The Inter-Municipal Planning Subcommittee met on April 18, 2002, at 1:10 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Regional Administrative Headquarters, 10 Peel Centre Dr., Brampton.

Councillor I. Sinclair presided.

1. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

RECOMMENDATION IMPSC-10-2002:

That the agenda for the April 18, 2002, Inter-Municipal Planning Subcommittee meeting be approved.

3. DELEGATIONS/PRESENTATIONS

4. REPORTS

a. Terms of Reference for Population, Household and Employment Consulting Services

Nick Tunnacliffe, Regional Commissioner of Planning provided a brief description of report item 4a. The development of a Regional position on population and employment projections will assist in updating Development Charge By-laws and Official Plans. As agreed by municipal staff, the current municipal projections will be used. The City of Brampton has retained the services of Hemson Consulting for their North-West Brampton study as the basis for the project; the City of Mississauga has acquired a model as used by Hemson Consulting to generate projections; the Town of Caledon is satisfied with model data prepared several years ago.

The next step is to retain an independent consultant to conduct a peer review of the three municipal data model projections to ensure consistency. Secondly, Hemson Consulting will be hired enabling Hemson to share original data and assumptions with the peer view consultant. The peer review consultant will report on the methodology used to generate the three models and the compatibility of the three area municipal projections. Should there be problems with the projections as identified by the peer review consultant, Hemson Consulting could be retained to produce compatible projections using their model. However, it is hoped that the current projections are acceptable.

Councillor Prentice expressed the opinion that as each municipality is undertaking an Official Plan Review, that the figures are up-to-date. Region of Peel should have the expertise to conduct the peer review, and the hiring of a consultant would not be required. Hiring a consultant to conduct a peer review may send a message which would not be viewed as being very positive.

Peel's Planning Commissioner advised members that, should an appeal of a Development Charge By-law or an Official Plan be presented to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), the projection data would be presented as evidence. As such, Peel does not have the skill in house to present an expert opinion in making assumptions in the areas of birth and death rates and immigration rates.

Councillor Sinclair requested the Regional Commissioner of Planning to identify those groups which may have an interest in appealing to the OMB. The Commissioner advised members that anyone with an interest in Development Charges or Official Plans, such as developers, could appeal to the OMB.

Councillor Saito was under the impression that the subject report had been agreed upon by the Staff Technical Advisory Committee. As such, she requested staff from the area municipalities to present their opinions on the report.

Angela Dietrich, Manager, Mississauga Planning and Building advised members that the staff of the City of Mississauga are comfortable with the City's projections. Although it is felt that a peer review is unnecessary, Mississauga is agreeable to a peer review exercise as requested by the Region.

William Winterhalt, Director, Brampton Planning and Building advised members that the City of Brampton is agreeable to a peer review of the figures, as it would add value and defensibility to the final product. Further, a peer review will ensure that key issues of intensification and infilling on a Greater Toronto Area (GTA) perspective are adequately addressed and will add weight to the defence of the final decision.

Kathie Kurtz, Senior Policy Planner, Caledon Planning and Development confirmed their satisfaction of the report as presented. The Town of Caledon is comfortable using projection figures which were used in the creation of the Town's Development Charge By-law; also a peer review is advisable.

Regional Chair Kolb requested staff to explain how figures where developed in the previous Official Plan, and why are the census figures not reflective of those original projections.

John Calvert, Director, Mississauga Policy Planning explained that the City of Mississauga projections are consistent with the census given recent interim growth forecasts. A peer review of the assumptions if challenged at the OMB would be helpful, however Mississauga is very comfortable with its numbers.

Regional Chair Kolb requested further clarification on methodology used in the development of previous Official Plan forecast numbers. William Winterhalt advised members that the Province took an aggressive approach in providing forecast figures and that Hemson Consulting was utilized in developing the Province's forecasts.

Angela Dietrich advised that the City of Mississauga has used the Hemson model for approximately 10 years, and the model has essentially remained the same although there have been updates to the assumptions when new data is available.

Councillor Saito reminded members that the Region and Mississauga staff have previously questioned the Province's projections, however were required to use the projections provided. Also, Council was advised that it's not the numbers that were wrong, it was the rate of growth which was inaccurate. The growth rate may impact Brampton and to a lesser degree Caledon. The consultant will peer review projections and not establish new projections. Councillor Saito expressed the opinion that the review is needed to ensure consistent numbers and not necessarily for the purpose of a potential defence at the OMB appeal.

Councillor Prentice inquired whether Peel had consulted with other regional municipalities to determine what process they are using in utilizing the area municipal projection numbers. Commissioner Tunnacliffe advised that Peel has not consulted with other regional municipalities in this regard as most municipalities want to wait until the 2001 census is available. Peel must review its Development Charge By-law before this term of Council expires. Further, most Regions have led project working groups in this area with municipal participation.

Councillor Prentice inquired whether Hemson Consulting would be assigned as the peer review consultants. Commissioner Tunnacliffe advised that Hemson could not be selected as the models and assumptions were developed by Hemson. Also, Caledon has requested that Hemson Consulting not be used given their history in the development of the projections.

Commissioner Tunnacliffe further clarified that Hemson Consulting were retained by Peel for the 1998 Development Charge (DC) population and employment projections, and the City of Brampton have also retained Hemson Consulting to develop their projections. Further, under the previous Official Plan, Hemson Consulting was key in the development of the projections.

Councillor Sinclair requested that staff provide a chronology of events to include which consultant developed what projections for each municipality and when these demographic projections were developed. Further, that such a chronology be attached to a revised report being presented to General Committee combined with a presentation of Hemson's previous DC work. In addition, such a presentation should address how accurately Hemson's projections were compared to the 2001 census.

Commissioner Tunnacliffe advised members that after reviewing a draft City of Brampton projection report as developed by Hemson Consulting, the report provided some assumptions regarding redevelopment potential and future population prospects for the City of Mississauga, which Mississauga may not support. Failing a Regional position, witnesses would be called from each of the area municipalities, allowing for exploitation of the difference in professional opinion.

Councillor Prentice advised members that given the discussion, she would support the hiring of a consultant to conduct a peer review of the area municipal projections, with a view that it would save time and expense in the event of an OMB appeal.

RECOMMENDATION IMPSC-11-2002:

That the Terms of Reference shown in Appendices 1 and 2 of the report of the Commissioner of Planning dated April 9, 2002, titled "Terms of Reference for Population, Household and Employment Consulting Services", for consulting services as input to the Regional Development Charges By-law Review be approved;

And further, that consultants be hired to undertake the work outlined in the Terms of Reference in Appendices 1 and 2 of the subject report;

And further, that the staff Technical Advisory Group, made up of Regional and Area Municipal staff work with the consultants to develop the necessary population, household, and employment inputs to the Regional Development Charges By-law Review;

And further, that a copy of the subject report be forwarded to the Area Municipalities.

b. Summary of the March 21, 2002 Special Meeting of Council as Required by the Planning Act

Councillor Saito requested that the subject report be referred to the Staff Technical Advisory Committee for comments, considering the written submissions attached as appendices. In an effort to easily identify each area municipal position, the councillor requested that a spreadsheet format be utilized to capture the positions of each of the area municipalities and where they agree or differ in opinion on the issues being recommended.

Also, where outside agencies have recommended changes, a spreadsheet format should identify who is making the recommendation and how the recommendation is being addressed.

RECOMMENDATION IMPSC-12-2002:

That the report of the Commissioner of Planning dated April 10, 2002, titled "Summary of the March 21, 2002 Special Meeting of Council as Required by the Planning Act" be referred to Staff Technical Advisory Committee for detailed review and analysis;

And further, that the Staff Technical Advisory Committee report to a future Inter-Municipal Planning Subcommittee meeting.

5. COMMUNICATIONS

6. IN CAMERA MATTERS

7. NEXT MEETING

The next meeting date of the Inter-Municipal Planning Subcommittee is scheduled for Thursday, May 30, 2002 at 1:00 p.m., Council Chambers, Regional Administrative Headquarters, 10 Peel Centre Dr., Brampton.

Please forward regrets to John Daly, Legislative Co-ordinator, 905-791-7800, extension 4502.

8. OTHER BUSINESS

Councillor Saito requested staff advise subcommittee members at the May 30, 2002 meeting how the mailing list of external agencies requesting input and comments into the March 21, 2002 Official Plan Review was developed.

9. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 1:56 p.m.