab around the ice pad at various
locations. The build-up included non-structural concrete, which has been sloped to achieve the
elevation of the new slab.
4.0 VISUAL OBSERVATIONS REVIEW & TESTING
Commencing during the month of June 2017, the existing south wall has been reviewed for any
significant signs of progressive deterioration on a monthly basis. The results of our monthly
reviews can be found in Appendix "B".

241
The following findings summarize our observations for the visual review, hollow sounding survey
and tell-tale crack progression monitoring survey review. See photographs in Appendix “A”.
4.1 South Wall - Visual Survey
In general, our visual review on the condition of the south wall has revealed that deterioration of
the wall has been progressing at an accelerated rate. Concrete deterioration was noted over
the full length of the wall. As well, many cracks and areas of frost damaged/spalled/delaminated
concrete were observed. The extent of deterioration continues to expand.
The upper portion of the wall where the cooling lines penetrate the slab displayed the worst
conditions of deterioration due to extensive concrete frost damage, while the visual deterioration
of the face of the interior and exterior of the wall appeared to progress at a slower rate. Please
note that the upper portion of the wall, which directly supports the suspended slabs, is where
the highest level of frost damage was identified.
Furthermore, deteriorated concrete continues to fall from the top of the wall along the floor of the
header trench.
4.2 South Wall - Delamination / Hollow Sounding Survey
The foundation wall was sounded with a hammer over the accessible portions of the wall. In
general, the wall was found to be in poor to very poor condition, with many hollow sounding
areas identified.
Based on the results of our monthly reviews, the extent of deterioration is continuously
progressing at an accelerated rate. Significant concerns are expressed with the degree of
concrete deterioration along the top portion of the wall since it provides structural support to the
ice rink slabs and other components.
4.3 South Wall - Tell-Tale Crack Progression Review
A total of three (3) full height cracks along the wall were selected for crack progression
monitoring. No significant horizontal cracks were identified or monitored. Based on our review,
no significant crack growth has been identified for the cracks being monitored. No changes in
the readings of the tell-tale monitors have been noted.
4.4 South Wall – Test Areas (Frost Damage)
A total of four (4) areas were selected to test for the depth of frost damaged / delaminated
concrete on both faces of the south wall. A chipping hammer and/or drill was used to remove
the loose concrete to a level of sound concrete. The results indicated that the concrete is a
gravelly mix. Depth of frost damage ranged from 70mm to 80mm on each side of the wall. The
depth of frost damage at the top of the wall towards the east end exceeded the above noted
limits, however CSE did not extend the removals beyond this depth.
Please refer to attached Appendix “A” for photographs of the test areas.

242
4.5 Suspended Slab- Zamboni Pathway to the Ice Rink
During our review on the wall performance during the 2017-2018 winter season, CSE identified
concerns with the suspended slab portion where the Zamboni travels from its storage area to
the ice rink. Shoring of this slab section is being recommended until the slab can be fully
repaired/replaced. Shoring needs to be installed prior to the 2018-2019 ice installation.
5.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Based on our observations, the condition of the south wall that supports the ice rinks is
continuing to deteriorate. During the winter season of 2017-2018, the degree of deterioration
observed appeared to be accelerating at a higher rate.
The following bullet points will summarize the results of our findings.
 The concrete foundation wall at the south end (below the dasher boards) of the rink was
observed to be in poor to very poor condition. Concrete deterioration was noted over the
full length of the wall, as well as many cracks and areas of frost damaged / spalled /
delaminated concrete. The extent of deterioration continues to expand at an accelerated
rate. The observed visual condition of the top of the wall is of a significant concern and
shoring/complete replacement is warranted.
 The results of the hollow sounding surveys indicate that the extent of damage is
progressing slowly along the full height of the wall but the progression is more rapid at
the top of wall where the cooling pipes penetrate the slab. The observed hollow
sounding condition of the top of wall is of a significant concern and repairs are
warranted.
 The performance of the suspended slab pathway for the Zamboni is being
recommended to be shored for structural safety reasons.
 The results of the vertical crack monitoring have not revealed any significant progression
of crack width.
 The extent of deterioration for the south wall and suspended slabs area over the
Zamboni path has progressed to a point, were in our Professional Opinion, the walls and
slab need to be shored before they can be returned to service for the ice rink installation.
6.0 COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
In general, the condition of the perimeter foundation wall along the south side of the rink where
the pvc cooling pipes are fed from the header pipe and penetrate the topping edge is in an
advanced state of deterioration and continues to deteriorate. This south wall needs to be
shored/replaced prior to the next ice season.
In summary, the following recommendations are being provided to the City of Peterborough
under our understanding that the complete ice rink will be replaced in 2018 or 2019.
 Continue to monitor the south wall and Zamboni path slab on a monthly basis for any
signs of significant movement.
 Install shoring along the Zamboni path, as deemed possible. Significant interferences
are present along this path due to the trench header pipes.

243
 Install shoring for the section of ice rink that is supported by the south wall. This shoring
will need to be installed in the interior between the south wall and 1st intermediate
masonry wall. The shoring being recommended is to fill the 1st cavity completely with a
self-compacting backfill. Although it will not be possible to attain full bearing with the
slab's underside, the backfill will provide the required shoring to prevent any significant
collapse of the rink slab and any associated health & safety concerns.
We trust the above is to your satisfaction, should you have any further questions, please do not
hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Yours truly,
Claire Miller, E.I.T

Structural Designer
Structural Rehabilitation Engineer
CSE Structural Forensic & Rehabilitation Services
Carvajal Structural Engineers Inc.
______________________
George Carvajal, P.Eng.
Senior Structural Engineer & Principal
Structural Rehabilitation Specialist
CSE Structural Forensic & Rehabilitation Services
Carvajal Structural Engineers Inc.
BCIN 31226
File: 2022.18
CC: M. MacGillivray (City), CSE Files

CSE
244 Date: June 27, 2018
Revision: 00
STRUCTURAL FORENSIC & Page: 1 of 2
APPENDIX A
PHOTOGRAPHS

245 June 27, 2018
►Test Area No.1
►Location: Between Grid

Line 25-26 Outside Wall
Face, Top of Wall
►Comments: No concrete
removed by CSE.
Concrete observed to be
gravelly and crumbled
easily. Depth of frost
damage exceeded
80mm. Actual depth of
damage not confirmed.
PHOTOGRAPH NO.1
►Test Area No.2
►Location: Grid Line 6

Outside Wall Face
►Comments: Drill used to

remove damaged
concrete to a level of
sound concrete. Depth of
damage approximately
65mm.
PHOTOGRAPH NO.2
246 June 27, 2018
►Test Area No.3

Outside Wall Face, Top of
Wall
►Comments: Chipping
hammer used to remove
loose concrete.
Approximate depth of
70mm frost damaged
concrete.
PHOTOGRAPH NO.3
►Test Area No.4

Line 4-5 Inside Wall Face
►Comments: Chipping
hammer used to remove
damaged concrete to
depth of sound concrete.
Approximately 70mm
depth to level of sound
concrete.
PHOTOGRAPH NO.4
247
APPENDIX B
MONTHLY MONITORING REPORTS

DATE OF REPORT
248 DATE OF FIELD REVIEW TIME OF FIELD REVIEW
GENERAL CONFORMANCE REVIEW Aug, 3 2017, Jul, 25 2017, 9:00 AM

PROJECT PROJECT No. WEATHER CONDITIONS
TS_Wall Monitoring 1897 24 Degrees C

TITLE REPORT No. PAGE No.
Memorial Arena Wall Monitoring - Review No.2 002 1 of 1

PURPOSE OF SITE REVIEW & ATTENDANCE
The above captioned site was visited for the purpose of performing a monthly review of the condition of the existing South
Wall. Representatives from CSE and TS Engineering were present.
CURRENT ACTIVITY
No activity was occurring at the time of our visit.
PARTS REVIEWED
1. Crack Growth (Tell-Tale Crack Monitors)
2. Concrete Delaminations
3. Debris on Ground
COMMENTS
1. The tell-tale crack monitors were reviewed to see if there has been any movement and/or crack growth. No changes
were noted at Tell-Tale Markers No.2 and No.3. However, a small vertical change in the reading of Marker No.1 was
observed. No concerns with this degree of movement are expressed at this time, and we will continue to monitor the crack
growth at these locations at the subsequent monthly reviews. Please refer to the Photo Log for photographs of the Tell-Tale
readings.
2. A hammer tap was conducted around the perimeter of the previously noted delaminated areas. In general, there was no
noticeable increase in the area of delaminated concrete. This test shall continue to be performed at the following monthly
reviews to determine if the area of delaminated concrete is increasing.
3. At the time of our visit, CSE documented the debris on the ground in both the header trench and the first bay underneath
the ice rink slab. The included concrete spalls and loose cork insulation from the underside of the ice rink slab. It did not
appear that there was a significant increase in the amount of debris on the floors in both areas.
Please note that at the time of our site visit we were informed that no heavy equipment had been placed on the ice rink slab
since our initial visit on June 23, 2017. We were informed that within the upcoming month the ice rink resurfacer and a small
crane will likely be utilized on top of the ice rink slab.
We trust the above is to your satisfaction, should you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact the
undersigned.
CSE Field Report Form SIGNATURE C.Miller / G.Carvajal

249 JULY 26, 2017
►Tell-Tale Marker 1
►Comments: Crack Width

is Wide.
PHOTOGRAPH NO.1
►Comments: Small Vertical

Movement
PHOTOGRAPH NO.2
250 JULY 26, 2017

Line 14 & 15

is Medium.
PHOTOGRAPH NO.3

Line 14 & 15
►Comments: No
Movement (Reading of 0)
PHOTOGRAPH NO.4
251 JULY 26, 2017

is Wide.
PHOTOGRAPH NO.5
►Comments: No
Movement (Reading of 0)
PHOTOGRAPH NO.6
DATE OF REPORT
GENERAL CONFORMANCE REVIEW Aug 31, 2017 Aug 25, 2017 10:00 AM
TS Wall Monitoring 1897 20 Degrees C


The above captioned site was visited for the purpose of performing the August monthly review of the condition of the
existing South Wall. Representatives from CSE and TS Engineering were present.
CURRENT ACTIVITY
At the time of our site visit, the rink was being flooded to make ice, which involves the ice resurfacer riding on top of the
suspended slab after each pour.
PARTS REVIEWED
COMMENTS
1. The tell-tale crack monitors were reviewed to see if there had been any movement and/or crack growth. No changes in
the readings taken at our previous site visit were noted. We will continue to monitor the tell-tales for crack growth at the
subsequent monthly reviews. Please refer to the Photo Log for photographs of the Tell-Tale readings.
noticeable increase in the area of delaminated concrete. This test shall continue to be performed at the following monthly
3. The amount of debris on the ground in both the header trench and the first bay underneath the ice rink slab was
documented using photographs and compared to the photographs archived from the July monthly review.
Based on our review, there was a significant increase in the amount of debris in the header trench tunnel at the east end.
This is the location of the zamboni path above. It is our understanding that the vibrations from the travelling equipment
caused loose pieces of the concrete wall and/or slab to dislodge.
4. The condition of the slab underside in the first bay was documented using photographs and compared to the
photographs archived from the previous monthly review. Based on our review no additional cork or deck loss was observed
and there was no further concrete deterioration, as visible. Please note that the slab and steel deck had started to freeze
over due to the flooding of the ice rink, therefore some areas were not visible.
Based on the observed concrete debris observed on the ground. We are of the opinion that some localized shoring be
designed and installed along the Zamboni Path between the storage area and the Ice Rink.
Please see the attached photographs relating to our August 25, 2017 site visit.
undersigned.
CSE Field Report Form C.Miller / G.Carvajal

SIGNATURE
253 AUGUST 26, 2017
►Debris on Floor

Line 25 and 26
►Comments: Concrete /
rubble debris on floor at
July, 2017 review.
JULY 25, 2017
PHOTOGRAPH NO.1
►Debris on Floor

Line 25 and 26
August, 2017 review.
Please note the
significant increase in
concrete on the concrete
floor.
AUGUST 25, 2017
PHOTOGRAPH NO.2
254 AUGUST 26, 2017
►Debris on Floor

Line 24 and 25
July, 2017 review.
JULY 25, 2017
PHOTOGRAPH NO.3
►Debris on Floor

Line 24 and 25
August, 2017 review.
Please note the
significant increase in
concrete on the concrete
floor.
AUGUST 25, 2017
PHOTOGRAPH NO.4
255 AUGUST 25, 2017
►Comments: No additional
movement
PHOTOGRAPH NO.5

Line 14 & 15
►Comments: No
movement
PHOTOGRAPH NO.6
256 AUGUST 25, 2017
►Comments: No
movement
PHOTOGRAPH NO.7
► Exposed Deck / Slab

Line 11 & 12
►Comments: Typical layer

of ice on exposed
concrete slab / steel deck
PHOTOGRAPH NO.8
257 AUGUST 25, 2017
► Header Pipes & Brine

Pipes
►Location: General
►Comments: Typical layer

of ice on pipes
PHOTOGRAPH NO.9
DATE OF REPORT
GENERAL CONFORMANCE REVIEW Sep, 28 2017, Sep, 25 2017, 10:00 AM



The above captioned site was visited for the purpose of performing the September monthly review of the condition of the
existing South Wall. Representatives from CSE were present.
CURRENT ACTIVITY
At the time of our site visit, no activity was taking place.
PARTS REVIEWED
COMMENTS
subsequent monthly reviews. Please refer to the Photo Log for current photographs of the Tell-Tale readings.
noticeable increase in the area of delaminated concrete, and we shall continue to perform this test at the following monthly
documented using photographs and compared to the photographs archived from the previous monthly reviews. Based on
our review, there was no significant increase in the amount of debris in the header trench tunnel and we will continue to
monitor this condition at the following reviews.
4. At the time of our site visit, the slab underside in the first bay was for the most part not visible due to the build-up of ice,
with the exception of the east and west ends where there was no ice. As well, it should be noted that a build-up of ice had
formed along the top six inches (6") of the South Wall (on both sides), as well as the next wall to the north.
5. A significant amount of moisture was observed on both sides of the South Wall, particularly towards the east and west
ends. Moisture / water ponding was also noted on the concrete slab-on-grade at the tunnel ends.
Please see the attached photographs relating to our September 25, 2017 site visit.
undersigned.

SIGNATURE
259 SEPT 26, 2017
movement
PHOTOGRAPH NO.1

Line 14 & 15
►Comments: No
movement
PHOTOGRAPH NO.2
260 SEPT 26, 2017
►Comments: No
movement
PHOTOGRAPH NO.3
►General View of Trench
►Location: Trench
►Comments: Ice build-up

on brine pipes
PHOTOGRAPH NO.4
261 SEPT 26, 2017
►South Wall
►Location: South (outside)

face of wall, between
Grid Line 26 & 26
►Comments: Moisture on
Wall
PHOTOGRAPH NO.5
►Slab-on-grade

Line 0 & 1
►Comments: Moisture /
water ponding on slab
PHOTOGRAPH NO.6
262 SEPT 26, 2017
►South Wall
►Location: North (inside)

face of wall
►Comments: Ice build-up

at top of wall and on
underside of slab
PHOTOGRAPH NO.7
DATE OF REPORT
GENERAL CONFORMANCE REVIEW Oct 29, 2017 Oct 26, 2017 10:30 AM


The above captioned site was visited for the purpose of performing the October monthly review of the condition of the
existing South Wall. Representatives from CSE were present.
CURRENT ACTIVITY
PARTS REVIEWED
- Crack Growth
- Delamination Survey
- Debris on Floors
COMMENTS
subsequent monthly reviews. Please refer to the Photo Log for current photographs of the Tell-Tale readings.
significant increase in the area of delaminated concrete, and we shall continue to perform this test at the following monthly
our review, there was no noticable increase in the amount of debris in the header trench tunnel, with the exception of a few
large concrete spalls on the floor at the west end of the wall. Refer to the Photo Log for photographs. We will continue to
monitor this condition at the following reviews.
4. At the time of our site visit, the slab underside in the first bay was for the most part not visible due to the build-up of ice,
with the exception of the east and west ends where there was no ice and the cork insulation / steel deck / concrete was
visible.
5. Please note that the moisture that was observed on the South Wall at the previous site visit has now dried up.
Please see the attached photographs relating to our October 26, 2017 site visit.
undersigned.
CSE Field Report Form C.Miller

SIGNATURE
264 OCT 26, 2017
►Debris on Floor

Line 2 and 3
October, 2017 review.
OCTOBER 26, 2017
PHOTOGRAPH NO.1
►Debris on Floor

Line 2 and 3
September, 2017 review.
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017
PHOTOGRAPH NO.2
265 OCT 26, 2017
movement
PHOTOGRAPH NO.3

Line 14 & 15
►Comments: No
movement
PHOTOGRAPH NO.4
266 OCT 26, 2017
►Comments: No
movement
PHOTOGRAPH NO.5
DATE OF REPORT
GENERAL CONFORMANCE REVIEW Nov 24, 2017 Nov 24, 2017 10:30 AM


The above captioned site was visited for the purpose of performing the November monthly review of the structural
assessment of the existing South Wall. Representatives from CSE were present.
CURRENT ACTIVITY
PARTS REVIEWED
- Crack Growth
- Debris on Floors
COMMENTS
subsequent monthly reviews.
2. A hammer tap was conducted around the perimeter of the previously noted delaminated areas on the south face of the
wall. In general, there has been no significant increase in the area of delaminated concrete since the initial investigation on
June 23, 2017. We shall continue to perform this test at the following monthly reviews to determine if the area of
delaminated concrete is increasing.
our review, there was a small increase in the amount of debris in the header trench tunnel at the west end of the tunnel, as
a few additional concrete spalls were observed. As well, a small piece of cork had fallen from the roof of the first bay, which
is not of any concern at this time. We will continue to monitor this condition at the following reviews.
At this time, no structural concerns are expressed, but the recommended additional shoring below the Zamboni Path and
Localized locations for the Trench Header Pipes should be installed as a precaution.
undersigned.

SIGNATURE
DATE OF REPORT
GENERAL CONFORMANCE REVIEW Dec 20, 2017 Dec 20, 2017 10:00 AM
TS Wall Monitoring 1897 -1 Degrees C


The above captioned site was visited for the purpose of performing the December monthly review of the structural
assessment of the existing South Wall. Representative from CSE was present.
CURRENT ACTIVITY
PARTS REVIEWED
- Crack Growth
- Debris on Floors
COMMENTS
2. A hammer tap was conducted around the perimeter of the previously noted delaminated areas on the south face of the
wall. In general, there has been no significant increase in the area of delaminated concrete since the initial investigation on
June 23, 2017. We shall continue to perform this test at the following monthly reviews to determine if the area of
delaminated concrete is increasing.
Please note that no hammer tap was conducted along the inside (north) face of the wall.
3. The amount of debris on the ground in the header trench was documented using photographs which were compared to
the photographs archived from the previous monthly reviews. Based on our review, there has been a small increase in the
amount of concrete debris in the header trench tunnel since the previous review. It should be noted that since these
monthly reviews have commenced, a significant amount of debris has accumulated in the header trench tunnel. We will
continue to monitor this condition at the following reviews.
We would recommend that the steel shoring design provided by CSE be installed in the header trench at the earliest
convenience as a precautionary measure.
undersigned.

SIGNATURE
269 DEC 20, 2017
movement
PHOTOGRAPH NO.1

Line 14 & 15
►Comments: No
movement
PHOTOGRAPH NO.2
270 DEC 20, 2017
►Comments: No
movement
PHOTOGRAPH NO.3
DATE OF REPORT
GENERAL CONFORMANCE REVIEW Jan 25, 2018 Jan 24, 2017 2:30 PM
TS Wall Monitoring 1897 -5 Degrees C


The above captioned site was visited for the purpose of performing the January, 2018 monthly review of the existing South
Wall at the Memorial Centre Arena. Representatives from CSE were present.
CURRENT ACTIVITY
PARTS REVIEWED
- Crack Growth
- Debris on Floors
COMMENTS
2. A hammer tap was conducted around the perimeter of the previously noted delaminated areas on both the north and the
south faces of the wall. In general, there has been a slight increase in the area of delaminated concrete, since the initial
investigation on June 23, 2017. However, this increase is only minor and does not pose any concerns at this time. CSE will
continue to perform this test at the following monthly reviews.
the photographs archived from the previous monthly reviews. Based on our review, there has been no noticable increase in
the amount of concrete debris in the header trench tunnel since the previous review. However, it should be noted that since
these monthly reviews have commenced, a significant amount of debris has accumulated in the header trench tunnel. We
will continue to monitor this condition at the following reviews.
undersigned.

SIGNATURE
272 JAN 24, 2018
movement
PHOTOGRAPH NO.1

Line 14 & 15
►Comments: No
movement
PHOTOGRAPH NO.2
273 JAN 24, 2018
►Comments: No
movement
PHOTOGRAPH NO.3
DATE OF REPORT
GENERAL CONFORMANCE REVIEW Mar, 9 2018, Mar, 8 2018, 12:00 PM



The above captioned site was visited for the purpose of performing the monthly review of the existing South Wall at the
Memorial Centre Arena. Representatives from CSE were present.
CURRENT ACTIVITY
PARTS REVIEWED
- Crack Growth
- Debris on Floors
COMMENTS
south faces of the wall. Our review revealed that there has been a increase in the area of delaminated concrete since the
initial investigation.
the photographs archived from the previous monthly reviews. Based on our review, the amount of fallen debris is continuing
to grow. Since these monthly reviews have commenced, a significant amount of debris has accumulated in the header
trench tunnel. The source of the debris is the original slab that has been overlaid by the newer slab on top. We will continue
to monitor this condition at the following reviews.
Overall, our reviews have revealed that the deterioration of the wall is progressing .
Some shoring has been schedule to take place once the ice is removed. A meeting to discuss the extent of shoring and
possible alternatives is being suggested.
At this time, not safety concerns with the usage of the ice rinks is being expressed.
undersigned.

SIGNATURE
DATE OF REPORT
GENERAL CONFORMANCE REVIEW Mar, 26 2018, Mar, 23 2018, 11:00 AM



The above captioned site was visited for the purpose of performing the March 2018 monthly review of the existing South
Wall at the Memorial Centre Arena. Representatives from CSE were present.
CURRENT ACTIVITY
PARTS REVIEWED
- Crack Growth
- Debris on Floors
COMMENTS
south faces of the wall. Our review revealed that there has been an overall increase in the area of delaminated concrete
since the initial investigation.
the photographs archived from the previous monthly reviews. Based on our review, the amount of loose fallen debris is
continuing to grow. The source of the debris is the original slab that has been overlaid by the newer structural slab on top.
We will continue to monitor this condition at the following reviews.
Overall, our reviews have revealed that the deterioration of the wall is progressing. However, at this present time no safety
concerns with the usage of the ice rink is being expressed.
undersigned.

SIGNATURE
276 MAR 26, 2018
movement
PHOTOGRAPH NO.1

Line 14 & 15
►Comments: No
movement
PHOTOGRAPH NO.2
277 MAR 26, 2018
►Comments: No
movement
PHOTOGRAPH NO.3
DATE OF REPORT
GENERAL CONFORMANCE REVIEW May, 9 2018, May, 3 2018, 1:00 PM



The above captioned site was visited for the purpose of performing the monthly review of the existing South Wall at the
Memorial Centre Arena. Representatives from CSE were present.
CURRENT ACTIVITY
The ice rink had been removed at this time and therefore the header and brine pipes were no longer covered in ice build-up.
PARTS REVIEWED
- Crack Growth
- Debris on Floors
COMMENTS
2. A hammer tap was conducted around the perimeter of the previously noted delaminated areas on the south (outside)
face of the wall. Based on our review, there has been a significant increase in the area of delaminations since the initial
investigation in June 2017.
the photographs archived from the previous monthly reviews. Since the previous site review on March 23, 2018, there has
been a notable increase in the accumulation of debris on the header trench floor.
4. The top of the concrete wall was reviewed since the previous build-up of ice is gone and it revealed that there is
significant deterioration and loose concrete at the top of the wall. We believe this to be the result of frost damage.
CSE has scheduled a more detailed review of the south wall to determine the extent of frost damage and appropriate
remedial measures.
undersigned.

SIGNATURE
DATE OF REPORT
GENERAL CONFORMANCE REVIEW Jun 1, 2018 May 30, 2018 1:00 PM



The above captioned site was visited for the purpose of performing the May, 2018 monthly review of the existing South Wall
at the Memorial Centre Arena. Representatives from CSE were present.
CURRENT ACTIVITY
PARTS REVIEWED
- Crack Growth
- Frost Damaged Concrete
COMMENTS
subsequent monthly reviews. See attached photos of tell-tale markers.
2. A hammer tap was conducted around the perimeter of the previously noted delaminated areas on the south (outside)
face of the wall. Since CSE's monthly reviews have commenced there has been continuous growth of the area of
delaminated concrete.
3. A chipping hammer was used to determine the thickness of frost damaged concrete on both the inside and outside face
of the wall. CSE's investigation revealed that in general there is 2-3 inches of damaged concrete on either face of the 8 inch
thick wall (top of wall). The damaged concrete was observed to be loose and disintegrated easily.
Based on the results of our review and the safety concern of the continued use of the rink slab, CSE is recommending that
the first bay north of the header trench be completely backfilled with a blown aggregate material to stabilize the ice rink slab.
CSE will develop the plan, specifications & procedure.
undersigned.

SIGNATURE
280


June 30, 2018 Financial Report (Unaudited)
Purpose
A report to recommend the June 30, 2018 unaudited Quarterly Report be received.
Recommendations
That Council approve the recommendations outlined in Report CLSFS18-036 dated
follows:
a) That the June Quarterly Financial Report (unaudited) attached as Appendix A to

Report CLSFS18-036, dated August 27, 2018, be received;
b) That various City contracts be amended to reflect the minimum wage increase
and associated additional costs resulting from the Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs
Act, 2017, as outlined in the following table:
281
Report CLSFS18-036 – June 30, 2018 Financial Report (Unaudited) Page 2
Existing Increase to New New

Contract Contract Contract Contract
Contract (excluding (excluding (excluding (including
Ref Vendor Purpose HST) HST) HST) HST)
P-26-15 Securitas Parking 643,969.30 128,204.70 772,174.00 872,556.62
Canada Security
Limited
P-61-15 Outland Custodial 502,666.86 137.608.03 640.274.89 723,510.63
Carillion Services
P-21-07 HGC Recycling 1,379,490.00 $23,424.00 1,407,914.00 1,590,942.82
Management Processing
Inc.
c) That, as a matter of housekeeping, in accordance with the recommendations of

Report USDIR18-002 – Transportation Planning and The Parkway, sources of
capital funding be replaced in the 2018 Capital Budget as follows:
(i) That $938,900 in capital levy from Enterprise Software Modernization

Project (Project 3-4.02) be replaced with tax-supported debentures from
the Parkway Corridor Extension Project (2015 Capital Budget Project 5-
2.01); and
(iii) That $600,000 in capital levy from Traffic Signal Controller Replacement
Program (Project 5-13.01) be replaced with tax-supported debentures
from the Parkway Corridor Extension Project (2015 Capital Budget Project
5-2.01).
d) That By-laws 14-008 and 15-023 being by-laws to debenture the Parkway
Corridor Extension be repealed and replaced as per the amended budgets
resulting from Recommendation (c) in Report USDIR18-002 and further detailed
in Chart 4 of Report CLSFS18-036.

There is no budget or financial implications to receiving the report.
The minimum wage increase and associated additional costs resulting from the Fair
Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017, total $611,473 as per Chart 2.
Background
This report presents the financial update as of June 30, 2018 and addresses any budget
transfers that have been made since the March Financial Update Report.
282
Appendix A to this report provides both a summary and supporting details of

expenditures and revenues for the Operating Budget and a summary of expenditures
and revenues for the Capital Budget. The format of the June Quarterly Financial Update
is consistent with the presentation adopted in the 2018 Budget.
Operating Budget
Chart 1 provides a summary of key operating financial highlights that, by their nature,
are subject to a certain amount of budget risk. The items are difficult to budget in that
they are subject to influences beyond staff control. Column 7 of the chart shows the
potential net impact that any excess or shortfall in revenues may have on the City’s
2018 Operating Budget.
Schedule 1 of Appendix A is the Summary of Net Operating Revenue and Expenses as

of June 30, 2018 and Schedule 2 provides more details of Departmental Operating
Expenses.
The year-to-date figures are based on a modified accrual basis where expenses and
revenues are reported on a cash basis and then some adjusting items have been made.
Because expenditures and revenues are not necessarily incurred or received evenly
throughout a year, many of the June 30 percentage variance figures are over or under
the 50% figure that would otherwise be expected.
283
Schedule 1 – Summary of Net Operating Revenue and Expenditures

Lines 1 to 8 of Schedule 1 provide a highly summarized list of the Corporation’s 2018
revenues that are not directly related to departmental expenses. Explanations of the
more significant variances are:
Taxation Revenues
The Tax Levy revenues at 99.8% of budget, as shown on Schedule 1, include the 2018
final tax billing.
Supplementary Taxes
The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation has indicated that there will be
monthly supplementary assessment rolls issued starting in May through to November.
Staff expects to issue monthly supplementary tax billings in the months of July, October
and December.
Schedule 2 - Summary of the Departmental Net Operating Expenses

Social Services Funding
Additional Children's Services funding has been accepted under delegated authority of
Section 10.1.3 of the City's Purchasing By-law 14-127.
Staff have committed to informing Council of any such additional 100% funding through
subsequent quarterly financial updates. The City has been allocated the following 100%
Provincial funds that were not included in the 2018 budget:
The 2018 Child Care Allocation from the Ministry of Education included some additional
funds that were not included in the 2018 budget.
a) Expansion Plan Year 2

In April 2017, the Province announced funding to support the Child Care
Expansion Plan with the goal of creating access to licensed child care for
100,000 more children aged 0-4 over a 5 year period. Priorities for this funding
are to support additional fee subsidies, increased access and/or increased
affordability. Funding to support the Year 1 increases was included in the 2018
budget, but an additional $461,707 was added in late spring to fund Year 2
planned increases. This is 100% provincial funding of which up to 10% may be
used for administrative costs of running the program.
b) Base Funding for Licensed Home Child Care (LHCC)

This is a new program in 2018 of which $305,325 of new 100% provincial funding
was received. This funding is to provide stable and predictable funding to assist
home child care agencies with forecasting, planning and actively recruiting more
providers. The Province is expecting that the municipality will work with LHCC
agencies to reduce per diem charges for families and increase compensation for
providers.
284
c) Community-Based Child Care Capital Program (CBCP)

In April 2018, the City learned that it was successful in obtaining Community-
Based Early Years and Child Care Capital Program funding for two of three
projects submitted. A total of $1,350,000 will be received to support the
expansion of the two locations, one in the City and one in the County, which will
result in an additional 64 licensed spaces in the infant, toddler and preschool age
range.
Minimum Wage Increase
The minimum wage increase and associated additional costs resulting from the Fair
Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017, total $611,473. The majority of the impact is the
result of the minimum wage increase, however there are cost increases resulting from
legislated changes to other employee benefits including personal emergency leave,
public holiday pay and vacation credit. Chart 2 summarizes the impact the legislation
has on the 2018 municipal operations.
Chart 2
Impact of Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017 on Municipal Operations
Vendor Purpose Increase

City Staff Various $253,819
Social Services Emergency Shelter Services $50,000
including YES, Brock
Mission and Cameron House
Securitas Parking Security 130,461
Outland Carillion Custodial Services 140,030
Commissionaires Arenas (Morrow Park) $13,327
HGC Management Inc. Recycling Processing $23,836
Total $611,473
Funded from Social Services 2018 Operating Budget $50,000
Funded from Contingency pre- March 31, 2018 $41,824
Funded from Contingency post- March 31, 2018 $519,649
The 2018 Budget included an estimated General Contingency provision of $340,000

which included impacts to direct staff employed by the City but not any impact from City
contracts. Of the total cost increase, including direct City staff and City contracts,
$50,000 was included in the Social Services 2018 Budget and the remaining $561,473
will be funded through Contingency. The impact on Contingency is reflected in Chart 3 -
Transfers to/from 2018 Contingency.
285
Contingency
The contingency budget is used to provide a funding source for unforeseen items that
may arise during the year, subsequent to budget approval, such as outside legal fees,
salary wage reclassifications and employee contract settlements, and amendments to,
or the creation of, operating and capital budget provisions either within staff’s delegated
authority or by specific resolution of Council.
Some of the draws on contingency are made by actually reducing the contingency
budget and increasing other budgets as required, while others are direct charges to the
contingency budget.
Chart 3 summarizes the changes that were made to the Contingency Budget during the
2018 Budget process and activity in the Contingency budget since the March Financial
Update Report.
Chart 3
Transfers to/from 2018 Contingency
As of June 30, 2018
Amount
Transfer
Ref Description (from) to Balance
1 2018 Contingency Budget as previously $806,870
reported on the March 31, 2018 quarterly report
2 Transfers Approved as part of the 2018 Budget Process
3 Peterborough Public Health ($22,530
4 Miscellaneous Adjustments ($35,555)
5 Additional Impacts - Fair Workplaces, Better ($519,649)
Jobs Act, 2017 – See Chart 2
6 Adjusted 2018 Contingency Available – June $229,136
30
7 Transfers Recommended through this none
Financial Update Report
8 Direct Charges
9 Direct charges to Contingency as at June 30, ($152,437)
2018
10 Direct charges to Contingency subsequent to ($14,864)
June 30, 2018
11 Other Potential Commitments none
12 Balance Available $61,835
286
Schedule 3 - Summary of Capital Works in Progress

Schedule 3 of Appendix A is the Summary of Capital Works in Progress and provides a
high level overview. The Summary reflects all capital works including projects approved
in the 2018 Capital Budget as well as projects previously approved but are still ongoing.
Parkway Corridor Extension – Exchange of Funding Sources
Council, through Report USDIR18-002, dated April 23, 2018, approved the
reassignment of The Parkway Corridor Extension uncommitted capital funding to
various transportation related projects. The Parkway Corridor Extension is fully funded
by both tax supported debentures and development charge supported debentures. This
type of financing is not applicable to some of the projects that the budgets have been
assigned to. Funding sources must be exchanged to ensure applicable funding is in
place for all projects. Capital levy has been transferred from the Enterprise Software
Modernization Project in the amount of $938,900 and $600,000 from the Traffic Signal
Enhancement Project (Project 3-4.02) to the Parkway Corridor Extension Project to
allow for flexibility in the exchange of funding. Chart 4 details the budget redistribution
and the corresponding funding sources.
Debenture By-laws 14-008 and 15-023 for the Parkway Corridor Extension will be
repealed and replaced with nine new debenture by-laws.
Canadian Tire Jumpstart Charities - Peterborough Sports and Wellness Centre –

Pool Pod Project
The Canadian Tire Jumpstart Charities approved $50,000 in funding through the
Accessibility Enabling Grant for the purchase and installation of a Pool Pod at the
Peterborough Sports and Wellness Centre with the purpose to reduce barriers to
aquatic activities for those with physical and mobility challenges. The total project
budget is $50,000 and is fully funded by this grant. The capital project was created
through delegated authority under Section 10.1.3 as noted in Chart 5.
Operation of the traditional hoist system requires lifeguard assistance to move the hoist
to the edge of the pool, and to lower the individual into the pool. Other demands on a
lifeguard’s time around the pool will create wait times to access the hoist, negatively
impacting the experience and independence of a user. The Pool Pod system eliminates
the need for lifeguard assistance, offering most users an independent and seamless
solution to enter and exit the pool. Ultimately, more individuals requiring less assistance
in a timely manner can enjoy barrier free access to the pool and all its aquatics
programming.
287
Chart 4
Redistribution of Parkway Budget and Funding Sources
Prior Parkway Redistributed Total Total Project Budget

Approved Funding Funding Sources Project Funding Sources
Funding Distribution Budget
Ref Project (000’s) (000’s) (000’s) (000’s) (000’s)
1 Enterprise Software $5,727.3 Nil ($938.9) – Capital Levy $5,727.3 $266 – Trf from Operating
Modernization $938.9 – TS Debt $1,199 – Capital Levy
$2,723.4 – Reserves
$1,538.9 – TS Debt
2 Traffic Signal $600 Nil ($600) – Capital Levy $600 $600 - TS Debt
Enhancement $600 – TS Debt
3 Properties Nil $250 $250 - TS Debt $250 $250 - TS Debt

Renovation and
Maintenance
4 Jackson Park Nil $350 $175 – DC Debt $350 $175 – DC Debt
Management Plan $175 – Capital Levy $175 – Capital Levy
5 Transit Hub and $200 $300 $300 – Capital Levy $500 $50 - DCRF Transit
Route Review and $50 - Transit Reserve
Long Term Growth $400 – Capital Levy
Strategy
6 City Wide Traffic $449 $251 $63 – DC Debt $700 $63 – DC Debt
Operations $188 – Capital Levy $112.2 - DCRF Eng
Assessment $524.8 – Capital Levy
7 Cycling Network Nil $350 $175 – DC Debt $350 $175 – DC Debt
Study $175 – Capital Levy $175 – Capital Levy
8 Transportation Nil $900 $810 – DC Debt $900 $810 – DC Debt
Master Plan $90 – Capital Levy $90 – Capital Levy
9 Parkway Corridor $6,240 ($2,401) ($1,788.9) –TS Debt $3,839 $3,228.1 – DC Debt $610.9
Extension ($1,223) – DC Debt – Capital Levy
$610.9 – Capital Levy
288
Implications of Provincial Government Cancellation of Cap and Trade Program
There are a number of City projects that received grants that were funded through the
cap and trade program proceeds. With the cancellation of the cap and trade program,
the following projects are impacted:
• Municipal Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Challenge Fund

On March 29, 2018, the City executed a funding agreement with the Province in
the amount of $7,461,250 to fund 50% of the costs related to the Source
Separated Organics Collection and Composting Facility Project. The Province
has the contractual right to terminate the agreement and exercised that right on
July 10, 2018. A wind-down plan has been presented to the Ministry, including a
financial summary of costs incurred. The Ministry in its sole discretion may
provide reasonable costs to enable the City to wind-down the Project.
• Ontario Municipal Commuter Cycling Program

On February 22, 2018, the City executed a funding agreement with the Province
to fund various commuter trail projects. The City was to receive a funding
allocation annually for four years, to the March 31, 2021, the expiry date of the
agreement. The first annual allocation of $841,418.59 was received in April 2018
and is partially funding both the Lansdowne Street – River Road to Ashburnham
Trail and the Crawford Trail Extension. The City is able to use this first year
allocation but no further funding will be received.
• Social Housing Apartment Improvement Program (SHAIP)

The SHAIP was announced in 2017 as part of Ontario’s Climate Change Action
Plan and was funded by proceeds from the province’s carbon market. Although
Peterborough received a conditional allocation of $2,208,161 for eligible projects,
with $736,054 for 2018/19 and Report IPSHD18-003 gave authority to participate
in the SHAIP program and issue funds to eligible housing providers, the program
has been cancelled. Therefore Peterborough Housing Corporation’s replacement
of make-up air units at two of their seniors’ buildings and St. John’s Centre for
the replacement of their boilers and hot water storage tanks funding to replace
make-up air units and boilers will instead now be drawn from capital reserves. As
a result, housing providers will re-prioritize their capital plans, likely deferring
other capital work.
Transfers Made under Delegated Authority of Section 10.1.1 or 10.1.2 or Budget

Creation under Section 10.1.3 of the City’s Purchasing By-law 14-127
Certain budget transfers have been made under delegated authority as set out in Part
10.1.1 of the City’s Purchasing By-law 14-127 which states the following:
“Other than when Section 10.1.2 applies, the Chief Administrative Officer, or the City
Treasurer, is authorized to transfer approved budgets, including any uncommitted
General Contingency, or the Capital Levy Reserve where the net required transfer is
equal to or less than $50,000. All such transfers will be reported in the Quarterly
Financial Report.”
289
Certain budgets have been created under delegated authority as set out in Part 10.1.3
of the City’s Purchasing By-law 14-127 which states the following:
“The Chief Administrative Officer or the Treasurer are authorized to create a budget
where 100% funding has become available, subsequent to the annual budget approval,
for a specific good or service, and where no new full time staff are required. All such
budget creation will be reported in the Quarterly Financial Report.”
Chart 5
Transfers Made or Budgets Created under Delegated Authority
By-Law
Approval 14-127 Approved
Ref Date Ref By Description
1 July 20, 10.1.3 Treasurer Peterborough Sports and Wellness Centre
2018 (PSWC) – Pool Pod Project
A $50,000 capital budget was established for
the PSWC – Pool Pod Project. The project is
fully funded from a $50,000 grant from the
Canadian Tire Jumpstart Charities.
2 July 23, 10.1.3 Treasurer Market Hall – Structural and Roof Repairs
2018 10.1.1 A $30,000 capital budget was established for
the Market Hall – Structural and Roof Repairs
project from a transfer from the Property
Maintenance Reserve.
3 June 26, 10.1.3 Treasurer Evinrude Centre– Pre-design of Roofs “C”
2018 10.1.1 and “D”
the Evinrude Centre – Pre-design of Roofs “C”
and “D” project from a transfer from the
Corporate Services – Property - Community
Services – Peterborough Memorial Centre
Roofing and HVAC Replacement project (2018
Capital Budget Ref #3-1.02 sub-project 5).
4 June 26, 10.1.3 Treasurer Risk Management Building Appraisals
2018 10.1.1 A $50,000 capital budget was established for
the Risk Management Building Appraisals
project from a transfer from the Property
Maintenance Reserve.
5 June 20, 10.1.1 CAO Police Services – Facility and Space Needs
2018 Assessment
A $25,000 transfer from the Capital Levy
Reserve is required to fund the total amount of
$75,000 requested from Police Services for the
Facility and Space Needs Assessment (2018
Capital Budget Ref #8-1.02), which the CAO
approved as a transfer from the Capital Levy
Reserve.
290
By-Law
Approval 14-127 Approved
Ref Date Ref By Description
6 July 4, 10.1.3 Treasurer Parkview Drive Storm Outlet Slope Stability
2018 10.1.1 Project
the Parkview Drive Storm Outlet Slope Stability
Project from a transfer from the USD Capital
Reserve.
7 July 24, 10.1.3 Treasurer Downtown Decorative Streetlight
2018 10.1.1 Enhancement
the Downtown Decorative Streetlight
Enhancement project. The project is partially
funded ($101,273.64) from the Main Street
Revitalization Initiative grant. The remaining
$8,726.36 will be funded from a transfer from
the Capital Levy Reserve.
8 July 28, 10.1.1 CAO Peterborough Family Health Teams
2018 A $40,000 transfer for a virtual primary care
clinic was approved by the CAO as a transfer
from the Physician Recruitment Reserve.
9 August 10.1.3 CAO Leaf and Yard Waste Composting Facility
14, 2018 10.1.1 A $50,000 capital budget was established
through a transfer from the Utility Services
Reserve to reinitiate the transfer of the Leaf and
Yard Waste Composting Facility from Harper
Road to the Landfill.
10 August 10.1.3 CAO Source Separated Organics Phasing Study
14, 2018 10.1.1 A $20,000 capital budget was established and
funded through a transfer from the Utility
Services Reserve to undertake a study to
examine the feasibility of phasing in an SSO
program.
291
Submitted by, Prepared by,
Patricia Lester Richard Freymond

Commissioner of Corporate and Manager of Financial Services
Legislative Services
Contact Name:
Richard Freymond
Manager of Financial Services
Phone: 705-742-7777 Ext. 1862
Toll Free: 1-855-738-3755
Fax: 705-876-4607
Attachments:
Appendix A
Schedule 1 Summary of Operating Revenues and Expenditures
Schedule 2 Summary of the Departmental Operating Expenses
Schedule 3 Capital Works in Progress by Function
Appendix B
Supplemental Information
292
Appendix A
Schedule 1
City of Peterborough
Summary of Net Operating Revenue and Expenditures
As at June 30, 2018 (Unaudited)
% Actuals
2018 of Actual To Date
Net Total Net Budget as a %
REF Description Budget Budget To Date Remaining of Budget
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
1 NET REVENUES
2 Tax Levy 128,271,739 90.1% 128,003,712 268,027 99.8%

3 Supplementary Taxes 1,100,000 0.8% 1,100,000
4 Payments In Lieu 3,346,923 2.4% 2,703,494 643,429 80.8%
5 COPHI Dividends 5,667,000 4.0% 1,417,250 4,249,750 25.0%
6 Investment Income 2,334,000 1.6% 1,074,639 1,259,361 46.0%
7 Casino Gaming revenues 1,500,000 1.1% 1,500,000
8 Other Revenues 211,000 0.2% -523 211,523 -0.2%
9 142,430,662 100% 133,198,572 9,232,090 93.5%
10 NET EXPENDITURES (Schedule 2)
11 City Council 566,147 0.4% 272,417 293,730 48.1%

12 Chief Administrative Officer (including Fire Services) 17,150,328 12.0% 8,067,737 9,082,591 47.0%
13 Corporate Services 8,041,771 5.7% 3,488,472 4,553,299 43.4%
14 Legal Services 281,582 0.2% 60,889 220,693 21.6%
15 Utility Services 26,702,320 18.8% 14,423,495 12,278,825 54.0%
16 Community Services 16,423,655 11.5% 7,536,456 8,887,199 45.9%
17 Planning and Development 9,885,502 6.9% 4,316,430 5,569,072 43.7%
18 Financial Services - Other 28,322,966 19.9% 15,886,491 12,436,475 56.1%
19 Transfers to Organizations for Provision of Services 35,056,391 24.6% 17,775,305 17,281,086 50.7%
20 142,430,662 100% 71,827,692 70,602,970 50.4%

293
Schedule 2
Departmental Operating Expenses
Budget Actuals Variance

%
Budget
Ref Service, program, transfers Net Requirement Expenditures Revenues Net To Date of Budget
Expenditures Revenues Remaining
Spent
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10
1 City Council
2 Mayors Office and Council 566,147 566,147 272,417 - 272,417 293,730 48.10%
3 Chief Administrative Officer

4 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer 484,583 - 484,583 206,264 - 206,264 278,319 42.60%
5 Fire Services 16,925,182 - 708,456 16,216,726 8,016,801 - 355,617 7,661,184 8,555,542 47.20%
6 Emergency and Risk Management 480,019 - 31,000 449,019 200,289 - 200,289 248,730 44.60%
17,889,784 - 739,456 17,150,328 8,423,354 - 355,617 8,067,737 9,082,591 47.00%
7 Corporate Services
8 City Clerk - Administration 1,091,036 - 341,790 749,246 461,159 - 161,907 299,252 449,994 39.90%
9 Election Expense 526,606 - 526,605 1 148,759 - 148,759 - 1 0.00%
10 Financial Services 3,070,608 - 351,361 2,719,247 1,435,105 - 363,086 1,072,019 1,647,228 39.40%
11 City Buildings and Police Station Properties 1,229,991 1,229,991 621,761 - 621,761 608,230 50.60%
12 Rental Properties 781,303 - 856,785 - 75,482 480,532 - 438,067 42,465 - 117,947 -56.30%
13 Human Resources 1,116,359 - 1,116,359 504,514 - 504,514 611,845 45.20%
14 Corporate Information Services 2,251,632 - 80,769 2,170,863 901,933 - 18,420 883,513 1,287,350 40.70%
15 Facilities and Planning Initiatives 131,546 131,546 64,948 - 64,948 66,598 49.40%
16 10,199,081 (2,157,310) 8,041,771 4,618,711 (1,130,239) 3,488,472 4,553,299 43.40%
17 Legal Services
18 Office of the City Solicitor 800,794 - 35,525 765,269 308,242 - 21,849 286,393 478,876 37.40%
19 Provincial Offences 1,282,539 - 1,766,226 - 483,687 572,744 - 798,248 - 225,504 - 258,183 46.60%
20 2,083,333 - 1,801,751 281,582 880,986 - 820,097 60,889 220,693 21.60%
21 UTILITY SERVICES
22 Administration 858,511 - 568,095 290,416 362,962 - 50,004 312,958 - 22,542 107.80%
23 Engineering 1,492,942 - 1,492,942 - 679,840 - 69,398 610,442 - 610,442 0.00%
24 Infrastructure Planning 1,089,685 - 816,657 273,028 485,769 - 316,414 169,355 103,673 62.00%
25 Street Light Maintenance 1,538,416 - 1,538,416 694,169 - 694,169 844,247 45.10%
26 Public Works 12,244,384 - 1,579,080 10,665,304 6,989,755 - 285,651 6,704,104 3,961,200 62.90%
27 Parking 2,069,019 - 2,420,498 - 351,479 953,667 - 1,333,945 - 380,278 28,799 108.20%
28 Traffic Operations/Transportation Planning 2,253,807 - 34,685 2,219,122 764,534 - 28,238 736,296 1,482,826 33.20%
29 Public Transit Operations 15,207,836 - 7,448,855 7,758,981 7,609,154 - 3,420,482 4,188,672 3,570,309 54.00%
30 Environmental Protection 14,989,794 - 13,891,537 1,098,257 6,760,143 - 6,852,337 - 92,194 1,190,451 -8.40%
31 Waste Management 8,737,793 - 5,527,518 3,210,275 3,557,013 - 2,077,042 1,479,971 1,730,304 46.10%
32 60,482,187 - 33,779,867 26,702,320 28,857,006 - 14,433,511 14,423,495 12,278,825 54.00%
33 COMMUNITY SERVICES
34 Community Services Administration 570,375 - 570,375 352,884 - 842 352,042 218,333 61.70%
35 Recreation 4,409,243 - 3,324,092 1,085,151 1,903,683 - 1,227,968 675,715 409,436 62.30%
36 Market Hall, Marina & Beavermead 375,486 - 375,487 - 1 155,614 - 174,112 - 18,498 18,497
37 Arts, Culture and Heritage Administration 1,964,051 - 54,577 1,909,474 1,396,852 - 77,212 1,319,640 589,834 69.10%
38 Museum 882,510 - 220,583 661,927 432,989 - 78,102 354,887 307,040 53.60%
39 Library 2,878,646 2,878,646 1,591,102 - 1,591,102 1,287,544 55.30%
40 Art Gallery of Peterborough 571,691 571,691 280,542 - 280,542 291,149 49.10%
41 Arenas 6,519,923 - 4,366,257 2,153,666 3,232,620 - 2,179,783 1,052,837 1,100,829 48.90%
42 18,171,925 - 8,340,996 9,830,929 9,346,286 - 3,738,019 5,608,267 4,222,662 57.00%

294
Schedule 2
Departmental Operating Expenses
Budget Actuals Variance

%
Budget
Ref Service, program, transfers Net Requirement Expenditures Revenues Net To Date of Budget
Expenditures Revenues Remaining
Spent
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10
43 Social Services Division
44 Ontario Works Administration 11,977,945 - 8,218,899 3,759,046 5,647,732 - 4,549,753 1,097,979 2,661,067 29.20%
45 Ontario Works Benefits 34,456,363 - 33,710,459 745,904 16,639,405 - 16,319,106 320,299 425,605 42.90%
46 Community Partnerships and Family Services 15,999,511 - 14,423,112 1,576,399 6,591,960 - 6,094,986 496,974 1,079,425 31.50%
47 Other Social Services 4,801,606 - 4,290,229 511,377 2,723,158 - 2,710,221 12,937 498,440 2.50%
48 67,235,425 - 60,642,699 6,592,726 31,602,255 - 29,674,066 1,928,189 4,664,537 29.20%
49 Total Community Services 85,407,350 - 68,983,695 16,423,655 40,948,541 - 33,412,085 7,536,456 8,887,199 45.90%
50 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

51 Planning 1,580,896 - 178,800 1,402,096 732,691 - 58,356 674,335 727,761 48.10%
52 Geomatics 772,241 - 77,297 694,944 462,003 - 78,794 383,209 311,735 55.10%
53 Housing 16,462,695 - 11,563,891 4,898,804 6,728,510 - 4,659,821 2,068,689 2,830,115 42.20%
54 Airport 3,116,694 - 685,260 2,431,434 1,337,258 - 378,492 958,766 1,472,668 39.40%
55 Building 2,224,472 - 1,766,248 458,224 1,294,655 - 1,063,224 231,431 226,793 50.50%
56 24,156,998 - 14,271,496 9,885,502 10,555,117 - 6,238,687 4,316,430 5,569,072 43.70%
57 FINANCIAL SERVICES - OTHER

58 Tax-supported debt servicing charges 11,772,246 11,772,246 4,681,330 - 4,681,330 7,090,916 39.80%
59 Capital Levy 9,337,380 9,337,380 9,337,380 - 9,337,380 - 100.00%
60 Transfers to/from Reserves 5,800,000 - 2,727,400 3,072,600 2,150,000 - 1,402,400 747,600 2,325,000 24.30%
61 Property Taxation Costs 3,140,193 3,140,193 804,856 - 804,856 2,335,337 25.60%
62 Other Expenditures 683,266 683,266 162,888 - 162,888 520,378 23.80%
63 Contingency 317,281 - 317,281 152,437 - 152,437 164,844 48.00%
64 31,050,366 - 2,727,400 28,322,966 17,288,891 - 1,402,400 15,886,491 12,436,475 56.10%
65 Transfers to Organizations for Provision of Services

66 Police Services 28,608,771 - 3,630,992 24,977,779 14,391,567 - 2,021,964 12,369,603 12,608,176 49.50%
67 Ptbo County/City Paramedics Service 4,814,583 - 19,674 4,794,909 2,347,213 - 9,837 2,337,376 2,457,533 48.70%
68 Otonabee Region Conservation Authority 752,946 752,946 734,446 - 734,446 18,500 97.50%
69 Peterborough Public Health 1,228,486 1,228,486 602,978 - 602,978 625,508 49.10%
70 Ptbo & Kawarthas Economic Development 970,470 970,470 485,238 - 485,238 485,232 50.00%
71 Fairhaven Debt and Operating Support 1,795,741 1,795,741 897,874 - 897,874 897,867 50.00%
72 Peterborough Humane Society 365,194 365,194 187,357 - 187,357 177,837 51.30%
73 Downtown Business Improvement Area 150,000 150,000 150,000 - 150,000 - 100.00%
74 Primary Healthcare Services 20,866 20,866 10,433 - 10,433 10,433 50.00%
75 38,707,057 - 3,650,666 35,056,391 19,807,106 - 2,031,801 17,775,305 17,281,086 50.70%
76 Total expenditures 270,542,303 - 128,111,641 142,430,662 131,652,129 - 59,824,437 71,827,692 70,602,970 50.40%
295
Schedule 3
Capital Works in Progress by Function
Total Project Gross Expenditures Gross Expenditures Other Net Expenditures

Project Description Number of Active Budgets Paid & Committed Compared to Gross Expenditures Revenues or Net Project as a % Approved Capital
Projects To Date Budget As a % Recoveries Expenditures of Budget Budget Remaining
(Over) Under To Budget (Unfinanced
Expenditures)
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10
Chief Administrative Officer
Fire Services 6 1,314,075 747,063 567,014 57.00% - 26,038 721,024 54.90% 593,051
Emergency Management 0 - - - #DIV/0! - - 0.00% -
Total 6 1,314,075 747,063 567,014 57.00% - 26,038 721,024 54.90% 593,051
Corporate Services
Information Services 10 3,904,018 1,296,482 2,607,535 33.00% 100,000 1,396,484 35.80% 2,507,535
Property 39 13,698,497 12,320,663 1,377,835 90.00% 20,948 12,341,610 90.10% 1,356,887
Other 19 13,835,693 10,545,456 3,290,235 76.00% 23,218 10,568,676 76.40% 3,267,017
Total 68 31,438,208 24,162,601 7,275,605 77.00% 144,166 24,306,770 77.30% 7,131,439
Police 2 692,423 392,140 300,283 57.00% - 5,070 387,070 55.90% 305,353
Page 1 of 4
296
Schedule 3

Expenditures)
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10
Utility Services
Public Works 11 30,959,409 18,507,490 12,451,919 60.00% - 80,477 18,427,013 59.50% 12,532,396
Arterial 20 63,068,886 45,183,064 17,885,821 72.00% 1,080,226 46,263,289 73.40% 16,805,597
Collector & Local 9 16,071,540 10,370,305 5,701,235 65.00% - 10,370,305 64.50% 5,701,235
Bridges 8 4,147,000 573,504 3,573,496 14.00% - 573,504 13.80% 3,573,496
Sidewalks 9 4,558,478 1,947,068 2,611,410 43.00% 942,773 2,889,841 63.40% 1,668,637
Sanitary Sewers 9 10,375,000 5,050,113 5,324,887 49.00% - 5,050,113 48.70% 5,324,887
Storm Sewers 4 3,053,872 1,908,257 1,145,615 62.00% - 0 1,908,257 62.50% 1,145,615
Environmental Protection Services 12 18,212,303 12,015,589 6,196,713 66.00% - 12,015,590 66.00% 6,196,713
Environment Waste Management 8 18,343,500 7,697,900 10,645,599 42.00% 3,000 7,700,901 42.00% 10,642,599
Transit 13 9,638,780 7,748,842 1,889,938 80.00% - 61,392 7,687,450 79.80% 1,951,330
Parking 3 238,385 33,940 204,445 14.00% - 6,668 27,272 11.40% 211,113
Traffic 13 2,866,677 1,032,692 1,833,984 36.00% 0 1,032,694 36.00% 1,833,983
Demand Management 4 2,636,329 2,310,314 326,015 88.00% - 0 2,310,313 87.60% 326,016
Utility Services - Administration 5 6,110,000 5,177,238 932,762 85.00% - 5,177,239 84.70% 932,762
Flood Reduction Master Plan Projects 25 70,935,237 29,098,621 41,836,614 41.00% - 60,791 29,037,832 40.90% 41,897,405
Total 153 261,215,396 148,654,938 112,560,453 57.00% 1,816,671 150,471,613 57.60% 110,743,784
Page 2 of 4
297
Schedule 3

Expenditures)
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10
Community Services
Recreation 17 3,148,660 4,009,073 - 860,413 127.00% - 1,092,032 2,917,042 92.60% 231,618
Culture & Heritage 3 596,426 332,831 263,594 56.00% - 332,832 55.80% 263,594
Museum 1 30,000 30,000 - 100.00% - 30,000 100.00% -
Library 0 - - - 0.00% - - 0.00% -
Art Gallery 0 - - - - - 0.00% -
Arenas 15 25,859,906 4,015,739 21,844,167 16.00% 13,696,299 17,712,038 68.50% 8,147,868
Memorial Centre 3 449,018 406,650 42,368 91.00% - 22,164 384,486 85.60% 64,532
Marina 2 10,000 6,226 3,774 62.00% - 6,226 62.30% 3,774
Facilities and Special Projects 5 1,026,060 914,006 112,054 89.00% - 182,030 731,976 71.30% 294,084
Administration 10 2,623,762 1,888,022 735,740 72.00% - 55,876 1,832,147 69.80% 791,615
Total 56 33,743,832 11,602,547 22,141,284 34.00% 12,344,197 23,946,747 71.00% 9,797,085
Page 3 of 4
298
Schedule 3

Expenditures)
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10
Planning & Development Services
Planning 21 22,705,225 12,168,777 10,536,447 54.00% - 3,068,385 9,100,392 40.10% 13,604,833
Growth Areas 12 4,771,503 2,647,114 2,124,389 55.00% - 56,225 2,590,889 54.30% 2,180,614
Industrial Parks 5 7,245,054 2,562,004 4,683,051 35.00% - 149,440 2,412,563 33.30% 4,832,491
Housing 2 5,518,000 1,413,000 4,105,000 - 1,413,000 25.60% 4,105,000
Airport 21 11,134,959 6,406,445 4,728,514 58.00% - 3,000 6,403,447 57.50% 4,731,513
Land Information 5 1,246,800 487,583 759,217 39.00% - 487,583 39.10% 759,217
Building 1 50,000 - 50,000 - - 0.00% 50,000
Total 67 52,671,541 25,684,923 26,986,618 49.00% - 3,277,050 22,407,874 42.50% 30,263,668
Grand Total 352 381,075,475 211,244,212 169,831,257 55.00% 10,996,877 222,241,098 58.30% 158,834,380
Page 4 of 4
299
Appendix B
Building
Building Permits - Dwelling Units Estimated Value of Construction - Dwelling Units
200 15
180
160 12
140
Number of Permits
Dollars (Millions)
120 9
100
80 6
60
40 3
20
-
-
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
2017 2018
2017 2018
Building Permits - ICI Sector (Industrial/Commercial/Institutional)

Estimated Value of Construction - ICI Sector
(Industrial/Commercial/Institutional)
30
40 25
20
Dollars (Millions)
Number of Permits
15
20
10
-
-
2017 2018 2017 2018

300
Waste Management
Recycling - City Blue Box Program Landfill Recyclables -

Received as Garbage but Diverted
1,800
1,600
1,000
1,400
1,200 800
1,000
Tonnes
600
Tonnes
800
400
600
400 200
200
-
0
2017 2018 Forecast 2017 2018
Garbage
5,000
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
Tonnes
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
-
2017 2018 Forecast

301
From: Allan Seabrooke, Commissioner of Community Services
Subject: Report CSACH18-004

Listing of Properties on the Heritage Register
Purpose
A report to recommend the listing of certain properties on the City’s Register of
Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest.
Recommendations
That Council approve the recommendations outlined in Report CSACH18-004, dated
August 27, 2018, of the Commissioner of Community Services, as follows:
a) That the recommendation of the Peterborough Architectural Conservation Advisory

Committee (PACAC), that the properties included in Appendix A of this report be
listed on the City’s Register of Heritage Properties as being of cultural heritage
value or interest be approved; and,
b) That the City Clerk be authorized to keep available for viewing by the public a
current copy of the Register to be updated at regular intervals by the Heritage
Preservation Office as approved by Council.

There are no budgetary or financial implications associated with the recommendation.
302
Report CSACH18-004 - Addition of Properties for Listing on the Heritage Register
Page 2
Background
Overview and Legislative Direction
In 2006, City Council approved recommendation (b) of Report CSACH06-011 to the

Committee of the Whole that:
Pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act Section 27.1 as amended by the Stronger
City of Toronto for a Stronger Ontario Act, 2006, the register of places of
cultural heritage value or interest kept by the clerk, be upgraded to include
properties that have not been designated under Part IV of the Act, but that the
Council and municipality believe to be of cultural heritage value or interest.
Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act requires that the Clerk of the municipality keep
a register of designated properties in the City, both those designated individually under
Part IV of the Act and under Part V as part of a Heritage Conservation District (HCD).
Under the amendments made in 2006, the register may also include properties that are
not designated but that the Council and municipality believe to be of cultural heritage
value or interest to the community.
Properties listed on the Register as non-designated properties are those which have
been identified as having cultural heritage value or interest. This means that they would
be eligible for designation in the future should Council, in consultation with the PACAC,
deem it appropriate. However, these properties do not have the same controls placed
on them as properties that are designated. They do not have to go through an approvals
process to make alterations to the property but neither are they protected to the same
extent as designated properties. Listing does provide one element of control by the
municipality by requiring the owner of a building to give 60 days notice of their intention
to seek a demolition permit.
The 60-day waiting period is required by the Act and provides Council the opportunity to
review the heritage value of the property and determine if the property is worthy of
designation. Peterborough, like many municipalities, has many more historically
significant properties than time and staff resources allow for designation. The 60-day
period provides Council time to seek input from the PACAC, as required by law, and
begin the designation process to protect a building if it wishes. This provision also
allows Council to require the submission of plans and other information about a
property’s proposed redevelopment prior to issuing a demolition permit. Listing is an
important planning tool to assist a municipality in understanding and recognizing the
breadth of its heritage resources and managing their future development as necessary.
Properties are recommended for inclusion on the Register based on assessed cultural
heritage value or interest. Heritage value or interest is determined by the Heritage
Preservation Office (HPO) in consultation with the PACAC using Regulation 9/06 of the
Ontario Heritage Act. This regulation sets out nine criteria assessing cultural heritage
value and determining eligibility under the Act. There are no provincial criteria for adding
303
Page 3
listed properties to the Register but the PACAC currently recommends properties that
meet at least one of the Regulation 9/06 criteria. This ensures that all properties on the
City Register have clearly identified cultural heritage value. This process of identification
and evaluation is ongoing as the HPO and the PACAC continue to identify and research
buildings worthy of inclusion on the Register.
Proposed Addition to Register
At its meeting of June 7, 2017, Council approved an initial list of 62 properties,

recommended by the PACAC, as the first listed properties to the Heritage Register with
the understanding that the Register would be updated at regular intervals.
At its meeting of February 1, 2018, the PACAC endorsed a second group of properties
for listing on the Register and requested that staff forward their recommendation to
Council for consideration. This list is attached as Appendix A of this report and a map of
these properties is included as Appendix B.
While not required by the Ontario Heritage Act, the owners of the 50 properties
proposed for Listing were notified in writing by regular mail. As of August 20, 2018, six
responses had been received. Two responses were from Catholic churches and
indicated that they were opposed to listing their church buildings on the Register. Three
responses requested more information on the history of their properties and were
supportive of inclusion on the Register. One respondent had not yet provided final
comment. Staff will provide updated feedback at the General Committee meeting as
required.
The properties included in the current recommendation were chosen from across the
city and represent a range of historic neighbourhoods and building types. However, the
list does not include properties within the identified Urban Growth Area in the downtown
core. As per Council’s direction on June 5, 2017, the list excludes properties in this area
as defined by Bethune Street to the west, Sherbrooke Street to the south, the Otonabee
River to the east, and London Street to the north. Heritage properties within this area
will be considered separately as part of the Official plan Review process.
The current list also focuses on a number of historic, landmark, and architecturally
significant places of faith in the city. These were identified specifically because of a
growing concern over the number of churches that are closing, and for which adaptive
reuse proposals are being considered.
304
Page 4
Summary
This report recommends the inclusion of non-designated properties on the City’s
Heritage Register.
Submitted by,
Allan Seabrooke
Commissioner of Community Services
Contact Name:
Erik Hanson
Phone: 705-742-7777 Ext. 1489
Toll Free: 1-855-738-3755
Fax: 705-748-8824
Attachments:
Appendix A: Proposed Properties for Listing on the Heritage Register
Appendix B: Map of Proposed Properties for Listing on the Heritage Register
305
Report CSACH18-004 – Appendix A
Properties Eligible for Listing on the Heritage Register of the

Under Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act, a property is significant for its
cultural heritage value or interest and is eligible for designation if it has physical,
historical, associative or contextual value and meets any one of the nine criteria set out
below:
The property has design value or physical value because it is

a) a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression,
material or construction method,
b) displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or
c) demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.
The property has historical value or associative value because it,
a) has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization
or institution that is significant to a community,
b) yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an
understanding of a community or culture, or
c) demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer
or theorist who is significant to a community.
The property has contextual value because it,
a) is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area,

b) is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or
c) is a landmark.
The following properties have been identified as having met at least one of the criteria.
306
The Cherney House

99 Roper Drive
The Cherney House was designed by
architect Eberhard Zeidler for Harry Cherney
of the furniture company, Cherney Brothers
Limited, whose second wife Erica Cherney
was an important member of Peterborough’s
business and arts communities. Constructed
between 1957 and 1958, Zeidler’s design for
the suburban split level home features open
interior spaces, exposed cedar, and a western elevation defined by floor to ceiling glass. It
characterizes the new suburban development in mid-century Peterborough.
Hamilton House
640 Walkerfield Avenue
Hamilton House was constructed in 1955 for CGE executive
Richard A. Hamilton by architect Eberhard Zeidler. Zeidler’s
first residential project in Canada, he was awarded the Massey
Medal for Architecture for the building which integrated design
principles learned during his Bauhaus training into an open plan
home with integrated carport.
344 Simcoe Street

The frame house at 344 Simcoe Street was
constructed between 1843 and 1846 and
occupied by Irish immigrant Patrick Kelly. It is
an excellent and rare example of early
residential design in Peterborough and has
an important association with the city’s
historic Irish community.
307
Canadian Hood Haggie Co.

250 Wolfe Street
This building was erected around 1917 as the
Peterborough office and warehouse of the
English rope-making company, R. Hood
Haggie and Sons. It was located adjacent to
the CNR line and was designed in such a
way that a door could be opened directly onto
the train line for loading and unloading. It is
an important feature of the wider industrial
character of the area.
543 Downie Street

The house at 547 Downie Street, constructed prior to 1888, was
built at the same time as its neighbour at 543 Downie Street for
Justice David W. Dumble as a rental property. Both it and its
neighbour feature an asymmetrical front gable in the Arts and
Crafts style which makes them a unique pair of houses in late
nineteenth-century Peterborough.
547 Downie Street

The house at 547 Downie Street, constructed prior to 1888, was
built at the same time as its neighbour at 543 Downie Street for
Justice David W. Dumble as a rental property. Both it and its
neighbour feature an asymmetrical front gable in the Arts and
Crafts style which makes them a unique pair of houses in late
nineteenth-century Peterborough.
308
159 Rubidge Street

159 Rubidge Street was constructed around
1890. It is an excellent and very unique
example of the Queen Anne style in
Peterborough with a highly decorative two-
storey porch on the front of the house and a
large, original window with coloured glass on
the north elevation.
Lundy Shovel and Tool Co./Canadian

Raybestos Co.
270-280 Perry Street/275 Rink Street
The factory complex at 270-280 Perry Street
and 275 Rink Street was constructed in 1905
for the Lundy Shovel and Tool Company,
eventually becoming the factory site of the
Canadian Raybestos Company in 1921. An
integral aspect of Peterborough’s industrial
heritage, the former factory is also
architecturally distinctive in its own right.
Notable elements include the main building’s
diagonal northwestern wall, oriented to accommodate the existing rail line, and the boiler room’s
stepped gable.
General Electric
107 Park Street N
The General Electric factory complex dates
back to 1891 and is an integral part of
Peterborough’s industrial heritage.
Architecturally, the GE complex typifies late
nineteenth and early-twentieth century factory
design through its integration of late Victorian
design features onto the exterior of its
industrial spaces. The complex features work
from a number of Ontario architects, including
Walter Strickland, George Martel Miller, George Gouinlock, and John McIntosh Lyle.
309
200 O’Carroll Avenue

200 O’Carroll Avenue was designed by local
architect W.R.L. Blackwell in 1932 and was
occupied by him and his family, until his death
in 1957. The house is an excellent example of
Tudor Revival architecture, with its
asymmetrical massing, leaded glass windows
and jettied second storey. It is one of a set of
stuccoed Tudor Revival houses constructed in
Peterborough by Blackwell in the 1930s and was featured in the Journal of the Royal
Architectural Institute of Canada in October 1933.
678 Bethune Street

678 Bethune Street was constructed in the
late 1850s for millwright William West. It is an
excellent and intact example of a mid-
nineteenth century Ontario Gothic cottage
executed in wood and brick, with a steeply
pointed central gable featuring an arched
window and wide verandah with decorative
woodwork.
718 George Street N

718 George Street N was constructed in the
late 1890s as a grocery store for John
Braund, who would eventually go on to run
several grocery locations across
Peterborough with his son Ernest. The store
at 718 George Street North was designed as
both a store and apartments for the Braund
family and is typical of a late nineteenth
century corner building design outside
Peterborough’s downtown core.
310
465 Park Street N

465 Park Street N was built prior to 1888 as a
corner store location with rental
accommodation on the upper storey.
Throughout the 1890s, the commercial space
was occupied by both a barrister and a florist.
It is a good example of a corner building
outside the downtown core with both
commercial and residential usage and retains
its original massing, including its multiple
entrances on both Park and Hopkins Street to
accommodate its varied uses.
724 Water Street

724 Water Street was built in the late
nineteenth century as a corner grocery store.
It is an excellent example of late nineteenth
century commercial architecture outside the
downtown core, featuring well-preserved
pilasters, decorative brickwork, and a
bracketed cornice on its upper storey.
352-360 Stewart Street

352-360 Stewart Street was constructed
around 1888, likely by local builder William
Aldridge who owned the property. It is a
unique example of late-nineteenth century
bay and gable terraced housing in
Peterborough.
311
Nicholl’s Oval Gates

725 Armour Road
The gates at Nicholl’s Oval were constructed
in the 1920s and are an excellent example of
early twentieth-century park architecture in
the Rustic style. Drawing inspiration from the
Arts and Crafts movement, the gates reflect a
new approach to park construction projects
during this period which sought to harmonize
manmade and natural features in urban and
non-urban recreation areas through the use of naturalistic styling and materials. It is also an
important site in the history of park development in Peterborough.
Canada Cordage/Nashua Paper

25 Aylmer Street N
The Canada Cordage factory at 25 Aylmer
Street N was built around 1902 and was also
the site of first site Nashua Paper’s Canadian
operations, beginning in 1920. It is an
important surviving industrial building in what
was then the southern end of the city and
retains many of its original features,
particularly on its western elevation.
1333 Leighton Road

1333 Leighton Road was constructed in the
early 1960s as a single family home and is a
particularly well-executed example of mid-
century housing. Built on an unusual floor
plan to accommodate the shape of the lot, it
features a sunken, integrated garage and
recessed front entrance which emphasize the
house’s massing and internal, split-level
layout. Although consistent with the wider architectural character of the neighbourhood, it is a
unique design in an area which primarily features L-shaped and rectangular plans constructed
as part of the Edmison Heights land assembly.
312
352 Mark Street
352 Mark Street is a one and a half storey

Gothic cottage constructed prior to 1875. It is
a good example of this style of mid-
nineteenth century dwelling in Peterborough,
with a wide verandah, steeply pitched centre
gable with a projecting finial and brick quoins.
483 Park Street N

483 Park Street North is the former Park
Street School, constructed in the late
nineteenth century to respond to
Peterborough’s growing population and
extension of its neighbourhoods to the west.
This two-storey, buff brick building is an
excellent example of late nineteenth-century
urban educational architecture in Ontario, on
a more modest scale than facilities such as
the Central School but employing similar design strategies in its multi-storey layout and use of
contemporary architectural decorative features.
4567 Guthrie Drive
4567 Guthrie Drive is an excellent example of

a nineteenth-century Gothic farmhouse and
displays a high level of craftsmanship in its
execution. Originally constructed outside the
city limits, the wrap around verandah sets this
house apart from similarly Gothic houses built
within the urban context.
313
264 Hunter Street W

264 Hunter is a unique example of a late
nineteenth century multi-residential complex.
Its design, which includes a rear bay facing
onto Bethune Street, is reflective of its
intended original usage as apartments, as
opposed to terraced or semi-detached
houses found in the immediate area.
595 Aylmer Street N

595 Aylmer Street is a good example of a
Gothic cottage with excellent retention of
original wooden decorative features. These
include the bargeboard trim and finials on
both the gable end and centre gable as well
as the wide verandah and paired brick
chimneys.
715 George Street N
715 George Street North is an excellent

example of a late Gothic cottage which
retains many of its original features including
its paired chimneys and wooden finials. Its
centre gable is particularly steeply pitched for
this type of building in the Peterborough area
and speaks to an understanding on the part
of the builder of the core tenets of the Gothic
Revival style in domestic design. The centre
gable also features a unique double arched window and retains the arrangement of transom
window and side lights composed of small panes of glass around the entrance.
314
585-587 George Street N

Constructed in the 1880s, 585-587 George
Street North is an intact example of a late
nineteenth century bay and gable semi-
detached dwelling. In particular, it displays a
high degree of craftsmanship in its entrance
porch and second-storey sunroom which
boasts well-preserved original elements,
including a distinctive frieze and window
surrounds.
738 Aylmer Street N
738 Aylmer Street is a unique example of a

1930s Tudor Revival domestic structure set
apart from its contemporaries in the local
neighbourhood through its use of both half
timbering on the western gable and rough
stone on the entrance and the window
surrounds. It is an excellent example of a
Tudor Revival house constructed in
Peterborough in the 1930s.
61-65 Hunter Street E
61-65 Hunter Street E is a good example of

commercial architecture serving the
community of Ashburnham in the late
nineteenth century. It is an important part of
the commercial streetscape of Hunter Street
East which has a distinctive character from
that of Peterborough’s commercial core.
315
337 Downie Street

337 Downie Street was built as a double tenement for
James L. Hughes in about 1887. This buff brick structure
is a unique example of a late nineteenth-century multi-
residential complex in Peterborough because of the
distinctive, symmetrical orientation of the eastern
elevation which features a deep central gable, allowing
the creation of two separate porches and entrances on
front of the building.
Jackson Park Gates and Caretakers

Cottage
610 Parkhill Road West
The entrance gates and caretakers cottage
for Jackson Park at Parkhill Road are an
integral aspect of the Jackson Park
landscape which includes both manmade and
natural elements. Both structures are
important examples of the Rustic style
associated with natural landscape parks in
Canada during the early and mid-twentieth
century. The caretaker’s cottage dates to the 1910s or 1920s and typifies the Rustic style in its
irregular massing and overt use of natural materials, including its cobbled stone foundation and
chimney. The gates were constructed to replace an older set of gates from the 1920s and rebuilt
in their present location after the widening of Parkhill Road in the 1960s. They are important
built features of Peterborough’s wider system of parklands.
Parkhill Road Gates

90 Facendi Drive
The set of gates on Parkhill Road at Facendi
Drive are an excellent example of the Rustic
style of architecture prevalent in early and
mid-twentieth century park design. Although
not associated with a park setting, the use of
irregular river stones places these gates
within that tradition.
316
Churches
Immaculate Conception Roman Catholic

Church
386 Rogers Street
Immaculate Conception Roman Catholic
Church was designed in 1914 by
ecclesiastical architect Arthur William
Holmes, who trained under English architect
George Edmund Street and Irish-Canadian
architect Joseph Connolly. Throughout the
early twentieth century, Holmes became well-known for his buildings executed for the Catholic
Church throughout southern Ontario. Although not fully completed until 1930, Immaculate
Conception forms an integral part of an important, but small, set of neo-classical churches
designed by both Connolly and Holmes in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, and
the only one in Peterborough.
St John the Baptist Roman Catholic

Church
300 Wilson Street
St. John the Baptist Church is a rare and late
example of a mid-twentieth century Gothic
Revival church in Peterborough and is likely
the work of architect James Haffa, Arthur
Holmes’ successor as the Catholic Church’s
primary architect in Southern Ontario. Haffa’s
work for the Catholic Church in the 1930s,
1940s and early 1950s was both prolific and
stylistically conservative. St. John the Baptist
is typical of Haffa’s use of the Gothic style in parish churches throughout southern Ontario. The
church is notable for its recessed frontal arch, use of grouped single lancets and formal
symmetry.
St. Alphonsus Roman Catholic Church

1066 Western Avenue
St. Alphonsus Roman Catholic Church is an
excellent and unique example of a mid-
century church in Peterborough. Its curving
northwestern wall accommodates a driveway
around the building to allow covered access
to the entranceway, a distinctly modern
consideration in the middle of the twentieth
century. Its panels of geometric coloured
glass emulate traditional ecclesiastical
window design and placement, modified to suit a building in a mid-twentieth century style.
317
Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church

210 Romaine Street
Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church was designed by
Peterborough architect John Belcher and erected by
Peterborough contractors William Langford and Richard Sheehy
using red granite from Stony Lake. Opened in 1909, the church
was one of Belcher’s final projects. The church is an excellent
example of Romanesque Revival ecclesiastical architecture in
Peterborough and is home to a historic Casavant organ.
Sacred Heart Stone Wall

210 Romaine Street
The stone wall behind Sacred Heart Roman
Catholic Church is an integral part of the
landscape of both the Catholic Church’s
property on Romaine Street and the local
area. Constructed to demarcate the
boundaries of the church property, it originally
contained a door, now enclosed, which led to
the house in which the incumbent lived, prior
to its replacement by the 1920s rectory.
Sacred Heart Rectory

208 Romaine Street
208 Romaine Street was constructed as the
rectory for Sacred Heart Roman Catholic
Church in the early 1920s. It is an excellent
and subdued example of 1920s Tudor
Revival architecture, integrating a half-
timbered gable, accentuated windows
surrounds and a neo-medieval entrance
porch into an asymmetrical design.
318
St. Anne’s Roman Catholic Church

859 Barnardo Avenue
St. Anne’s Roman Catholic Church was
constructed in 1957 and 1958 to a design by
O’Gorman and Associates of North Bay, a
firm which undertook extensive projects to the
Catholic Church in northern Ontario from the
1910s to the 1950s. It is a distinctive example
of mid-century church design and is defined
by its use of multiple gables, particularly on
the southwestern elevation, and deep valleys
creating strong geometric lines throughout the structure.
St. Luke’s Anglican Church

566 Armour Road
St Luke’s Anglican Church was constructed in
1961 as a replacement for the parish’s
original 1877 church on Rogers Street which
burnt in a 1959 fire. It is an excellent example
of mid-century ecclesiastical architecture and
possesses a unique western window with
coloured, geometric glass that fills the entire
gable end.
All Saints’ Anglican Church and Parish

Hall
225-235 Rubidge Street
All Saints’ Anglican Church was constructed
between 1909 and 1910 to replace an
original 1891 building which was retained as
the parish hall. The church is an excellent
example of late nineteenth and early
twentieth century Gothic Revival ecclesiastical design through its use of simplified neo-medieval
features including paired lancet windows, a frontal, crenelated tower, and stepped buttresses.
319
St. Barnabas Anglican Church

1040 Hilliard Street
St. Barnabas Anglican Church was designed
by architect Eberhard Zeidler between 1959
and 1960. It is unique among Zeidler’s
Peterborough churches for its shallow pitched
roof, designed to accommodate the unusual
window arrangement.
Christ Evangelical Lutheran Church

463 Highland Road
Christ Evangelical Lutheran Church is an
excellent example of a modern church from
the 1950s. Its design draws from traditional
church design in the steeply pitched roof of
the nave and dormer windows that illuminate
the sanctuary and altar, but remains
consciously modern through its treatment of
material in the exposed timber and brick on the interior and the Crucifixion panel above the
altar. It is the only Lutheran church in Peterborough.
Mark Street United Church

90 Hunter Street E
Mark Street United Church was designed by
Peterborough architect W.R.L. Blackwell
between 1928 and 1929. It is an excellent
and late example of a Gothic Revival urban
church in the Methodist, and later United,
Church tradition, which eschewed the
traditional cathedral and parish church
models in order to respond to a town or city
streetscape.
320
St James’ United Church

221 Romaine Street
St. James United Church was constructed
between 1908 and 1917 and is a good
example of Gothic Revival church
architecture constructed in the early
twentieth century. The building draws
inspiration from the Baronial Gothic tradition,
which is evident through its use of
crenellated towers, heavy massing, a parapet gable on the north elevation and the asymmetrical
placement of multiple chimneys. It is unique in Peterborough in this regard.
Grace United Church

581 Howden Street
Grace United Church was designed by
Eberhard Zeidler between 1953 and 1954.
Constructed of brick, wood and stone, it is
notable for its use of glulam arches, which
became popular in Canadian architecture
during the 1950s and which increase in size
towards the sanctuary and support the
cantilevered roof. The church is also notable for the use of glass blocks in the shape of crosses
which pierce the rear wall of the sanctuary.
Northminster United Church

300 Sunset Boulevard
Northminster United Church was constructed in 1959, with
the main sanctuary added in 1967. A good example of mid-
century ecclesiastical architecture in Ontario, it is integrated
into its suburban context through its forms and massing and
is distinctive for the coloured geometric glasswork on its
street-facing gable ends.
321
Park Street Baptist Church

16 Park Street N
Park Street Baptist Church was designed in
1907 by Toronto architect John Francis Brown
who designed a significant number of Baptist
churches throughout Ontario in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth century. It
forms an important part of the streetscape
through its crenellated corner tower with
contrasting string courses and silver spire. To
the north end of the lot is a well-integrated mid- twentieth century addition.
St. Giles Presbyterian Church

785 Park Street S
St. Giles Presbyterian Church was designed
by architect Eberhard Zeidler between 1953
and 1954. It is important for its use of light and
illumination through both the split gable which
allows for both the illumination of the
communion table and the creation of a
clerestory along the nave as well as the eastern nave wall composed of glass panels and timber
slats.
St. Stephen’s Presbyterian Church

1140 St. Paul’s Street
St. Stephen’s Presbyterian Church opened at
the end of the 1960s in a building constructed
on a square plan with a tented roof. It is an
important mid-century structure in
Peterborough as it is unique from other mid-
century modern churches in the city due to its
plan and massing as well as its lack of
emphasis on glass.
Beth Israel Synagogue

775 Weller Street
322
Beth Israel Synagogue was designed by

architect Eberhard Zeidler between 1963 and
1964 in response to the growth in
Peterborough’s Jewish community following
the Second World War and their desire for a
dedicated, purpose-built worship space. It is
notable for its use of a courtyard as a
transition zone into the main synagogue with
entrance gates designed by prominent
Canadian sculptor Ted Beiler.
Edmison Heights Bible Chapel

939 Hilliard Street
Edmison Heights Bible Chapel was
completed in March 1965 to service a
growing population of evangelical Christians
in Peterborough’s new northern subdivisions.
Although its distinctive roofline and geometric
glass in the gable ends set it apart from
secular architecture, its lack of monumentality
differentiates it from the mid-century
architecture of the mainline Christian
denominations and speaks to the evangelical understanding of worship space in the middle of
the twentieth century.
Park Street Gospel Hall

592 Park Street N
Park Street Gospel Hall opened in 1950 as
Park Street Alliance Church, a new building
for the congregation of Bethany Tabernacle
located on George Street North which was
constructed primarily by its congregation.
Drawing from the architectural tradition of the
gospel hall, the church is consistent with early
twentieth century structures erected by
Christian and Missionary Alliance member
churches which often used traditional church
forms, such as a corner tower and a gable roofed meeting space, in a simplified manner. This is
a good example of this type of building in Peterborough.
Municipal Heritage Register
323
Colo
Carr
nial
iage
Farrres
Dafo
Ln
Bla Way
C
iage
Carr
ier
Ln
cks
eD
mith
r
CSACH18-004- Appendix B Mo n
tc alm
Dr
Hop
Ca
Ave
St
rtie
nd
ewe
d
n R eca
erla hto SenRd
r
b
ter
Leig Crt
Cu m
ll A
Am
Wa
u
ve
R oC
nds
Rd
Unga
yal s
va A
en
d
re
ve
Blv
san
e k
Scolla
Ave
re
r
rtie
r le
C
Ca
rd
St
Crt dia
Ba
d
Dr
e Av e n Blv
Fox
a
o am
Arc
r
Blvd
s gh
ve
in
s
nn
Dr
Olym pu
p
Ave Cu
atin
Ri
Pea
m
re ry P
s me
klin
l
Fro
o
Elle
Kee
h
ee
s
b
l D
n
Hu
Cre
ishe
St
ds
Fra
T
t
Crt on
ya
rst S
ab
Ln
rd
No
Ro
r
St tte
olla
liffe
Bisson
St
u
Au
on
n
Vi s t
Bath
Mc
Sc
ds
Hu
Ot
Boo
St
M
nette
thia d
Ct
Blvd
rt R
ay
ar
rn
sh Pl on wa
bu
t
Dr
Av Ca en Eld Ste
Huron St
Mil
t St
e bo r
Pe res
Dr t ces
T
C
ac
St n
Cabo
Fra
lin
e
B e Dr
k in Scollard
Bo
qu
Dr
r
an a on
we
kL
n nD Fr Alg
ison
we
n
lkir
M
Ln
r
Dr
Se Bo
ell
s
an
Ed m
in
g r
g
Lo nD
Ashdale
St
ns
Av
Ln we
d
Ln ne
Ashdale Cres
Gr
ole llo
w Bo pt
u
Cu
Po Pe ll St
we Ne
lle
th dy
Fli
Cres E
Ro an
n
ns
tt
Tl
rm
on
d
Gr No
Ln
k
Ro
l
Av
C re e
lpin
na
To
we
e
W
Rip ll
Ha
w
fta
ay
er Crt
Ne
Ln
pin No
Ca
hil
ga W
pt
d
l
le Blv
Armour Rd
ne
Tl
Gs
ge
Glendale Dr
n a
in
St
ar
t
Ln
a
ck
Gr
en
M
ylo
m
lvd ha
Ha
d r r
Tr
B g
Te
s
in lR
Kie n
ck
re
ay hil tt
Ro
Bu bu
L
er
rn
t C
dw r
l's S
wb
w
Ga
a
oa To
n
Br
er
un
Gr
ry
y
au
Cres
Wa
G l eb em o
Blv
ng
Tob
St P
in C
d
rt
ield
Ferguson
Hatf
Hilliard St
le
Dr io
Or res
r
y
sD
o
Pl
ilr C
M Dr
an
o le
Ori
Ev
rt St
t
n S
Br St
Herbe
gto
Lan
itta
ny
Paddock
Ave
r St
Wood
rdo
San Trilli
Bak
ders u
Ln m
a
on
Barn
Crt
St
Ba
St
Mill
ke
aul's
rS
Dr
Ha
St
t
Rd
St P
de
oy
ill ilip
rh Ph
Milr
we Ave
To ble
Old ad Ca Dr le Whit aker St
Ro da
To w e rh il l St Elm
Cr
er
es
gh St
lla e
Dr Ga Le
rk St
Cla ne
ou
r Rd
Bir
n r
elb tto r D
ch
Sh
Ph
d Du mo
Lisburn
n
Chapel Rd
ll R St Fra
ilip
Av
i an or
rh
St
Le
Gil St
nn h
we
k
No
e
Ris
be
Hil
le
ee
To
e
St
cC Av
rth
rt
lvie
Cr
y
Ch
M
rtle
m
th
Ln
Moir St
be
w
Ha St Anso
ins
Cr
s
em
n St
Sc
za Dainton
Dr
Dr
r ti
ter
es
Eli
Abbey
hn P
e
St
Cu
on
Av
Av
De
eid l
Sclard
iel
St
e
g
an
ol-
an
er
Nic
Rd
D Ln
a
Rd
ve
Blv
holl
A d
y' s Blv
d
Spencley's
s
s
et
Si mo n
Vinette St
ar
ns e
O 'L e
Su Av
e Av
Ar
Leahy's Ln
r
Da
wa s wn ble
gy
Rd
De Cre la
nie
Eastdale
le
St
en Du
Nic P
t in e
l
St Ma
r
Gr
Crt
ho l
ide
Fa
St
St
Dr
lls
ls Dr
Hil ue
irb
St n
ill 's St
ne s
x to
h v ide
St er An Cre lle Dunlop
air
Be
Ba
rna St Gars
Clu
mm rdo
n
d Su e E
on Av St
Dr St Ave Rd
St h
h ill
St
Be
Ro hill
Timt hy
et
St
urc
ea ay Ay
o St
Pa rk
e nn
ns
Cr R ov
se
Ch
gr lm Be
Dr
on
Mc
CoCr e
t
ple er
rn S
r
nge
Rd Ap
ch s
Av
ke
ra
St
e
Gle
y La
Co
u
W
ne
Sne
Aub
d
es
Lil St
Inv t R
n
e
Julie
ho A
td
e St rlea
lgro
e Av
ale
lsid
lm ve
Curt
Hil en
e
ve R
Av
de Ave
St N
ve
St
er on
He
is R
St n Ab
e nst
n A
Av Swa
d
mlo
lar io
Cr
in g e
Av
ter
p St
d
es
Po m nin Ave
tou
ck
St
Do
ge
nd
an ll
Wa
Lud
nd Rd rro
Br
nnis
M
Ay
gan
hla
or
o a bin
oo
rt
d
lm
ym St od
g
lan O'C
C
Hig
Wo
Ge
kd
Kin
De
ate
Ra Ave
Do
er
h
Hig
ale
Be
Tre t
d
ucli
wn
e
St
Av
St
E
th
S
ie
nt
e
un
in
Nais
St
ald
e
Lud
St
Elcombe
Ge
St
St dy
Cres
h
Park
Do
Cad
Cres
g
view ue St
Wave
d
ate
l
ne
v e
Av
wR
Ave
ro
vie nt-
Dr
A
lle ely
g
Ca
tts
Be St W St
al
Fa
ols
Tre
Rd St
Sim
St
Mason rin
Dr
ton
St
hill
W lsh
Av
e Duffe
irb
We
Beve
ing
Park
mo ns
ell n
Dr
e St
air
St
Elg
W de Antrim
St
r
litt
rly
Sto
Cen
e
n
Ha z
ld
Ros
in
Ab rfie
rm
St
Re id
St
St
St
te
tre
es
s S
on
Ave
Ch ne
Gilc
arla
t
Oxfo
St
e
t
Av McF
h
ia St
tor Edinburgh St
rist
St
rd
Rubidge St
Stewart St
Park
Vic
St
Union St
Ca nal
Dr
K
St N
ry
Downie St
ar ey Ave
ngve Tiv t
no
h am
S isle
Gle A Carl
x St
St
ton
urn
Dublin St Clif
Harvey
Maiden Ln
Parkwood y Ave
nle
Waterford St
roe
St
StaAve
As h b
Mu n
Reid St
St er-
blin Suthnd
Du
Dr
Museum Dr
Cir
d la l
woo P
Park
Trent
Riv
Ln London St
Pinehill
erv
t
Donega l St
iew ro S
Arm
iew
yv
Dr
Dou
Gilchrist St
Valle
St
ord
Pl
o
s
Dickson St
acc
McDonn el St
College St
Cre
ur
Bon ch
Hedo
Co rda
wley
Roge
Rd
Terr
Cre
Cro
Rd
Rubidge
nics
k
s
ee Dr
rs S
St
Cr view
Pa
y r
Mark
Valle el n D
LaurCir
t
to
rk
n Murray St
Wa ter St
ll
iddle
Spurway
s co
o M
St
s
George St N
St
Dri
k
Aylm er St N
Wa
St E
c e
Cro
r
r St
id
D
it hs el
Roc
a Fe
Fore
llis
Pl
Sm rt
onn te
hill
Hu n
J n St ket
ss
wo
ine
McD
C
Cam
rray CricPl
klan
P o
Cird Mu
st H
St
Wedood
Kirk Brock St
Sheridan
Chambers
w Pl
Dr
t
brid
ds
St
ut S
ill B
ln
ge-
Ave
St
Wa
e
Wed
Rd
Crt
ge
k ins Brock St
Fleming
al Driv
St
lvd
Hop Brock
St
d
g
woo
Fac
St
e-
ndi
Pl
Hunter St W
e
FaceCrt St
Ma p
Queen St
nd Hall
ndi
Tho on
odla
Medic
Steve
St
Burnham St
Terr Wo
s e
le C
Dr
Av
mp-
ood t
r S 's
Belm
t Norw lle Hunter uke

y S We St LAve Ave
Gord
res
Downie St
Cind St W iece
ood Ma n
ont
nw Robinson St
Terry
on
St W Simcoe St
Dr
Cotto
Westbroo
d Scott
re R ter
Ave
Wa
a Hun St
Alb
Kild
Ave
lto
Way
ertu
St
nS
Rave
Glenca
Mon
Dr Simcoe hia
ood Sop
St
Hillcrve
t
k Dr
gsw St
a
Charlotte St Ma ri
Rd
Ma Ave
Kin Dr
nwo
Ave
a
Les ve
rtha Ave
est
irn Ave
l
gha
rhil a od
norh
A
Ave
Kaw e
Ros ve
Bria ewo Av
od
lie
Rd Hom
Win Ave
Bethune St
Hopk ins
il
eda
Dr
JosSt
Fair
Stewart St
o
Gord
n
Louis St
She
Meri
Reid St
Ma
Roge
derm
Ave
le
Rd
eph
m
F ai r lvilled Engleburn
yfa
James St
rwo
Me
BosAve
oun
Rd
on
Moo
Av R ld t Pl
Burrs
ur S
ere
Ave
rs S
rfie
Pea
ir A
k
ow
o King St
ble
lke
Mark St
od
Gilm
Arm
we
od
t
Ave
Wa
St
recr
ewo
e
Engleburn
e
Edg
Mc Dr
ve
rl A
Ma ve
t
ll
Hom
Cre
m
a
Blv
K
s tro
iew Charles St Br
C re
Rubidg e St
n
aig
Cr ee
Rop
Elia
Firw
to
itla
A
ve
ewo
arv Ho
t sing
N o rth
Ced Dr
d
s
llow
Ken t
Birds-
ng
gS Maria St
n
sA
Dr ay
Ma ve
er
Rd
all
St
o
Kin
d
od
od
St
Dr
Fre Ave
Wil St
ve
rga
Ash
A
Dr
Dobb
St
St e Sherbro oke
Rd
ThoSt
rlott
Cre
Carson ller
deri
liam
e a d e
re
Blv burn
Crt Dr We
Cha
Joh
t
b
ma
in A
s
er Cre
ck
Ho sp
Rop
urn
d
s
Haz
y Cres
gle
s
r Ave
n S
ital
ve
tory
Rd
Dr ff-
Am rt
En
eld
r Hu an
ham
t
lD
C
Vic
ill pita
view
y 's
Melod
rnh m
d
Walke
ean ve
Hos
M
Blv
Tho d St Dalhousie St
gs
A
R s
Cre St
dow
n
Pense
Park
ller St
Dr
Dr
ro e
e ar
Wa
We Ann
Av
e
Park St N
Cr ham
Av i
ter
Boliv
t
Mea
-
Vic tory
Dob
Ha s
wa
llis
d
Pl
t
rn
Cres
oo
Wa
Alb
Fair
ge
La ke
Ruth
Bu
t tle
bin
ll
Dr
alw
St ace
y
Ed
ertu
Dr
Vic tor
nd
C
Ave
Dr
Ave
erfo
rid ros
Wo lfe St
Li
Sa
Br
s A
Rave
r Crt
AdeSt
Ha e
Rd ge s- u
Cowights
St ce
Av
He
Wild
de
Bals
rd
xan
Stannor
ve
rt
line
Ale
nwo
ling
la
am
Ave
d
it R a-
rk D
Haw
Pulp Tam St
od
s k
Cre Racd iper rs o
n Townsend St
r
Tully
Gra Ave
Pate
Hea
thorn
Jun d
Gle
R
Dr
St
Ale
R
ud- lfe
Wo
ndvi
Ken ve
nfo
the
Cla tte
xan
r
eD
Brid
rk D
Ave
e rt
A
rest
es
r Ln
la
ew
neth
der
C
Dr
Wild Cr
r
le D
R i d g e t op
Cre
Rink St
Ave
Blvd
r
Ced
s
nita ood Ave

Ki
Clon
ar
Olive St
Gro Da rlw nd
Ea
Wild
la
ns
v ary
Gate
lark
e M
me n Wa y
Glen le Dr
silla
-
es
fo id Ave
C re e k
rest Bob
Cr Br d
o
o
Crt link Thir Perry St
Dr
nc
Lilli
Ave
Bia
JacAve
Tam
co
Bethune
Stewart Pl
kso
bl St
Laf-ette
ay
i
Ave
ert t
e S
St
Alb
Blv
n
gle
Lak
Cre
Hagg
n
Hig
Har- Dr
Ea
d
Wa
Wh
vard
s
w
Talw Crt
h S
Crt
Hillto
es
Ha n
Whit
y
it e
Crt
art
od
cox r
st D
a
Cr
tt S
t C r es c en t St
t
Alfret
c re
wo
t
Monta
ood
Cre
tl
en Tal in S st co i
St
ef
p St
Gre erla
S
Win t
We
Bre St
h
ield
mb
Wo
Haye
s
St
d
Cha W
S
re
Ave
wer
ch
on Wa
gue
od
Devve St
Dr
nk
s St
glad
Ge o
A Fra t
Bra Pl
S
ine
Hyw
ick a St
Su m
Rom
e B
und
nsw s St
Crt
Ave cess
rg
Bru St Prin ard

ood
Link glas ell St Edw

lvd
m it
Dou
Aylm
Parn
e S
t re
St n k S Wa
Rd
Nevi
Dr
en t Fra Ave
Lind e S an
tS
ro ok ann
er
Pin t
Gre
St
n Ave
itla
McC
Pa rk
Lyn
rb
Mapt
wn
Sh e
Lee
Bro
St
Wh
en
Ford
St S
Mau
S
c
She
t ve St
in S
hS
le
n A
hill
Av het
Pl bee
erla a cess
Aft o
Fag Prin
Kent
de
mb
rb
t
St S
St
Dr
Cha
Cham
rp
e
S
na
urn
Nobll
n R
Ln
Mo
St
t
ys St
Oto
lain
d
P
eS
Lun Prin
ce
Loc
d
RidgCrt
Pl
ber-
St
e
y- St
t
wn Reld rrow
Gra
Bro s
k S
- no Mo
Storn
ewo
d
Ro
n R Crt
d
Ridg
Golfv
y Crt
Aft o ow al
t
y
t St
S helle
West
P St ine
ge
od
Roc
Me v e
us a ry Dr
me
Ave
Dr
ewo
Duff Rom
iew
tgo on
A
r Ne
St Mon
rvin
nt d
e
ce R
s
ine
e
Br i
Cre
rn A
a
od
a
Rom St Terr
id
Syd
Rd
Silv
Mou
ks
i l so n W a y
's
New ary Lo c
Arth
an
St M
ve
e
erda
ntla
nha
Rd
rrig
ur A
Dr
W
S
St
Cl
nd
le R
Co
m
s
Crt Rd
w ne
r Rd
any
re
ov
ve
d
od R sdo
Ch
d
C
La n
er l
Alb
rn R
t
Goo
ris
ill S
d
Rive
Ave
oo
a
t McG ette St f
Barr
e
e
's S
Dr
O a kw
d
Sev
d
Rd ary Fra
o ph r R d
fello
en St M Ave
ld
et
nhav ux
Payn
e
e k fi
Ford
e
Ly
B lv d Brio
Av
re te Sou
w R
ghts
You
St
ei C hi thla
d
e S
t ha H Ave wn
i no
oo
Saugeen Cres
war
W
St
ison
Jan
n
d
le Ave
W
a Dr
Wig
tw
gS
Ed
ent
il ve ood
t
Hurle
gra
Crt
at
und
Prisa
es
idw
eS
af v Eph
cill t
ab
Bra Abores
t
Herm
htm
Cr
Blvd
yle
S
wo
rs
Mo n
Rd
Ba rt
s
t
rt C
-
St
Lloyd
y St
Cre
C h
Ave
e
an
Larc
o n
Wils
an S
y
t er
iew
a
St
Th e
ilv
High St
Ave
eau
B rt Tra
hwo
iu
gh a
ber
C
t
g re
Cre
el
We
t
Rid
e S
Hum
Co r n
od
Bee
eorg
P
n
bb
Ave Dr
en
RalpCres
g G eau
arkw
e Rid
Ave
Ros Kin
er
chw
Rd
Tl
ArthAve
hso
Mil-
e
ood
Park
ood
Dr
ford
Av
Ave
ngw
ay
ur
n
Spri Gate
St.
Ave
Dr
St S
sill
en St
Cath
r
ella
Bord
d
on
McK
Che
d
Milf or
od D r ll R
r
o
erin
nne
ee D
Cl
dw o
s te
Re O'C
Lilli
eS
Dr
St
r S
St
MonSt
ab
an
res Ave rge ilt on

t
e C le eo
t
Oton
Fernda
al
g G Ham
Spri
v
Rd
Rd
e
d
St
Gro
trose
Av
Kin
Bark
l
Blv
st
sta
er
ef
Cry
ngb
Dr
ry
rin
St Ave
er A
v
ri
ley
s
C
e
Rd
Haw St am
R ye
Ave
roo
ht
c
Sh
r h
Ri
ella St Gra
on
iew McK den

ld
e
op
ig
ve
alev fie
k D
We
Av
M
D How dle
He
St
Fi n
Tr e W St
et
ell
ee
chu
St
bb
r
id
Ben
Little Maxw
a
M
ne
er A
r th
w
ab
Ave
sdo
rs r
rt don
s
La n
D
St.
Ka w a
hts
ve
fort
C Sprin Arn
on
od Dr eig
side Dr
gbro
w H
Cath
ok r
ervie tD
viewe-
Survt
Riv
Ot
r St
wa
ar
Rd
Dal
Rd ella
erin
Crt
ew
S
ryhill
gs
H a rp e r C McK St
Kaw
ey
Bank
Cher s
Kin
eS
re Cre
ay
n Ave
d
So
so
woo Cres
arth
N o r e Ave Colli
t
sw
e
le th ie
Th
k
u
esp
th
Gill
a C
St k's
Crt p
en
es
son
Ap
Colli
atric
Ap
Arc ld
leC r
Pa
re
ba
Qu
p
Cr
Ave
s
rk
hi-
l ew
ow
St P
St
Ers
s
Ste ve
n re
Rye e C
da
Dr
e
Rd
oo
Vi l
Denn
k in
Dr
Th
ele
n
Stew
Dr
SpA
ingto
Dr
Pla
ft
o t
n S
dC
Neal
e A
Cr
Ke n
Orp
l ag
Kin
ruce
ero
e
stic
Cam
ve
sid
Qu
artcr
gs
r es
ve
ned
e C
e
er
Harp
s R
w a C rt
en
Riv
sw
oft
Rd
rt
y
y Rd
res ry C
r
a
Shir
C ko Cr y edy
es
er R
Hic St n
ire
Ke n
t
The
Spill
ley
res Bella
d
Crt
Hun
ge C en
sbu
Villa Asp
Kin
St
Pl
Cir
ting
n ld
ry D
Haro
gsw
Ca mero Dr
ton
res
ge C
ay
Ca
r
Ave
Villa m
er
on
r
Barn
Pin
Pl
Cre
s rie D
Wa
Guth
Bre
ara
Mou
ewo
Barb
dd
Cah
es
C re e k
Wa
Pl
ell A
a
od D
Cre
rd
ill D
Dr
tain
ley
r wfo
dd
Colle
Ram
e C rd ra
ve
Robe
ell
w fo
r
p
Ash
Cra
blew
Dr
s
ge P
Cre
r
rt R
Ave
Rd
a
ter
ood
ark
Fors
H
d
Dr
Dr
Dr
d Pass
ood r R By-
Ben
ekw c ke
Sto
Cre
r
s
y
n D
wa
fort
Rd
gh
rou n sto
ve rbo
Jo h
rk
nA
Harper
gdo Pete
Pa
Pin
Rd
Kin Dr
rd
ewo
w fo
Th
Cra
od D
µ
ek
Cre
r
v il le
Gre
rs
By e
e
ye
Fort
n B
Wa
lvd
dd
ell
Ave
0 0.25 0.5 1
Kilometers
324
From: W. H. Jackson
Subject: Report IPSPD18-020

Application for Site Plan Approval, 475 George Street North,
Seven Storey Building with 136 Dwelling Units (Atria)
Purpose
A report to recommend the approval of a Site Plan for the construction of a seven storey
building with 136 dwelling units at 475 George Street North.
Recommendations
That Council approve the recommendations outlined in Report IPSPD18-020 dated
August 27, 2018, of the Commissioner of Infrastructure and Planning Services, as
follows:
That the Site Plan Application submitted by George and Murray Development Corporation
for the construction of a seven storey building with 136 dwelling units at 475 George
Street North be approved, subject to the following conditions:
a) The submission of revised drawings and additional technical information to the

satisfaction of the Commissioner of Infrastructure and Planning Services;
b) The deposit of site work performance security in the amount of $200,000.00

related to modifications to the Brock Street Parking Lot and the construction of on-
site features;
325
Report IPSPD18-020
Seven Storey Building with 136 Dwelling Units Page 2
c) The deposit of performance security in the amount of $300,000.00 related to the

reconstruction of sidewalk and streetscape features on the abutting road
allowances;
d) The submission of the Building Permit Application set of drawings to the

Peterborough Architectural Advisory Committee for approval before the issuance
of a Building Permit;
e) The execution of a Lease Agreement for the reconfiguration of the existing parking
lot and exclusive use of 88 parking spaces on the Brock Street Municipal Parking
Lot to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Corporate and Legislative Services
and the Commissioner of Infrastructure and Planning Services; and
f) That future lease payments accruing to the City related to parking from
implementation of the Lease Agreement be directed to the Parking Reserve Fund.

The Lease Agreement will provide for the exclusive use of a portion of the Brock Street
Municipal Parking Lot to support parking for the proposed development. In return, the
developer will pay the City a one-time lease payment of $1,520,000.00, which is based on
$20,000.00 for every existing parking space that will no longer be available to the public.
The lease payments will be spread over a 5 year period with equal annual installments of
$304,000.00. The developer has also requested the option to lease the remaining
spaces within the Brock Street lot under the same terms and conditions, if the City deems
them to be surplus in the future.
The current Brock Street parking lot has 92 spaces and generates annual revenues of
approximately $65,900.00, based on the current monthly parking permit fee of $55.00 and
the hourly parking rate of $1.25 per hour. Total annual maintenance and operating costs
for the lot are estimated at $52,500.00, or $570.00 per space, for a net revenue stream of
$13,400.00 per year or $145.66 per space.
With the proposed reconfiguration of the parking lot, 17 spaces will still be available for
public parking use, and based on the current estimates, annual parking revenues for
these spaces are expected to be in the order of $12,100.00 per year, with annual
maintenance costs of $9,700.00 per year, for net revenue of $2,400.00 annually. This will
result in a net revenue loss to parking of up to $11,000.00 per year, which will be
reflected in future operating budgets once the parking changes are fully implemented.
The developer has also agreed to provide an incentive program to encourage the existing
63 monthly parking pass holders at the Brock Street lot to relocate to the Simcoe Street
parking garage. The details will be finalized as part of the Lease Agreement, however the
326
Report IPSPD18-020
incentive program could provide up to $83,000.00 in revenue to the City over a 2 year
period, depending on the number of pass holders who participate, which would be used
to replace the potential lost parking revenue for the first two years of the lease
arrangement while the parking lot changes are being implemented and existing pass
holders find new longer term parking solutions.
Costs to reconfigure the parking lot to provide additional spaces, relocate existing City
parking equipment, and provide access control and signage will be the responsibility of
the developer and they will also be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the
parking spaces under their control for the period of the Lease Agreement. It may be more
efficient for the developer to maintain the entire parking lot during the term of the Lease
Agreement, with a share of the maintenance costs, related to the remaining 17 City
parking spaces, being funded by the City as part of future operating budgets. Details of
this financial arrangement will be reflected in the Lease Agreement and future operating
budgets for parking.
Background
The property at 475 George Street North is the former YMCA property at the southwest
corner of George Street and Murray Street.
The property was rezoned on June 27, 2011, amending the SP.13 zoning district to
expand the list of uses to permit a mix of residential and commercial uses with site
specific development regulations (Report PLPD11-044). At the time of the Zoning By-law
Amendment application, 56 apartments and 84 residential suites, as well as retail and
clinic uses, were proposed.
The Zoning By-law was amended for the subject property from SP.13 to SP.13 – “H”.
The “H” – Holding Symbol was removed from the zoning as was recommended in Report
PLPD12-003, dated February 6, 2012.
In accordance with one of the conditions associated with the removal of the “H” – Holding
Symbol, the Peterborough Architectural Advisory Committee (PACAC) approved the
proposed changes to heritage attributes on the exterior of existing portions of the building.
This included, by way of its reconstruction, the retention of the 1932 facade on George
Street, as well as the George Street building entrance.
327
Report IPSPD18-020
Parking Requirements
The Zoning By-law’s parking requirement for the subject property is 0.25 spaces per
dwelling unit or 34 spaces for 136 dwelling units. However, the developer has proposed
to provide more parking for the future tenants of the building through a lease agreement
with the City for a large portion of the Brock Street Municipal Parking Lot. The current lot
features 92 parking spaces, with 4 of them being accessible parking spaces.
The developer has proposed a reconfiguration of the existing parking spaces within the
Brock Street lot to achieve more parking by reducing aisle widths, reducing the size of the
private parking spaces in the leased area, and through reallocating their accessible
parking spaces to the lands directly behind their building. The proposed reconfiguration
will yield approximately 105 parking spaces, of which 88 of these spaces will used by the
developer, leaving 17 spaces for public parking, as summarized in Table 1, below. Of the
88 spaces controlled by the developer, 82 spaces will be used for resident parking and 6
spaces will be dedicated for use by the Kawartha Memory Clinic, located next door at 172
Brock Street.
Table 1 – Summary of Brock Street Lot Parking
Existing Proposed
Configuration Reconfiguration
Parking Spaces in Leased Area 76 88
Parking Spaces Remaining for City Use 16 17
Total 92 105
Through an approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment Application and a severance

approval granted by the Committee of Adjustment, George and Murray Development
Corporation acquired a portion of the abutting Murray Street Baptist Church property.
The expanded property allows for the creation of a two-way driveway from Murray Street
to the Brock Street Lot plus 23 more parking spaces.
Along the south side of Murray Street adjacent the developers building there is a parking
bay designated with 15 minute parking. As part of the Site Plan process, this parking bay
is proposed to be reconfigured to provide two on-street permit parking spaces and a
loading zone to support ongoing building operations. The current parking by-law includes
a provision for the issuing of overnight on-street parking permits which is used in certain
situations where the adjacent property owner does not have an off-street parking option.
Allocation of two parking spaces on the south side of Murray Street for permit parking is
328
Report IPSPD18-020
consistent with the current parking by-law, and an amendment to the parking by-law will
be required at the time that this provision is to be implemented.
With the 82 spaces on the Brock Street Lot, the 23 spaces on the former Murray Street
Baptist Church property, and the two dedicated permit parking spaces on Murray Street,
a total of 107 parking spaces are being provided for the proposed development.
Lease Agreement for a Portion of the Brock Street Parking Lot
A 50-year lease arrangement has been proposed for the Brock Street Parking spaces the
George and Murray Development Corporation will utilize. The lease is based on use of
the land encompassing 76 of the current 92 parking spaces within the existing parking lot.
The developer has agreed to pay the City a one-time lease payment of $20,000 per
existing parking space, for every existing space that will no longer be available to the
public, for a total contribution of $1,520,000. The lease payments will be spread over a 5
year period with equal annual installments of approximately $304,000.00. The developer
has also requested the option to lease the remaining spaces within the Brock Street lot,
under the same terms and conditions, if the City deems them to be surplus in the future.
It is recommended that all lease payment revenues be directed to the Parking Reserve
Fund for use in providing future new parking supply in the downtown.
Based on the recent update the Strategic Downtown Parking Management Study, the
capital cost to provide replacement parking, excluding the cost of land, is estimated at
approximately $7,000 per space for surface parking, and $34,000 per space for an above
grade parking garage. The proposed lease rate of $20,000 per space reflects a balance
between the replacement costs for the lost parking within a surface lot with the potential
costs associated with replacing these spaces in a parking garage structure at some point
in the future.
There are currently 63 monthly pass holders using the Brock Street lot. Monthly passes in
the Brock Street lot are currently priced at $55.00 per month, with hourly parking set at
$1.25 per hour, to a daily maximum of $8.75.
In 2018, annual revenues were estimated at $65,900.00 with $46,750.00 coming from
monthly pass holders and $19,150.00 coming from hourly parking revenues. Annual
costs to operate the Brock Street lot are estimated at $52,500.00 per year, or $570.00 per
space, leaving an annual surplus of $13,400.00, or $145.66 per parking space.
For 76 parking spaces to be reallocated to support the proposed development, alternate

locations for these monthly customers are needed. The next nearest parking lot is the
Chamber Street lot, however due to the size of the lot and demand for hourly parking in
this area, monthly permits are not available at the Chambers Street lot.
329
Report IPSPD18-020
Accordingly, the developer has agreed to provide an incentive program to encourage the
existing 63 monthly parking pass holders at the Brock Street lot to relocate to the Simcoe
Street parking garage. The details of the incentive program will be finalized as part of the
Lease Agreement, however the incentive program could provide up to $83,000.00 in
revenue to the City over a 2-year period, depending on the number of current pass
holders who participate. This revenue would be used to replace the potential lost parking
revenue for the first two years of the lease arrangement while the parking lot changes are
being implemented and existing pass holders find new longer term parking solutions.
Brock Street Lot Modifications
The developer has proposed a reconfiguration of the existing parking spaces within the
Brock Street lot, which will yield approximately 105 parking spaces, of which 88 of these
spaces will used by the developer, leaving 17 spaces for public parking. The costs to
reconfigure the parking lot to provide additional spaces, relocate existing City parking
equipment, and provide access control and signage lot is a component of the Site Plan
Agreement and will be the responsibility of the developer.
Of the 88 spaces being used by the developer, 6 of these spaces, located in the north-
east corner of the lot, are proposed to be dedicated for use by clients of the Kawartha
Memory Clinic, located next door at 172 Brock Street. Staff met with the owner of the
Kawartha Memory Clinic in the summer of 2017 to discuss concerns with the potential
reconfiguration of the Brock Street parking lot and how access to the clinic could be
maintained for patrons of the clinic who use the lot regularly. The proposed Site Plan in
Exhibit B has includes space to accommodate 6 parking spaces for customers of the
clinic. These parking spaces would be accessible from the rear of the clinic parking lot,
essentially increasing the available parking for that site while avoiding the need for clinic
patrons to navigate through the leased portion of the Brock Street lot to get to the clinic
entrance. The developer will be expected to enter into an agreement with the adjacent
property owner, satisfactory to the City, for use and maintenance of these spaces during
the term of the lease with the City.
The 17 parking spaces left for public use will be located along the west portion of the
existing parking lot and will be accessed by a separate driveway entrance at Brock Street.
The existing Pay and Display machine within the parking lot will be relocated to serve the
public parking spaces. With the proposed reconfiguration of the Brock Street lot, monthly
permit parking will no longer be offered at this lot and all public parking will be provided
on an hourly basis.
Access to the dedicated spaces for the tenants of the development will be controlled with
the use of bumper stop barriers and ornamental fencing. As well, access gates will be
installed at the Brock Street and Murray Street driveway entrances. Solid bumper-stop
barriers, similar in the way guard rails function, will prevent vehicles from accessing both
330
Report IPSPD18-020
public and private parking lot areas. In addition, the current walkway bisecting the site will
be relocated along the west property line, maintaining pedestrian travel through the area.
The developer will be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the leased parking
spaces under their control for the period of the Lease Agreement. The City would be
responsible for maintaining the 17 remaining public parking spaces. It may be more
efficient for the developer to maintain the entire parking lot during the term of the Lease
Agreement, with a share of the maintenance costs related to the remaining 17 City
parking spaces being funded by the City. Details of this financial arrangement will be
negotiated and reflected in the Lease Agreement and future operating budgets for
Parking.
With the proposed reconfiguration of the parking lot, the 17 spaces available for public
parking use, are expected to generate annual parking revenues in the order of
$12,100.00 per year, with annual maintenance costs of $9,700.00 per year, for a net of
$2,400.00 annually. The changes to the Brock Street lot will result in a net annual
revenue loss to parking of up to $11,000.00 per year, which will be reflected in future
operating budgets once the parking changes are fully implemented.
First Nations Burial Ground
There is a surveyed grassed area towards the north end of the parking lot that is officially
designated as a First Nations Cemetery under section 72 (2) of the Cemeteries Act (as
amended).
In compliance with the Act, there is a formal Site Disposition Agreement, filed with the
Regional Archaeologist at the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, with the City, Curve
Lake First Nation and Hiawatha First Nation as co-signatories, confirming the site as a
burial site; "to remain permanently in its present location".
The plan for the Brock Street lot respects the First Nations Burial Ground as it will remain
undisturbed through construction and when the modifications to the parking lot are
complete.
Staff met with Curve Lake and Hiawatha First Nations representatives who wanted
assurances that the burial ground would be undisturbed and that they would continue to
have access to it.
Impact on Downtown Parking Supply
The average weekday occupancy of the Brock Street parking lot was estimated at 71% in
the recent update to the Strategic Downtown Parking Management Study, based on an
inventory of the off street parking supply completed during the fall of 2016 and spring of
2017. The Downtown Parking Management Study concluded that the entire off-street
331
Report IPSPD18-020
parking supply was operating at approximately 71% of capacity during the typical
weekday peak parking periods.
At the time of preparing the Strategic Downtown Parking Management Study, it was
assumed that 50 of the 92 existing spaces in the Brock Street lot could potentially be
reassigned to support the proposed development, and the study also recognized that the
closure of the Louis Street parking lot was imminent. With the current proposed parking
plan for the Brock Street lot, this assessment has been updated, as summarized in Table
2.
Table 2 – Weekday Peak Period Parking Off-Street Parking Utilization (Spring 2017)
Existing Proposed
Lot Capacity Weekday Demand Capacity Demand Weekday
Utilization Utilization
Brock Lot 90 71% 64 17 17 100%
Chambers Lot 59 100% 59 59 59 100%
Gas Lot 39 95% 37 39 37 95%
Louis Lot 100 45% 45 0 0
Rehill Lot 91 68% 62 91 62 68%
Downie Lot 38 58% 22 38 22 58%
Reid Lot 59 59% 35 59 35 59%
Simcoe Street 535 72% 385 535 432 81%
Garage
King Street 628 78% 490 628 535 85%
Garage
Total 1,639 71% 1,199 1,466 1,199 82%
Off-Street
With Louis Street lot demand reallocated to the King Street Garage and the excess Brock
Street demand reallocated to the Simcoe Street Garage, the overall off-street parking
utilization is expected to reach 82% of operating capacity once the proposed changes are
implemented. While this supports the conclusion that there is currently an adequate
supply of off-street downtown parking to accommodate the proposed Lease arrangement
for the Brock Street lot; planning for the provision of additional downtown parking will be
required in the near future, as on-street spaces are lost due to redevelopment of the
Charlotte Street and Bethune Street corridors.
332
Report IPSPD18-020
Streetscape
Building demolition activity and the need to pour new footings and building foundations
will result in the destruction of the existing streetscape and concrete sidewalk along the
Murray Street and George Street frontages of the property. As a result, the Site Plan
package submitted for approval includes streetscape improvements to the Downtown
standard. The developer will be responsible for its construction and is required to deposit
performance security to cover 100% of the cost of its installation.
Site Plan Features
The original building at the corner of George Street and Murray Street constructed in the
1890’s is remaining along with the 1932 facade on George Street and the George Street
building entrance. The remainder of the buildings have been demolished to make way for
the construction of a seven storey building addition. The design of the building addition
does not try to emulate the architectural heritage components but respects them by
matching floor levels and by being in proportion to them. As a result, the building addition
will not detract from the existing built heritage.
There will be three main building entrances and three exits, it being noted that the parking
spaces dedicated to persons with a disability are located directly across from one of the
main entrances along the west side of the building.
The building has a green roof over the basement level (a courtyard), which serves to
bring in light to dwelling units interior to the building envelope. There also is an outdoor
amenity area on the seventh floor together with an interior amenity area with a floor area
of 223.8 square metres (2400 square feet).
Garbage and recycling will be stored within the building and garbage will be removed by a
private service.
Notice
Notice of the Application was circulated to all abutting property owners, as well as all
concerned City Departments, agencies and utilities. The additional technical information
and revision work requested by Infrastructure and Planning Staff are not of a magnitude
to prevent the application going forward for conditional approval.
Summary
The Site Plan Application for the construction of a seven storey building with 136 dwelling
units at 475 George Street North complies with all applicable Zoning By-law regulations
333
Report IPSPD18-020
and is conditionally recommended for approval by City Council in accordance with By-law
11-081, Section 3(b), which requires Site Plan Applications to be approved by Council
where a residential development contains more than fifty dwelling units.
Submitted by,
Contact Names:
Ken Hetherington
Phone: 705-742-7777, Ext. 1781
Toll Free: 1-855-738-3755
Fax: 705-742-5218
Brian Buchardt
Planner, Urban Design
Phone: 705-742-7777, Ext. 1734
Toll Free: 1-855-738-3755
Fax: 705-742-5218
Attachments:
Exhibit A – Land Use Map
Exhibit B – Site Plan
Exhibit C – Level 1 Floor Plan
Exhibit D – Level 7 Floor Plan
Exhibit E – North and East Building Elevations
Exhibit F – South and West Building Elevations
Exhibit G – Courtyard Elevations
Exhibit H – Site Servicing and Grading Plan
Exhibit I – Landscape/Streetscape Plan
Exhibit J – Parking Layout Plan
334
Report IPSPD18-020
Exhibit A, Land Use Map, Page 1 of 1

335
Report IPSPD18-020
Exhibit B, Site Plan, Page 1 of 1

336
Report IPSPD18-020
Exhibit C, Level 1 Floor Plan, Page 1 of 1

337
Report IPSPD18-020
Exhibit D, Level 7 Floor Plan, Page 1 of 1

338
Report IPSPD18-020
Exhibit E, North and East Building Elevations, Page 1 of 1

339
Report IPSPD18-020
Exhibit F, South and West Building Elevations, Page 1 of 1

340
Report IPSPD18-020
Exhibit G, Courtyard Elevations, Page 1 of 1

341
Report IPSPD18-020
Exhibit H, Site Servicing and Grading Plan, Page 1 of 1

342
Report IPSPD18-020
Exhibit I, Landscape/Streetscape Plan, Page 1 of 1

343
Report IPSPD18-020
Exhibit J, Parking Layout Plan, Page 1 of 1

344
From: W. H. Jackson
Subject: Report IPSPD18-022

Request for Minor Variance Consideration within 2 years of
Zoning Amendment for 186 Romaine Street
Purpose
A report to evaluate the planning merits of proceeding with a Minor Variance Application
to address five variance requests for the redevelopment of lands with the City’s
Committee of Adjustment, within two years of the passing of a Zoning Amendment for the
property at 186 Romaine Street.
Recommendation
That Council approve the recommendation outlined in Report IPSPD18-022 dated August
27, 2018, of the Commissioner of Infrastructure and Planning Services, as follows:
That a Minor Variance Application to address five variance requests as described in

Report IPSPD18-022, proceed to the City of Peterborough Committee of Adjustment for
the property known as 186 Romaine Street, being within two years of the passing of
Zoning By-law Amendment #17-105.

There are no direct budget or financial implications arising from this recommendation.
The applicant will be required to pay the requisite fees to the City and ORCA for
consideration of a Minor Variance request.
345
Report IPSPD18-022
Request to Proceed with Minor Variance within two years of Rezoning
186 Romaine St. Page 2
Background
The property was the subject of a Zoning By-law Amendment (By-law #17-105) approved
by Council on September 11, 2017 to permit a residential development, comprised of a
maximum of 44 dwelling units and associated landscaping and parking. The zoning
change permits the conversion of the existing school building, together with a 4 storey
addition, into a multi-unit residential dwelling. The zoning of the property was changed
from PS.2 – Public Service District to the R.5-313’H’- Residential District to facilitate the
change in land use. Exception 313 was introduced to the Zoning By-law to allow for site
specific regulations related to minimum lot area per unit, setbacks, landscaped open
space, motor vehicle parking and space dimensions and tandem parking provisions.
Subject to the zoning condition for Site Plan Approval, the applicants have submitted an
application for a refined development plan, and through the process of securing Site Plan
Approval, the applicants have identified the need for additional site specific variances.
Recent changes to the Ontario Planning Act, R.S.O, c.P.13 (Bill 73, 2015) now prohibit
applicants from applying for a Minor Variance within two years from the adoption of a
Zoning Amendment that was privately initiated on the same property, unless the Council
of the municipality passes a resolution to allow it to be considered. The intent of this
change to the Planning Act is to give greater control to municipalities and provides
stability by preventing zoning provisions that Council deems to be appropriate from being
reversed within 2 years.
Site Plan Application

An application for Site Plan Approval for the development was submitted to the City on
January 29, 2018. The Concept Site Plan submitted to Council at the time of the
rezoning application request has been refined to address the proposed development and
submitted with the application in January, 2018. As a result of the refinement, and as part
of the review of the Site Plan, Planning Staff identified deficiencies with respect to four
specific zoning regulations. These deficiencies require planning approval prior to Staff
approving the Site Plan. In addition, the applicant has also indicated his desire to place a
temporary sales office trailer on the easterly portion of the lands. It is the intention that
this temporary sales office trailer be converted to a construction trailer and that it remain
on site for up to a maximum of 3 years.
The subject variance request from the applicant indicates that the proposed changes to
the concept site plan provided at the rezoning stage are in response to engineering, site
servicing, low-impact development, construction and architectural design considerations.
The overall number of units and site parking remains as originally anticipated.
346
Report IPSPD18-022
Minor Variance Request

The Applicant is seeking a Council Resolution to proceed with an application for Minor
Variance to address the items identified at the Site Plan Approval stage of the
development. Given that the property was subject to a privately initiated Zoning
Amendment application within the two year window as set out in the Planning Act,
Council must pass a resolution if Council agrees that it is appropriate to allow the
Committee of Adjustment to deal with the matter.
The concept site plan is in general conformity with the concept for development as
envisioned through the rezoning process. Additional details have now been considered
with regard to parking layout, fire access, site servicing and low impact development
methods, resulting in revisions to the plan since the rezoning phase of the development.
As such, Planning Staff are of the opinion that it is appropriate to allow the applicant to
proceed to the Committee of Adjustment with a Variance Application to address the
following:
i. Reduce the setback of the proposed garbage enclosure to the rear lot line (north
limit of the property) from 3 metres to 0.77 metres;
ii. Reduce the minimum distance of driveway/parking spaces to windows of habitable
rooms of dwelling units from 6 metres to 5 metres;
iii. Reduce the width of the landscaped strip from a minimum of 1.5m to 1.1m to
accommodate the proximity of four parking spaces to rear lot line (north limit of the
property);
iv. Increase the maximum permitted coverage of the lot for parking, driveway and
vehicle movement areas, from 25% to 45% of the lot area; and
v. Permit the placement of a temporary sales/construction trailer measuring

approximately 3.0m by 9.45m to be located on the easterly proposed parking area
for a period not exceeding 3 years.
Subject to a Council Resolution, the Committee of Adjustment is able to proceed with a

minor variance. Based on a Council Resolution dated September 10, 2018, the applicant
would be in a position to submit a Minor Variance Application by September 21, 2018 and
be considered by Committee of Adjustment on October 16, 2018.
347
Report IPSPD18-022
Summary
The proposed variance request is in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the
zoning of the subject lands, approved by Council in September, 2017. Deviations from
the recently approved zoning require a Council Resolution in order to be considered via
the minor variance approval process through the City’s Committee of Adjustment. The
applicant is requesting Council consideration for such a resolution.
Submitted by,
Contact Names:
Ken Hetherington
Phone: 705-742-7777, Ext. 1781
Toll Free: 1-855-738-3755
Fax: 705-742-5218
Caroline Kimble
Planner, Land Use
Planning & Development Services
Phone: 705-742-7777, Ext. 1735
Toll Free: 1-855-738-3755, Ext. 1735
Fax: 705-742-5218
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Land Use Map
Exhibit B: Site Plan Submission
348
Report IPSPD18-022
Exhibit A, Land Use Map, Page 1 of 1

349
Report IPSPD18-022
Exhibit B, Site Plan, Page 1 of 1

350
From: W.H. Jackson,

Subject: Report IPSWM18-004

Recycling Contract Update and Amendment
Purpose
A report to examine the changes in the processing of recyclable material and to

recommend an amendment to the existing recycling processor contract.
Recommendations
That Council approve the recommendations outlined in Report IPSWM18-004, dated

August 27, 2018, of the Commissioner of Infrastructure and Planning as follows:
a) That the following adjustments to the existing HGC Management Inc. contract
with the City for the processing of recyclable materials at the Pido Road
Recycling facility be made for the period January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018
inclusive:
 The processing fee for recyclable material be increased by $1.86 per

tonne for a total increase of $7,824.54 and, in addition;
 The contract be increased by $8,000.00 to account for container

recyclable materials collected in bags.
b) That staff have quarterly inbound material audits undertaken at the Materials
Recycling Facility on Pido Road to determine the City curb-side collected:
351
Report IPSWM18-004 - Recycling Contract Update and Amendment Page 2
 Residue level;
 Cross contamination level; and
 Bagged container level in the blue boxes; and
c) That Staff make future adjustments to the HGC Contract, using the verified
results of quarterly audits to be completed over the remainder of the contract
based on the adjustment factors described in Attachment 4 to Report IPSWM18-
004.
Based on the results of the first audit, the contract with HGC Management Inc. will be
increased by $15,824.54 from an estimated $992,042.00 (depending on actual tonnage)
to $1,007,866.41 plus HST. Depending upon the results of future audits, additional
increases to the contract may be necessary.
There are sufficient funds to allow for the cost of the quarterly audits (City’s share is
approximately $2,500.00 per audit) in the 2018 budget and the 2019 budget will include
the audit costs.
Background
The City has operated, via several contractors, the Pido Road Materials Recycling
Facility (MRF) since 1989. Since 2002, HGC Management Inc. (HGC) has operated the
MRF on the City’s behalf.
1. Recycling Processing Contract History
HGC initially won the processing contract in 2002. The last RFP issued for these
services was in 2007 for a contract to run from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2014.
On September 9, 2013, through Report USWM13-007, an extension of the contract for

two additional years, to December 31, 2016, was approved due to uncertainties around
fundamental changes that were broadcast to be coming for the blue box system in
Ontario. The promised changes did not occur by 2016, but provincial efforts to
implement them continued. The Province enacted a change in law under Bill 151,
Waste-Free Ontario Act, 2016 in November of that year, and it appeared that the shift
from municipal to producer-run recycling programs was imminent and inevitable.
Based on this, Council approved, on September 8, 2015 (Report USWM15-008), a

further three-year extension of HGC’s contract to the end of 2019. At the time of the
contract extension, it was expected clarity about the impact of legislative changes would
be in place by the time a new contract was needed or the Producers took over.
352
Unfortunately, this clarity has not materialized. In fact, there is some thought that the
recent Provincial Election may, in the shorter term, create even more uncertainty.
When this last extension was negotiated with HGC, there was no request from them for
any changes to contract conditions other than an additional charge for handling bulky
Styrofoam.
The City is now in a position where two extensions to the MRF processing contract have
been given without going to the market and despite the fact that uncertainty still prevails
around the timing of Producers taking over responsibility for the blue box, it is believed a
third extension to HGC’s contract would not be prudent. Their existing contract will end
on December 31, 2019.
2. Standard Material Recycling Processing Contract
The standard recycling processing contract has two relatively simple items: payment to
the contractor for material that is processed and payment to the City for processed
material that is sold.
a. Payment to the Contractor for Processing Material
The City pays HGC on a per tonne basis for all incoming material from our programs
that are processed at the MRF. There is an allowance (5%) for material that is not
recyclable (“residue”). Any amount of residue above the 5% allowance must be
disposed at the Landfill at HGC’s cost ($95/tonne tipping fee).
b. Payment to the City for Processed Material Sold
To balance the cost of processing the recyclable material, the City receives payment
for materials sold, based on an Ontario Composite Price index for the “basket of
goods” that are marketed. This price index is published monthly by the Continuous
Improvement Fund (CIF). The CIF is a partnership between the Association of
Municipalities of Ontario, the City of Toronto, Stewardship Ontario and the Resource
Productivity and Recovery Authority (formerly Waste Diversion Ontario ). The CIF
commenced operations on May 1, 2008 under a Memorandum of Agreement signed
by the program partners. The CIF’s mandate is to improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of Ontario’s municipal blue box Programs.
3. Recycling Industry Changes
Over the years, and especially since 2013, recycling has changed dramatically. Two
major changes have occurred called the “evolving tonne” and the “National China
Sword”, and one, more minor change, called “wishful recycling”.
a. Evolving Tonne
The “evolving tonne” is a term that describes the phenomenon of more, lightweight
plastics, less glass and fewer newspapers now filling the blue boxes, resulting in
more air and less weight.
353
This light-weighting, with declining tonnage, results in less processing revenues.

At the same time, costs to process have increased since the lighter plastic
materials tend to be more voluminous and require more handling.
b. China’s National Sword
The biggest impact to the recycling business is the more recent occurrence of China
- the world’s biggest importer of recyclables - virtually closing its doors to all but the
most pristine materials. On January 1, 2018, China began enforcing it new “National
Sword” policy which bans 24 types of solid waste, including various plastics and
unsorted mixed papers, and sets a much tougher standard for contamination levels.
For example, the remnants of a greasy pizza box that gets thrown in with the
recycling and ends up in the paper bales would be above the allowable
contamination levels.
China’s “National Sword” has resulted in a massive worldwide drop in commodity

prices and much tighter specifications. Because the vast majority of recyclable
materials were going offshore, local mills have been slow to develop to handle this
material. With the tightness in the market place there might be mills that will be built
but that could take upwards of four to five years to put in enough mills to handle the
lost Chinese capacity. The ebb and flow of commodity markets and prices is not
new for the recycling industry, but the scale of this change is unprecedented.
While times were good and materials were moving well, municipalities and their
processors were able to accept a broad range of mixed plastics and other non-
traditional items. But now, as specifications tighten, these formally acceptable items
are considered contaminants, and the tolerance for contamination has dropped to
virtually zero. Some municipalities have had to resort to landfilling their products,
something unheard of before now. We are now challenged with the need to pull
back on what residents can throw in the blue box, an extremely difficult task.
c. Wishful Recycling
In addition, despite continuous education of residents by the City, the blue box mix
has become “dirtier” over time. As the acceptable items expanded, tolerance was
high and with strong markets, people began to assume virtually anything was
recyclable. Its called “wishful recycling” whereby the general public, if in doubt, puts
objects in the blue box assuming somebody will figure out what to do with it.
For instance, certain items that we once encouraged, such as Styrofoam, no longer
have a market, and therefore must be treated as contamination and end up in
landfill. Over time, the contamination levels appear to have increased within the
blue box.
4 Impacts to Existing Contract
The situations described in Section 3 have created a perfect storm for municipalities
and their contractors who must try to process and market recyclables. In consideration
354
of these issues, HGC is seeking adjustments to their existing contract to account for
alleged increases in contamination in the inbound material and the decreased ability to
market materials, especially fibre products.
Under the existing contract between the City and HGC there is a “Force Majeure”
clause that allows for the consideration of occurrences beyond the control of the parties
to the contract and how these occurrences may impact either party. It is under this
clause that HGC has requested a review of the terms of the contract requesting an
increase in the contract of approximately $665,000.00 annually.
HGC’s proposal for compensation (see Attachment 1) includes multiple adjustments,

which are outlined below with staff comments.
4.1 Allowable Residue Adjustment
Currently, the amount of residue or contamination that the City allows HGC is 5%.
This was put in place to ensure they did their best to extract the highest amount of
recyclables possible. We pay a processing fee on 100% of the tonnage brought to
them, but receive revenues for 95% when they are sold. Five percent of the inbound
tonnage can be land filled at the Peterborough County/City Waste Management
Facility for no charge but for anything over that, HGC pays the current tip fee to
dump.
a) HGC’s Request – That the City allow them a 12% residue level, thereby allowing
them to landfill 7% more material at no charge. The City would also be paid for
7% less material each month. Based on 2017 costs, this would result in a loss in
revenue to the City of approximately $170,000.00 per year.
b) Staff Recommendation – the City, County and HGC contracted a third party
auditor (AET) to complete inbound audits of both the City and the County’s
inbound materials during the week of July 16-20, 2018 to verify HGC’s contention
that contamination levels have increased markedly.
Analyses of the audit (Attachment 2) results indicate that the City’s true
contamination level is in fact less than 5%. Therefore, Staff believes there is no
rationale for an adjustment to the allowable residue level of 5% at this time.
4.2 Process Fee Adjustment
Currently, the City pays HGC $109.63 per tonne to process our inbound materials.
This fee has remained essentially unchanged since 2008, except for the annual CPI
increases.
a) HGC’s Request – that an additional $15.00 per tonne (a 14% increase from
2018 rates) be paid by the City to assist with the additional labour they say is
required to meet tightened commodity specifications, and to deal with the cross-
contamination found at the curb (e.g. papers going into the container blue box,
355
and vice versa). This equates to an additional cost to the City of approximately
$135,000.00 per year based on 2017 tonnages.
b) Staff Recommendation – The recent audits indicate that the level of cross-
contamination in City materials is 3.7%. There is nothing in the literature, nor in
the existing contract with HGC, that talks to an acceptable level of cross-
contamination. Given that HGC must essentially double handle this material,
Staff feels that a fair means of compensation would be to increase their current
processing fee by the percentage of cross-contamination that is above a minimal
level since total elimination of cross-contamination can not be expected by either
the processor or the City.
Without any better information, Staff believes the baseline cross-contamination

level should be set at 2%. Any cross-contamination above this would result in
compensation to HGC.
Based on a 2% baseline and a 3.7% audited cross-contamination level, HGC is

therefore entitled to a 1.7% increase in the current processing fee, which
amounts to $1.86 per tonne, for a total processing fee of $111.49 (2018). The
total increase for the period from January 1 – June 30, 2018, in which the City
had 4206.74 tonnes of material processed, would be $7,824.54.
The cross-contamination percentage is completely separate from the true

“residue” or “contamination” considered in Section 4.1. Cross-contamination
material is still to be recycled so does not count towards the residue number.
4.3 Adjustment to Optical Sorter Investment
HGC is seeking financial compensation for a second optical sorter that was
installed at the Pido Road facility in late 2017. They maintain that they expected
their contract to be extended by three years, which would have allowed them to
amortize the sorter over five years.
a) HGC’s Request – that an adjustment of $16.55 per tonne of inbound material

be paid to HGC for 2018 and 2019. This equates to approximately
$150,000.00 per year based on 2017 rates.
b) Staff Recommendation – Although there were informal discussions about

the possibility of another extension to the recycling contract (given
uncertainties with the industry on a provincial level), at no time was HGC ever
guaranteed an extension. This was made clear at the time HGC advised they
wished to install the second optical sorter. No requests were made to the City
nor were there any discussions at that time about the City providing financial
assistance. The decision was made by HGC and its new partner Canada
Fibers to install this sorter, because it greatly increases processing
efficiencies, allowing for better, faster sorting and ultimately, higher revenues
through higher sales. So, the decision to proceed was made without a
guarantee of a contract extension from the City. Since the sorter was
356
installed, HGC has imported ever-increasing volumes of materials from their

other contracts around the province to be sorted at Peterborough’s MRF,
being paid by those customers to do so. Staff feels the City has no obligation
to compensate HGC further for this sorter, which they own outright.
4.4 Change in Revenue Formula for Paper Grades
HGC pays the City each month for every tonne of material marketed from its
program (inbound tonnes minus 5% for allowable residue). The payment is
based on the CIF Price Sheet, which is updated each month. The Price Sheet
relies on the input of various processors to say how much revenue they received
for the materials they processed and sold each month. An example is attached
as Attachment 3.
a) HGC’s Request – There has been a severe softening in the prices paid for
newsprint (or more recently called Sorted Residential Paper #56) since
China’s National Sword was implemented, and HGC does not feel this is
being reflected in the CIF Price Sheet. HGC is therefore requesting that the
City adjust the Price Sheet, effectively deleting the Newspaper/#56 entry.
Based on the month of June 2018, the impact would be a $26 per tonne
decrease in City revenues or a total loss of revenue to the City of
approximately $210,000.00 per year.
b) Staff Recommendation – The CIF Price Sheet has been used for over 20
years and for the entirety of this contract without complaint by HGC, and by a
great many other Ontario municipalities for evaluating commodity prices.
Adjusting the fundamental precepts of this tool for Peterborough alone would
be challenging and risky for the City. It would require constant monitoring by
staff (who do not have marketing knowledge), and there are factors and
influences that we have virtually no direct knowledge of or control over. It is
entirely HGC’s decision as to how it operates its business, whether or not
they produce a #56 grade of paper or not. We do not and will not necessarily
know if they do or they don’t. Some recycling facilities market it successfully,
albeit at a reduced revenue currently, and HGC has the choice to also do so.
The decision is theirs. As markets constantly fluctuate, Staff and HGC would
need to continually chase the current price indices, a time consuming
endeavour. The Price Sheet takes into account a total of 14 different blue
box items, including various papers, plastics, glass, metal and aluminum.
Aluminum, the highest valued item in the blue box basket of goods, has
increased by 17% since January 2018. A number of items have experienced
increases, including PETE plastics, steel, polycoat and even glass. These
increases would serve to partially compensate for the losses resulting from
the newspaper decline.
Staff acknowledges that the revenues for HGC have taken a hit recently as a
consequence of China Sword. However, there have also been times over the
duration of the contract when revenues were excellent, and there was no
357
adjustment made to the Price Sheet. It is the nature of the recycling industry
that commodity prices raise and fall. Therefore, staff cannot recommend
making monthly adjustments to this Price Sheet used for calculating revenue
payments.
4.5 Bagged Recyclables
Although HGC’s letter of June 5, 2018 did not specifically talk to an issue with
bagged materials, there has been frequent mention by the processor of this being a
significant problem.
Staff does not believe any compensation should be allowed for bagged fibres
(newspapers etc.) since the bagging of papers and the inclusion of plastic film (in
bags) in the fiber stream has always been allowed in this contract.
However, bagging of container recyclable material does cause a double handling of

this material. Based on the July audit, 8.45% of the container recyclable material is
bagged. Although education and advertisement efforts will be made to reduce this
number, it is clear that additional work by HGC is required to deal with these bags,
especially at this contamination level. The allowable residual level is set at 5% so,
accordingly, it is believed that the allowable bagged container level should also be
set at 5%. For any level above this, staff believe HGC should be compensated for
the additional labour required to open all the bags and distribute the recyclable
material inside the bags.
For the period January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018, Staff proposes that the cost of ½
an FTE be added to the HGC contact. At a rate of $15.00 per hour, this amounts to
$16,000.00 per year before tax or $8,000.00 for the period January 1 to June 30.
4.6 Provincial Minimum Wage Policy
In addition to the adjustments HGC has requested, they had previously asked for,
and received from the City, compensation for the mandatory increase in their labour
costs through the province’s minimum wage policy. It was determined that $23,400
was the annual impact from this mandatory change of law, which is the amount the
City is paying HGC for 2018. We await word on the new government’s policy on this
matter before determining if any further increases are needed for 2019.
Discussion
HGC’s requested amount in total is roughly $665,000.00 per year (based on 2017
statistics and current market data), or a 58% increase over our current net costs. These
adjustments are requested for the two remaining years of the contract, 2018 and 2019.
Staff acknowledges that these are unusual times, and that some of the troubles HGC is
experiencing were impossible to anticipate and budget for, especially back in 2007. The
358
only increases to the original price bid for processing has been the annual CPI.
Consequently, some level of compensation is felt to be justified to keep HGC
Management whole and allow them to continue to finish out the City’s contract.
In consideration of the results of the recent audit, a number of adjustments to the HGC
contract have been proposed for the period January 1 – June 30, 2018 in addition to the
already approved adjustment related to the minimum wage increase.
Third-party quarterly audits are planned for the duration of the contract and a process to
adjust the HGC contract based on the results of these audits is proposed for the periods
July 1, 2018 to December 31, 2019 inclusive as detailed in Attachment 4.
Summary
Significant changes in the operation of the blue box system have given cause to re-
examine the existing recyclable processing contract between the City and HGC
Management Inc., the City’s processor. Based on the results of an external audit,
certain amendments to the contract with HGC Management, based on residue rates,
cross-contamination rates and bagged container rates are proposed. The contract
amendments will be based on quarterly third-party audits to be conducted until
December 31, 2019.
Submitted by,
Contact Name:
Virginia Swinson, B.Sc.
Waste Diversion Section Manager,
Waste Management Division
Phone 705-742-7777 ext 1725
Toll Free: 1-855-738-3755
Fax: 705-876-4621
E-mail address: [email protected]
Attachments:
Attachment 1: June 5, 2018 letter from HGC Management to the City and County of
Peterborough
Attachment 2: Summary of July 2018 Audit results (by AET)
Attachment 3: Example of CIF Price Sheet (June 2018)
Attachment 4: Proposed Amendments to the HGC Contract for the period July 1,
2018 to December 31, 2019 inclusive.
IPSWM18-004: Attachment 1 359
HGC Management Inc.
50 Shaver Street, R.R. #8
Brantford, ON N3T 5M1
519-754-4732
hgcmanagement.ca
June 5, 2018
Ms. Virginia Swinson

Waste Diversion Section Manager
500 George St.
Peterborough, Ont. K9H 3R9
And
Ms. Tara Stephen

Manager, Waste Management
Peterborough County
310 Armour Road
Peterborough ON K9H 1Y6
Re: Adjustments to Existing Process Contracts
Dear Ms. Swinson and Ms. Stephen:
As discussed at our meeting on May 31st, the amount of contamination in the inbound recycling
streams delivered by the city and county has grown to more than double the amount indicated in
the original RFP. Further, the city and county have been unable to control this increase at
source as indicated in the RFP.
The uncontrolled contamination has negatively impacted HGC financially, and HGC is seeking
adjustment for 2018 and 2019 to compensate for the financial impact as follows:
1) Allowable residue adjustment – The added contamination has increased the residue
level. Appendix 1 provides results from a recent third party audit. This indicates that the
container stream contains over 15% non-program material and also over 12% by weight
of cross contaminating fibre and film for an overall contamination rate of over 28%. The
fibre stream has an overall contamination rate of over 2.3%. We are therefore
requesting:
a) An increase in the allowable residue level sent to city landfill at no tip fee to 12%
from 5%, and
b) An adjustment in the material revenue formula to change marketed tonnage to 88%
of inbound delivered from 95% of inbound to reflect actual marketed tonnes.
2) Process fee adjustment – An adjustment to the process fee is needed to compensate
for increased sorters required to remove contamination to produce marketable
commodities, as well as slower production rates to meet recently tightened commodity
specifications. We have calculated the required adjustment needed to be $15 per MT
processed.
360
3) Adjustment for optical investment due to contamination – HGC installed an optical

sorter in 2015 to deal with increased PET plastic sorting challenges in the container
stream arising from increased amounts of water bottles and introduction of PET clam
shell packaging for fruits and vegetables. The installation of the optical sorter with an
investment of $650,000 was done in order to be able to extend the contract with no
increase in process rate. Unfortunately, the high contamination rate in the container
stream required that we double-sort the material, which negated the advantage of having
the optical sorter. HGC increased their investment in optical technology by a further
$800,000 through installation of a second machine, which allowed all material to be
sorted with a single pass as originally envisioned. This installation was made at our sole
cost and in good faith. We expected to amortize the investment over 5 years at $160,000
per year as we envisioned a three-year extension. If the contract is not extended, it
would leave $480,000 unrealized. Therefore, we seek an adjustment of $16.55 per MT
processed in 2018 and 2019 as an appropriate adjustment to make HGC whole. If HGC
were granted an extension of three years, this amount would not be required.
4) Change in revenue formula from grade 54 instead of grade 56 – Appendix 2
provides information as to the closure of deinking mills and the impact of China’s
National Sword initiative. Due to the closure of deinking mills, the only major market for
56 grade news was China. Their implementation of a quality specification of 0.5 percent
is impossible for recycling programs to meet without major capital investment in optical
sorting technology or significant increase in labour. As a result of the inbound
contamination and the current capability of the sort system, HGC is not able to meet this
extremely stringent specification.
In order for us to maintain movement, HGC has shifted sales to packaging mills that buy
grade 54 at a lower price. Our contract uses the composite index formula calculated by
CIF Price Sheet. Unfortunately, the methodology assumes tonnage marketed as it was
in 2016 when programs sold 56 grade. This is not the reality today. The correct
methodology would be to use grade 54 price, as this is what Ontario recycling programs
are now selling. The weighted percentage of news used by the CIF composite index is
51.8% of the blue box. The price differential last month between grade 56 and 54 was
$52 per MT. The impact, therefore, would be about $26 per marketed tonne. The
contract between HGC and Peterborough Country did not originally intend for HGC to be
at market risk, but the inaccuracy of the CIF formula has significantly jeopardized the
standing of HGC. We request the formula be adjusted for 2018 and 2019 to correct this
unintended effect.
We appreciate the collaborative approach Peterborough has taken during this difficult time. With
help from our long-term partners, like Peterborough, we are confident that we will be able to
continue diverting all recyclables from landfills, despite shifts in the global recycling market and
the trend of increased contamination.
Sincerely,
Herb Lambacher
President, HGC Management Inc.
361
Report IPSWM18-004 - Attachment 2
City City City City Pido Pido Pido

Curbside Curbside Multi-Res Multi-Res Depot Depot Depot
Corrugated
Fibres Containers Fibres Containers Fibres Containers
Cardboard
Split (% by weight) * Based on May 22nd weights 65% 35% 65% 35% 65% 35%
% of total by Sector 79.3% 6.0% 14.7%
AVERAGE ALL AVERAGE ALL AVERAGE ALL AVERAGE ALL AVERAGE ALL AVERAGE ALL AVERAGE ALL
4 samples audited 4 samples audited 1 sample audited 1 sample audited 1 sample audited 1 sample audited 1 sample audited
Percentage (%) Percentage (%) Percentage (%) Percentage (%) Percentage (%) Percentage (%) Percentage (%)
Paper Packaging
Newspaper 38.77% 1.53% 42.25% 1.64% 18.09% 0.00% 0.00%
All Other Accepted Paper 7.87% 0.64% 11.76% 2.93% 47.91% 0.00% 0.00%
Total Accepted Paper (fibres stream) 46.64% 2.17% 54.01% 4.57% 66.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Total Accepted Paper (containers stream) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Total Non-Accepted Paper 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Paper Packaging
Corrugated and Kraft 38.52% 0.07% 26.99% 1.64% 24.11% 0.43% 90.00%
Boxboard / Cores and Molded Pulp 10.84% 1.61% 14.25% 3.30% 4.85% 0.91% 10.00%
Gable Top Cartons and Asceptic Containers 0.68% 2.20% 0.80% 4.27% 0.00% 2.90% 0.00%
All Other Accepted Paper Packaging 0.67% 0.97% 0.41% 1.81% 0.05% 1.82% 0.00%
Total Accepted Paper Packaging (fibres stream) 49.36% 1.67% 41.24% 4.94% 28.95% 1.34% 100.00%
Total Accepted Paper Packaging (containers stream) 1.35% 3.17% 1.21% 6.09% 0.05% 4.72% 0.00%
Total Non-Accepted Paper Packaging 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Plastics
PET 0.14% 16.65% 0.23% 27.28% 0.15% 24.76% 0.00%
PET Dark 0.14% 0.37% 0.00% 0.50% 0.00% 0.52% 0.00%
HDPE Food, Beverage, and Jugs (# 2) 0.56% 8.21% 0.00% 6.92% 0.00% 10.50% 0.00%
Mixed Plastics 0.09% 5.23% 0.12% 6.08% 0.02% 5.98% 0.00%
Polystyrene (Foam) 0.02% 0.10% 0.00% 0.50% 0.00% 0.04% 0.00%
Film Plastic Bundles 0.81% 2.40% 1.46% 2.00% 3.82% 1.15% 0.00%
Durable Plastic Accepted (Large Pails) 0.00% 0.80% 0.00% 0.64% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Durable Plastic Products Other 0.00% 0.35% 0.00% 3.53% 0.00% 6.07% 0.00%
Total Accepted Plastics (fibres stream) 0.81% 2.40% 1.46% 2.00% 3.82% 1.15% 0.00%
Total Accepted Plastics (containers stream) 0.93% 31.25% 0.36% 41.41% 0.17% 41.76% 0.00%
Total Non-Accepted Plastics 0.02% 0.45% 0.00% 4.03% 0.00% 6.11% 0.00%
Metals
Aluminum Food & Beverage Cans 0.11% 5.58% 0.04% 6.24% 0.03% 4.70% 0.00%
Aluminum Foil & Foil Trays 0.00% 0.13% 0.00% 0.45% 0.00% 0.15% 0.00%
Steel Food & Beverage Cans 0.11% 7.04% 0.00% 4.82% 0.10% 4.18% 0.00%
All Other Accepted Metals 0.00% 0.23% 0.00% 0.64% 0.00% 1.33% 0.00%
Total Accepted Metals (fibres stream) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Total Accepted Metals (containers stream) 0.22% 12.98% 0.04% 12.14% 0.13% 10.35% 0.00%
Total Non-Accepted Metals 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Glass
Food and Beverage Glass (Clear and Coloured) 0.27% 38.73% 0.00% 15.19% 0.61% 19.36% 0.00%
Total Accepted Glass (fibres stream) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Total Accepted Glass (containers stream) 0.27% 38.73% 0.00% 15.19% 0.61% 19.36% 0.00%
Total Non-Accepted Glass 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
362
Other Materials
All Other Non-Accepted Materials (Residue) 0.40% 7.17% 1.69% 9.63% 0.27% 15.22% 0.00%
Total Accepted Other Materials (fibres stream) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Total Accepted Other Materials (containers stream) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Total Non-Accepted Other Materials 0.40% 7.17% 1.69% 9.63% 0.27% 15.22% 0.00%
Total Accepted Fibres Stream Material 96.81% 6.24% 96.71% 11.52% 98.77% 2.48% 100.00%
Total Accepted Containers Stream Material 2.77% 86.13% 1.60% 74.82% 0.96% 76.19% 0.00%
Total Non-Accepted Residue Material 0.41% 7.62% 1.69% 13.66% 0.27% 21.32% 0.00%
Total ALL Material 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Bagged Materials 3.27% 5.96% 0.00% 18.38% 4.85% 17.78% 0.00%

Combined Fibre & Container Bagged (65/35% Split) 4.21% 6.43% 9.37%
Overall Bagged (Weighted by Sector) 5.10%
Combined Fibre & Container Residue (65/35% Split) 2.94% 5.88% 7.64%
Overall Residue (Weighted by Sector) 3.80%
Combined Fibre & Container Cross Contamination (65/35% Split) 3.99% 5.07% 1.49%
Overall Cross Contamination (Weighted by Sector) 3.69%
Report IPSWM18-004: Attachment 3
363
Price Sheet – June 2018
Ontario Market Price Trends | CDN$/Metric Tonne | Page 1
MONTHLY AVERAGES (CDN$/Metric Tonne) # of Muni.

(Monthly
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June
Change)
2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018
Newspaper (ONP #8 / SRP #56) 1 131 146 154 119 96 112 129 122 111 84 83 85 88 83 72 54 48 49 7 (0)
Mixed Paper #54 / ONP#6 2 110 123 130 80 62 83 96 89 75 33 29 36 33 25 18 2 (2) (3) 7 (0)
Corrugated (OCC) 174 216 281 255 235 249 262 255 243 161 163 165 160 147 147 130 120 119 11 (0)
Hardpack (OBB/OCC) 117 143 166 135 na 136 155 153 143 78 81 73 86 65 74 57 57 51 4 (-1)
Boxboard (OBB) na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na 2 (-1)
Polycoat Containers 115 120 110 94 102 61 43 49 29 35 53 38 45 46 42 50 70 65 9 (0)
PET (mixed) 285 296 324 359 391 439 444 452 440 396 352 352 342 351 373 390 416 455 14 (1)
HDPE (mixed) 410 472 615 631 541 439 419 444 446 489 530 472 434 464 496 531 527 469 14 (3)
Plastic Tubs & Lids na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na 2 (0)
Mixed Plastics 3 38 39 44 39 38 34 35 32 24 24 21 25 30 39 43 40 49 52 11 (-1)
Film Plastic 30 28 26 24 21 33 37 32 18 13 20 19 11 15 16 14 18 18 6 (0)
Aluminum Cans 1731 1829 1909 1877 1819 1721 1666 1729 1751 1809 1791 1681 1723 1756 1788 1828 1994 2044 13 (0)
Steel Cans 252 245 297 279 288 275 263 262 254 228 232 258 283 280 320 345 341 342 14 (0)
Glass (mixed) (38) (38) (38) (38) (36) (44) (41) (42) (42) (43) (43) (50) (53) (56) (49) (42) (35) (36) 7 (-1)
Composite Index 151 170 192 169 152 161 172 168 159 128 126 126 129 125 124 114 114 116
4
Fibre Composite Index 137 159 179 146 124 139 155 148 137 98 97 99 103 95 87 70 64 64
Container Composite Index 5 192 203 229 232 231 223 220 225 221 214 208 200 205 210 226 239 256 263
YEARLY AVERAGES (CDN$/Metric Tonne)

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Newspaper (ONP #8 / SRP #56) 1 76 100 99 114 101 89 118 121 72 90 126 76 71 69 72 103 111 66
Mixed Paper #54 / ONP#6 2 43 73 73 12
Corrugated (OCC) 55 106 89 114 95 80 131 111 68 149 173 133 131 131 127 152 221 137
Hardpack (OBB/OCC) 38 63 62 75 68 50 89 76 42 74 95 61 53 51 66 91 121 65
Boxboard (OBB) 43 62 53 41 70 62 26 61 84 62 46 48 50 50 na na
Polycoat Containers 57 58 64 67 66 59 84 75 39 105 127 96 65 79 114 114 64 53
PET (mixed) 324 166 278 432 507 314 368 352 187 391 652 431 372 377 295 265 383 388
HDPE (mixed) 257 233 364 428 683 565 524 573 320 464 562 552 497 659 617 533 497 487
Plastic Tubs & Lids 5 0 12 51 104 128 146 204 22 54 247 265 na na na na na na
3
Mixed Plastics 48 32 38 46 58 61 32 42
Film Plastic 26 0 8 55 148 137 51 35 3 13 25 23 14 29 47 40 24 16
Aluminum Cans 1700 1709 1619 1772 1763 2169 2065 1904 1215 1591 1790 1516 1523 1783 1548 1576 1772 1856
Steel Cans 26 47 76 191 116 141 168 245 89 263 335 277 257 299 179 200 262 318
Glass (mixed) (15) (15) (19) (12) (31) (31) (31) (24) (18) (15) (11) (18) (22) (22) (30) (37) (42) (45)
Composite Index 95 113 114 131 124 111 145 150 80 124 169 118 107 117 105 129 154 120
Fibre Composite Index 4 77 109 132 80
5
Container Composite Index 188 184 217 233
Disclaimer: The CIF Price Sheet represents the average commodity prices received across Ontario based on a sample number of municipalities. It may not be representative of local
municipal conditions.
Pricing Notes:
1. Paper Stock Industries (PSI) have eliminated the ONP#8 grade specification. For continuity, the new PSI grade specification, Sorted Residential Paper (SRP #56),
has been included as it most closely represents the ONP#8 commodity ON municipalities are producing.
2. Paper Stock Industries (PSI) have eliminated the ONP#6 grade specification and added a new PSI grade specification, Mixed Paper #54. Mixed Paper has already
been capture on the price sheet with the new grade number being added.
3. The composition for mixed plastics varies from each municipality based on the range of materials accepted and the specifications from their end markets.
4. The Fibre Composite Index is calculated using ONP#8 / SRP#56, Mixed Paper #54 / ONP#6, Corrugated (OCC), Hardpack (OBB/OCC), and Boxboard (OBB).
5. Polycoat containers are included in the container composite index and NOT the fibre composite index.
General Notes:
A. Prices are for baled post-consumer residential materials except glass, which is loose.
B. As of May 2012, prices for all materials are FOB the municipality including glass. Prior to May 2012, prices for glass were delivered prices.
C. The Composite Index is calculated using the overall composition of residential Blue Box material recovered and marketed in Ontario as reported from the approved
2016 RPRA (formerly WDO) Datacall with some additional allocations to material categories. Mixed glass includes coloured glass. Composition figures are updated
annually. Details available upon request.
D. Materials with a listed price of "NA" indicate either an insufficient number of municipalities reported a price in the given month (<4) or variation in the reported price
which is not considered representative of Ontario.
E. Prices are compiled from a range of municipal programs across Ontario combined with information from industry representatives. Prices may not be the same as
actual prices being paid in any given program.
For more information: Produced for CIF by:

Neil Menezes, Reclay StewardEdge © CIF 2018
[email protected], 416-644-8349
364
(CDN$/MetricOntario
Tonne)Monthly Averages | CDN$/Metric Tonne | Page 2
COMPOSITE INDEX
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June
Composite Index Fibre Composite Index Container Composite Index
FIBRE ALUMINUM CANS

2500
290
270 2000
250 1500
230 1000
210
190 500
170 0
150
Mar
Aug
May
Jan
Apr
Feb
Sept
June
Oct
July
Dec
Nov
130
110
90
70
50 STEEL CANS
30
10 450
400
(10) 350
Aug
Jan
Mar
May
Apr
Feb
Oct
July
Nov
Sept
Dec
June
300
250
200
150
Newsp aper (ONP #8 / SRP #56)1 Mixed P aper #54 / O NP #62 100
50
Corrug ate d (O CC) Hardpa ck (OBB/OCC) 0
Mar
Apr
May
Aug
Jan
Feb
July
Nov
Dec
Oct
Sept
June
Boxboa rd (OBB) Polycoat Con tain ers
PLASTIC GLASS
800 50
750
700 40
650 30
600
550 20
500
450 10
400 0
350
300 -10
250 -20
200
150 -30
100 -40
50
0 -50
-50 -60
-100
-150 -70
Mar
May
Apr
Aug
Jan
Feb
Oct
Sept
June
July
Nov
Dec
May
Aug
Jan
Mar
Apr
Feb
Oct
July
Nov
Sept
Dec
June
PET (mixed) HDPE (mixed)

Glass (mixed)
Plastic Tubs & Lids Film Plastic
Mixed Plastics3
Graphs produced from Monthly Averages Table.

365
Ontario Historical Yearly Averages | CDN$/Metric Tonne | Page 3
FIBRE ALUMINUM CANS

250 2500
2000
1500
200 1000
500
0
150
2002
2004
2007
2009
2014
2016
2001
2003
2005
2006
2008
2010
2011
2012
2013
2015
2017
2018
100
STEEL CANS
50 400
350
300
250
0 200
2001
2004
2007
2010
2011
2013
2014
2017
2002
2003
2005
2006
2008
2009
2012
2015
2016
2018 150
100
50
Newspaper (ONP #8 / SRP #56)1 0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Corrugated (OCC)
Hardpack (OBB/OCC)
Boxboard (OBB)
Polycoat Containers
PLASTIC GLASS
800 60
50
700
40
600
30
500 20
10
400
0
300 (10)
200 (20)
(30)
100
(40)
0 (50)
(100) (60)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2018
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2001
2003
2005
2008
2010
2015
2017
2002
2004
2006
2007
2009
2011
2012
2013
2014
2016
2018
PET (mixed) HDPE (mixed)

Glass (mixed)
Plastic Tubs & Lids Film Plastic
Mixed Plastics3
Graphs produced from Yearly Averages Table

366
Report IPSWM18-004: Attachment 4:
Proposed Amendments to the HGC Contract for the period January 1, 2018 to
December 31, 2019 inclusive.
Beginning in July, 2018, quarterly audits will be undertaken of the on-street collected
recyclable material received at the Pido Road Material Recovery Facility. The
contamination rates will be determined for:
 Residue contamination, being contamination that cannot be recycled and must

go to landfill;
 Cross-contamination, being contamination of either the fiber blue box by

container recyclable material or the container blue box by fibre material; and
 Bagged contamination being containers that are set out at the curb in bags.
Based on these quarterly audits, following amendments to the existing HGC Contract
will be made for the three months preceding the audit:
o An increase in the allowable residue rate over 5% to mirror the audited results for
the City. For greater clarity, if the audited residue contamination from inbound
City material is, for example, 8%, the allowable residue rate will be increased by
3% to 8%. No rebate from HGC is expected for residue levels below 5%.
o An increase in the processing fee for the level of audited cross-contamination

from the City above 2%. For greater clarity, if the audited cross-contamination
level from City material is 5% then the HGC processing fee will be increased by
3%.
o An increase in the HGC contract for a portion of the annual cost for ½ an FTE to
deal with bagged inbound City container material when the bagged City container
material is greater than 5%.
367
From: W. H. Jackson,
Subject: Report IPSEC18-024

BethuneScape Project Update and Increase in Agreement for
Detailed Design and Contract Administration
Purpose
A report to provide an update on the BethuneScape Project and to amend the
agreement for the Detailed Design and Contract Administration of this project.
Recommendations
That Council approve the recommendations outlined in Report IPSEC18-024 dated
follows:
a) That the agreement with AECOM, 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario, L1N 9J2,
for the Detailed Design and Contract Administration for the BethuneScape
Project be increased by $726,958.00 from $3,717,173.41 to $4,444,131.41, plus
HST of $577,737.08 for a total cost of $5,021,905.95; and
b) That staff be requested to include in future BethuneScape Project budgets the

funds shown in Table 4 of Report IPSEC18-024 for the years 2019 to 2024.
368
Report IPSEC18-024
Increase in Fees, Construction Costs (BethuneScape Project) Page 2

The recommended additional funds of $739,752.46 net of HST payable by the City can
be accommodated within the approximately $23,900,000.00 uncommitted funds
currently available in the BethuneScape Project.
Background
Brief Description of the Work
The existing BethuneScape Project has evolved since its inception in 2015.
In response to the Small Communities Fund (SCF) call for applications in 2015, the City
applied with a project that would see the road and sanitary sewer along Bethune Street
from Dalhousie Street to Dublin Street reconstructed and construction of the Jackson
Creek Diversion project. The City was successful in its application and immediately
began work on the project. Before the end of 2015, the project was expanded to
include the renewal of Charlotte Street from Aylmer Street to Park Street.
In November 2016, Council approved the streetscape and public realm design for
Bethune Street as part of the reconstruction project creating the BethuneScape Project.
In addition to the streetscaping work, the project was expanded to include cleaning up
the old rail bed on Charlotte Street and rehabilitating the George Street bridge over
Jackson Creek.
Finally, in May 2018, Council added the Charlotte Street East (Aylmer Street to Water
Street including a section of George Street) and the Gateway (Charlotte Street at Park
Street) projects to the BethuneScape Project.
Design Amendments/Scope Changes and Increased Consultant Fees
Council, at its meeting of September 28, 2015 in considering Report USEC15-022,

awarded the Detailed Design and Contract Administration for the Jackson Creek Flood
Diversion Sewer, Sanitary Sewer Upgrade and Townsend Street/Bethune Street
Reconstruction to AECOM for $3,234,360, plus HST.
At its meeting of May 22, 2018, Council, in considering Report PLPD18-010, increased
the agreement with AECOM to include the design of the Charlotte Street East Project
and the Downtown Gateway Project at the Park Street / Charlotte Street intersection at
an additional cost of $482,813.41, plus HST, resulting in a total contract with AECOM of
$3,717,173.41 plus HST.
Since May 22, 2018, there have been a number of activities undertaken by AECOM that
have been outside of the existing Terms of Reference for this project. Appendix 1 lists
the various items alongside staff comments. Some of the major changes to AECOM’s
work program were:
369
Report IPSEC18-024
 More than expected stakeholder meetings to deal with many of the approximately
215 identified utility conflicts;
 Updating the design to incorporate undergrounding the existing overhead
electrical plant on Charlotte Street;
 Designing the watermain replacement on Charlotte Street West;
 Designing the watermain replacement and possible relocation on Townsend
Street and Bethune Street;
 Designing the sanitary sewer replacement along Charlotte Street West;
 Altering the design to incorporate the results of the physical modeling conducted
in the laboratory for both the inlet and outlet structures; and
 Incorporating the Rink Street 100 year outlet flows into the Bethune sewer
design.
With all of the scope changes taken into account, the proposed increase in the design
and construction administration cost for the BethuneScape Project is $726,958.00.
Project Costs and Construction Cost Estimates – BethuneScape Project
The detailed design for the BethuneScape Project outside of Charlotte Street East is
90% complete. It is anticipated that a tender and contract award will occur prior to
February 2019 for the storm outlet at George Street and Townsend Street. It is also
anticipated that a tender and contract award for the Townsend Street, Bethune Street
and Charlotte Street West work including the inlet at Jackson Creek near Bethune and
Murray streets will occur in the first quarter of 2019.
The existing construction cost estimate for the BethuneScape Project is

$40,134,174.00, excluding HST. When all costs incurred to date are included, the total
cost for the Bethune Street Project is $45,923,458.00 as shown in Table 1. The cost
shown in Table 1 includes the Charlotte Street West but does not include the Charlotte
Street East Project or the Gateway Project.
Table 1 – BethuneScape Project Construction Costs (2018 dollars)

No. Item Budget
1 Estimated Project Costs based on the Consultants 60%
$40,134,174
Detailed Design Cost Estimate
2 Committed Costs to date (Detailed design, CA fees, utility
$ 4,289,284
locations and utility coordination, property acquisition, etc.)
3 Proposed Extension to AECOM Design and Contract
$ 750,000
Administration (Contingency added)
4 City Project Management Costs $ 500,000
5 Material Testing Allowance $ 250,000
6 Total Project Costs $45,923,458
370
Report IPSEC18-024
The difference in the total project costs shown in Table 1 from the $40,210,000.00 value
presented in Report USDIR16-012 dated November 7, 2016, is $5,713,458.00. Table 2
provides a summary of the cost increases in the project.
Table 2 - Summary of Cost Increases on the BethuneScape Project
No. Item Budget

1 Construction Cost Indexing at 4.5% (2016 - 2018) $ 3,700,000
2 AECOM Design and Contract Administration Increase (Added $ 750,000
Contingency)
3 Upsizing of Townsend Street Outlet Storm Sewer for 100 year $ 400,000
Rink Street Flows
4 Remove and Replace Charlotte Street Sanitary Sewer $ 420,000
5 Charlotte Street Electrical Distribution from Overhead to U/G $ 850,000
6 Watermain Replacement - Townsend, Bethune and Charlotte $ 985,000
Streets
7 Total Project Cost Increases $7,101,814
Table 2 shows cost increases for the BethuneScape Project that are $1,388,356.00
more than the updated budget that is shown in Table 1. The reason for this is that with
the more advanced design, the cost estimates are better and the estimated cost for the
construction of the BethuneScape Project has been reduced from the 2016 estimate.
The main area of cost increase is in the construction cost index. Recent years have
seen an increase of between 3-6% in construction costs. The original project estimate
was done in 2016 and allowances were not made for construction cost indexes.
Upsizing the Townsend Street Outlet Storm Sewer to accommodate the 100 year Rink
Street flows will cost an additional $400,000.00 but will save an estimated $3.5 million in
future costs by not having to construct a separate storm sewer along Rink Street south
of the now proposed Townsend Street box culvert. Inasmuch as the watermain along
Charlotte Street will now be replaced as part of this project, it is prudent to, at the same
time, also replace the existing sanitary sewer.
In considering Report USDIR17-004, dated May 29, 2017, Council decided to

underground the overhead hydro on Charlotte Street from Aylmer Street to Park Street.
The estimated cost for this change has now been included in the overall project budget.
The construction cost estimate provided above does not include costs for either the
Charlotte Street East project, between Aylmer Street and Water Street or the Gateway
project although both of these have been incorporated into the Bethune Street project
(Report PLPD18-010). The construction cost estimate for Charlotte Street East is
estimated at $4,600,000.00. The Gateway Project estimated construction cost is
$500,000.00. The construction of Charlotte Street East and the Gateway will be
371
Report IPSEC18-024
budgeted in future years and will be coordinated based on the construction phasing for
the Bethune Street Project.
Table 3 is a summary of the funding sources for the BethuneScape Project. A

significant portion of the works for this project are covered under existing funding
sources such as Development Charges, Flood Reduction and Waste Water Reserves.
The City Treasurer has reviewed this table and is in general agreement with the extent
of the funding sources noted. No funding is being requested for this project via this
report. There are sufficient pre-approved funds in the project for the additional
consultant fees requested to cover the various scope changes detailed Appendix 1.
Table 3 - Summary of Funding Sources for the BethuneScape Project

Proposed
Approved Future
Item Funding Source Pre-2019 Funding Total:
Direct Revenue - Ontario Grant
1 (SCF) $ 7,970,150 $ 7,970,150
Direct Revenue - Canada Grant
2 (SCF) $ 7,970,150 $ 7,970,150
3 Development Charges $ 2,687,000 $ 1,582,200 $ 4,269,200
4 Reserves $ 9,100,000 $ 6,651,658 $15,751,658
Capital Levy & Capital Levy
5 Debentures $ 1,460,000 $ 8,502,300 $ 9,962,300
Total: $29,187,300 $ 16,736,158 $45,923,458
Table 4 provides revised proposed timelines for the additional funding requirements
showing how these funds will be spread over a number of years. The various funding
requests will be as budget requests in the appropriate years for consideration by
Council at that time.
372
Report IPSEC18-024
373
Report IPSEC18-024
Summary
The amendment to the award for the Detailed Design and Contract Administration for
the Jackson Creek Flood Diversion Sewer, Sanitary Sewer Upgrade and Townsend
Street / Bethune Street Reconstruction (RFP P-14-15) is in accordance with the City of
Peterborough’s Purchasing By-law 14-127 and can be awarded within approved
budgets as recommended in this report.
Further information has been provided on the extent of the full BethuneScape Project
with projected funding requirements that will be considered by future Council’s during
the various upcoming budget discussions.
Submitted by,
W. H. Jackson, P.Eng.
Commissioner, Infrastructure and Planning Services
Contact Name:
Leslie Whiteman, P.Eng.
Senior Project Manager
Phone 705-742-7777 ext 1881
Toll Free: 1-855-738-3755
Fax 705-876-4621
E-mail address: [email protected]
Attachment:
Appendix 1: AECOM Proposal Regarding Scope Changes to P-14-15 and Staff
Recommendations
374
Report IPSEC18-024
Appendix 1 - AECOM Proposal to Scope Changes to P-14-15 and Staff

Recommendations
Item Amount Amount
No. Description Proposed by Considered for
AECOM Recommendation
1 Bethunescape Master Plan - Continued $100,000 $ 60,000
consultation and increased effort to come to
consensus
2 Bethunescape Plan Implementation (New $130,000 $130,000
Scope) - Year I to Year 6 Implementation Plan
3 Flood Diversion Sewer, Inlet Structure, $ 32,550 $ 32,550
Modification/Physical Model Laboratory
Rental Extension -- complex flow conditions
along Jackson Creek -- $25,000 for AECOM
and $7,550 for NHC-Lasalle
4 Flood Diversion Sewer - Outlet Structure $ 32,300 $ 32,300
Modification - Realignment of Outlet Works
5a Flood Diversion Sewer - Hydraulic $ 80,000 $ 40,000
5b Modeling/Major Storm Conveyance and
5c Capture on Bethune Street/Water Quality
Control - require to do further analysis and
modelling of 6-hour design storm ($45,000);
major overland condition required more effort
and analysis. ($28,000) and implementation
of Low Impact Development measures
($7,000)
6 Flood Diversion Sewer along Townsend $ 60,200 $ 60,200
Street - Implementation of the Rink Street
Diversion Study
7 Trunk Sanitary Sewer (TSS) on Bethune $ 72,300 $ 72,300
Street - Crossing of Jackson Creek required
route alignment selection of different
options/scenarios ($30,300); need to consider
implementation of a siphon (siphon option
allows sanitary improvement to be
implemented on City lands ($42,000)
8 Watermain Replacement - Peterborough $ 49,800 $ 49,800
Public Utility Services Incorporated --
Townsend Street, Bethune Street and
Charlotte Street
9 Utility Coordination - Townsend/Bethune and $ 61,918 $ 61,918
Charlotte Streets add another $7,680 for
engagement of additional meetings ($54,238
+ $7,680)
375
Report IPSEC18-024
10 AODA Intersection Improvements - upgrade $ 4,700 Nil

three additional intersections
11 Charlotte Street West - aerial hydro $ 51,040 $ 51,040
conversion to underground ducts
12 MOECC Permits - additional effort from $ 6,500 $ 6,500
Hydrogeological staff to respond to MOECC
technical review comments
13 Prepare Additional Tender Packages -- $ 9,600 Nil
Project requires tendering of three separate
packages (originally assumed one tender
package required)
14 Road Improvements: -- Additional effort $ 20,160 Nil
implementing Context-Sensitive Design
Approach
15 Remove and Replace Sanitary Sewer on $ 37,080 $ 37,080
Charlotte Street from Aylmer Street to Park
Street
16 Contract Administration and Inspection $124,500 $124,500
Services on Additional Works:
 Watermain on Townsend, Bethune and
Charlotte Streets
 Sanitary Sewer on Charlotte Street
 Rink Street Storm Sewer Diversion
 Bethunescape Implementation Ph. I
 Conduits for U/G on Charlotte Street
 Townsend Street Outlet Structure
16 Sub-Total (A) $872,648 $758,188
17 Less (PUC cost-share for Watermain, ($27,390) ($27,390)

replacement/relocation, item 8
- 55% of $49,800)
18 Less Specification Development for ($3,840) ($3,840)
Bell (50% of $7,680 - line item 9)
19 Total $841,418 $726,958
376
From: W.H. Jackson,

Subject: Report IPSCOM18-012

Update on Source Separated Organics Program – Grant
Funding and Next Steps
Purpose
A report to update Council on the City’s Source Separated Organics (Kitchen Organics)
Program specifically as it relates to grant funding and next steps.
Recommendation
That Council approve the recommendation outlined in Report IPSCOM18-012 dated

follows:
That Report IPSCOM18-012 updating Council on the Source Separated Organics

Program Grant Funding and Next Steps be received for information.
With the withdrawal of the Municipal Challenge Fund GHG Fund grant, the City now
needs to restart the process to move the Harper Leaf & Yard Waste facility to the
Bensfort Waste Management Facility (Landfill). At the same time, it is prudent to
investigate any alternative organics merchant capacity that may be available and also to
determine the feasibility of phasing the Leaf & Yard Waste Facility such that it could, in
the future, convert into a full Organics Processing facility. To this end, the following
Budgets have been established:
377
Report IPSCOM18-012 Source Separated Organics Program Update Page 2
 $50,000 to reinitiate the relocation of the existing Leaf & Yard Waste composting
facility from Harper Road to the Bensfort Waste Management Facility (Landfill); and
 $20,000 to investigate the feasibility of phasing a Leaf & Yard Waste composting
facility and a Source Separated Organics processing facility at the Landfill as well as
review all possible merchant capacity within the Peterborough area respectively.
The funding for these budgets has been transferred from the Utility Services Reserve
Fund. After the transfer, the Utility Services Reserve Fund will have $266,035
remaining.
Background
A Source Separated Organics (SSO) program was identified as the first priority in the
City’s 2012 Waste Management Master Plan with the potential for diverting in the order
of 17% of the waste stream from Landfill.
Since that time, a number of actions have occurred as described below.
Recent History
City Council, at its meeting of November 14, 2017 in considering Report USDIR17-013
authorized staff to, among other items:
a) Develop a program for the City-wide household collection of SSO including items
such as the provision of green bins, the procurement of collection trucks and the
public education and advertisement program necessary to the success of such a
program;
b) Sole source Triland Excavation for the purpose of developing and implementing
a facility to process the City’s Leaf & Yard Waste and SSO;
c) Explore the benefits of a Private/Public Partnership with Triland Excavation with

respect to the provision of organic processing capacity; and
d) Submit an application to the Municipal GHG Fund to support the collection and
processing of the City’s Leaf & Yard Waste and Kitchen Organic Materials.
The terms Kitchen Organics and SSO are interchangeable when talking about a
residential program such as the program proposed for the City of Peterborough.
City’s Leaf & Yard Waste Program
At its meeting of June 23, 2014, the Waste Management Committee was informed of
the City’s need to vacate the Harper Road Compost Facility and that the preferred
alternative location was at the Landfill. Toward this end, a planning application to
378
develop a Leaf & Yard Waste facility at the Landfill was submitted to the Township of
Otonabee South Monaghan in February 2016 and on June 26, 2017, a Public Planning
Meeting was held at the Township offices.
Work was progressing toward implementation of the Leaf & Yard Waste facility at the
Landfill but, with the November 14, 2017 City Council decision to work with Triland
Excavation (Triland) such that they would handle both SSO and Leaf & Yard Waste at a
single processing facility, the City closed off all work related to a facility to handle only
Leaf & Yard Waste including:
 Withdrawing an application to the Province to amend the Landfill’s existing ECA

to allow a Leaf & Yard Facility at the Landfill;
 Withdrawing a planning application to the Township of Otonabee South
Monaghan to allow a Leaf & Yard Waste facility at the Landfill; and
 Closing the Consultant’s file on this matter.
Municipal GHG Funding Application
As directed by City Council on November 14, 2017, an application was submitted to the
Municipal GHG Fund on November 30, 2017. The application was for 50% funding for:
 Various studies and requirements related to the planning approvals to locate a

SSO facility at the Landfill;
 Construction of the SSO facility at the Landfill;
 A study of how best to collect SSO including the number and make-up of the
collection fleet and most efficient routing; and
 Purchase of the required collection fleet.
The application was for a total of $7,461,250 (50% of $14,922,500) with $5,202,500 for
the processing facility and $2,258,750 for the collection fleet.
On February 15, 2018 the City was informed that the application for funding was
approved in its full amount of $7,461,250. An agreement between the City and
Province was signed effective March 29, 2018 on how the funds would be dispersed
and what reporting mechanisms were required of the City.
On July 10, 2018, the City received a letter from the Assistant Deputy Minister of the
Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks informing the City of the
cancellation of the Cap and Trade Program and given the Municipal Challenge Fund
was funded through Cap and Trade proceeds, the Municipal Challenge Fund
agreements would also end.
The Province indicated that it may, at its sole discretion, provide reasonable costs to
allow winding down of the project. To this end, the City was to provide, to the Province,
the following information by August 1, 2018:
379
 A financial summary of the Project as of the Termination Date and estimate

reasonable wind-down costs;
 A Project progress summary; and
 A description of the impact of Project termination on estimated greenhouse gas
emission reductions.
On July 31, 2018 the requested information was submitted to the Province. The costs
submitted included City and Triland costs and amounted to $220,083.68 comprised of
the following:
 $55,000.00 City costs to date;

 $107,983.68 Triland costs to date; and
 $57,100.00 City cost to redo work related to the Leaf & Yard Waste Facility only.
In addition to the above, the Province requires the return of unused grant funds by
August 31, 2018. The City had received its first grant installment of $120,000 on April 4,
2018. None of these funds have been spent and, accordingly, all will be returned to the
Province as requested.
Current Situation
The City still has to deal with the issue of moving the existing Leaf & Yard Waste
composing facility from Harper Road. The present last date to accept material at the
Harper Road facility is January 1, 2019 however; there is no hope of having another
facility operational by that date. Accordingly, an application to amend the
Environmental Compliance Agreement (ECA) has been submitted to push that date
back to January 1, 2022.
The planning to move the Harper Road Composting facility to the Landfill had been
moving along, albeit slowly, prior to receipt of the grant funds. With these funds, and
Triland’s initiative to construct and operate a processing facility for both Leaf & Yard and
SSO materials, it was decided to halt all work related to the City’s Leaf & Yard Waste
project including withdrawing any applications that had been begun.
Now, however, with the cancellation of the grant funds, Triland has withdrawn from this
project and, accordingly, the City is back to the same situation with insufficient funds to
construct an SSO facility (or buy the required new collection vehicles), but still needing
to move the existing compost facility from its Harper Road location to the Landfill.
Next Steps
The following options are available to move forward:
 Seek out private Organic processing capacity within an acceptable travel

distance of the City;
 Reinitiate moving the Leaf & Yard Waste composting facility from Harper Road to
the Landfill;
380
 Investigate the feasibility of phasing in an SSO processing facility at the Landfill

by firstly composting Leaf & Yard waste and then adding SSO material.
Staff has kept abreast of developments within a reasonable travel distance of the City
where SSO and Leaf & Yard Waste processing capacity may exist. To date, there is no
such facility in operation.
Staff believe the process to secure Leaf & Yard Waste processing capacity at the
Landfill must be reinitiated. Depending on the success of the application to amend the
Harper Road ECA, the construction of the Composting facility at the Landfill may be as
late as the summer of 2021. Based on work that remains to be done including
resubmitting certain applications, a budget of $50,000 is believed to be sufficient to
complete this process.
Staff also believe it is worthwhile to more fully investigate the possibility of phasing an
SSO processing facility by firstly constructing the facility to handle Leaf & Yard Waste
and then, when appropriate, converting this facility to SSO processing. This
investigation would also include the matter of trucks. The existing garbage fleet is due
to be replaced within the next 1-3 years and, accordingly, a decision on the type and
makeup of the collection vehicles needs to be made soon. Inasmuch as this is meant to
be only a preliminary investigation without detailed design, staff believe a budget of
$20,000 would be sufficient for this review.
Funding of the Next Steps
Section 10.1.1 of Purchasing By-law 14-127 authorizes the Chief Administrative Officer
or the City Treasurer to transfer approved budgets where the net required transfer is
equal to or less than $50,000. The transfer of funds from the Utility Services Reserve
fund to create the budgets described in the above section has been authorized by the
Chief Administrative Officer.
Summary
Cancelling the Cap and Trade Program has resulted in withdrawal of the grant the City
received to construct a Source Separated Organics (including Leaf & Yard Waste)
processing facility including the purchase of collection vehicles and household bins. A
set of next steps has been proposed that will see the existing Harper Road composting
facility relocated and, at the same time, consideration continued to be given to initiating
a Source Separated Organics program.
Submitted by,
W. H. Jackson
381
Contact Name:
Toll Free: 1-855-738-3755
Fax: 705-876-4621

Peterborough Memorial Centre Ice Pad Replacement Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Peterborough Memorial Centre Ice Pad Replacement Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Peterborough Memorial Centre Ice Pad Replacement Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6.a June 25, 2018 1 - 12

6.b July 16, 2018 13 - 14

10.a City of Peterborough Holdings Inc. Presentation 15 - 56

11.a Application for Official Plan Amendment O1802, Zoning By-law 57 - 142

12.a Purchasing Policy By-law Update 143 - 188

12.b Increase to the Pre-commitment of the 2019 Capital Budget for the 189 - 279

12.c June 30, 2018 Financial Report (Unaudited) 280 - 300

13.a Listing of Properties on the Heritage Register 301 - 323

14.a Application for Site Plan Approval, 475 George Street North, Seven 324 - 343

14.b Request for Minor Variance Consideration within 2 years of Zoning 344 - 349

14.c Recycling Contract Update and Amendment 350 - 366

14.d BethuneScape Project Update and Increase in Agreement for Detailed 367 - 375

General Committee Minutes

June 25, 2018

Present: Mayor Bennett

Staff: Sandra Clancy, Chief Administrative Officer

Open Session - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers

Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest

Downloading of Prosecution of Part III Offences to Municipalities

Peterborough Housing Corporation Board Appointments

b) That Dave Tilley be appointed to the Peterborough Housing Corporation

Passage and Amendment of Heritage By-laws

Revisions to the Age-friendly Peterborough Advisory Committee Terms of Reference

e) That Councillor Slade McCalip be appointed to AFPAC as a member of

Development Charges Rebate Program

a) That the City of Peterborough participate in the Development Charges

d) That a provisional work value of $41,000 be committed to the project and

Holy Cross New Artificial Athletics Field

a) That a presentation by John George for the preliminary design concept

Brock Street Mission Redevelopment - Capital Budget Increase

Municipal Incentives for Affordable Rental Housing, DeafBlind Ontario Services, 86

Pre-commitment of Funds and Award of Internal Servicing of Cleantech Commons -

Downtown Business Improvement Area Vibrancy Project

General Committee Minutes

July 16, 2018

Present: Mayor Bennett

Staff: Alan Barber, Associate City Solicitor

Closed Session - 5:00 p.m., Doris Room

To: Members of the General Committee

From: Patricia Lester,

Subject: Report CLSFS18-035

a) That the City of Peterborough Holdings Inc. (COPHI) presentation be received;

d) That the election of the following person as Director of Peterborough Distribution

e) That Collins Barrow Kawarthas LLP, Chartered Accountants, are hereby

Budget and Financial Implications

City of Peterborough Holdings Inc.

Our 2017 Annual Report 1

We Start with Safety 6

Proud to Be an Employer of Choice 7

2017 CoPHI Financial Performance 10

Independent Auditor’s Report 31

Board of Directors and Executive Team 36

Companies and Committees 37

Our 2017 Annual Report

John Stephenson David Bignell

Environmental Stewardship – 2017 Highlights

Riverview Park & Zoo

8.9M kWh saved in 2017

We Start with Safety