Regular Council - 18 Apr 2018 - Agenda — North Frontenac News Media

Published April 18, 2018

Word Count 63347 words

Reading Time 298 min read

Body: Council Type: Agenda Meeting: Regular Date: April 18, 2018 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: Frontenac County

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/frontenac-county/Published Agendas/Regular Council/2018/Regular Council - 18 Apr 2018 - Agenda.pdf)

Document Text

Frontenac County Council Meeting Wednesday, April 18, 2018 – 9:00 a.m. Kingston Frontenac Rotary Auditorium, 2069 Battersea Road, Glenburnie Council will resolve into Closed Meeting and will reconvene as regular Council at 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA Page Call to Order Closed Session a) Resolved That Council resolve itself into Committee of the Whole closed session as authorized under Section 239 of The Municipal Act, to consider:

Adoption of Closed Minutes of Meetings held March 21, 2018
Advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose - as it relates to tiered response agreements and the collection use and disclosure of personal health information
A proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board - as it relates to the expropriation of lands for the K&P Trail Resolved That Council rise from Committee of the Whole closed session with/without reporting Approval of Addendum Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof

12 - 21

Adoption of Minutes a) Minutes of Meeting held March 21, 2018 Resolved That the minutes of the regular Council meeting held March 21, 2018 be adopted. Deputations and/or Presentations

22 - 30

Mr. Murray Matheson, Chair of the Tourism Kingston Board will address County Council regarding the 2020 Kingston Brier Cup Bid.

Page 31 - 51

Dr Moore, Medical Officer of Health, and Alida Moffatt, Manager of Finance, KFL&A Public Health, will provide County Council with a presentation on how the County of Frontenac’s financial contribution to KFL&A Public Health is used.

52 - 144

Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms. Sarah Harmer, on behalf of the Lake Residents will address County Council with respect to significant site alterations and clearing that have been observed on Johnson Point along with a legal opinion from Donnelly Law regarding the Ontario Municipal Board Rule 106 of Procedure for investigation of a possible violation of the Conditions of Approval. Section 17.7 of the County’s Procedural By-law only permits a maximum of two (2) deputations per meeting. As such, a 2/3 vote will be required to waive the Procedural By-law to permit this deputation to address Council.

Proclamations a) Paramedic Services Week Paramedics: Health-Community-You May 27th to June 2nd, 2018 Whereas each year the paramedics of Frontenac Paramedic Services will respond to approximately 22,000 calls for assistance from the public; And Whereas the paramedics are ready to provide lifesaving care to those in need 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year; And Whereas access to quality emergency medical care dramatically improves the survival and recovery rate of those who experience sudden illness or injury; And Whereas the members of paramedic services teams, engage in thousands of hours of specialized training and continuing education to enhance their life saving skills; And Whereas the members of paramedic services teams often find themselves in dangerous and traumatic situations requiring spontaneous decision-making; And Whereas the members of paramedic services teams provide a vital pre-hospital service to the residents of the geographic area of the County of Frontenac and the City of Kingston; Therefore Be It Resolved That the week of May 27 to June 2, 2018 be proclaimed Paramedic Services Week in the County of Frontenac with

Page 2 of 329

Page the theme of “Paramedics: Health-Community-You “. b)

Emergency Preparedness Week May 6 to May 12, 2018 Whereas the Council of the County of Frontenac recognizes the importance of everybody being prepared for emergencies; And Whereas the goal of Emergency Preparedness Week is to raise community awareness and the need to prepare for the possibility of an emergency; And Whereas the safety of our community is the responsibility of each and every one of us, we must prepare now and learn how to secure a strong and healthy tomorrow; Now Therefore Be It Resolved That the Council of the County of Frontenac hereby proclaim the week of May 6 to May 12, 2018, to be Emergency Preparedness Week throughout the County of Frontenac with the theme of “Emergency preparedness starts with you, #Prepare Your Selfie!”; And Further That all citizens are encouraged to make a plan, build a kit, stay informed and to participate in educational activities on emergency preparedness.

National Accessibility Awareness Week May 27 to June 2, 2018 Whereas Ontario became the first jurisdiction in Canada to legislate a framework and timeline for making Ontario accessible; And Whereas the goal of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) is to make Ontario fully accessible by 2025; And Whereas National Access Awareness Week was established in 1987 following Rick Hanson’s 40,000 km Man in Motion World Tour; And Whereas “As part of the legacy of the Man in Motion World Tour, the Rick Hansen Foundation provided strategic leadership to create and implement National Access Awareness Week (NAAW) in partnership with federal and provincial governments across the country. The purpose of the program was to promote better community access for people with disabilities.” And Whereas it is important to realize that accessibility for our province (and the entire world) does not just benefit one single person. Therefore Be It Resolved that the Council of the County of Frontenac

Page 3 of 329

Page does hereby proclaim the week of May 27 to June 2, 2018 as ‘National Access Awareness Week’ in the County of Frontenac and encourages all of its citizens to support and embrace raising awareness about disability and accessibility during this special week. Move into Committee of the Whole a) That Council adjourn and meet as Committee of the Whole Council, with the Deputy Warden in the Chair. Briefings a) Mr. Howard Allan, Allan Chartered Accountant, will provide County Council with a briefing regarding the 2017 County Audit. 145 - 169

Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will provide Council with his monthly CAO briefing.

Unfinished Business

170 - 199

Recommend Reports from the Chief Administrative Officer a) 2018-054 Planning and Economic Development Request by the Township of South Frontenac for the County of Frontenac to investigate a possible violation of conditions of approval of the Johnston’s Point Condominium development, County File 10CD-2014-002 Recommendation Be It Resolved That the Council of the County Council receive the Planning and Economic Development – Request by the Township of South Frontenac for the County of Frontenac to investigate a possible violation of conditions of approval of the Johnston’s Point Condominium development, County File 10CD-2014-002 report for information; And Further That the Council of the County of Frontenac accept the legal opinion from its solicitor for Planning services in its correspondence dated April 9, 2018 that the County does not have the authority to change the conditions of draft approval nor can it compel a subdivider/ owner to change or amend a draft condition of an OMB Order; And Further That a copy of this resolution and report be forwarded to the Township of South Frontenac.

200 - 251

2018-051 Corporate Services

Page 4 of 329

Page 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial Statements Recommendation ResolvedThat the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Corporate Services - 2017 Audited Financial Statements report; And FurtherThat the Council of the County of Frontenac approve the 2017 Audited Financial Statements of the Corporation of the County of Frontenac. 252 - 254

2018-050 Planning and Economic Development Frontenac Islands Waterfront Trail Agreements Recommendation Whereas the Economic Development Charter for the Frontenacs highlights opportunities associated with trail development and a recreational lifestyle that highlights the natural assets of the Frontenac Region; And Whereas a connection to the Great Lakes Waterfront Trail will encourage additional exposure and promotion of the Frontenac region; Therefore Be It Resolved That the County of Frontenac advise the Waterfront Regeneration Trust that it wishes to participate in the extension of the Great Lakes Waterfront Trail through the Frontenac Islands and that it is willing to participate in the partnership program and contribute $500 to the Trust annually; And Further That Frontenac County advise the Waterfront Regeneration Trust that it will work in partnership with RTO 9 and the Township of the Frontenac Islands to install the required Great Lakes Waterfront Trail signage on roads which are under the Municipality’s jurisdiction and cover the one-time costs associated with digital and paper mapping; And Further That up to $10,000 be allocated from the Community Development Reserve to be used to match partnership funding from Regional Tourism Organization 9 (RTO 9) for the expansion of the Waterfront Trail to the Frontenac Islands, And Further That the Warden and Clerk be authorized to complete the necessary paperwork associated with the Great Lakes Waterfront Trail and RTO 9 partnership funding for the expansion of the Great Lakes Waterfront Trail.

Page 5 of 329

Page

255 - 258

2018-055 Planning and Economic Development Ferry by Foot: Big Sandy Bay Weekend Shuttle Service (Pilot Program) Recommendation Whereas County Staff are implementing a “Ferry by Foot” program to encourage visitors to Wolfe Island to experience the island through active transportation; And Whereas this program has been developed as part of the “Advancing Economic Development in the Frontenacs through Collaboration” Rural Economic Development funding program (RED); And Whereas RED does not fund transportation initiatives; Be It Resolved That up to $6,000 be allocated from Strategic Reserves to be used to match partnership funding from Regional Tourism Organization 9 (RTO 9) for a weekend shuttle service from Marysville to Big Sandy Bay in July and August of 2018; And Further That the Warden and Clerk be authorized to complete necessary paperwork associated with RTO 9 funding.

259 - 267

2018-056 Planning and Economic Development Proposed Regional Gateway Sign Design and Locations Recommendation Whereas the RED funding agreement has been amended to include Gateway Signage as part of the Brand Recognition Campaign; Resolved That the Council of the County of Frontenac approve the concept design and proposed locations for regional gateway signage, And Further That staff be directed to seek approval from townships to install regional gateway signs in the road allowances as identified Appendix A of this report.

268 - 270

2018-053 Emergency and Transportation Services Community Paramedicine – Overdose Prevention Site (OPS) at Street Health Centre

Page 6 of 329

Page Recommendation Be It Resolved That the Council of the County of Frontenac accept the Emergency and Transportation Services – Overdose Prevention Site (OPS) at Street Health Centre report; And Further That the Council of the County of Frontenac authorize the Warden and Clerk to execute an agreement with the Kingston Community Health Centre for funding in the amount of $87,000, if the pilot OPS is approved for funding by the Government of Ontario.

271 - 274

Information Reports from the Chief Administrative Officer a) 2018-049 Corporate Services Finance 2018 Reserve and Reserve Funds

275

2018-052 Corporate Services 2017 County of Frontenac Investment Report

276 - 281

2018-057 Fairmount Home Public Posting of Home Performance Levels

Reports from Council Liaison Appointees a) Emergency and Transportation Services - Councillor Nossal b)

Long Term Care (Fairmount Home) - Councillor Inglis

Corporate Services - Councillor Dewey

Planning and Economic Development - Councillor McDougall

Reports from External Boards and Committees a) Kingston Frontenac Library Board Update - Councillor Nossal

282 - 324

KFL&A Public Health Board Update - Deputy Warden Doyle

RULAC, LSR and other Updates

Algonquin Land Claim Update - Councillor Inglis

Housing and Homelessness Committee Update - Councillor McDougall

Food Policy Council of Kingston, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington Deputy Warden Doyle

Reports from Advisory Committees of County Council a) Report of the Planning Advisory Committee

Page 7 of 329

Page All items listed on the Planning Advisory Committee Report shall be the subject of one motion. Any member of County Council may ask for any item(s) included in the Planning Advisory Committee Report to be separated from that motion and considered separately, whereupon the Planning Advisory Committee Report without the separated item(s) shall be put to the vote and the separated item(s) shall be considered immediately thereafter. That the Report received from the Planning Advisory Committee be received and adopted. Report of the Planning Advisory Committee The Planning Advisory Committee reports and recommends as follows: 1.

2018-046 Planning Advisory Committee Amendment Number 5 to the Township of Frontenac Islands Official Plan to re-designate lands legally described as Part Lot 16, South Range known municipally as 1729-1739 Howe Island Drive, Howe Island from Agriculture to Rural (St. Philomena Roman Catholic Church) – Frontenac Islands ByLaw No. 05-2018 Whereas the Council of the County of Frontenac considered all written and oral submissions received on this application, the effect of which helped Council to make an informed decision; Be It Resolved That the Council of the County of Frontenac approve Frontenac Islands Official Plan Amendment No. 5 to the Township of Frontenac Islands Official Plan, as contained in ByLaw No. 05-2018 attached to this report as Appendix A.

Return to Council a) That Council revert from Committee of the Whole Council, to Council.

Adoption of the Report of the Committee of the Whole Council a) That the report of the Committee of the Whole Council be adopted and that the necessary actions or by-laws be enacted.

Page 8 of 329

Page Motions, Notice of Which has Been Given a) Reopening of the Collins Bay and Joyceville Prison Farms Motion of Support to include Dairy Cows Moved by: Deputy Warden Doyle Seconded by: Councillor Nossal Whereas the County of Frontenac shares a common border with the City of Kingston and is primarily a rural municipality with agriculture as its heritage; and, Whereas a number of Frontenac County residents have been involved in the efforts not to close the Kingston prison farms and lobbied diligently to have them reopened, including the return of dairy cattle to the Collins Bay site; and, Whereas skilled workers are needed for all forms of dairy production and processing, and corrections staff and inmates at the Collins Bay Facility already have experience working with the dairy cows from the Prison farm herd; Therefore Be It Resolved That the Council of the Corporation of the County of Frontenac supports the reopening of the Kingston Prison Farms; And Further That the County of Frontenac respectfully request that dairy cattle be included in the initial phase of this project; And Further That the a copy of this resolution be sent to the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Mark Gerretsen, M.P. Kingston and the Islands, Scott Reid, M.P. Lanark-Frontenac-Kingston, and the County of Frontenac’s member municipalities.

Giving Notice of Motion Communications That Council consent to the following communications of interest to Council listed below be received and filed: a) From Abundant Solar Energy Inc. regarding ground mount solar array

Page 9 of 329

Page contract for 1322 Farm Lake Lane, North Frontenac. [Distributed to Members of County Council March 23, 2018] b)

From Warden Higgins providing a copy of Rural Mayor’s Forum of Eastern Ontario (RMFEO) letter to Ontario’s Political Party Leaders. [Distributed to Members of County Council March 23, 2018]

From the Ontario Honors and Awards Secretariat calling for Nominations for 2018 Senior of the year award. [Distributed to Members of County Council March 30, 2018]

From the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) regarding reports from microFIT participants experiencing issues with third party service providers. [Distributed to Members of County Council March 30, 2018]

From the Rideau Canal National Historic Site regarding Bobs Lake Dam Community Update. [Distributed to Members of County Council March 30, 2018]

From Meredith Staveley-Watson providing a research report supporting Housing for Low Income Older Adults in Hastings County with Report Chart. [Distributed to Members of County Council March 30, 2018]

From the Kingston & Frontenac Housing Corporation providing the Agenda Meeting 03-2018. [Distributed to Members of County Council March 30, 2018]

From Kingston Frontenac Public Library providing the Minutes of Regular Meeting #2018-02. [Distributed to Members of County Council April 6, 2018]

From the Township of South Frontenac requesting the County Investigate a possible Violation of Conditions of Approval for Johnston Point. [Distributed to Members of County Council April 6, 2018]

Invitation to the Ontario Small Urban Municipalities 2018 Conference and Trade Show. [Distributed to Members of County Council April 6, 2018]

From Kingston, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington (KFL&A) Board of Health providing its Minutes of Meeting held February 28 2018 [Distributed to Members of County Council April 6, 2018]

From the Township of North Frontenac to Appoint an Alternate Member of County Council By Law #12-18 [Distributed to Members of County Council April 13, 2018]

From Municipalities call on Province for “Right to Approve” Landfill Developments [Distributed to Members of County Council April 13, 2018]

Page 10 of 329

Page n)

From the Corporation of the Township of Baldwin regarding Bill C-71, a request from Canadian Shooting Sports Association regarding a PAL for proof of Firearms [Distributed to Members of County Council April 13, 2018]

Other Business Public Question Period By-Laws – General By-laws and Confirmatory By-law a) First and Second Reading Resolved That leave be given the mover to introduce by-laws a) through d) that have been circulated to all Members of County Council and that by-laws a) through d) be read a first and second time. b)

Third Reading Resolved That by-laws a) through d) be read a third time, signed, sealed and finally passed. By-Laws

325

To Authorize the Warden and Clerk to Execute an Agreement with the Great Lakes Waterfront Trail and the Regional Tourism Organization 9 (RTO 9) for partnership funding for the expansion of the Great Lakes Waterfront Trail [Proposed By-law No. 2018-0016]

326

To authorize the Warden and Clerk to execute an agreement with the Kingston Community Health Centre for funding in the amount of $87,000. [Proposed By-law No. 2018-0017]

327

To Authorize the Warden and Clerk to Execute an Agreement with the Regional Tourism Organization 9 (RTO 9) for partnership funding for the Ferry by Foot Program. [Proposed By-law No. 2018-0018]

328 - 329

Confirmation of Proceedings [Proposed By-law No. 2018-0019]

Adjournment

Page 11 of 329

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Council March 21, 2018 A regular meeting of the Council of the County of Frontenac was held in the Kingston Frontenac Rotary Auditorium of the County Administrative Office, 2069 Battersea Road, Glenburnie on Wednesday, March 21, 2018 and was called to order at 9:00 a.m. Regular business commenced at 9:30 a.m. There was a “Closed Meeting” of the Committee of the Whole from 9:00 a.m. to 9:07 a.m. Present:

Warden Ron Higgins, Deputy Warden Denis Doyle, Councillors Ron Vandewal, Fran Smith, Natalie Nossal, Tom Dewey, John Inglis and John McDougall

Also Present:

County: Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer Gale Chevalier, Deputy Chief of Operations Joe Gallivan, Director of Planning and Economic Development Susan Brant, Director of Corporate Services/Treasurer Lisa Hirvi, Administrator-Fairmount Home Jannette Amini, Manager of Legislative Services/Clerk Barb McCulloch, Manager of Human Resources Richard Allen, Manager of Economic Development Marco Smits, Communications Officer

Closed Session Motion #: 40-18

Moved By: Seconded By:

Deputy Warden Doyle Councillor McDougall

Resolved That Council resolve itself into Committee of the Whole closed session as authorized under Section 239 of The Municipal Act, to consider:

Adoption of Closed Minutes of Meetings held February 21, 2018
Advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose - as it relates to benchmarking of Fairmount Home Carried Motion #: 41-18

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Smith Councillor Inglis

Resolved That Council rise from Committee of the Whole closed session without reporting Carried

Page 12 of Minutes of Meeting held March 21,329 2018

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Approval of Addendum  Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof There were none. Adoption of Minutes a)

Minutes of Meeting held February 21, 2018

Motion #: 43-18

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Nossal Councillor Vandewal

Resolved That the minutes of the regular Council meeting held February 21, 2018 be adopted. Carried Deputations and/or Presentations a)

Presentation of Employee Recognition Awards

Warden Higgins recognized those staff who have 5, 10, 15, and 20 years of service with the County of Frontenac. Proclamations a)

2018 National Public Works Week May 20 - 26/ 2018 “The Power of Public Works”

[See Communications j)] Motion #: 44-18 Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Dewey Deputy Warden Doyle

Whereas, public works professionals focus on infrastructure, facilities and services that are of vital importance to sustainable and resilient communities and to the public health, high quality of life and well-being of the people of Ontario; and, Whereas, these infrastructure, facilities and services could not be provided without the dedicated efforts of public works professionals, who are engineers, managers and employees from provincial and municipal governments and the private sector, who are responsible for rebuilding, improving and protecting our nation’s transportation, water supply, water treatment and solid waste systems, public buildings, and other structures and facilities essential for our citizens; and, Regular Meeting of Council Minutes March 21, 2018

Page 13 of Minutes of Meeting held March 21,329 2018

Page 2 of 10

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Whereas, it is in the public interest for the citizens, civic leaders and children in Canada to gain knowledge of and to maintain a progressive interest and understanding of the importance of public works and public works programs in their respective communities, Whereas, the year 2018 marks the 58th annual National Public Works Week sponsored by the American Public Works Association and Canadian Public Works Association; Therefore Be It Resolved That the Council of the County of Frontenac hereby proclaims the week of May 20-26, 2018 as National Public Works Week; and urges all it citizens to join with representatives of the Canadian Public Works Association and government agencies in activities, events and ceremonies designed to pay tribute to our public works professionals, engineers, managers and employees and to recognize the substantial contributions they make to protecting our national health, safety, and quality of life. Carried b)

United Way Success By 6 Week May 7 - 13, 2018

[See Communications n] Motion #: 45-18 Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor McDougall Councillor Smith

Be It Resolved That the Council of the County of Frontenac do hereby proclaim May 7 to May 13, 2018 as United Way Success By 6 Week; And Further That a copy of the proclamation be posted on the County’s official web site at www.frontenaccounty.ca. Carried Move into Committee of the Whole Motion #: 46-18

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Inglis Councillor Nossal

That Council adjourn and meet as Committee of the Whole Council, with the Deputy Warden in the Chair. Carried Briefings a)

Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, provided Council with his monthly CAO briefing.

Ms. Barb McCulloch, Manager of Human Resources, provided County Council with a briefing on the County’s Retirement and Succession Planning strategy.

Regular Meeting of Council Minutes March 21, 2018

Page 14 of Minutes of Meeting held March 21,329 2018

Page 3 of 10

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Unfinished Business  Recommend Reports from the Chief Administrative Officer a)

2018-036 Emergency and Transportation Services 2017 Legislated Response Time Standard Performance Plan - Reporting to the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (MOHLTC) Motion #: 47-18 Moved By: Councillor Vandewal Seconded By: Councillor Dewey Resolved That the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Emergency and Transportation Services – 2017 Legislated Response Time Standard Performance Plan Reporting to Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (MOHLTC) for information, And Further That the 2017 Response Time Standard Performance Plan outcomes for the County of Frontenac be reported to the Director, Emergency Health Services Branch, Ministry of Health and Long Term Care as required by legislation. Carried b)

2018-037 Administrative Office Review Moving Forward Potential Partnership with the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) Motion #: 48-18 Moved By: Councillor Smith Seconded By: Councillor Inglis Resolved That the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Administrative Office Review – Moving Forward, Potential Partnership with the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) report for information; And Further That Council remains open to continuing discussions with the CRCA with respect to the construction of a potential joint administrative facility located either on the grounds of the current County facility at 2069 Battersea Road, or the CRCA property at Little Cataraqui Creek Conservation Area at 1641 Perth Road (or in the vicinity); And Further That the Administrative Building Design Task Force (ABDTF) report back regarding progress and options by July 31, 2018. Carried

Regular Meeting of Council Minutes March 21, 2018

Page 15 of Minutes of Meeting held March 21,329 2018

Page 4 of 10

AGENDA ITEM #a)

2018-039 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Authorization of a Planning Services Agreement with Member Municipalities Motion #: 49-18 Moved By: Councillor Nossal Seconded By: Councillor Vandewal Resolved That the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer – Authorization of a Planning Services Agreement with Member Municipalities report for information; And Further That Council pass a By-law later in the meeting authorizing the Warden and Clerk to execute an agreement with the member municipalities to deliver planning services in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. Carried d)

2018-043 Planning and Economic Development RED Program Update and Authorization to Amend Contribution Agreement Motion #: 50-18 Moved By: Councillor Dewey Seconded By: Warden Higgins Whereas the Rural Economic Development program project “Advancing Economic Development in the Frontenacs through Collaboration” is entering its third and final year of funding, Be It Resolved That the Council of the County Council receive the Planning and Economic Development – RED Program Update and Authorization to Amend Contribution Agreement report for information, And Further That the Council of the County of Frontenac authorize the Warden and Clerk to execute an amending agreement with the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) for the Rural Economic Development program. Carried Information Reports from the Chief Administrative Officer a)

2018-038 Corporate Services Competency Based Framework Report Card 2018-040 Corporate Services 2017 Remuneration and Reimbursement of Expenses to Council Members and Non Council Appointees Report 2018-041 Corporate Services Four Month Attendance Management Report Card

Regular Meeting of Council Minutes March 21, 2018

Page 16 of Minutes of Meeting held March 21,329 2018

Page 5 of 10

AGENDA ITEM #a)

2018-044 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Annual Complaints Handling Report Reports from Council Liaison Appointees

Emergency and Transportation Services - Councillor Nossal

Councillor Nossal provided an overview of the Emergency and Transportation Services liaison activities since the last Council meeting. b)

Long Term Care (Fairmount Home) - Councillor Inglis

Councillor Inglis provided an overview of the Fairmount Home liaison activities since the last Council meeting. c)

Corporate Services - Councillor Dewey

Councillor Dewey provided an overview of the Corporate Services liaison activities since the last Council meeting. d)

Planning and Economic Development - Councillor McDougall

Councillor McDougall provided an overview of the Planning and Economic Development liaison activities since the last Council meeting. Reports from External Boards and Committees a)

Kingston Frontenac Library Board Update - Councillor Nossal

Councillor Nossal provided an overview of the Kingston, Frontenac Library Board activities since the last Council meeting. b)

KFL&A Public Health Board Update - Deputy Warden Doyle

Deputy Warden Doyle provided an overview of the Kingston, Frontenac Lennox and Addington Board of Health activities since the last Council meeting. c)

RULAC, LSR and other Updates

No Report.

Regular Meeting of Council Minutes March 21, 2018

Page 17 of Minutes of Meeting held March 21,329 2018

Page 6 of 10

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Algonquin Land Claim Update - Councillor Inglis

No Report. e)

Housing and Homelessness Committee Update - Councillor McDougall

No Report f)

Food Policy Council of Kingston, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington Deputy Warden Doyle

Deputy Warden Doyle provided an overview of the Food Policy Council of Kingston, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington activities since the last Council meeting. Reports from Advisory Committees of County Council  Return to Council Motion #: 51-18

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Inglis Councillor Nossal

That Council revert from Committee of the Whole Council, to Council. Carried Adoption of the Report of the Committee of the Whole Council Motion #: 52-18

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Smith Councillor McDougall

That the report of the Committee of the Whole Council be adopted and that the necessary actions or by-laws be enacted. Carried County Council recessed at 10:53 a.m. County Council reconvened at 10:58 a.m. Warden Higgins stepped down from the Chair and Deputy Warden Doyle assumed the Chair.

Regular Meeting of Council Minutes March 21, 2018

Page 18 of Minutes of Meeting held March 21,329 2018

Page 7 of 10

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Motions, Notice of Which has Been Given a)

Get a GRIP Program for Seniors

Motion #: 53-18

Moved By: Seconded By:

Warden Higgins Councillor Inglis

Be It Resolved That the Council of the County of Frontenac investigate if a Get a Grip Program for seniors could be implemented throughout Frontenac County in 2018. Carried Warden Higgins took back the Chair. 18

Giving Notice of Motion a)

Reopening of the Collins Bay and Joyceville Prison Farms Motion of Support to include Dairy Cows

Deputy Warden Doyle advised that he will be bringing forward a motion to the April Council meeting to have the County of Frontenac support the inclusion of Dairy Cattle in the re-opening of the Collins Bay and Joyceville prison farms. 19

Communications

That Council consent to the following communications of interest to Council listed below be received and filed: a)

From the County of Simcoe regarding its Age Friendly Initiative Project Update - Positive Aging Strategy [Distributed to Members of County Council February 23, 2018] From Compass Energy Consulting regarding a Notice of Small Ground Solar PV Projects [Distributed to Members of County Council February 23,2018] From the Board of Health providing its Minutes of Meeting held January 24, 2018 [Distributed to Members of County Council March 2, 2018] From the County of Renfrew regarding its resolution on the Proposed Amendments to the Endangered Species Act [Distributed to Members of County Council March 2, 2018] From the Kingston & Frontenac Housing Corporation providing its meeting agenda for 02-2018 [Distributed to Members of County Council March 2, 2018] From Compass Energy Consulting providing Notice of Small Ground Mounted Solar PV Projects [Distributed to Members of County Council March 9,2018] From the Town of Essex regarding its resolution around School Board decisions to close schools

Regular Meeting of Council Minutes March 21, 2018

Page 19 of Minutes of Meeting held March 21,329 2018

Page 8 of 10

AGENDA ITEM #a)

[Distributed to Members of County Council March 9, 2018] From Warden Higgins providing the EOWC Communications Update Winter 2018 [Distributed to Members of County Council March 9, 2018] From the Town of Essex providing a resolution pay for Childcare Services at AMO and FCM Conferences [Distributed to Members of County Council March 16, 2018] From the Town of Stratford National requesting that Proclamation to officially recognize Public Works week from May 20-26, 2018 [Distributed to Members of County Council March 16, 2018] From the City of Hamilton Council endorsing the Town of Essex resolution regarding Offering School Property to Municipalities [Distributed to Members of County Council March 16, 2018] From the Highway #7 Corridor Committee Providing Meeting notes from March 5, 2018 [Distributed to Members of County Council March 16, 2018] From the Bobs Lake Dam advising summer Construction 2018 of the Rideau Canal National Historic Site Project [Distributed to Members of County Council March 16, 2018] From the United Way requesting that the County of Frontenac recognize Success By 6 Week in May 2018 [Distributed to Members of County Council March 16, 2018] Other Business

Councillor Vandewal noted to Council that the telephone work being done in North Frontenac regarding fibre optics appears to also be coming to Central and South Frontenac and the impacts this may have along the Highway 38 corridor. Public Question Period

There were no questions from the public. By-Laws – General By-laws and Confirmatory By-law

22 a)

First and Second Reading

Motion #: 55-18

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Vandewal Councillor Dewey

Resolved That leave be given the mover to introduce by-laws a) through d) that have been circulated to all Members of County Council and that by-laws a) through d) be read a first and second time. Carried

Regular Meeting of Council Minutes March 21, 2018

Page 20 of Minutes of Meeting held March 21,329 2018

Page 9 of 10

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Third Reading

Motion #: 56-18

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Vandewal Councillor Dewey

Resolved That by-laws a) through d) be read a third time, signed, sealed and finally passed. Carried By-Laws a)

d) 23

To amend By-law No. 2014-0051 (Removal of The Rideau Corridor Landscape Strategy Steering Committee The Mississippi Rideau Tay Rural Health Hub Organizing Committee and The Frontenac County Youth Justice Advisory Committee) [Proposed By-law No. 2018-0012] To authorize the execution of an agreement with the Township of North Frontenac, the Township of Central Frontenac, the Township of South Frontenac and the Township of Frontenac Islands for Shared Planning Services [Proposed By-law No. 2018-0013] To authorize the Warden and Clerk to enter into an amending agreement with the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs for Rural Economic Development (RED) Program Funding [Proposed By-law No. 2018-0014] To Confirm All Actions and Proceedings of Council [Proposed By-law No. 2018-0015] Adjournment

Motion #: 57-18

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Inglis Councillor Dewey

That the meeting hereby adjourn at 11:05 a.m. Carried

Ron Higgins, Warden

Regular Meeting of Council Minutes March 21, 2018

Page 21 of Minutes of Meeting held March 21,329 2018

Jannette Amini, Clerk

Page 10 of 10

22ofof Mr. Murray MathesonPage , Chair the329 Tourism Kingston Board will address C…

Presentation to Frontenac County April 18, 2018

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Murray Matheson, TK Chair

23ofof Mr. Murray MathesonPage , Chair the329 Tourism Kingston Board will address C…

BRIER HISTORY Annual Canadian men’s curling championship since 1927 The world’s premier curling event Winners represent Canada at the World Championships Kingston hosted the Brier in 1957

2013 and the Travelers Cup in 2017

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Kingston hosted the Scotties in

24ofof Mr. Murray MathesonPage , Chair the329 Tourism Kingston Board will address C…

BRIER 2020 BID Kingston Brier 2020 will be hosted at the Rogers K-Rock Centre Target of 2020 ticket deposits of $50, refundable if bid unsuccessful TK, KAP & EcDev partnership Financial support: Tourism Kingston KAP City of Kingston RTO9 Province Ontario

$100,000 $100,000 $200,000 $100,000 + pending

Seeking full regional support

AGENDA ITEM #a)

• • • • •

25ofof Mr. Murray MathesonPage , Chair the329 Tourism Kingston Board will address C…

BRIER 2020 IMPACTS $12-$15 million direct economic impact • Economic impact of 2013 Scotties stretched from Belleville to Brockville

Positive tourism perception leads to economic development Nationally televised on TSN, 9 days/75 hours

Stepping stone to future national & international events

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Significant financial benefit to local curling (GKC) • 10% box office • 50/50 revenue

26ofof Mr. Murray MathesonPage , Chair the329 Tourism Kingston Board will address C…

TSN VIEWERSHIP NUMBERS 2018 Scotties Tournament of Hearts and the 2018 Tim Hortons Brier TSN viewership:

Approximately 400,000 people average tuned in to EACH draw reaching almost

Curling viewership numbers have rivaled the Toronto Maple Leafs on Hockey Night in Canada

AGENDA ITEM #a)

8 million Canadians

27ofof Mr. Murray MathesonPage , Chair the329 Tourism Kingston Board will address C…

AGENDA ITEM #a)

28ofof Mr. Murray MathesonPage , Chair the329 Tourism Kingston Board will address C…

REGIONAL SUPPORT 2020 Brier will be a regional event benefiting businesses from Belleville to Brockville Requests for support sent to municipalities and counties; • A “Community Supporter” deposits package, 10 deposits for $500 • A letter of support AGENDA ITEM #a)

Regional Tourism Organization 9 has pledged $100,000+

29ofof Mr. Murray MathesonPage , Chair the329 Tourism Kingston Board will address C…

TIMELINE Mar. 2018

Kingston launches corporate deposit sales

May 31, 2018

Consumer deposit program winds up

Jun. 30, 2018

Formal bid submission to Curling Canada Curling Canada announces host city

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Sep. 2018

30ofof Mr. Murray MathesonPage , Chair the329 Tourism Kingston Board will address C…

LET’S WIN THIS

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page of 31Health, of 329 Dr Moore , Medical Officer and Alida Moffatt , Manager of Fin…

Introductory remarks:

KFL&A Public Health 2018 Budget

Denis Doyle Chair, KFL&A Board of Health Deputy Warden, County of Frontenac Mayor, Township of Frontenac Islands Presented by:

County of Frontenac Council April 18, 2018

Dr. Kieran Moore MD, CCFP(EM), FCFP, FRCP(C) Medical Officer of Health KFL&A Public Health

Alida Moffatt Manager, Finance

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Healthy People, Healthy Places

Page of 32Health, of 329 Dr Moore , Medical Officer and Alida Moffatt , Manager of Fin…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Page of 33Health, of 329 Dr Moore , Medical Officer and Alida Moffatt , Manager of Fin…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Page of 34Health, of 329 Dr Moore , Medical Officer and Alida Moffatt , Manager of Fin…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Page of 35Health, of 329 Dr Moore , Medical Officer and Alida Moffatt , Manager of Fin…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Page of 36Health, of 329 Dr Moore , Medical Officer and Alida Moffatt , Manager of Fin…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Page of 37Health, of 329 Dr Moore , Medical Officer and Alida Moffatt , Manager of Fin…

Strategic Directions Over the course of the next five years, KFL&A Public Health will: Provide programs and services of high quality that are supported by the best evidence.

Champion, support, and deliver strategies and initiatives to address health disparities, and priority and emerging health issues.

Strengthen and enhance our collaboration with communities and partners.

Invest in a healthy and supportive work environment where everyone lives our values.

Foster efficiency and innovation to maximize the impact of our resources.

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Page of 38Health, of 329 Dr Moore , Medical Officer and Alida Moffatt , Manager of Fin…

Cost-Shared Budget for 2018 KFL&A Public Health

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Page of 39Health, of 329 Dr Moore , Medical Officer and Alida Moffatt , Manager of Fin…

Cost-Shared Budget 2018 Budget highlights: • Approved by the Board of Health on November 15 • Reflects 1.5% increase for inflation and service level changes • Reflects changes to programs deemed necessary to support strategic directions and align with proposed changes to Ontario Public Health standards and new accountability framework AGENDA ITEM #b)

• Does not include any significant programming cuts, and reflects a net increase to FTEs across the agency with enhancements to front-line service delivery

Page of 40Health, of 329 Dr Moore , Medical Officer and Alida Moffatt , Manager of Fin…

Cost-Shared Budget 2018 Budget highlights: • Used a Program-based Marginal Analysis (PBMA) process for identifying priorities and opportunities for reallocation

AGENDA ITEM #b)

• Will continue to use this process to identify investments or disinvestments within available funding envelope

Cost-Shared Budget 2018 $18,000,000 $16,000,000 $14,000,000

It is expected that the funding freeze imposed by the MHLTC on the majority of local public health agencies since 2015 will continue for 2018.

$12,000,000

Axis Title

Page of 41Health, of 329 Dr Moore , Medical Officer and Alida Moffatt , Manager of Fin…

Cost-Shared Budget 2018

$10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000

2017 Approved

2018 Request

Municipal partners

$5,858,056

38%

$5,945,926

39%

MoHTLC

$9,358,300

62%

$9,358,300

61%

AGENDA ITEM #b)

$2,000,000

Page of 42Health, of 329 Dr Moore , Medical Officer and Alida Moffatt , Manager of Fin…

Cost-Shared Budget $15.3 Million Administrative costs 10%

Office of MOH 4%

Board costs 0% Chronic Disease and Injury Prevention 24%

Corporate Services 18% Family Health 12%

Infectious Disease Prevention and Environmental Health 24%

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Knowledge Management 8%

Page of 43Health, of 329 Dr Moore , Medical Officer and Alida Moffatt , Manager of Fin…

Cost-Shared Budget 2018 Municipal Partner Share Percentage (%) 2017 Approved

2018 Request

City of Kingston

65.95%

$3,863,523

$3,921,476

Lennox & Addington County

21.30%

$1,247,686

$1,266,401

Country of Frontenac

12.75%

$746,847

$758,049

$5,858,056

$5,945,926

Total

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Municipal shares are as agreed to between partners

Page of 44Health, of 329 Dr Moore , Medical Officer and Alida Moffatt , Manager of Fin…

Cost-Shared Budget 2018 Pressure points in the 2018 cost-shared budget:

• Negotiated salary increases • Increasing costs of benefits

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Page of 45Health, of 329 Dr Moore , Medical Officer and Alida Moffatt , Manager of Fin…

Other Elements of 2018 Budget KFL&A Public Health $16,000,000

$14,000,000

$12,000,000 HSM CH

$10,000,000

FFUFF2 SLSP

$8,000,000

Part VIII-user fees

BLV

$6,000,000

PSL IHP $4,000,000

HBHC

MOHLTC

$CSB 100% MCYS* Other*

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Municipal $2,000,000

Page of 46Health, of 329 Dr Moore , Medical Officer and Alida Moffatt , Manager of Fin…

MoHLTC 100% Budgets $3,044,200 Cost Shared Related $134,100 • • •

Safe Water Food Safety Needle Exchange

Aside from new funds provided in 2017 for Harm Reduction Enhancement, this funding has been frozen. The cost pressures of negotiated salary increases and benefits costs erodes the availability of funding to cover operating costs for these initiatives.

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Other Base Funding Cost Shared Related $2,910,100 • Infection Control • Harm Reduction Enhancement (Opioid use reduction) - New in 2017 $150,000 • Syndromic Surveillance System • Low Income Dental Programme (Healthy Smiles Ontario) • Smoke-free Ontario (Tobacco use reduction) • MOH/AMOH Compensation Initiative • Special nursing positions (Chief Nursing Officer, Infection Control and Social Determinants of Health)

Page of 47Health, of 329 Dr Moore , Medical Officer and Alida Moffatt , Manager of Fin…

Ministry of Children and Youth Services (MCYS) 100% April to March fiscal year $2,545,643 (based on 2017-2018 amounts approved by the Board in March, 2017 for ongoing programs*)

Healthy Babies Healthy Children $1,206,332 (requirement under the OPHS) • home visiting program intended to optimize newborn and child healthy growth and development Pre-School Speech and Language $650,583 • system of partner agencies in KFL&A that provides speech and language services to children and their families from birth up to the end of junior kindergarten Infant Hearing $557,828 • program designed to identify babies with permanent hearing loss and to provide services to help children with communication and language development

*Above amounts do not reflect additional one time funding or increase to base funding approved in 2017. The approval of the 2018-2019 Budgets has been delayed due to budget templates not yet available from the Province.

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Blind Low Vision $130,900 • program designed to give children who are born blind or with low vision the best possible start in life by providing education and support for parents

Page of 48Health, of 329 Dr Moore , Medical Officer and Alida Moffatt , Manager of Fin…

Part VIII Budget Part VIII (Building Code Act):

• Septic system inspection program • A cost recovery program

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Page of 49Health, of 329 Dr Moore , Medical Officer and Alida Moffatt , Manager of Fin…

Other funded programs typically April to March fiscal year Shared Library Services Partnership $121,500 (Provincial funding) •

KFLAPH acts as a hub to provide provide 4 area public health units without an in-house library with access to up-to-date information and scientific resources, and to preserve the existing library infrastructure across the province.

Food for You Food for Two $90,000 (Federal funding) •

free prenatal education and nutrition program for pregnant women, teens, and their support persons. Each week participants will meet new people, prepare food, and eat together.

Community Hubs $817,749 (Provincial funding) •

One time funding to support the development of the technical build of the online components of the Community Hubs Resource Network

•

One time funding to support design, build and testing of a prototype dashboard to monitor and predict surge capacity for Ontario acute care facilities

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Hospital Surge Monitoring $75,000 (Provincial funding)

Page of 50Health, of 329 Dr Moore , Medical Officer and Alida Moffatt , Manager of Fin…

Questions?

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Page of 51Health, of 329 Dr Moore , Medical Officer and Alida Moffatt , Manager of Fin…

Thank you!

AGENDA ITEM #b)

County Delegation April 18, 2018 Meela Melnik-Proud and Sarah Harmer

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Page 52Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

Johnston Point – Unauthorized Development Activity and OMB Rule 106 of Practice and Procedure - Authority to Address the Board

Page 53Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

Condition 5A of Draft Plan Approval 5A. “… the vacant land condominium agreement applying to all the waterfront units shall set out the municipalities environmental protection policies requiring that the area within 30 metres of the highwater mark of a waterbody or wetland shall be maintained in a natural state for soil and vegetation. This 30 metre environmental protection area is identified in Attachment ‘B’”.

12-Apr-18

AGENDA ITEM #c)

12-Apr-18

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Page 54Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

Attachment B

Unit 8 – Video of Shoreline Clearing

12-Apr-18

Add a footer

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Page 55Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

Unit 8 – Shoreline Clearing

Unit 5 – Video of Shoreline Clearing

12-Apr-18

Add a footer

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Page 56Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

Unit 5 – Shoreline Clearing

Unit 4- Video of Shoreline Clearing

12-Apr-18

Add a footer

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Page 57Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

Unit 4 – Shoreline Clearing

Page 58Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

Unit 2 – Shoreline Clearing Unit 2 – Video of Shoreline Clearing Unit 2 - Video 2 of Shoreline Clearing

12-Apr-18

Add a footer

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Page 59Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

Conditions 5D and 5E of Draft Plan Approval 5D. “The owner shall confirm that MNRF have been consulted on all species at risk issues and that the recommendations from the MNRF included in any Benefit Permit, if issued, related to Gray Rat Snakes and BlandingsTurtles or any other species at risk identified.”

5E. “The Owner shall complete Whip Poor Will surveys to determine if they are present at the site and submit this information to the MNRF.”

12-Apr-18

Add a footer

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Page 60Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

First reports of heavy development work, April 2016 immediately following the OMB hearing

12-Apr-18

Add a footer

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Both the CRCA and the Township have admitted to not having an effective inspection, compliance and enforcement system in place, in order to achieve the environmental objectives of the Conditions of Draft Plan

Page 61Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

MNRF species at risk notification, October 2015 letter to the Township on October 9, 2015: “…. There is however a strong possibility that the proposed condominium development will impact species at risk and their habitat. MNRF should be involved in the review of further documents and proposals for the condominium development to determine if an authorisation under the Endangered Species Act is required.” Catherine Warren, District Planner, MNRF Peterborough District Office

12-Apr-18

Add a footer

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Page 62Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

MNRF notification of assessment, September, 2016: letter to the Township on September 30, 2016: “We have also received an application from the proponent for

an overall benefit permit under the Endangered Species Act … The permit application we are currently considering involves Gray Ratsnake and Blanding’s Turtle. If the application is successful it would allow the proponent to undertake works that may be detrimental to the habitat and individuals of these species provided the project also contains actions that create an overall benefit to the species involved. Please let me

know if you have any questions or concerns about this.”

12-Apr-18

Add a footer

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Catherine Warren, District Planner, MNRF Peterborough District Office

Page 63Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

THREATENED and ENDANGERED species at risk on MNRF record :

Ecological Services, 2014 EIA 12

12-Apr-18

Add a footer

AGENDA ITEM #c)

“No living threatened or endangered species were found at Johnston Point … Conclusion: In regards to threatened or endangered species, the development will be in compliance with the PPS, and policies of the South Frontenac Township OP.”

Page 64Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

MNRF posting of the proposed benefit permit to the Environmental Registry under the EBR, November 9, 2017: • Over 2300 signatures on the petition calling on the MNRF to stop the development of Johnston Point. • ER statement by Meela Melnik-Proud and Evonne Potts submitted to the MNRF and the municipality supporting the petition.

• An ER Statement by Gordon Miller, our former Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, concluding that “on Johnston Point, the species and habitat loss will be absolute… there is no viable argument presented of overall benefit in this case, a Permit under section 17(C) of the ESA should be denied.”

12-Apr-18

Add a footer

AGENDA ITEM #c)

• A legal opinion by David Donnelly of Donnelly Law, concluding that “this Permit should not be issued, and the property should remain zoned as it is.”

Page 65Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

The OMB ruling June 28, 2016: [50] “The Board accepts the uncontested evidence and opinion of Mr. Keene to find that the development proposal aligns with the principles of good land use planning, and is consistent with the policy directions established by the PPS … is both appropriate and permitted by Provincial and local planning policies.” [51] “… Conditions of Draft Plan Approval will ensure that matters of Provincial interest as well as the public interest is appropriately addressed and duly safeguarded.” [53] “… Condition 5D and 5E, serve to ensure that the necessary approvals and/or permissions are appropriately obtained.”

12-Apr-18

Add a footer

AGENDA ITEM #c)

[56] “… the County of Frontenac shall have the authority to clear the conditions of draft plan approval and to administer the final approval of the plan of condominium for the purposes of s. 51(58). In the event there are difficulties implementing any of the conditions of draft plan approval, or if any changes to the draft plan are required, the Board may be spoken to further.”

Page 66Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

Conditions of Draft Plan Approval vs. Benefit Permit – an extreme case of conflicting values and purposes The purpose of Conditions 5D and E of development on Johnston Point: to protect Johnston Point’s species at risk and their unique natural heritage habitat according to the Endangered Species Act … “No person shall, kill, harm, harass, capture or take a living member … No person shall damage or destroy the habitat of a species that is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario list as an endangered or threatened species.”

The main purpose of the 17(2) (c) Permit for development on Johnston Point:

12-Apr-18

Add a footer

AGENDA ITEM #c)

is not to assist in the protection or recovery of species at risk that have since been found on Johnston Point, but to allow for Johnston Point’s significant habitat for species at risk to be further damaged and destroyed, and individual species at risk to be killed and harmed.

Page 67Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

March 20, 2018 legal opinion from Donnelly Law, OMB Rule 106: ”… a municipality has the authority under Rule 106 of the Ontario Municipal Board’s Rules to address the Board regarding Draft Plan Conditions. This includes changes to Conditions, or seeking an Order from the Board denying approval. In addition, municipalities can require restoration of degraded environmental features, prior to an Applicant obtaining approval.” “It is our opinion the Township of South Frontenac should bring a Motion to address the

Board regarding a failure to fulfill certain Conditions as a result of alleged destruction of environmental features on the Subject Property that were to be

12-Apr-18

Add a footer

AGENDA ITEM #c)

protected per the Board’s Decision of June 28, 2016. Furthermore, the Township should immediately seek an Order to protect and restore the Subject Property until such time as the Motion can be heard.”

Page 68Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

Summary Legal Statements by Donnelly Law : December 11, 2017

“The Board in Magenta established a principle that does not support the MWDC rezoning without confirmation from MNRF that the ecological features and functions of the site are being protected, specifically with respect to species at risk habitat. We trust that given the extraordinary effort by the Respondents and others around the lake to retain multiple experts to provide you with solid, peer reviewed information, this will assist you in reaching a conclusion about whether an overall benefit permit should be issued. We respectfully submit the evidence clearly indicates this Permit should not be issued, and the property should remain zoned as it is.” March 20, 2018

12-Apr-18

Add a footer

AGENDA ITEM #c)

“The Township having had regard to all the circumstances should act as authorized to preserve the site, order restoration, and deny development. The only question remaining is whether the Township will act in the public interest to do so. Failure to act will also send a clear, and opposite, message to residents. "

AGENDA ITEM #c)

David R. Donnelly, MES LLB david@donnellylaw.ca March 20, 2018 Sent via e-mail to: evonne.potts@gmail.com and meelamelnik@hotmail.com Evonne Potts 229-829 Norwest Road Kingston, ON K7P 2N3 Meela Melnik-Proud 1076 Cliffside Drive Sydenham, ON K0H 2T0 Re: OMB Case No. PL150246 – Rule 106 Ontario Municipal Board Rules of Practice and Procedure - Authority to Address the Board Dear Client, You have asked us to provide an opinion regarding: A) The authority of a municipality to obtain a denial of a Planning Act application under Rule 106 of the Board Rules of Practice and Procedure for failure to comply with Board Conditions; and B) The mechanism to seek a Board Prohibition Order to preserve significant natural heritage features on the Subject Property. It is our opinion the Township of South Frontenac should bring a Motion to address the Board regarding a failure to fulfill certain Conditions as a result of alleged destruction of environmental features on the Subject Property that were to be protected per the Board’s Decision of June 28, 2016. Furthermore, the Township should immediately seek an Order to protect and restore the Subject Property until such time as the Motion can be heard. For context we represent you, Ms Evonne Potts and Ms Meela Melnik-Proud (the “Respondents”) regarding the proposed Magenta Waterfront Development Corp. (“MWDC”) Permit for activities with conditions to achieve overall benefit to the species – Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) s. 17(2)(c) (the “Permit”). Our firm provided a previous opinion on December 11, 2017 regarding your response to the

t. 416 572 0464  276 Carlaw Ave  Suite 203  Toronto  Ontario  M4M 3L1  Canada

Page 69Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

AGENDA ITEM #c)

proposed Permit, EBR Registry No.013-1130 (Loughborough Lake, Frontenac County). Condition #5 in the Ontario Municipal Board (“OMB”) decision states: A. That the vacant land condominium agreement contains wording applying to all of the proposed units setting out the municipality’s limited service policies to recognize that there is no commitment or requirement by the municipality to assume responsibility for ownership or maintenance of the private lane within the plan. In addition, the vacant land condominium agreement applying to all the waterfront units shall set out the municipality’s environmental protection policies requiring that the area within 30 meters of the highwater mark of a waterbody or wetland shall be maintained in a natural state for soil and vegetation. This 30 meter environmental protection area is identified as Attachment “B”. [emphasis added] B. That the wetland area within the boundary of proposed Unit 14 be surveyed by the Owner prior to construction of any driveway within the Unit. The driveway shall be surveyed prior to construction to ensure that the driveway is constructed a minimum of 30m from the boundary of the surveyed wetland. The driveway shall be constructed by the Owner as a condition of sale of the Unit. This condition shall be included in the condominium agreement with the Township and the agreement of purchase and sale for Unit 14. C. That all conditions outlined in the letter dated November 12, 2014 from the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority to the County of Frontenac, be included in the vacant land condominium Agreement with the Township, including that all driveways be placed a minimum of 30 meters away from any waterbody and that all recommendations of the stormwater management plan be implemented. D. The owner shall confirm that MNRF have been consulted on all species at risk issues and that the Declaration and the Vacant Land Condominium Agreement shall incorporate all recommendations from the MNRF included in any Benefit Permit, if issued, related to Gray Rat Snakes and Blanding Turtles or any other species at risk identified. [emphasis added] E. That the Owner shall complete Whip Poor Will surveys to determine if they are present at the site and submit this information to the MNRF. A municipality has the authority under Rule 106 of the Ontario Municipal Board’s Rules to address the Board regarding Draft Plan Conditions. This includes changes to Conditions, or seeking an Order from the Board denying approval. 2 P A G E

Donnelly Law  t. 416 572 0464  f. 416 572 0465  276 Carlaw Ave  Suite 203  Toronto  Ontario  M4M 3L1

Page 70Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

AGENDA ITEM #c)

It is submitted by Ms Potts and Ms Melnik-Proud that the Township is aware that considerable damage to the Subject Property has occurred, and therefore the Conditions have not and cannot be cleared. As a result, the approval should not be granted. In DiMarco v. Hamilton (City), in order to address the Board, the Township should invoke Rule 106 of the Ontario Municipal Board Rules of Practice and Procedure: On March 20, 2017, the City made a written request to the Board pursuant to Rule 106 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure for an appearance to address its concern that the Appellant had failed to comply with condition 3.1 Ontario Municipal Board Rules of Practice and Procedure Rule 106 states: A Condition Imposed in a Board Decision shall be satisfied by the date set by the Board. If the date is not set by the Board, a condition shall be satisfied within a reasonable time. If the condition is not so satisfied, the Board may reopen the hearing event from which the decision issued. In addition, municipalities can require restoration of degraded environmental features, prior to an Applicant obtaining approval. For example, in the City of Vaughan, Vaughan Official Plan Policy 3.2.3.9 states: That unauthorized removal or alteration of natural features or functions within areas identified as Core Features is prohibited, and will result in the features and functions being restored to their previous state at no expense to the City of Vaughan and other public agencies. In the case of a development application, the application will not proceed until restoration works have been undertaken to the satisfaction of the City and TRCA and/or York Region as needed. [emphasis added] Furthermore, in Spellman v. Essex (Town), the Crown sought an order from the Ontario Municipal Board prohibiting Material Handling Problem Solvers (“MHPS”) from negatively impacting the significant wetland, woodland, and wildlife habitat by cutting trees, clearing land and installing drainage works in order to continue to develop a golf course until such time as the Board decided on the application.2 Section 89 of the Ontario Municipal Board Act provides the Board authority to issue interim relief: The Board may, if the special circumstances of any case, in its opinion, so require, make an interim order without notice authorizing, requiring or forbidding anything to be done that the Board would be empowered on 1

DiMarco v. Hamilton (City), 2017 CanLII 53021 (ON OMB), para. 4

2 Spellman v. Essex (Town), 2002 CarswellOnt 6702, para. 1

3 P A G E

Donnelly Law  t. 416 572 0464  f. 416 572 0465  276 Carlaw Ave  Suite 203  Toronto  Ontario  M4M 3L1

Page 71Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

AGENDA ITEM #c)

application, notice and hearing to authorize, require or forbid, but no such order shall be made for any longer time than the Board may consider necessary to enable the matter to be heard and determined.3 The Board further held in Spellman that in granting the Prohibition Order, it struck “a balance of prejudice between the possible effects of further site activity and alteration on the integrity of the planning process and the adjudicative process, and the presumed need or desire for the proponent parties to gain whatever benefit they can from the four weeks of preparatory activity on the sites”. 4 [emphasis added] The Township having had regard to all the circumstances should act as authorized to preserve the site, order restoration, and deny development. The only question remaining is whether the Township will act in the public interest to do so. Failure to act will also send a clear, and opposite, message to residents. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 416-572-0464, or by email to david@donnellylaw.ca, cc’ing sara@donnellylaw.ca, and alexandra@donnellylaw.ca should you have any questions or concerns. Yours truly,

David R. Donnelly

Ontario Municipal Board Act, RSO 1990, s.89

4 Supra note 2, para. 18

4 P A G E

Donnelly Law  t. 416 572 0464  f. 416 572 0465  276 Carlaw Ave  Suite 203  Toronto  Ontario  M4M 3L1

Page 72Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

AGENDA ITEM #c)

March 20 2018 Dear Mayor and Councillors. My name is Sarah Harmer. Thank you for the opportunity to speak briefly with you this evening. I have lived on the edge of South Frontenac Township off Spooner Road for over 20 years, and I’ve been swimming in beautiful Loughborough Lake for decades. For the past year or so I have been learning about the Johnston Point case alongside other concerned citizens. Thank you for inviting MNRF representatives to clarify and provide information about the proposed permit for Johnston Point. It is disappointing that the Ministry’s presentation has been postponed, but I’m sure we all look forward to the visit from Catherine Warren and Andy Baxter at another date in the near future. I would like to use this short time to convey to this council what I believe are critical issues regarding Johnston Point on Loughborough Lake. Firstly, that a condition of the Ontario Municipal Board Draft Plan approval was contravened by the proponent. Secondly, that South Frontenac municipality has the authority to address the OMB (the Board) regarding Draft Plan conditions, Thirdly, a request that South Frontenac township express a clear preference that species at risk habitat on Johnston’s point be left as is, and Fourthly that South Frontenac bring a Motion to address the Board regarding a failure to fulfil certain Conditions as a result of alleged destruction of environmental features on the Subject Property that were to be protected per the Board’s Decision of June 28, 2016. Furthermore, the Township should immediately seek an Order to protect and restore the Subject Property until such time as the Motion can be heard. This past November, the announcement of Magenta’s proposed benefit permit application to “kill, harm or harass” Blanding’s Turtles and Grey Ratsnakes, brought a strong and diverse call to the MNRF to deny this Plan of Condominium. The expert submissions that were forwarded to the Township only heighten our concerns over issues that remain unresolved. The OMB ruling (page 12) was explicit that the Conditions of Draft Plan Approval “will ensure that matters of Provincial Interest as well as the public interest is appropriately addressed and duly safeguarded.” The OMB’s conditional approval was subject to meeting Draft Plan Conditions and premised on the unchallenged testimony from the proponent’s planner.

Page 73Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

AGENDA ITEM #c)

It is now certain that the Conditions of Draft Plan have not served to protect the Species at Risk on Johnston Point and the planner’s opinion was based on an early, deficient set of scientific understanding of the peninsula. The McIntosh-Perry review of the proponent’s Environmental Impact Statement in July 2015, the MNRF’s own assessment of the proposal in August 2016, and independent Species at Risk (SAR) surveys by John Urquhart, Cambium and Toby Thorne all provide expert evidence that there were serious oversights and omissions in the environmental assessment done by the proponent’s consultant. It is clear from the extent of unauthorized site alteration and heavy machinery work that the species at risk and their unique natural heritage environment have already been negatively impacted, and due process has been contravened. As Matt Rennie documented so well, there is now photographic and video evidence taken in the last few weeks, of extensive shoreline clearing in the designate ‘environmental protection areas.’ This is without authorization and a clear violation of the Conditions of Draft Plan Approval. Conditions 5A clearly states, quote, “the vacant land condominium agreement applying to all the waterfront units shall set out the municipalities protection policies requiring that the area within 30 metres of the highwater mark of the waterbody or wetland shall be maintained in a natural state for soil and vegetation. This 30 metre environmental protection area is identified in Attachment ‘B’” This destructive site waterfront alteration comes after already unauthorized roadwork. The proponent has again shown non-compliance, which, as we know, does not lead to good faith. Magenta has taken blatant actions that demonstrate a lack or respect for process and species, and set the stage for further future actions.

Gord Miller was Ontario’s Environmental Commissioner for 15 years, until 2015. His statement on Magenta’s permit application was submitted to the Township and MNRF in December, and it provides expert opinion on the proposed benefit permit from the perspective of an ecologist and biologist with extensive expertise in environmental and species at risk legislation. In fact there is likely no one in the province more qualified than Mr Miller to give expert opinion on this type of matter. Mr Miller stated, and I quote, “Johnston Point can be considered a peninsula with a substantial range of species at risk. Putting a condominium development along nearly its entire length is an extreme case of conflicting values – between species at risk conservation and residential development. The MNRF is obligated to look at the development impacts collectively before deciding upon the Permit. In the material provided, I have not seen a comprehensive evaluation of cumulative impacts… On Johnston Point, the species and habitat loss will be absolute… there is no viable argument presented of overall benefit in this case, a Permit under section 17(C) of the ESA should be denied. “

Page 74Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Concerned lake residents also obtained a legal opinion on the matter from David Donnelly at Donnelly Law, which was also forwarded to the Township and MNRF in December 2017, stating that multiple experts have provide solid, peer reviewed information that points to comprehensive and cumulative impact assessment of the landscape and evidence that “clearly indicates this Permit should not be issued, and the property should remain zoned as it is.”

I understand that MNRF district planner Catherine Warren wrote to this council in Oct 2016 that prompted a Notice of Motion, resolving that the Township express to the MNRF their preference not to allow for mitigation. I also understand that immediately prior to voting on that Motion, the Motion was amended to remove the mitigation clause on the advice of the Township’s lawyer that it could have been interpreted as an illegal attempt to change the conditions of draft approval. Towards this end, tonight we submit to Council a second legal opinion from Donnelly Law, clearly stating that: “a municipality has the authority under Rule 106 of the Ontario Municipal Board’s Rules to address the Board regarding Draft Plan Conditions. This includes changes to Conditions, or seeking an Order from the Board denying approval. In addition, municipalities can require restoration of degraded environmental features, prior to an Applicant obtaining approval.” As the OMB ruling on Johnston Point states in line number [56]: “In the event there are difficulties implementing any of the conditions of draft plan approval, or if any changes to the draft plan are required, the Board may be spoken to further.” Based on this I believe that the Township has both legitimate grounds and a responsibility to do so. We respectfully and strongly call on Council to make this resolution that clearly expresses to MNRF a “preference for species at risk habitat on Johnston’s point be left as is.” As I mentioned earlier, we also call on council to consider the second legal opinion we submit this evening, and bring a Motion to address the Board regarding a failure by the proponent to fulfil certain Conditions as a result of alleged destruction of environmental features on the Subject Property, that were to be protected per the Board’s Decision of June 28, 2016. Furthermore, the Township should immediately seek an Order to protect and restore the Subject Property until such time as the Motion can be heard. Thank you very much. I’m happy to take questions if you have any.

Page 75Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

AGENDA ITEM #c)

LET’S MAKE HISTORY - A CALL TO ACTION FOR THE MNRF TO DENY ESA PERMIT ER 013-1130 AND A 10-POINT STATEMENT ON THE PETITION CALLING TO STOP THE PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT ON JOHNSTON POINT Meela Melnik-Proud and Evonne Potts December 11, 2017

Re: Magenta Waterfront Development Corp., Permit for activities with conditions to achieve overall benefit to the species - ESA s.17(2)(c); ER notice number 013-1130 1

Page 76Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

AGENDA ITEM #c)

PETITION CALLING TO STOP THE PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT ON JOHNSTON POINT “The people of Ontario recognize the inherent value of the natural environment. The people of Ontario have a right to a healthful environment. The people of Ontario have as a common goal the protection, conservation and restoration of the natural environment for the benefit of present and future generations. While the government has the primary responsibility for achieving this goal, the people should have means to ensure that it is achieved in an effective, timely, open and fair manner.” Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 We, the people of Ontario, are committed to the protection and recovery of species at risk at Johnston Point, through the preservation of their Natural Heritage environment, as legally mandated by Ontario’s Endangered Species Act and set forth in the Provincial Policy Statement, and in keeping with the concerns of the citizens of South Frontenac brought forward to the OMB on April 4, 2016. Recognizing that six species at risk on the Ontario list have been independently documented on Johnston Point by expert independent investigations that were not previously identified by this Developer - Butternut (endangered), Myotis Bat (endangered), Blanding’s Turtle (threatened), Gray Ratsnake (threatened), Eastern Whippoorwill (threatened) and, Snapping Turtle (special concern), and Recognizing that Johnston Point’s species at risk are contained in an area treasured and acclaimed for its many provincially significant and international Natural Heritage designations - Provincially Significant Wetland, Provincially Significant Woodland, Provincially Significant Wildlife Habitat and Fish Habitat, and part of the Frontenac Arch, a United Nations (UNESCO) World Biosphere Reserve – and is an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest identified and recommended for protection by Ontario’s Ministry of Natural Resources (MNRF) in 1993, and Recognizing that the OMB granted approval conditionally prior to, but on condition of, an MNRF assessment this proposal, specifically through a species at risk lens, and that the MNRF has now assessed the Conditions of Draft Plan Approval and deemed that the Plan of Condominium as written and presented to the OMB, Frontenac County and South Frontenac Township will likely contravene sections 9 and 10 of the ESA (species and habitat protection) and WILL have negative impacts on the natural features and ecological functions that under the Provincial Policy Statement DO NOT PERMIT development or site alteration, and Recognizing that extensive, unauthorized site alteration has occurred prior to the MNRF assessment of the proposal, and that this site alteration has caused significant damage and destruction of the natural features on Johnston Point so that sections 9 and 10 of the ESA, for species and habitat protection may have already been contravened, and Recognizing that the species at risk on this unique piece of Ontario’s natural heritage have NOT been duly addressed and safeguarded, because of omissions and oversights in the proponent’s environmental assessments, the proponent’s failure to follow due process to obtain MNRF approvals and authorizations, and/or authorities incapacity to oversee the conditions of draft plan approval and monitor developer compliance, and Recognizing that lots are being advertised without benefit permit authorization, and with unsuspecting buyers unaware of restrictions and implications imposed under the Endangered Species Act, On the Subject of the Magenta Waterfront Development Corp. Permit for activities with conditions to achieve overall benefit to the species - ESA s.17(2)(c); ER notice number 013-1130, We, the following people of Ontario, respectfully ask that despite the fact that the MNRF has never denied an ESA permit to any applicant, and especially since there is no appeal process, that any, and all benefit permits relating to the Plan of Condominium at Johnston Point be denied. We strongly feel that denial of this benefit permit is important to all the people of Ontario as it will not specifically benefit the species at risk locally, on site, or provincially, and it is not in keeping with our rights under the Environmental Bill of Rights or the MNRF’s Statement of Environmental Values (SEV) under which this decision must be considered.

Page 77Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Let’s Make History – A Call To Action for the MNRF to deny ESA permit (ER 013-1130) and a 10-Point Statement on the petition calling to stop the for the Plan of Condominium on Johnston Point . EBR Registry Number: 013-1130 Ministry: Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Date Information Notice loaded to the Registry: November 09, 2017

December 11, 2017 Re: Magenta Waterfront Development Corp., Permit for activities with conditions to achieve overall benefit to the species - ESA s.17(2)(c); ER notice number 013-1130 Please find our written comments, submitted by email to MNRF.PET@ontario.ca that include the following: •

Petition calling to the stop the Plan of Condominium development of Johnston Point ……………………………………………………………………………………….. p. 2

•

List of Supporting Documents - Links (A), Email attachments (B), and Appendix (C) ……………………………………………………… p. 4

•

Meela Melnik-Proud, Personal Statement …………………………………………………………p. 5

•

Evonne Potts, Personal statement

•

Outline of our 10- Point Statement ………………………………………………………………… p. 7

•

The 10-Points explained ……………………………………………………………………………… pp. 8-27

•

Appendix …………………………………………………………………………………………………… pp. 28-53

…………………………………………………………………. p. 6

Page 78Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

AGENDA ITEM #c)

List of Supporting Documents: Links (A), Email attachments (B), and Appendix (C) A. Supporting Documents Submitted as Links or Email attachments.

Good Choices, Bad Choices’, the 2017 Environmental Protection Report of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. (https://eco.on.ca/reports/2017-good-choices-bad-choices/).
Ontario’s ‘Endangered Species Act Submission Standards for Activity Review and 17(2)(c) Overall Benefit Permits’. http://files.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-at-risk/stdprod_093115.pdf
Provincial Policy Statement (2014). http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page10679.aspx
Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (2005). https://www.ontario.ca/document/natural-heritage-reference-manual
OMNFR (2007) Endangered Species Act, 2007, S.O. 2007, c.6. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/07e06/v1 B. Supporting Documents Submitted as Email attachments
McIntosh-Perry Peer Review of Johnston Point EIAs, July 2015. Note: 2014 and 2012 EIAs by Ecological Services are contained as an appendix to this attachment)
OMB Statement, N. Melnik-Proud, April 2016.
OMB SAR Expert Witness Statement, John Urquhart, April 2016.
Bat Survey, Johnston Point, Toby Thorne, August 2017.
Addendum to Bat Survey, Johnston Point, Toby Thorne, August 2017
Whippoorwill survey Johnston Point, Cambium, June 2017.
Peer Review Response, Ecological Services. C. Appendix of Personal Letters and Letters of Endorsement submitted to South Frontenac Township and/or Countyleading up to the November 2017 Petition
Letter of Endorsement, Request for independent peer review of EIA, March 17, 2015.
Personal letter, Development of Johnston Point, March 18, 2015.
Personal letter, Ontario’s Climate Change Strategy Discussion Paper reflected on Johnston Point, June 1, 2015.
Letter of Endorsement, Concern for Johnston Point, June 6, 2015.
Letter of Endorsement, Concern over Planning Report for Approval of Applewood Condominium Agreement, March 1, 2016 Council Meeting, March 1, 2016.
Letter of Endorsement, March 2016 Settlement Agreement on Johnston Point, March 31, 2016
Personal Letter, MNRF letter to Township, October 11, 2016.
Personal Letter, Submission of Toby Thorne’s Bat Activity Survey Report, September 19,
Personal Letter, Submission of Cambium Whippoorwill Survey, November 14, 2017.
Personal Letter, Nov. 28th delegation for call to action on ESA Permit, December 2, 2017.
Personal Letter, Council Agenda (a) Notice of Motion commenting on Environmental Registry listing 013-1130 and (b) Beach’s response to Delegation, December 5, 2017.
Catherine Warren’s Sept 2016 and Oct 2015 letters
Beach’s response to our Delegation, November 28, 2017 .pdf
October 18, 2016 Motion on MNRF Benefit Permit Authorization and Mitigation. To Whom It May Concern:

Page 79Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the ESA permit. It is one, I do not take lightly for two reasons. One, I am a person that has lived and raised a family in a subdivision near similar wetland on Loughborough Lake, and someone who has worried over the course of 25 years how exactly to measure and balance the negative impacts of suburban development of which I am a part. I’ve witnessed first hand the erosion of our Township’s natural heritage and cultural fabric in my ‘exclusive waterfront community’, and I have experienced a developer’s saddling of lot owners and the municipality with unforeseen burdens as a result of authority’s blind faith in compliance, and lack of enforcement of policy and agreements. I weigh this permit, as I did in my bid for Party status at the April 2016 OMB appeal against the fact that there are literally hundreds of subdivision proposals currently in process in South Frontenac Township. Two, my daughter’s and I are earth scientists – a climate change biologist, and environmental and geological engineers. It is our knowledge and understanding we put into local action in 2005, advocating and designing youth-led educational programs for the poorly mentioned United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). They now color, and are woven into, every aspect of our life – including our opinions on Johnston Point. The MDGs are 8 international development goals pledged by ALL UN member states at the September 2000 UN Millennium Assembly. They vitally link sustainable global development to issues of poverty, education, disease, climate change, environmental degradation, and conflict, and set specific, time-bound objectives to be achieved by 2015. With the 2015 Paris Climate Summit, the MDGs have transitioned to the SDGs the Sustainable Development Goals – as the post-2015 development agenda. While Africa was the focus of the MDGs, they were set as a global framework for every country to strive towards as a means of squarely addressing poverty, in all its dimensions, and tackling the daunting challenges of climate change and loss of biodiversity. Yet, if you ask your friends and colleagues what the MDGs are, my bet is that you will get a blank stare. When I think of whether or not to issue this ER permit, I don’t think first and foremost of what is convenient for Magenta Development Corp. I think of MDG 7 – to ensure environmental sustainability – carried forward in the SDGs, and centered on the United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and Convention on Biodiversity (COB). I think of the planetary boundaries around which the international community recognizes safe operating limits for humanity and preconditions for sustainable development, understanding that we are pressing dangerously hard against the physical boundaries of Earth, and doing so in very full knowledge and at all our own peril. I think of not just urgency, but also of opportunity if only we empower people and politics to take ownership of this global framework. It means constant and concerted effort to ensure our province’s law and policies that are reflected in the MDGs, flow, and not just trickle, to protect the species at risk and their natural heritage environment in my own backyard. Meela Melnik-Proud

Page 80Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

AGENDA ITEM #c)

ER 013-1130 To the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, PROTECT: To keep safe from harm or injury. You are the governing body that has been given the honour and responsibility to oversee that all of Ontario’s species at risk, and their habitats, are protected. We, as individual Ontarians, look to you as the experts, whose passion for the protection of our beautiful yet fragile ecosystems commits you to serve our province and keep safe from harm or injury our natural resources and forests as mandated by law. Naively, when the glaring inaccuracies, oversights, and omissions on the part of the Johnston Point’s developer and his ecologist were first discovered, then challenged, and then proven to be inadequate, the public believed that it would lead to accountability, corrective measures and disciplinary action. However, instead of that reasonable expectation, the local township, county, and the MNRF chose not to address this issue and chose not to protect the confirmed six species at risk on Johnston Point, but rather chose to stand behind the decision to issue a proposed overall benefit permit with the full knowledge that large scale damaging construction work has already commenced on site, protective environmental buffer zones and neighbouring property had already been cleared, and that all of this destruction may have already contravened the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The MNRF has left monitoring of developments to the developer; an absurd method of policing if there ever was one. Two different set of rules seem to be at play here. Hunters and anglers can attest to the power of the MNRF when individuals are suspected of not following the law, but when confronted with possible contraventions of the ESA by a developer, the MNRF refuses to go onsite without an invitation and claims that they do not have the legal authority to do otherwise. The proposed development at Johnston Point is the perfect example of how government at many levels is failing the people of Ontario. Johnston Point has three provincially significant designations, one ANSI protection designated by the MNRF itself, one UNESCO global designation, six confirmed species at risk, eight possible more species at risk, four species at risk unaddressed in the proposed benefit permit, and two scientific reports paid for by local citizens using MNRF protocols that disprove the developer’s claims and confirm two additional species at risk onsite. Shockingly these reports were barely acknowledged and glossed over by the MNRF. In addition, Johnston Point has a local municipality that acknowledges its incapacity to monitor the development, two provincial agencies insisting they cannot go onsite to enforce the law, and a developer who has been unable to identify any species at risk but who has been appointed with the task of protecting them and regulating himself. The proposed benefit is too vague, offers little to no protection for the species at risk on site, will not be monitored or enforced, and does not take into account the cumulative effects of this development along with the new development by the same developer, also in a provincially significant wetland, on the south shore, almost directly across the lake from Johnston Point. Quite simply, if Johnston Point Plan of Condominium is allowed to go ahead, then there is no place in Ontario which is safe from development. The entire approval process from township council to the MNRF’s posting of the proposed benefit permit has eroded the public’s confidence in our various government’s efforts, ability, and willingness to protect species at risk, either on Johnston Point or anywhere in Ontario. The public has learned that developers know that the bar is low, the financial prize is high, the public can be silenced, and that the government is complacent and actively on-board with these ecologically detrimental developments. This is the time for the MNRF to restore public trust and confidence by denying the overall benefit permit ER 013-1130 and any future proposed permits for this development. Anything less will ultimately fail to protect Johnston Point’s many species at risk. Evonne Potts

Page 81Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Outline of Points for Delegation:

“The MNRF has never denied an ESA permit to any applicant.” NEVER! One small voice for the species at risk inspired one giant public outcry to make MNRF history.
‘Good Choices, Bad Choices’. The uniqueness and life science value of the species at risk habitat made it a good choice for the MNRF to protect in 1993. Why the change in policy?
There is no mention of the endangered Myotis in the MNRF’s posting of Overall ‘Benefit’ Permit.
There is no mention of the threatened Eastern Whippoorwill in the MNRF’s posting of Overall ‘Benefit’ Permit.
There is no mention of the endangered Butternut in the MNRF’s posting of Overall ‘Benefit’ Permit.
Truth and Reconsideration. The Plan of Condominium as decided by the OMB is not compliant with Natural Heritage policy under the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) nor has it been fully assessed. 6.1 Slow Down. It moves too fast. According to Provincial Standards for ESA Permits, Johnston Point is at Phase 1 not Phase 3 of the permit process. 6.2 Seen through a Species at Risk lens. The MNRF assessment, that was ruled by the OMB as conditional to draft plan approval, has confirmed 5 threatened and endangered species on Johnston Point, and our understanding that development is not permitted according almost EVERY natural heritage policy under Section 2.0 of the PPS.
Too little, too late. Johnston Point’s many species at risk and their natural heritage environment have NOT been duly addressed and safeguarded, as ordered by the OMB. Disruption and fragmentation of Johnston Point’s significant natural heritage system has already occurred, that may have contravened the Endangered Species Act.
Developers develop. They should not lead decision making in provincially significant environmental decisions.
For Sale. Buyer beware. Are unsuspecting buyers aware of the fact that a permit might not be issued, and/or that they are implicated in environmental restrictions imposed by the benefit permit conditions?
Let’s Make History together. This provincially significant environmental decision is through and through a developer-driven process, not a partnership with the people of Ontario who hold dear our Environmental Bill of Rights.

Page 82Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

AGENDA ITEM #c)

The MNRF has never denied an ESA permit to any applicant. NEVER! One small voice for the species at risk inspired one giant public outcry to make MNRF history. On November 28th, 2017, we asked for a delegation to Council to bring forward the petition and outline our reasoning for why we wanted this ESA permit denied. It was the culmination of a community effort that began when one person – Matt Rennie, an immediate neighbour to Johnston Point – made a public stance against this proposal in September 2014 saying, hold on, wait a minute, “Reading the Environmental Impact Assessment, it doesn’t paint a realistic picture of the area. On a regular basis, we see much of the wildlife the EIA mentions there is ‘no evidence’ of … gray rat snakes, milk snakes, salamanders, ospreys, turtles, tree frogs and the list goes on and on contrary to what the assessment would lead you to believe.” Community support for Matt, has only done one thing, and that is, it has grown. It is because more and more people have became aware of the development, and the way decisions are being made on it, particularly the fact that they rely heavily on the 2012 and 2014 Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) that had not identified any living species at risk, and had altogether overlooked the ANSI designation of the property. Following an open house on March 3, 2015, concerned citizens began directly calling on the Township for an independent review of the EIAs, submitting a March 17, 2015 letter with community endorsement (Appendix #1, p. 29, Appendix #2, p, 30) in support of two Motions expected to be voted on that evening - namely to closely re-evaluate the planner’s report to address 10 specific issues raised by the Battersea Loughborough Lake Association (BLLA), and a Motion for a qualified, independent peer review of the EIAs. Instead, we were informed that night of the Developer’s appeal to the OMB and that the Township would seek legal council in this regard - actions by both parties that effectively left citizens of South Frontenac Township locked out of the decision making process on Johnston Point, hinging everything on the appeal to the OMB invoked by the 180/120 day clause. Overnight the proposal for development of Johnston Point went from a community partnership to address legitimate concerns for Johnston Point’s endangered species and unique natural heritage, to closed-door legal sessions between the Township and the Developer, with decision-making aimed squarely at approval. 8

Page 83Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Our June 6, 2015 letter with community endorsement (Appendix #4, p. 36 and Appendix #3, p.33) kept up a call for openness, transparency and above all partnership in deciding on Johnston Point, going even so far as to obtain our own quote for what we considered to be a ‘gold standard’ independent review of the EIA’s to offer to the Township. Our March 1, 2016 letter with community endorsement (Appendix #5, p. 38 ) started calling for the Township to take a clear ‘No’ stance, with the release of the Planning Report for Approval of the Applewood Condominium Agreement – the first of two Plans of Condominium by Magenta in the same Provincially Significant Wetland Complex, (with EIAs also by Ecological Services, that were never peer reviewed). By this time, there was mounting evidence to deny the Johnston Point development: • In July 2015, the Township commission their own peer review of Johnston Point’s EIAs by experts of McIntosh-Perry (email attachment #1). It validated Matt’s observations on species at risk, and highly criticized the EIAs, and also brought Johnston Point to the attention of the MNRF over possible ESA contraventions that may have already occurred due to development work, unauthorized by the MNRF in 2012; • Matt Rennie had documented Magenta’s contraventions of the Cataraqui Regional Conservation Authority (CRCA) dock permit for Applewood that he brought forward to authorities in November 2015. While they were dismissed by the CRCA, they raised Council debate over monitoring developer compliance going forward, which led to, • the Township’s CAO warning in granting final approval to Applewood that “the Township does not have the processes or staffing capacity in place to effectively manage the agreement as written.” (Planning Department County File: 10T-2013/001). It still admittedly doesn’t, neither for Applewood nor for Johnston Point. Our March 31, 2016 letter with community endorsement (Appendix #6, p.40) was a public call for clarity over the March 2016 Settlement Agreement on Johnston Point heading into the April 2016 OMB hearing. We asked for clarity on the misleading media headlines in our local newspaper “County approves condo project”, and an explanation from Township and County councilors, as to why they were approving the settlement conditions quickly, and with no further review, given that on December 1st 2015, Township councilors voted AGAINST the Conditions of Draft Plan Approval for Johnston Point. Note: the link to the Whig Standard article from March 2016, now reads “County council OKs disputed condo project .” http://www.thewhig.com/2016/03/16/county-council-oks-disputed-condo-project Our November 24, 2016 Petition with community endorsement (Appendix #10, #11, pp. 4849) in response to the ER posting, is strong evidence that public concern over this development has not stopped peaking. Our delegation brought the petition forward to the Township on November 28, 2017, sponsored by Battersea Loughborough Lake Association (BLLA), and having already received dozens of hand written signatures, and hundreds of online endorsements, when it had only started circulating three days earlier. To date, over 1265 have signed the online petition. https://www.change.org/p/battersea-loughborough-lake-association-stop-development-ofjohnston-point-on-loughborough-lake-north-of-kingston-ontario We have learned by experience with this controversial Plan for Condominium Development that our Township’s motto isn’t just a Township motto. “Community IS our greatest strength” and Matt Rennie’s reasoned stance in September 2014 certainly has solid community ground. 9

Page 84Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

AGENDA ITEM #c)

‘Good Choices, Bad Choices’. The uniqueness and life science value of the species at risk habitat made it a good choice for the MNRF to protect in 1993. Why the change in policy?

We submitted our petition to Council along with the following two documents (email Attachments # 1and 2):

Good Choices, Bad Choices, the 2017 Environmental Protection Report of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, recognizing the ECO as our guardian of the Environmental Bill of Rights under which the ESA permit is posted for public comment. We drew our Council’s attention in particular to Chapter 7 - ‘Getting Approvals Wrong’. (https://eco.on.ca/reports/2017-good-choices-bad-choices/).
Ontario’s Endangered Species Act Submission Standards for Activity Review and 17(2)(c) Overall Benefit Permits, to ensure that all of Township agrees with us on the processes and guiding principles that the proponent and the MNRF must be held accountable for when developing and assessing overall benefit permits under subclause 17(2)(c) of the ESA. http://files.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-at-risk/stdprod_093115.pdf Species at risk on Johnston Point are contained in part, or in whole, by Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW), Significant Woodland, Significant Wildlife Habitat and Fish Habitat, and Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) that the MNRF identified and recommended for protection in 1993. In July 2015, experts of McIntosh-Perry conducted a single site visit as part of their peer review that directly observed Blanding’s Turtle, Snapping Turtle, and Butternut, and noted suitable habitat on the property for Gray Ratsnake, Eastern Whippoorwill, Cerulean Warbler, Least Bittern, Eastern Wood-PeWee, Wood Thrush, Golden-winged Warbler, Milksnake, Eastern Ribbonsnake, Northern Map Turtle and Broad Beech Fern. Together with the ANSI designation, it speaks volumes on why the public is outspoken about protecting Johnston Point from development, and why we respectfully ask that this ESA permit be denied. 10

Page 85Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

AGENDA ITEM #c)

As stated in the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (NHRM), “Life science ANSIs are significant representative segments of Ontario’s biodiversity and natural landscapes … their native plants and animals, and their supporting environments. They contain relatively undisturbed vegetation and landforms, and their associated species and communities … include the most significant and best examples of the natural heritage features in the province … play an important role in the protection of Ontario’s natural heritage, since they best represent the full spectrum of biological communities, natural landforms and environments across Ontario outside of provincial parks and conservation reserves.” According to the Ontario’s Endangered Species Act Submission Standards for Activity Review and 17(2)(c) Overall Benefit Permits, two of the guiding principles that must be considered with this permit are that:

“Outcomes should involve consideration of where the greatest overall benefit can be achieved for the species. • Location of the overall benefit actions should be biologically and ecologically appropriate for the species. • Overall benefit actions that focus on the local population or habitat adversely affected by the activity are preferred.”
“Proposed actions should involve consideration of ecological function. Actions will involve consideration of: • ecological and physical processes within the relevant landscape context as well as the complexity of dynamic ecosystems; and • the degree to which the overall benefit actions improve the ability of the species at risk to carry out their various life processes.” What possible overall benefit offsets could improve the circumstances for Gray Ratsnake and Blanding’s Turtle in Ontario and justify habitat destruction on this property long since recognized as an ANSI and recommended by the MNRF for protection? What possible overall benefit could outweigh the benefit of leaving this unique and provincially significant habitat from any further disturbance in order that its ecological multi-function remains unchanged? Building and monitoring nest boxes, erecting warning signs, and providing educational and protection initiatives to achieve an overall benefit for Gray Ratsnake, and creating basking logs and nesting substrate to achieve an overall benefit for Blanding’s Turtle are deeply disturbing and low standards of protection. They echo the sentiments on page 248 of Good Choices, Bad Choices, the 2017 Environmental Protection Report of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario: “The ECO still stands behind the ESA in principle – it is a good law that has the potential to protect and recover species at risk. But as we have now reported on many occasions, the MNRF has utterly failed to implement the law effectively. With each passing year, the extent of this failure becomes more clear – the ministry has reduced what should have been a robust system for protecting species at risk to what is largely a paper exercise. The MNRF is failing to not just protect species at risk as intended under the law, but also to lead effective recovery programs. In the best case, the MNRF has created a system that leaves itself with a minimal role to play; in the worse case, it has a created a system designed to fail.” !The McIntosh-Perry peer review recognized that the “Loughborough Lake Swamp, Provincial

life science ANSI (EO ID 1381) is located within Long Bay and extends onto the subject 11

Page 86Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

AGENDA ITEM #c)

property and it approximates the boundaries of the Loughborough Lake Complex, Provincially Significant Wetland (EO ID 8149) … this is a candidate ANSI, however it reflects the area that is generally the most important or sensitive within an areas labelled as PSW and therefore should receive more consideration for potential impacts to the ecosystem.” (McIntosh-Perry EIA peer review, page 9). In our OMB statement (email attachment #2), we respectfully asked the Board to give ‘significant’ designation to Johnston Point’s ANSI as per Section 10.3 of the Natural Heritage Reference Manual: “Planning authorities may choose to protect candidate ANSIs as locally or regionally significant natural heritage features and areas as per the PPS definition for ‘significant.’” With our ER submission, we respectfully ask not only that this permit be denied, but also that the MNRF follow through with their longstanding recommendation to protect Johnston Point, and give it full ANSI designation. We believe this would be in keeping with the new information now provided by the MNRF’s own negative impact assessment of this proposal; the Butternut Health Assessment the MNRF called for in August 2016; and, the SAR reports for the endangered Myotis and Whippoorwill that we have previously submitted to the MNRF. 3. There is no mention of the endangered Myotis in the MNRF’s posting of Overall ‘Benefit’ Permit.

Note: this photograph is not of a Little Brown Myotis on Johnston Point. It was given to us courtesy Toby J. Thorne, the bat expert we commissioned for our SAR bat survey in July 2017, to help us communicate his findings of Myotis on Johnston Point.

On September 14, 2016 we submitted Toby Thorne’s Bat Activity Survey Report on Johnston Point to the MNRF (email attachments #4 and #5). On September 18, 2017, we submitted it to the Township, having learned from the MNRF that it had not already been forwarded. We included it together with the World Wildlife Fund’s 2017 Living Planet Report Canada - the world’s leading organization in wildlife conservation and endangered species. (Appendix #8, p.44). We drew authority’s attention to p. 20 of the WWF report that featured the endangered Little Brown Bat - one of three species ever to have been emergency listed as Endangered federally in 2014. We emphasized, once again, our commitment to work in partnership with 12

Page 87Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Township and the MNRF to protect and recover species at risk in our own backyard, reinforced on this occasion, by submitting Toby Thorne’s report and addendum. We understood that the MNRF had specifically asked for SAR bat surveys of the property, and none had been found. Therefore, we took extra measures to ensure MNRF’s most recent bat survey protocol was followed, and that it was conducted by a certified bat expert holding specific skills in acoustic surveying and call identification of bats, in order to ensure decisionmaking regarding the endangered Myotis was based on the best available scientific information and community knowledge. We learned the details on the previous bat surveys that had been conducted on Johnston Point, only by submitting a freedom of information request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Our request was formally received on December 23, 2016, but we did not receive the information until June 30, 2017, when the bat survey was already underway, which required an addendum to Toby Thorne’s report, after we forwarded him relevant new information (email attachment #5). Toby Thorne’s bat survey was guided by MNRF’s April 2017 ‘Survey Protocol for Species at Risk Bats within Treed Habitats’, using an automated recorder deployed for 13 nights directly on Johnston Point, on a neighboring property within approximately 30 m of Lot #11. Between the period June 30, 2017 to July 12, 2017, the acoustical survey recorded a total of 848 observations of Little Brown Myotis and a further 760 observations identified to Myotis genus, but not to species. Toby Thorne’s report concluded that “although the full OMRNF protocol for surveying SAR bats in treed habitat could not be followed due to the absence of site access, the presence of suitable ecosites, combined with the high level of acoustic activity from SAR bats indicates the likely presence of maternity habitat.” The addendum comments on the 2011 guidelines Ecological Services used in previous surveys, noting that “a series of updated guidance documents have been produced by the MNRF specifically relating to surveys for SAR bat activity in treed habitat.” It concludes that “the overwhelming evidence of SAR bat presence described in the primary report provides a clear and irrefutable indication that relevant species are present immediately adjacent to the site of proposed developments. Given the high mobility and foraging ecology of bats it would be wholly remarkable if they were not also present < 50 m away on the site itself, and accordingly more comprehensive acoustic surveys may be appropriate.” Measured against the findings of the World Wildlife Fund, we are a community that can turn the tide for this endangered species! According the WWF 2017 report, white-nose syndrome has wiped out 94 per cent of hibernating little brown bats in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and the disease is expected to infect the entire range in Canada by 2028, in what some ecologists consider this the most rapid decline of mammals ever documented. Toby Thorne’s findings of suitable ecosites on Johnston Point hosting a significant population of Little Brown Myotis, and the likely presence of maternity habitat within 50m of the recorder, should be the talk of our town that is celebrated across the nation. It should stop any further Plan of Development in its tracks as a most effective means to mitigating the devastating decline of this endangered species. We have had no further update from the MNRF following our email from MNRF’s Andy Baxter on September 14, 2017 indicating to us that he “ will share the Report and Addendum with the 13

Page 88Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

AGENDA ITEM #c)

project proponent to obtain their input as well as share this with MNRF biologists for review.” (personal email, Meela Melnik Proud September 2017) It is why the posting of the proposed permit to the Environmental Registry, came so unexpectedly, and falls far short of our expectations. Given the findings and conclusion of this bat expert, we expected the MNRF to recognize Johnston Point as a balance ecological site for multiple species at risk, specifically where habitat for Gray Ratsnakes and Blanding’s Turtle is also suitable habitat for a significant Myotis population. We expected ‘overall benefit’ permit considerations to be weighed heavily against the value of keeping Johnston Point habitat intact so that Myotis genetics can play an unhindered role in disease resistance or tolerance. As in any species at risk where disease is the leading cause of the decline, it seems only natural to assume that individual or populations of little brown on Johnston Point have, or are able to develop a resistance or tolerance to white-nose syndrome. Yet, there was no call from the MNRF for further targeted bat surveys with up to date protocol, and no mention of the endangered Myotis on the ER posting for Overall ‘Benefit’ Permit. 4. There is no mention of the threatened Eastern Whippoorwill in the MNRF’s posting of Overall ‘Benefit’ Permit.

! ! ! !

Note: this photograph is not of an Eastern Whippoorwill on Johnston Point. It was given to us courtesy a very close family friend who lives nearby, currently a M.Sc. student at Queen’s University, who conducted field work on Whippoorwill in area near to Johnston Point in Summer 2013 to identify possible causes of their population decline.

Though no Whippoorwills were found in the EIA’s, neighbors could tell you for certain they exist on the Point. They hear them call regularly, and have repeatedly reported those calls to the MNRF. We commissioned the Cambium study in June 2017 to confirm local common knowledge of this threatened species, and to identify Eastern Whippoorwill for decision makers, based on the best available scientific information. We have provided evidence that “the entirety of the peninsula is considered eastern whip-poor-will habitat under the ESA and damaging or destroying the forested areas without appropriate authorization is prohibited.” (email attachment #9). 14

Page 89Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

AGENDA ITEM #c)

The Whippoorwill report was forward to the Township, on November 14th 2017, with a request for an immediate delegation to Council in response to the ER notification (Appendix 9, p. 40). As with the Bat report, we had expected the MNRF to issue a call to Ecological Services for further targeted Whippoorwill surveys next season, not a notification of the ER posting with no mention of the threatened Eastern Whippoorwill. 5. There is no mention of the endangered Butternut in the MNRF’s posting of Overall ‘Benefit’ Permit.

Note: this photograph is not of a Butternut on Johnston Point. It was given to us courtesy John Urquhart to help us communicate the importance of Johnston Point’s Species at Risk. Mr. Urquhart was the Expert SAR Witness we brought forward to the OMB.

On October 6, 2016, a focused Butternut Health Assessment (BHA) of nine Butternut trees was conducted by Dale Kristensen, certified Butternut Health Assessor No. 128. It is our understanding that the MNRF called for the assessment following their site visit in August 2016, which identified Butternut trees in addition to the one observed in the McIntosh-Perry peer review. It is also our understanding that the BHA was focused around the immediate footprint of the Plan of Condominium, where no Butternuts had previously been identified by Ecological Services, other than two dead trees in the 2012 EIA. It is despite the fact, according to page 4 of their August 2015 peer review response, that Ecological Services “were always on the lookout between 2010 and 2015 for this species. In particular, we put a specific focus on the laneway route in 2011, and on all potential building sites in 2014, due to the potential tree clearing.” (email attachment #7). Experts of McIntosh-Perry, MNRF officials and a certified Butternut Health Assessor have provided authorities with evidence that, at a minimum, 9 Butternuts exist on the property. 15

Page 90Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Given the 42 hectare expanse of Johnston Point that is greater than 60% woodland, there is a high probability more Butternuts would be found. As for the Myotis Bat, we feel that a full BHA of the property is warranted, so that any ‘overall benefit’ permit considerations can be weighed heavily against the value of keeping Johnston Point habitat intact so that Butternut genetics can play an unhindered role in disease resistance or tolerance to Butternut Canker We are also concerned that Butternut trees may have been damaged or destroyed during the two phases of road development, during the blasting that occurred to install underground hydro, and during extensive clearing in the 30m environmental buffer zone along the shoreline. From information obtained through the Freedom of Information Act in June 2017, we know for certain that at least one of the nine Butternuts identified in the BHA was “beside the main roadway.” Yet, again, the Township was not aware of the BHA, and there was no mention of the endangered Butternut on the ER posting for Overall ‘Benefit’ Permit. 6. Truth and Reconsideration. The Plan of Condominium as decided by the OMB is not compliant with Natural Heritage policy under the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) nor has it been fully assessed.

Page 91Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

AGENDA ITEM #c)

6.1 Slow Down. It moves too fast. According to Provincial Standards for ESA Permits, the permit for Johnston Point is at Phase 1 not Phase 3 of the permit process. According to the Ontario’s Endangered Species Act Submission Standards for Activity Review and 17(2)(c) Overall Benefit Permits, “the process for MNR to assess proposed activities and advise proponents on whether or not they should seek an overall benefit, and then having a proponent apply for an overall benefit permit, is multi-phased,” Phase 1- Information Gathering, Phase 2 - Activity Review and Assessment, Phase 3 - Permit Application and Assessment, Phase 4 - Permit Drafting, Phase 5 - Permit Decision and Phase 6 -Permit Implementation. It is our understanding that we are only on Phase 1, Information Gathering, to determine: • “whether any protected species at risk or their habitats are present at or near the location of the proposed activity; • the determination of potential effects of the activity on these species and habitats and whether the activity is likely to contravene subsection 9(1) or 10(1) of the ESA; and • whether it is advisable for the proponent to apply for an overall benefit permit under clause 17(2)(c) of the ESA prior to proceeding with the activity. “ The MNRF’s negative assessment of this proposal, together with findings now of Butternut, Myotis Bat and Whippoorwill by independent investigation, make it clear that species at risk had not been identified by the developer, so that further targeted surveys are now needed to ensure that other species at risk noted in the McIntosh Perry peer review have not also been missed, and also to ensure that negative habitat impact is fully assessed. As such, due process on this permit is not being followed according to the first principle outlined in the Submission Standards for 17(2)(c) Permits that is: “Overall benefit will be scaled and assessed on a contextual basis (e.g., species by species and activity by activity). Determining the sufficiency of overall benefit actions will involve consideration of: • baseline condition of the species (e.g., numbers, current state, trend, sensitivity to disturbance, life processes) or habitat (e.g., amount, current state, trend, sensitivity to disturbance and functionality) that would be adversely affected by the activity; • the severity, geographic extent, duration and permanency of the potential adverse effects likely to result from the proposed activity; • whether the proposed overall benefit actions are biologically and ecologically appropriate for the species; • Recognition that in some circumstances, given the above, it may not be possible to achieve an overall benefit for the species. Our surveys for Myotis Bat and Whippoorwill have identified these species and their habitat on Johnston Point this past field season, but our experts did not have access to the property. Up until those reports, neither of these species had been found by the developer’s ecological consultants, so how can baseline conditions of these species have been established or assessed? Butternut were identified by the McIntosh-Perry review in July 2015 and the BHA in August 2016, but we worry that did not lead to a full reassessment of the EIAs specifically in terms of this species. With the additional information on Butternut, Johnston Point can arguably now be classified as Provincially Significant Woodland according to each ecological function category under the ‘Recommended Significant Woodland Evaluation Criteria and Standards’ listed on pages 68-70 of the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (NHRM). The 2014 EIA acknowledged 17

Page 92Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

AGENDA ITEM #c)

that Johnston Point meets Proximity (2b) and Water Protection (2d) criteria. However, Woodland Linkage (2c) and Woodland Diversity (2e) were dismissed on the basis of lack of other significant features and unique woodland species, and Interior Habitat (2a) was dismissed “due to the road gap separation and the narrow width of the point”. The occurrence of SAR that includes Butternut, and the ANSI designation, both of which were overlooked in the 2014 EIA, now provide supporting evidence for Woodland Linkage (2c) and Woodland Diversity (2e). According to the NHRM, Interior Habitat criteria for road gap separation only applies for a “maintained public road,” whereas the proposal for development of Johnston Point was specifically submitted under the Plan of Condominium to eliminate the Township’s responsibility for maintaining the road. This fact is made clear with Condition 5A of Draft Plan Approval: “That the vacant land condominium agreement contains wording applying to all of the proposed units setting out the municipality’s limited service policies to recognize that there is no commitment or requirement by the municipality to assume responsibility for ownership or maintenance of the private lane within the plan.” According to Natural Heritage policy under the PPS, development is not permitted in Significant Woodlands, “unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impact on the natural features or their ecological functions.” Yet, heavy road construction crosscuts a swath, approximately 6m by 1100m wide through this woodland clearly visible by air. 6.2 Seen through a Species at Risk lens. The MNRF assessment, that was ruled by the OMB as conditional to draft plan approval, has confirmed 5 threatened and endangered species on Johnston Point, and our understanding that development is not permitted according almost EVERY natural heritage policy under Section 2.0 of the PPS. Non-compliance with Natural Heritage policy under the PPS was a fundamental concern that experts of McIntosh-Perry and the MNRF had warned the Township about with the July 2015 peer review of the EIAs, and that we had brought forward to the OMB, specifically asking the Board to consider that the Draft Plan was not compliant with the PPS and the ESA. We lost our bid for Party Status, and the Township and County chose not to engage McIntoshPerry or the MNRF in the OMB process. The Board accepted “the uncontested evidence and opinion of Mr. Keene [the proponent’s Planner] to find that the development proposal aligns with the principles of good land use planning, and is consistent with the policy directions established by the PPS.“ (email attachment #2). Therefore, up until the MNRF assessment of this proposal, decision makers had all endorsed the opinions and evidence of Ecological Service’s August 2016 response to the McIntosh-Perry peer review, “that the proposed development will not cause a negative impact to significant natural heritage features for the purposes of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and the South Frontenac Township Official Plan (OP), and will not be in violation of the Endangered Species Act”. (email attachment #7). However, all parties to the OMB, did agreed that approval was conditional of an MNRF assessment of the proposal specifically through a species at risk lens. It can now be demonstrated that the Draft Plan, as written and proposed to the OMB is fully non-compliant with subsection 3(5) of the Planning Act, which holds that all planning decisions on Johnston Point “shall be consistent” with Natural Heritage policy under Section 2.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement as stated on pages 22-23: 18

Page 93Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

AGENDA ITEM #c)

“2.1.1 Natural features and areas shall be protected for the long term. 2.1.2 The diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, and the long-term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems, should be maintained, restored or, where possible, improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features and ground water features… 2.1.4 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in: a) significant wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E1; … 2.1.5 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in: …b)significant woodlands in Ecoregions 6E … d) significant wildlife habitat; e) significant areas of natural and scientific interest; … unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions… 2.1.6 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in fish habitat except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements. 2.1.7 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in habitat of endangered species and threatened species, except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements. 2.1.8 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 2.1.4, 2.1.5, and 2.1.6 unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions.”

Furthermore, it is our understanding that, according to the Natural Heritage Reference Manual, page 49, “a permit that would authorize the destruction of endangered or threatened species habitat under the ESA cannot be used to justify development and site alteration in a natural heritage feature where such is not permitted for other reasons (e.g., significant wetland).” We realize that strictly speaking, this Point 6.2 strays beyond the ESA permit under consideration and instead raises larger planning/policy issues and criticizes the outcome of the OMB decision. But we believe fundamentally that larger planning/policy issues need to be raised, as this was not the way this proposal was delivered to the OMB, and the settlement agreement decided on by our Township and our County. The MNRF called for an Information Gathering Form following the July 2015 McIntosh-Perry review. It came in a letter to Township from MNRF’s Catherine Warren, clearly warning of the impact to species at risk and their habitat going forward, and strongly advised that the MNRF be engaged in the decision making process and authorization of all further development work (Appendix #12, p. 51). Had the MNRF been engaged, and had the IGF been submitted prior to the OMB hearing, then authorities would have had the full information they needed in order to make informed decisions on this proposal, whereas they are only now beginning to understand that this development will likely be in contravention of the ESA and have negative impact to almost every Natural Heritage policy under Section 2.1 of the PPS. In their letter to the Township, in response to our request for a delegation (Appendix #13, p.52), Gary and Martha called on our Township to “ remember that our development was recommended for approval by the Township, after much scrutiny and debate, in the form of a Settlement 19

Page 94Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

AGENDA ITEM #c)

presented to and accepted by the OMB … It is critical that Council remember that these two Conditions were negotiated with the Township and that they were agreed to by us on the basis that the development would be approved. We negotiated in good faith and we have to believe that the Township did the same. We have followed through with the agreed upon Draft Plan Conditions. The OMNRF has fulfilled its mandate responsibly and in accordance with its Regulations and best practices. Council agreed that OMNRF had the mandate and the competency to protect the environment and species at risk and you are now being asked to violate that trust.” We would agree on only two points. First, that the MNRF does indeed have a mandate to protect the species at risk on Johnston Point, and second, that the Township negotiated with the Beach’s in good faith. But that faith was blind, and a conditional agreement is exactly that – conditional. We are responding to the Magenta Waterfront Development Corp., proposed ESA permit having read Chapter 7 of the ECO’s report, as it is reflected in our experience of trying to work in partnership with the municipality and the MNRF to protect the species at risk on Johnston Point. It speaks volumes on why we believe the County and the Township cannot, with any public confidence, approve conditions 5D and 5E that by OMB ruling were to “ensure that matters of Provincial interest as well as the public interest [are] appropriately addressed and duly safeguarded “. Given that damage and destruction has already occurred on Johnston Point, we have had no such insurance. Furthermore, the MNRF assessment has determined that this proposal is no longer just a matter between the Beaches and our Township, it is an important environmental government decision that could have, and should have been fully addressed by the OMB before any further damage was done to this unique Natural Heritage gem. 7. Too little, too late. Johnston Point’s many species at risk and their natural heritage environment have NOT been duly addressed and safeguarded. Disruption and fragmentation of Johnston Point’s significant natural heritage system has already occurred, that may have contravened the Endangered Species Act.

Page 95Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

AGENDA ITEM #c)

There is just so much we find wrong about this conditional approval. It is not consistent with our values and principles, our Township’s values or policies, or the values and policies of our provincial government, and it is not it in accordance with Ontario law as we understand it written in the Planning Act, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR). Nothing demonstrates this better than the fact that a road for this Plan of Condominium that has yet to be approved marks a 1000m scar across this unique natural heritage property that is so clearly visible by air, and, here on the ground by the Township, the County and the MNRF. It speaks volumes, and it is deeply disturbing that we are commenting on an overall benefit permit AFTER heavy road construction, AFTER blasting, and AFTER extensive clearing - activities without permit that are otherwise prohibited under the ESA. In July 2015 the Township’s own peer review of the EIA (email attachment #1): • revealed the potential for this Plan of Condominium to result in serious and long-term negative impact on Johnston Point’s species at risk and natural heritage features and ecological functions, • warned that the Developer may not have exercised due diligence to ensure that road construction that had already been undertaken on the property may have contravened the ESA, • raised these concerns directly to the MNRF on behalf of the Township and County, who“strongly recommended that the MNR be consulted prior to any further site alteration to ensure proposed development does not contravene the Endangered Species Act and its associated regulations; and obtain any necessary approvals or permits required to undertake activities that have the potential for adverse impacts to species at risk and their habitat.”(Appendix #12, p. 51). Conditions 5D and 5E were negotiated with the knowledge of the July 2015 peer review, and according to the OMB ruling, “Conditions of Draft Plan Approval will ensure that matters of Provincial interest as well as the public interest is appropriately addressed and duly safeguarded … Condition 5D and 5E, serve to ensure that the necessary approvals and/or permissions are appropriately obtained. It is not otherwise the role of the Board to either regulate or scrutinize compliance with the ESA.” The results of the MNRF assessment were not made known to the Township until the September 30, 2016 notification from Catherine Warren that the MNRF had “received an application from the proponent for an overall benefit permit under the Endangered Species Act… The permit application we are currently considering involves Gray Ratsnake and Blanding’s Turtle. If the application is successful it would allow the proponent to undertake works that may be detrimental to the habitat and individuals of these species.” (Appendix #12, p. 51). Too little, too late for the species at risk, and their natural heritage environment on Johnston Point. Heavy road construction began on Johnston Point immediately following the April 2016 OMB hearing without MNRF knowledge or authorization, and without the developer having submitted that the Information Gathering Form (IGF). Concerned lake residents reported this work to the MNRF, the Township and the County. The MNRF did not call for a stop order, and Council defeated a May 17, 2016 Motion that would 21

Page 96Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

AGENDA ITEM #c)

have had the Township submit concern for development activity to the MNRF and call for the Township and County planners to account for work authorization. Therefore further site alteration was allowed to continue without the MNRF assessment of the IGF, while crucial questions raised by concerned citizens regarding work on the property and monitoring of the settlement agreement remained unanswered. It is still not clear to us who, if anyone, approved this work being done before conditions 5D and 5E of Draft Plan Approval were met. On at least four separate occasions since the April 2016 OMB, local residents have brought unauthorized development activity on Johnston Point to the attention of authorities. Most recently it was for extensive clearing, coincidentally in the immediate vicinity of the acoustical survey for SAR Bats that was conducted on property adjacent to Lot #11. (Appendix #7, p. 42). In the days immediately prior to the survey, the owner had witnessed and reported illegal clearing of forest undergrowth and trimming of large trees to the extent that the proponent had inadvertently created a roadway through the owner’s bush property onto the proponent’s property. The private property owner had reported that activity to the Township and the MNRF in June 2017. To our knowledge, it has not been investigated in light of Toby Thorne’s SAR Bat report that was submitted to the Township and the MNRF in September 2017 and identified the likely presence of maternity habitat in the same vicinity. In keeping with the ESA, it is our responsibility to ensure that it is. As a result of omissions and oversights in the proponent’s environmental assessment; the proponent’s failure to follow due process to obtain MNRF approvals and authorizations; and/or authorities incapacity to oversee the conditions of draft plan approval and monitor developer compliance, disruption and fragmentation of Johnston Point’s significant natural heritage system has already occurred. The many natural heritage features and their ecological functions may have already been seriously and negatively impacted, and the Endangered Species Act (species and habitat protection) may have already been contravened, at a minimum, for Gray Ratsnake and Blanding’s Turtle AND Myotis Bat, Eastern Whippoorwill and Butternut. Species at risk and their natural heritage environment have NOT been duly addressed and have NOT been duly safeguarded. How can the public, or the MNRF have any confidence in the developer’s conditions of benefit permit going forward, or the authorities’ ability to oversee them? Again, we echo the sentiments ‘Getting Approvals Wrong’, Chapter 7 of the ECO’s 2017 Report, “…the MNRF has utterly failed to implement the law effectively.” We respectfully ask the MNRF to deny this permit bases on the following two statements concerning the authorities responsible for this significant provincial matter:

“The CAO advises Council that the Township does not have the processes or staffing capacity in place to effectively manage the agreement as written […]”(February 26, 2016, Planning Department County File: 10T-2013/001)
“None of the essential compliance and enforcement information is tracked … the MNRF has no legal authority to conduct routine on-the-ground compliance monitoring of registered activities.” (the 2017 Environmental Protection Report of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario). 22

Page 97Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Developers develop. They should not lead decision making in provincially significant environmental decisions.

Photo of Blanding’s Turtle on Matt Rennie’s property, immediately adjacent to, and sharing identical habitat with, Johnston Point.

The ER posting reads that “Reasonable alternatives are being considered, including ones that would not adversely affect the species, and may include not proceeding with the new development, reducing the number of lots to be developed, and using alternate methods, equipment, designs, etc. to carry out the proposed activity.” All of these activities involve serious changes to the conditions of draft plan that should draw the MNRF and the Township back to the October 2016 Motion on Benefit Permit Authorization and Mitigation, and the condition under which it was amended to remove the clause “that the Township write the MNRF to express our preference for species at risk habitat on Johnston’s point be left as is, rather destroyed in a trade off.” (Appendix #14, p. 53). It was in response to the Township’s notification from MNRF’s Catherine Warren last September 30, 2016 that the MNRF had received an application from the proponent for an overall benefit permit. In closed session just prior to the vote, the Township’s lawyer had Council amend the Motion to remove the mitigation clause, and there was no further public discussion. It was our understanding that it was because it would be seen as an attempt to change the conditions of draft plan. The Township has been the acting authority for the County on Johnston Point. The OMB ruled that the County administer the conditions of draft plan, jointly with the MNRF, to regulate and scrutinize compliance with the ESA specifically through Conditions 5D and 5E. Given the MNRF’s negative impact assessment of the proposal, legitimate and fundamental changes to the Conditions of Draft Plan were indeed required then, as they are now, and the OMB allowed for those changes, pending the MNRF’s assessment as per line number [56]: “In the event there are difficulties implementing any of the conditions of draft plan approval, or if any changes to the draft plan are required, the Board may be spoken to further.” Given that “NOT proceeding with this development” is a “reasonable alternative” under consideration of the 23

Page 98Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Developer and the MNRF, we hold that it was the MNRF’s responsibility to have notified and fully engaged the Township in these considerations. We respectfully ask that the MNRF open a dialogue with the Township on the October 2016 Motion, that should have been opened when the amended Motion was unaminously passed last fall. We respectfully ask for that dialogue to focus on the Ontario’s Endangered Species Act Submission Standards for Activity Review and 17(2)(c) Overall Benefit Permits, which states that “ Assessment of overall benefit will involve the consideration of relevant uncertainties and risks (e.g., variability of ecological processes, level of understanding of the species, impacts of activities, mitigation measures and overall benefit actions such as habitat creation). • It is recognized there is uncertainty in the collective understanding about a species at risk, potential adverse effects of a proposed activity, and outcomes of overall benefit actions. The degree of uncertainty in these factors will be considered in determining the type, amount and magnitude of the overall benefit actions required. • Where there is an increased potential for risk to the species or its habitat or proposed overall benefit actions carry a higher degree of uncertainty, determination of the adequacy of the overall benefit plan will err on the side of caution in favour of affording greater benefits to the species or habitat. “ Concerned citizens have been assessing the Conditions of Draft Plan Approval, the basis on which they have been decided on, and the manner in which they have, and will be, monitored for compliance. We have now assessed the proposal for overall benefit permit. As a community, we consider the relevant uncertainties and risks to be great, and an increased potential for risk, at a minimum, to Butternut (endangered), Myotis Bat (endangered), Blanding’s Turtle (threatened), Gray Ratsnake (threatened) and Eastern Whippoorwill (threatened). As a community, we err on the side of caution, and in favor of affording greater benefits to these species and their habitat, in respectfully asking the MNRF to deny this ESA permit. It is a request in keeping with the letter from the Battersea Loughborough Lake Association, that we read at the November 28, 2017 delegation to Township Council: “1. The entire proposed Plan of Condominium development and the Conditions of Draft Plan Approval be reviewed as required by law and as authorized by the OMB decision issued on June 28, 2016. As per line [56] … “In the event there are difficulties implementing any of the conditions of draft plan approval, or if any changes to the draft plan are required, the Board may be spoken to further.” This plan was originally conditionally approved by the Township and the County and the OMB under false claims and oversights. In order to be open, transparent and fair, it must be reviewed again as it pertains to the Planning Act and the Endangered Species Act by the Township, the County and the OMB, this time with the full knowledge that among other things: • • •

Several species at risk live on Johnston Point and that this development will result in the killing, harming and harassing of them and/or destruction of their habitat. Johnston Point is a candidate ANSI identified and recommended by the MNR for protection in 1993, a fact overlooked by the developer’s EIAs. As well as a candidate ANSI, Johnston Point is in whole, or in part, in Provincially Significant Wetland, Provincially Significant Wildlife and Fish Habitat, Provincially Significant Woodland therefore a housing development is not permitted under the Provincial Policy Statement and South Frontenac Township’s Official Plan. 24

Page 99Ms. of Sarah 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and

AGENDA ITEM #c)

That township support our request to the MNRF to deny the proposed benefit permit based on the following reasons: • The MNRF’s process is proponent driven and proponent monitored, yet this proponent was unable to recognize or identify to the Township, or the County or the OMB any living species at risk on Johnston Point which is a cause for concern. • The proposed permit only addresses two of the six species at risk known to exist on Johnston Point. • There is the very high possibility that more species at risk are on Johnston Point. • The proposed permit is too vague and unclear as to what actions are being proposed and what mitigation methods are being suggested. • Mitigation methods have not been proven to be successful. • The cumulative effects of this type of damage are not known to the MNRF. • The MNRF claims not to have the legal authority to conduct routine on-the-ground compliance monitoring of registered activities. • The MNRF does not track any of the essential compliance and enforcement information. • Despite all of the above the MNRF has never denied an Overall Benefit Permit leading us to consider how effectively the Endangered Species Act is being enforced. • There is a concern that there is no mechanism to appeal the MNRF’s decision.
Since township has a role in the long term consequences of this decision, we ask that Township make their own on-site visit to assess site alteration, and that Township order an independent review of the findings of these six known species at risk on site and, order a full review of Johnston Point to establish if any other species at risk have been overlooked.”

For Sale. Buyer beware. Are unsuspecting buyers aware of the fact that a permit might not be issued, and/or that they are implicated in environmental restrictions imposed by the benefit permit conditions?

The for sale signs have been up for some time on Johnston Point, and are being featured in glossy full page ads, locally in our Whig Standard, and abroad in the Globe and Mail for exclusive sale, even before a final decision has been made. We see online that Bone Living wants to work in partnership with Magenta Waterfront Development Corp., to build ’net zero’ homes on site that has yet to be approved. (https://boneliving.com/johnstonpoint/ ). For sure, they are attracting potential buyers with their stated ‘eco’ values. But we wonder just what these corporations are telling potential buyers?

Page 100 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Do they have any idea that this property is even before the MNRF for ESA permit approval, and exactly what ‘overall benefit’ means? The notice on the Environmental Registry notes potential approaches to minimize adverse effects on individual members of Blanding’s Turtle and Rat Snake may include “Developing a Condominium Environmental Committee to support species at risk including the development of a landowner stewardship manual”. Are unsuspecting buyers aware of the fact that a permit might not be issued, and/or that they are implicated in environmental precautions contained in the benefit permit conditions? Given that they would be direct stakeholders in this provincially significant environmental decision, shouldn’t perspective purchasers be made aware of the need for Overall Benefit authorization and have full disclosure of the potential environmental restrictions the proposed permit contains? 10. Let’s Make History together. This provincially significant environmental decision is through and through a developer-driven process, not a partnership with the people of Ontario who hold dear our Environmental Bill of Rights.

We are committed to the protection and recovery of species at risk at Johnston Point, and the preservation of their Natural Heritage environment, in keeping with the serious concerns that Matt Rennie first raised to the Township in September 2014 that moved our community to action – first, to make a bid to stop this development at the OMB hearing in April 2016, and now with a Petition to the MNRF in response to the ER posting of this proposed ESA permit that has received signature and on-line endorsement by over 1000 people. What more can we do as citizens to show, and to explain why Johnston Point matters to us and it matters to all Ontarians? 26

Page 101 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Since 1993, this provincial jewel in our backyard has been identified and recommended by the MNRF recommended for protection as “land and water containing natural landscapes or features that have been identified as having life science values related to protection, scientific study or education.” (PPS p. 39; NHRM p. 90). It is stunning that the MNRF would now agree (in principle) to benefit permit conditions for this proposed Plan of Condominium on Johnston Point that is not only in ‘Area of Natural and Scientific Interest’, but is also in whole, or in part, designated by the province as Provincially Significant Wetland, Significant Woodland, Significant Wildlife Habitat and Fish Habitat. Any one of the these Provincially Significant designations on their own merit could have served to protect this area from housing development, let alone the confirmation now, despite the developer’s initial claims to the contrary, of five species at risk on this property, with the possibility of many more. It is inconceivable to us that this approval process has been allowed to go as far as it has. On what values are authorities allowing this Draft Plan of Condominium to proceed to a proposal for ‘OVERALL’ benefit? They are most certainly not the values we expect to be upheld by our Ministry of Natural Resources, and that we hold dear under our Environmental Bill of Rights. They are most certainly are not values that will uphold the Endangered Species Act, under which this permit will be issued, for the purpose of addressing the devastating decline in our nation’s wildlife that we brought forward to our Township with our submission of the SAR Bat Survey last September (Appendix #8, p. 44): “As human actions transform the natural world, Earth’s ecological systems are undergoing fundamental change, the consequences of which are breathtaking in scope and speed. Biological diversity is undergoing such catastrophic declines that scientists, in peerreviewed studies, are describing “biological annihilation” and warning of a sixth mass extinction in a historically unparalleled time-frame. To tackle biodiversity conservation in the face of increasing development pressures and climate change, WWF-Canada draws upon scientific principles … to ensure evidence-based decision-making, and to increase the likelihood of success.” World Wildlife Fund -Canada, 2017 Living Planet Report. “The MNRF has never denied an ESA permit to any applicant” NEVER! Here is a golden opportunity, with every reason and a community that wants to make history in understanding ‘Good Choices, Bad Choices’ to avoid the pitfalls of Chapter 7 of the ECO’s 2017 Environmental Protection Report, “Getting Approvals Wrong”. “Community IS our greatest strength.” Respectfully, Meela Melnik-Proud and Evonne Potts.

Page 102 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Appendix of Personal Letters and Letters of Endorsement submitted to South Frontenac Township and/or County leading up to the November 2017 Petition ( rvandewal@southfrontenac.net; councillornroberts@gmail.com; councillorrevill@gmail.com; robinsonw@bell.net; john.mcdougall@xplornet.ca; patbarr1@aol.com; markschjerning@outlook.com; 7846elbe@gmail.com; sfcron.sleeth@gmail.com; worr@southfrontenac.net)

Letter of Endorsement, Request for independent peer review of EIA, March 17, 2015 …. p.29
Personal letter, Development of Johnston Point, March 18, 2015 ……………………………….. p.30
Personal letter, Ontario’s Climate Change Strategy Discussion Paper reflected on Johnston Point, June 1, 2015 ………………………………………………………………………. p.33
Letter of Endorsement, Concern for Johnston Point, June 6, 2015 …………………………….. p.36
Letter of Endorsement, Concern over Planning Report for Approval of Applewood Condominium Agreement, March 1, 2016 Council Meeting, March 1, 2016 ……………… p.38
Letter of Endorsement, March 2016 Settlement Agreement on Johnston Point, March 31, 2016 ………………………………………………………………………………………………… p.40
Personal Letter, MNRF letter to Township, October 11, 2016 …………………………………… p.42
Personal Letter, Submission of Toby Thorne’s Bat Activity Survey Report, September 19, 2017 …………………………………………………………………………………………….. p.44
Personal Letter, Submission of Cambium Whippoorwill Survey, November 14, 2017 … p.47
Personal Letter, Nov. 28th delegation for call to action on ESA Permit, December 2, 2017 …………………………………………………………………………………………… p.48
Personal Letter, Council Agenda (a) Notice of Motion commenting on Environmental Registry listing 013-1130 and (b) Beach’s response to Delegation, December 5, 2017… p.49
Catherine Warren’s Sept 2016 and Oct 2015 letters from the MNRF …………………………. p.51
Beach’s response to our Delegation, November 28, 2017

…………………………………. p.52

October 18, 2016 Motion on MNRF Benefit Permit Authorization and Mitigation……… p.53

Page 103 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Letter of Endorsement: Request for independent peer review of EIA Development of Johnston Point, March 17, 2015 As a concerned resident of South Frontenac township, I am writing you to thank you for the courage shown on Tuesday to request an independent review of the EIA. I would like to underline the importance that the selection is made by council and not the developer and suggest that the name of the person or organization overseeing the environmental assessment is withheld from the developer to maximize independence.! ! I am happy to assist in whichever way I can, and feel free to email me at any time with any requests.! ! Cordially, Roel Vertegaal ENDORSEMENTS Mike Koen Diane Koen Matt Rennie Jeff Peters Sue Peters Anne Fisher Bob Fisher Margie McKenzie Charlie Cumpson Andrea Cumpson Orrie Cumpson Charlie Cumpson Hailey Conium Sally Blasko George Proud Rachael Melnik-Proud Meela Melnik-Proud Keith Sommerville Betty Sommerville Bernard Finn Luanne Finn Roland Somogyi Judy Vanhooser Jan Wood Anthony Cameron Jan Fox Greg Howastson

Erin Wicklam Annie G. Robison Doug Cameron Steve Pattison Erin Wylie Nick Fisher Susan Radford Paul Radford Sherry Vivian Evonne Potts Dan Kerr Carolyn Tanner Sophie Harrison-Saxe Mirjam Netten Marilyn Rennie Ray Rennie Karl Hammer Michelle Hammer Doug Fraser

Page 104 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Personal Letter, Development of Johnston Point, Loughborough Lake March 18, 2015 Mr. Mayor, Councillors; This letter is to first thank you for the recommendations from last week’s COW for a peer review of the Environmental Study on Johnston Point, and for the referral of Lindsay Mill’s report back to the Planning Department for re-appraisal. Secondly, it is to appeal for their re-evaluation not just in the specific terms of the Johnston Point Development but within the larger framework of the Frontenac Arch UNESCO Biosphere Reserve (FAB) of which it is a part (http://www.frontenacarchbiosphere.ca/), and in review of the Ontario Climate Change 2015 Discussion Paper that was featured for public consultation in Kingston last Thursday (see attached). I was taken aback in last week’s COW by the township planner’s response to Dr. Vertergaal’s March 3rd letter that draws attention to the United Nations biosphere status of our area. I was stunned at how quickly his letter was dismissed and his comments misinterpreted. I did not see it at all as an attack on any one type of person who will eventually take up residence in this, or any of the other township developments, and I do not say this lightly, for I am one of those people living in what he would consider to be “a large and dense suburban development”, namely the Kingsmere ‘Estates’ Subdivision. I’ve witnessed first hand the erosion of natural and cultural fabric of which he is concerned, and developers saddling lot owners and the municipality with unforeseen burdens, and I’ve worried over my 23 years on Loughborough Lake how exactly to measure the negative impacts of what is certainly not my “low-impact ecologically sensitive lifestyle”. I saw his letter as asking difficult questions necessary to respond to what are unquestionably global challenges of sustainable development being played out in communities all over the world. They are most certainly crucial environmental questions, easily overlooked, but not easily answered, for they are not only inherently complex and interconnected in nature, but they tend to play out over the much longer term, so that there is no immediate and tangible social, political or economic gain in asking them. But, if you know the score, and trust the science behind it, it seems that we stand to lose everything if we choose not to ask them and examine them carefully, so that we can make more informed and comprehensive decisions leading to new strategies going forward. It was what the public conversation over the Climate Change Discussion paper I attended last Thursday in Kingston was all about, summoning all Ontarians to collaborate for immediate, transformative action with bold vision to “establish Ontario as a leader in climate change mitigation and science; redesign and build strong carbon neutral economy, communities, infrastructure and energy; protect ecosystems including air land and water; and, leave a legacy of a healthy world for our children and future generations.” https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/climate-change-consultation Dr. Vertegaal’s letter prompted me to probe more deeply into the Frontenac Arch UNESCO Biosphere 30

Page 105 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Reserve, as I ask you to do, to shed light not only on the concerns the public has over the Johnson Point Development, but also appreciate how vital and valuable an asset it is for our community and our province in meeting its goals to adapt to climate change and reduce carbon emissions to 80% by 2050. This is a daunting challenge, but one in good keeping with political negotiations internationally. In September 2015, world leaders, from the 193 member states of the United Nations are expected to gather at the UN headquarters in New York, to adopt the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s), as a sustainable development framework to negotiate international carbon reduction targets, culminating in a binding agreement on climate change at the Paris Climate Conference (COP21) in December 2015. The province’s public collaborations through the Discussion Paper are also in keeping with the growing numbers of concerned citizens all over the world mobilizing around climate change. My daughters and I took to the streets of NYC for last September’s Peoples Climate March with some 400,000 others in the lead up to Paris 2015, and will be heading to Quebec City April 11th for the Act on Climate March to challenge Canada’s provinces and territories to live up to their commitments. http://act-on-climate.ca/about2/ The language in the streets, as in the science behind climate change, is clear and unmistakable, and its echoes around the world have been responded to accordingly in Ontario’s Climate Change Discussion Paper 2015 - “climate change is the critical issue of our time” and the 4 degree Celsius increase in the mean temperature expected for the planet over this century, “will have catastrophic effect”. What is even more frightening is that 2 degrees Celsius beyond the pre-industrial temperature, not 4, is the upper limit of safety that is internationally agreed on, and that climate change is only one of a framework of 9 planetary boundaries around which the international community recognizes safe operating limits for humanity and preconditions for sustainable development. These 9 earth system processes are climate change, ocean acidification, ozone depletion, pollution from nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers, global freshwater use, change in land use, biodiversity loss, atmospheric aerosol loading and chemical pollution – three, including climate change, rate of biodiversity loss, and human interference with the nitrogen cycle, we have already exceeded. These are of course rough scientific estimates carrying large uncertainties, but what is clear is that we are pressing dangerously hard against the physical boundaries of Earth and doing so in very full knowledge and at our own peril. I am surprised how little we hear about the UNESCO Biosphere Reserves and the vital role they can play in helping us stay within these boundaries. Seems to me, our local gem with international designation, and its untapped riches is not something we should overlook or take for granted. It will certainly be part of my submission to the Ontario Climate Change 2015 Discussion Paper, and it should be reconsidered as well in the peer review of the EIA to more thoroughly understand the ‘negative impacts’ of this proposed Johnson Point development. I’ve attached a picture my daughter Rachael emailed home to me on her first visit to UN headquarters several years ago, of her standing against a UN wall featuring a quote from Dag Hammarskjöld, the 2nd Secretary General of the United Nations and winner of the 1961 Nobel Peace Prize - “THE UN WAS NOT CREATED TO TAKE HUMANITY TO HEAVEN, BUT TO PREVENT IT FROM GOING TO HELL”. It is an image it seems I can never forget, and one that should burn in all our minds as we consider together the year ahead in politics as our world leaders teeter-totter at setting a binding international framework to address climate change that ultimately must flow, and not just trickle down to provincial and municipal jurisdictions to address development proposals like the Johnston Point happening in communities everywhere around the world. Heeding that stark message means asking difficult questions here at the grassroots, like what impact does the Johnson Point development have on the 34 flora and fauna ‘species at risk’ in our area, and what other economic opportunity is there for the area’s farmers and property owners to simply preserve their natural space AS IT IS? It means asking questions that speak to the core 31

Page 106 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

of our modern economy, in which the world’s population is projected to be 9 billion by 2050 with a global GDP of more then $200 trillion, to trigger a paradigm shift in dollars and sense, so that our farmers and property owners are paid for simply being stewards of our natural earth systems, and our impoverished Least Bitterns and Blanding Turtles are paid for their biodiversity services rendered, just as the Johnson Point forest and wetlands is paid for providing these dwindling species habitat and for the removal and storage of carbon dioxide. Co-incidental though the two events I attended last week seem - this provincial conversation on climate change that is underway across Ontario to prepare a new strategy for fighting climate change and your March 10th COW calling for more careful consideration of the Johnston Point proposal – they present our community with the perfect timing and opportunity to step forward, quite literally, as a world leader in climate change solutions through actively advancing the Frontenac Arch Biosphere as part of a global network of 631 biosphere reserves, and exemplifying it as a learning site for sustainable community development, and a truly protected area of natural and cultural heritage. Respectfully, Meela Melnik-Proud

Page 107 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Personal Letter, Ontario’s Climate Change Strategy Discussion Paper reflected on Johnston Point, June 1, 2015 “So let us not be blind to our differences, but let us also direct attention to our common interests and the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s futures. And we are all mortal.” John F. Kennedy, 1963

June 1, 2015 Dear Council; This letter is nothing short of a leap of faith to direct your attention to our common interests in Johnston Point and the means by which our differences could be resolved. It was inspired by Matt Rennie, who I met for the first time at the open house in March, and who has since taught me a great deal on the issues surrounding the proposal for its development. I have been struck by his passion to protect the lake for his children, as he fondly remembers growing up along its shores as a child, and I have come to more fully appreciate the tremendous effort and dedication of the BLLA to representing such interests of property owners in perpetuity, since its founding in 1963. Matt’s picture captures the very essence of the Johnston Point controversy and the resolve to work in good-will and partnership with council to ensure sustainable lake development. It speaks to the very heart and soul of our concerns, and our disillusionment and dissatisfaction over council’s response to the developer’s appeal that has effectively shut the public out of the decision making process. Much has changed for me since the first letter I submitted in March having newly become aware of the controversy surrounding Johnston Point. The two events that framed it - the public open house for the Climate Change Strategy Discussion Paper in Kingston on March 12 https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/climate-changeconsultation and the Act on Climate March in Quebec City April 11 http://act-on-climate.ca/ – have both come and gone with important lessons learned and brought to bear on Johnston Point, so that with the unprecedented nature of the appeal, I now find myself embroiled in the issue. What I learned from the Climate Change Discussion Paper was that our provincial government has a well planned strategy, but a clear lack of the leadership required to move its citizenry in the direction of its bold agenda to “establish Ontario as a leader in climate change mitigation and science; redesign and build strong carbon neutral economy, communities, infrastructure and energy; protect ecosystems including air land and water; and, leave a legacy of a healthy world for our children and future generations.” One should have expected the room at the Tett Centre for Creativity and Learning in Kingston to be overflowing with officials and concerned citizens wanting to share in the conversation. It wasn’t of course, and while that is something I do not find unusual, what I witnessed over and above the lack of public participation shocked me to my core – a handful of climate change deniers that were able to dominate the public open house, and the inability of its government representatives to credibly answer the questions

Page 108 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

this opposition posed so to instill public confidence. If I had attended that discussion having street-level knowledge on climate change, I would have left ignorant and indifferent and entirely confused over a problem that a plethora of scientists are telling us will make all life on earth a ‘species at risk’, and for which we are running out of time to address with clear strategies for recovery. Like the Whip-poor-will that haunts many of us as a ‘canary in the coal mine’ on Johnston Point, we are all threatened if you trust the science. And YES there ARE Whip-poor-wills on Johnston Point, and YES there is a proposed recovery strategy to ensure their survival. What I learned from the Act On Climate March in Quebec City was the power of the people in the face of this crisis of leadership and environment - an estimated 25,000 citizens of all ages and walks of life demanding immediate and transformative action from government leaders in a show of solidarity that jammed the cold, damp, streets for a 3 kilometer march to parliament to form a giant red thermometer symbolically representing the dangerous and uncharted territory we are headed towards on our current, ‘business-as-usual’ path to the 4º Celsius rise in mean surface temperature above pre-industrial levels. We are not thorns in the side of government, but everyday people heeding the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that tell us 4º Celsius is a full 2º over the safe operational threshold of the planet and one that we have already crossed, and that YES it has had severe and irreversible negative impacts on the natural features and their ecological functions on adjacent lands and YES there is a proposed recovery strategy to mitigate them. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/. Advocating for the UN Millennium Development Goal’s (MDG’s) is what led me to both those events, and to urge a strong ‘NO’ stance from council, having had the opportunity to look more closely at the process by which the Planning Department is recommending approval for development and the various federal and provincial documents that regulate the decision making process. The 8 MDG’s are to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, achieve universal primary education, promote gender equality and empower women, reduce child mortality, improve maternal health, combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, ensure environmental sustainability and develop global partnership. Though they are little mentioned here in Canada, our nation, as all other 192 member states of the UN, are party to the MDG’s. Since September 2000, the goals have been an operational, global framework to address sustainable development in its varied economic, social, political and environmental dimensions, setting clear targets and timelines to 2015, that will play out when world leaders meet in Paris this December, where all hopes are focused on setting global and legally binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Goal #7, to ensure environmental sustainability, is centered on two legally binding agreements opened for signature at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 – the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Convention on Biodiversity (COB). The UN Climate Summit in Paris is what underpins Ontario’s bold new Climate Change Agenda and demonstrations like the Act on Climate March, big and small all over the world. The Convention on Biodiversity is what provides us with the tools we need to take practical, community-level measures to mitigate the effects of climate change and environmental degradation. National updates on the status, trends and threats on biodiversity linked to human wellbeing, and strategies for implementation and mainstreaming biodiversity are brought directly into play in Johnston Point with its designation as a Provincially Significant Wetland, its Whip-poor-will’s and Rat Snakes as Species At Risk, and the EIA’s which prioritize improving our understanding of the links between its biodiversity and ecosystem services and measuring the ‘natural’ capital of their goods and services over simply rubber stamping development for quick monetary gain. https://www.cbd.int/ We have all been left scrambling in response to what are pressure tactics of the developer not all in the spirit of community co-operation to ensure sustainable development. While some of us may, or may not, have the time or resource to apply as party to the appeal at the OMB, we are all party to the Convention on Biodiversity. As I have come to understand it, in making decisions on Johnston Point we should all be “Conscious of the intrinsic value of biological diversity and of the ecological, genetic, social, economic, scientific, educational, cultural, recreational and aesthetic values of biological diversity and its components, Conscious also of the importance of biological diversity for evolution and for maintaining life sustaining systems of the biosphere, Affirming that the conservation of biological diversity is a common concern of humankind … Aware of the general lack of information and knowledge regarding biological diversity and of the urgent need to develop scientific, technical and institutional capacities to provide the basic understanding upon which to plan and implement appropriate measures, Noting that it is vital to anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity at source, Noting also that where there is a threat of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used

Page 109 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

as a reason for postponing measures to avoid or minimize such a threat. [Precautionary Principle #15 of the 1992 Earth Summit Declaration], Noting further that the fundamental requirement for the conservation of biological diversity is the in-situ conservation of ecosystems and natural habitats and the maintenance and recovery of viable populations of species in their natural surroundings, Noting further that ex-situ measures, preferably in the country of origin, also have an important role to play …” https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf I would like to thank you for the open house on March 3 and the broader awareness it raised over Johnston Point, for without it, I would be both ignorant and indifferent about the choice that was before you to either grant or deny approval. I would not have had the opportunity to make, and then share with others, the connections between what was playing out on the world stage with the Climate Change Strategy Discussion Paper and the Act on Climate March, and what was playing out in my own backyard. I would never have taken a leap of faith to work in earnest and in community partnership to end the differences over Johnston Point and make this little spot on the world safe for as possible for diversity. With respect and in co-operation, Meela Melnik-Proud.

Page 110 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.ofSarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

4: Letter of Endorsement , Concern for Johnston Point, June 6, 2015 Dear Mayor and Councillors. We first of all would like to thank you for the March 3 Open House that provided further opportunity for residents to voice their concerns over the proposed Plan of Condominium for Johnston Point. It demonstrated both a commitment to community partnership in ensuring sustainable lake development, and a need for a further study to clearly understand the impacts of development on the Provincially Significant Wetland and preserving more generally the natural heritage and ecological functions of Loughborough Lake. In the face of mounting public concern and mounting evidence against development of Johnston Point, the overriding interest of developers to pressure council for approval became obvious with the announcement on March 17 of their action to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), prior to any decision having been made by council, and in full disrespect of the two motions it forced council to defer namely to closely re-evaluate the planner’s report to address 10 specific issues raised by Councillor Sutherland on behalf of the BLLA, and Councillor Sleeth’s motion for a qualified, independent peer review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) paid for by the developer. We are a group of lake residents who have come together as LEAP, a Lougborough Environmental Assessment Partnership, to respond to an appeal that, since March 18, has effectively left the citizens of South Frontenac township locked out of the decision making process on Johnston Point. Members of LEAP share the conviction that:

Council should take a strong ‘NO’ stance and deny the Plan of Condominium for Johnston Point.
A peer review of the EIA without a Recreational and Full Length Lake Assessment cannot adequately ensure that, in terms of the PSW and adjacent lands, “there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions” under section 2.1.8 of the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement.
In keeping with our March 17 letter of endorsement, in choosing an agency for peer review of the EIA, “selection is made by council and not the developer … and the name of the person or organization overseeing the environmental assessment is withheld from the developer to maximize independence.” We want to thank you for re-tabling the two motions, and tendering a peer review of the EIA for contract at the April 21 council meeting. Although we feel council and taxpayers are now unjustly saddled with its financial burdens, we have obtained a quote to deliver a gold standard response to the two motions that are before council. We would like to offer this quotation to council on request and meet with council to discuss the opportunity to work in partnership with the community, to ensure sustainable lake management and preserving the natural heritage and beauty of Loughborough Lake in perpetuity. With respect, Meela Melnik-Proud, Matt Rennie, Roel Vertegaal, Anne Fisher Endorsements Rachael Melnik-Proud George Proud Robert Fisher Kevin Weaver Anthony Cameron Shailyn Normand Amy Bates 36

Page 111 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.ofSarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Jan Fox Nicki Mundell Steve Pattison Chris Hammer Stephanie Hawkey Carolyn Tanner Roy Chan Domenic Lombardi Margie Mckenzie Scott Lombardi Luca Lombardi Chrissy Heise Brent Pople Heather Robinson Nikki Rennie Nathan Giller Erin Malcolm-Kerr Jan Wood Joe Dawson Trevor Irwin Sue Saulnier

Page 112 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.ofSarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Letter of Endorsement, Concern over Planning Report for Approval of Applewood Condominium Agreement, March 1, 2016 Council Meeting, March 1, 2016 Dear Mayor and Councillors. It is our understanding that on March 1st Council will be voting to allow development of the Applewood Estates Condominium in the Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) Complex that includes Johnston Point. Of utmost concern is the statement in the Applewood Planning Report requesting your approval, that “The CAO advises Council that the Township does not have the processes or staffing capacity in place to effectively manage the agreement as written and while the CAO is not in a position to state what is definitely needed at this time, nothing is to be gained by delaying”. Since the Oct. 7 2014 public meeting that provided opportunity for residents to voice their concerns over the proposed Plan of Condominium for Johnston Point, we have worked in good faith and with a commitment to community partnership to reveal oversights, inadequacies and contraventions in conditions of draft plan approval for both Johnston Point and Applewood that underscore your CAO’s concern and our position that any further development be prohibited on both these properties. These include, but are not limited to:
The peer review of the Johnston Point EIA which concluded it “does not sufficiently demonstrate there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions on the subject property as per the requirements of the Provincial Policy Statement”. The fact remains that under Policy 2.1.4 of the PPS no development or site alteration is permitted “in” this provincially significant wetland, and Policy 2.1.8 applies to protect its “adjacent lands” since it has NOT been determined that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or ecological functions of those lands.
The identification of Species at Risk (SAR) in the peer review and in our own independent documentation of Grey Rat Snakes, Whippoorwills, Blanding’s Turtles and Five-lined skink in the immediately vicinity of Johnston Point. It is vital to point out that the Johnston Point EIA concluded that “No living threatened or endangered species were found” and that there was no peer review of the Applewood EIA to challenge our conviction that there are indeed similar endangered and threatened species on this property that require protection by law under the Species at Risk Act .
Magenta’s contraventions of the Cataraqui Regional Conservation Authority (CRCA) dock permit for Applewood that we brought to your attention last November. The contraventions are as follows – the dock is a full 66% longer than indicated in the permit and water levels surrounding the dock up to 75% less than the specified 1m minimum water depth – but of equal and unresolved concern is the fact, made known to you in the CRCA delegation to council January 12, 2016, that while this wetland is under the jurisdiction of the CRCA, they cannot enforce the existing environmental regulations and made it clear that the responsibilities to enforce the conditions of draft plan would fall to the Township. It is on these grounds, and in light of this new disclosure from your CAO that “the Township does not have the processes or staffing capacity in place to effectively manage the agreement as written”, we call for Council not to authorize the Applewood Condominium agreement and to once again, take a strong ‘NO’ stance against the proposed Johnston Point Plan of Condominium. Meela Melnik-Proud, Matt Rennie , with the following endorsements,

Page 113 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.ofSarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Endorsements Roel Vertegaal Anne Fisher George Proud Ed Koen Helen Bartsch Don Maxwell Anne Robinson Ron Turney Kathleen O’Hara Stella Hiemstra Marc Hiemstra Evonne Potts Sue Peters Jeff Peters Andrea Cumpson Orrie Cumpson Ray Rennie Karl Hammer Hayden Peters Garnet Peters Hailey Cumpson Charlie Cumpson Pete Mackenzie Cheryl Anne Honsberger-Bell Sharon Dunn Kate Tindal Judy Vanhooser Carolyn Tanner Delina Campbell-Melo Laura Moreland Danielle Nicole Kevin Weaver Erin Wicklam Amy Bates Gail Convery Van Esch Susan Nobes-Tindal Carolann Sutherland Jeff Parsons Joe Pater Dave Curtis Chris Hammer Jan Fox Jason Martin Sharilyn Normand Amanda Michelle Burns Wayne Sutherland Rick Bell Jan Wood

Larry Wood Jennifer Mallon Andrew Wilby Joanne McDonnell Stephanie Hawkey David Finlay Keith Sommerville, Betty Sommerville Bernard Finn Sue Saulnier Vivian Lee Koen

Page 114 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.ofSarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Letter of Endorsement, March 2016 Settlement Agreements on Johnston Point, March 31, 2016 Township of South Frontenac 4432 George St., Box 100, Sydenham, ON K0H 2T0 County of Frontenac 2069 Battersea Road, Glenburnie, ON K0H 1S0 Dear Mayor and Councillors. It is with profound disappointment that we received the County council’s March 16th position on Johnston Point and saw it presented to the broader public in the Kingston Whig-Standard. http://www.thewhig.com/2016/03/16/county-council-oks-disputed-condo-project Ever more so, followed four days later by media attention drawing us towards ‘Preserving Wetland’. http://www.thewhig.com/2016/03/20/preserving-wetlands The bold media headline - “County approves condo project” – underscores our municipality’s lack of understanding of the ‘undeveloped’ value of this wetland and the ecosystem services it provides, and further masks its lack of accountability, clarity and transparency towards this plan of Condominium Development and of Applewood Estates, also by Magenta Corp. and in the same wetland complex. These two developments together will constitute an estimated 12% increase in lots in Loughborough Lake’s East Basin, alarmingly concentrated in an area with Environmental Protection designation for the many natural heritage features it encompasses - Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW), Species at Risk (SAR), Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) and the Frontenac Arch UNESCO World Biosphere Reserve. What has not been made clear to the public is the fact that the County did not make a decision on Johnston Point. Following suit of Township council on March 1st, County council on March 16th simply voted to support this plan as their legal position in front of the April 4th OMB hearing. Without actually making a ‘decision’ on Johnston Point, our community has effectively been shut out of that process. It strips us of the opportunity to file a separate appeal to dispute the actual ‘approval’ of Johnston Point. The ‘decision’ by the OMB following the April 4th hearing is final and cannot be reversed (other than through a very unlikely OMB decision to send the matter back to the municipality). A mere three weeks before the hearing we learned the County’s position on Johnston Point, which is not to approve or deny this Plan of Condominium, yet with their legal stance, supporting the settlement agreement to lend public “approve condo project” impression. Our Township’s natural heritage that has, for the last two years, been our community struggle to preserve through working in partnership with our municipality – in the end feels to us like a lawyer’s game lake residents cannot afford to play in. In the County’s haste to pass motion of approval on Johnston Point at their March 16th council meeting, there was not a single response from councilors to Matt Rennie’s presentation documenting clear violations and non-compliances with the Provincial Policy Statement and Township and County Official Plans, nor was he given the opportunity to field his list of questions following the planners presentation as promised. This letter of endorsement is a call for an explanation from Township and County councilors, their reasoning for approving the settlement conditions at such a late stage in their decision process, for it was 40

Page 115 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.ofSarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

our understanding that on December 1st 2015, Township councilors voted AGAINST the Conditions of Draft Plan Approval for Johnston Point in keeping with:

the Township’s peer review of the EIA and a Wetland Evaluation that clearly state that they do not “sufficiently demonstrate there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions on the subject property as per the requirements of the Provincial Policy Statement”.
a notice from the MNRF dated October 9, 2015 stating that there is “a strong possibility that the proposed condominium development will impact species at risk and their habitat.”
the disclosure by the CRCA delegation to council January 12, 2016, that while this wetland is under the jurisdiction of the CRCA, they cannot enforce the existing environmental regulations and made it clear that the responsibilities to enforce the conditions of draft plan would fall to the Township.
the disclosure from the Township’s CAO in the March 1st, 2016 planning report for the approval of the Applewood agreement that “the Township does not have the processes or staffing capacity in place to effectively manage the agreement”. We look forward to your response and as we endeavor to ‘preserve wetlands’, we hope to see the Township and County planning staff and councillors at the very timely wetland seminar this Thursday March 31 at the Invista Community Centre 1350 Gardiners Road, Kingston,by the Frontenac Stewardship Foundation . Called ‘Get your Feet Wet: Understanding our Wetlands’ it is a golden opportunity to understand together, more thoroughly our concerns for Johnston Point and respond to them accordingly at the upcoming OMB hearing on Johnston Point. Respectfully, Meela Melnik-Proud and Matt Rennie Endorsements Anne Fisher Diane Koen Nona Mariotti Roel Vertegaal George Proud Clayton Potts Evonne Potts Ed Koen Erin Wicklam Marc Hiemstra Ann Robinson Don Maxwell Rachael Melnik-Proud Mike Koen Susan Sutherland Ken Burns Tasha Proud Sharon Dunn Jan Fox Dan Floyd Delina Campbell Melo Lynn DeGeer-Ostrom Chelsea McCallum Erin Malcolm-Kerr

Eliot Stephens Maria G. Dipillo Jeff Kleinlagel Joe Pater Rick Bell Carolyn Tanner Kevin Weaver Chris Hammer Susan Nobes Tindal Jennifer Mallon Beth Pater Jan Wood Larry Wood Sue Peters Jeff Peters Andrea Cumpson Orrie Cumpson Sally Blasko Charlie Cumpson Hailey Cumpson Nada Beamish

Page 116 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.ofSarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Personal Letter, MNRF letter to Township, October 11, 2016 Dear Mayor and Councillors; I would like to take this opportunity to thank Councillor Sutherland and Councillor Sleeth for their ongoing concern over Johnston Point and the effort behind their two motions this past summer. They speak to the heart of the MNRF letter from Catherine Warren that is before council on tonight’s agenda, and to the ongoing effort of concerned lake residents to monitor compliance on Johnston Point and ensure the conditions of draft plan approval can be met - particularly in terms of species at risk (SAR). Please find attached my OMB statement and that of John Urquhart, the expert SAR witness Matt Rennie, Dr. Roel Vertegaal and I brought with us in order to have the issue of species at risk on Johnston Point comprehensively addressed at the April 4th, 2016 OMB hearing. As you are aware, we were denied Party Status and Mr. Urquhart was dismissed on the basis that his evidence “relied on hearsay” and “would not be of assistance to the Board”. Nevertheless, Mr. Urquhart’s SARs records, the SAR data from the Macintosh-Perry peer review and sightings by local lake residents were forwarded to the MNRF immediately following the OMB hearing to ensure the MNRF had updated SAR information and that the Developer submitted the Information Gathering Form (IGF) referred to on page 7 of my statement, as the first step towards identifying species at risk and their significant habitat on Johnston Point. The overall benefit permit application Catherine Warren refers to in her letter on tonight’s agenda is an indication not only that SAR exist on Johnston Point, but that the MNRF has assessed the proposal as NOT avoiding negative impact to their habitat. Like the Township’s own peer review of the EIA in July 2015, it clearly refutes the claim of the Developer’s two EIAs that there will be no negative impacts to the natural features or their ecological function which under the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) would deny development of Johnston Point. So too, it exposes a blatant disregard for the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (NHRM) which provides both the Township and the Developer guidance for implementing SAR policies in the PPS. Ms. Warren’s letter only heightens my concerns regarding the proponent’s responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act, which are two fold:
Assessing whether or not any contraventions to the ESA have already occurred. Extensive site alteration began immediately following the April hearing, still under the Developer’s assumption that there are no SAR on Johnston Point, and without the Township’s or MNRF prior knowledge or authorization, or the formal OMB decision that wasn’t issued until June 28, 2016. It is my understanding that the MNRF should be assessing a static project plan, and an immediate stop order should have been issued to the Developer for the multiple phases of development activity that concerned lake residents brought to your attention over course of the spring and summer - road development, blasting for installation of underground power lines, tree clearing, etc. - that is ongoing without a complete SAR investigation to serve as a baseline for assessing impact of site alteration, and without final approval.
Fulfilling conditions of draft plan approval 5D and 5E of the OMB decision. They are “D. The owner shall confirm that MNRF have been consulted on all species at risk issues and that the Declaration and the Vacant Land Condominium Agreement shall incorporate all recommendations from the MNRF included in any Benefit Permit, if issued, related to Gray Rat Snakes and Blandings Turtles or any other species at risk identified. E. That the Owner shall complete Whip Poor Will surveys to determine if they are present at the site and submit this information to the MNRF.” The MNRF letter mentions benefit permit considerations for Gray Ratsnake and Blanding’s Turtle, however the Township can no longer ignore the peer review findings that on a single site visit observed Blanding’s Turtle, Snapping Turtle, and Butternut, 42

Page 117 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.ofSarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

and noted suitable habitat for Gray Ratsnake, Eastern Whippoorwill, Cerulean Warbler, Least Bittern, Eastern Wood-PeWee, Wood Thrush, Golden-winged Warbler, Milksnake, Eastern Ribbonsnake, Northern Map Turtle and Broad Beech Fern. Going forward, each of these 14 SAR need to be properly evaluated to identify and delineate various significant habitat, assess the impact of development, and consider benefit permit considerations on a species by species basis. I am reminded once again of the statement our Township’s CAO made in February 2015 on the heals of the announcement of the OMB appeal and our disclosure to the Township of CRCA dock permit contraventions in Applewood. “The CAO advises Council that the Township does not have the processes or staffing capacity in place to effectively manage the agreement as written and while the CAO is not in a position to state what is definitely needed at this time, nothing is to be gained by delaying approval”. (Planning Department County File: 10T-2013/001): As it stands now, neither the municipality or the MNRF, can clear these conditions of draft plan approval as required in the OMB decision. While it remains inexplicable to me how final approval can be given to Johnston Point, I draw your attention to the conclusions of my OMB statement as a still timely and gainful way forward to work together to respond to the this MNRF letter: “1. A requirement is made that a properly and respectfully executed Information Gathering Form is submitted to the MNR, under the supervision and guidance of an independent expert environmentalist of Township choosing. 2. That the MNR be contacted to determine whether species at risk surveys are required. 3. That the negative impact assessments on the Johnston Point Species at Risk be scientifically assessed through an independent longitudinal study. 4. That Johnston Point be designated as an integral and vital component of the PSW that provides valuable habitat to SAR that are semi-aquatic, and also that this candidate ANSI be designated as a ‘significant’ ANSI as per the PPS definition for ‘significant’ as allowed for under the Natural Heritage Reference Manual, noting on Page 49 of the Manual that “A permit that would authorize the destruction of endangered or threatened species habitat under the ESA cannot be used to justify development and site alteration in a natural heritage feature where such is not permitted for other reasons (e.g., significant wetland).” 5. That this case be dismissed based on the fact that the 180-day clause invoked by the Developer is specifically aimed at avoiding due process as set out by the Laws of Ontario with regards to SAR. We respectfully ask the OMB not to allow the use of this clause to force a decision that contravenes due process as set out by the legally binding ESA, given that it is anticipated that information gathering on SAR will take multiple extended sessions with seasonal overlap.” I’d be happy to meet to discuss any or all of these points in further detail, having dedicated considerable time and effort to carefully monitor the status and compliance on Johnston Point and to ensure thorough evaluation of the proposal. Respectfully, Meela Melnik-Proud

Page 118 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.ofSarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Personal Letter, Submission of Toby Thorne’s Bat Activity Survey Report, September 19, 2017 “As human actions transform the natural world, Earth’s ecological systems are undergoing fundamental change, the consequences of which are breathtaking in scope and speed. Biological diversity is undergoing such catastrophic declines that scientists, in peer-reviewed studies, are describing “biological annihilation” and warning of a sixth mass extinction in a historically unparalleled time-frame. To tackle biodiversity conservation in the face of increasing development pressures and climate change, WWF-Canada draws upon scientific principles … to ensure evidence-based decision-making, and to increase the likelihood of success.” World Wildlife Fund -Canada, 2017 Living Planet Report. September 18, 2017 Dear Mayor and Councillors. Please find attached a Bat Activity Survey Report on Johnston Point with an Addendum by Toby J. Thorne, and also the World Wildlife Fund’s 2017 Living Planet Report Canada. Our concerned citizens group commissioned and paid for the peer review survey, which was guided by MNRF’s most recent bat survey protocol, and conducted by a certified bat expert holding specific skills in acoustic surveying and call identification of bats. Between the period June 30, 2017 to July 12, 2017, a total of 848 observations of the endangered Little Brown Myotis bat were recorded on Johnston Point. A further 760 observations could be identified to Myotis genus, but not to species. Mr. Thorne’s report concludes that “ the presence of suitable ecosites, combined with the high level of acoustic activity from SAR bats indicates the likely presence of maternity habitat.” It offers new and compelling evidence that this endangered species is not only present on Johnston Point, but very active. It was submitted to the MNRF last Thursday, as the WWF’s release of the 2017 Living Planet Report Canada, coincidently made sobering news of the day. WWF’s Living Planet Report is considered the most comprehensive synthesis of Canadian wildlife population trends ever conducted. Alarmingly, it found that from 1970 to 2014, half of the monitored vertebrate wildlife species - 451 of 903 mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian and fish species across the country - suffered an average population decline of 83%. Habitat destruction and climate change are cited as the leading cause. The loss of Canada’s wildlife is staggering, but what hits closest to home was the further news regarding the numbers for at-risk species. Despite protection, since the Species at Risk Act became law in 2002, the rate of decline for Canada’s federally protected at-risk appears to be increasing by 2.7% per year. “According to researchers, the federal Species at Risk Act has faltered in its mission to protect Canada’s most beleaguered wildlife,” says the report. It cites “government failures to meet SARA’s timelines for recovery strategies and in identifying and protecting critical habitat” as one of the biggest shortcomings. Ironically, one of the deepest losses is for the endangered Little Brown Bat, highlighted on page 20 of the Living Planet Report. “Within three years of discovery, white-nose syndrome had wiped out 94 per cent of hibernating little brown bats in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec. Some ecologists consider this the most rapid decline of mammals ever documented. The westward sweep of the disease is expected to infect the entire range in Canada by 2028. The little brown bat was emergency listed as Endangered under SARA in 2014, one of three species ever to receive such treatment out of all invertebrates, vertebrates and flora.” The recommendations of the WWF report are:
Citizen-based conservation: By helping to monitor wildlife, and protect and restore habitats, individual actions, collectively will help reverse the decline of wildlife in Canada.
Collect and share information on ecosystems: Without accurate information, meaningful decisions to protect wildlife can’t be made.
Better understand climate change: New knowledge will allow us to build evidence-based strategies for mitigating climate-change impacts and for enhancing ecosystem resilience.

Page 119 329 Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.ofSarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Take ecosystem-based action and bolster the Species at Risk Act: An ecosystems-based approach to take into account multiple species and their habitats is essential.
Make a commitment to nature. Solutions are far more likely to be realized with broad public support for difficult resource allocation and land-use decisions that have a goal of benefiting nature at their core. Once again, we commend Township Council on commissioning the July 2015 McIntosh-Perry peer review of Johnston Point’s EIAs in the Developer’s haste for a decision on the Plan of Condominium. It is what gave us the capacity, in keeping with these recommendations to work together to tackle wildlife conservation in our own backyard. That peer review fuelled our stance for Party Status at the OMB to give voice to Johnston Point’s species at risk. It grounded us in monitoring Conditions 5D and 5E following the April 2016 hearing, to ensure that the threatened and engendered species and their significant Natural Heritage environment were fully addressed and safeguarded. It helped us determine where science-based evidence was lacking, and commission further surveys to aid the MNRF in their assessment of the proposal. The July 2015 peer review had directly observed Blanding’s Turtle, Butternut and Snapping Turtle. Since then, the MNRF’s assessment together with further targeted peer review surveys for species at risk have identified Gray Ratsnake and Whippoorwill habitat, and likely Little Brown Myotis maternity habitat on Johnston Point, none of which had been found in the 2012 and 2014 EIAs. Collectively we have monitored multiple species and their habitats on Johnston Point. Collectively we can demonstrate the concerns concluded on them by experts of McIntosh-Perry well in advance of the OMB. They are worth repeating, along with the fact that Johnston Point has only conditional approval, contingent on the MNRF’s assessment of the project through a species-at-risk lens. “It is the opinion of McIntosh Perry that the Environmental Impact Assessment report does not sufficiently demonstrate there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions on the subject property as per the requirements of the Provincial Policy Statement. The EIA report in general did not include sufficient or adequate information to be able to assess if the report meets the requirements of the various legislative requirements. The EIA report (2014): ! Does not document the date, type, extent or results of field surveys. ! Does not include Ministry of Natural Resources consultation. ! Does not demonstrate there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions for significant wildlife habitat for threatened species. ! Does not demonstrate there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions for the ANSI or the PSW. ! Does not demonstrate development and site alteration in fish habitat will be in accordance with provincial and federal requirements. Site alterations performed may have contravened the prohibitions of the Endangered Species Act. At a minimum, the proposed development has the potential to result in long-term negative impacts to Blanding’s Turtle, Snapping Turtle and Gray Ratsnake. It is strongly recommended that the MNR be consulted prior to any further site alteration to: ! ensure proposed development does not contravene the Endangered Species Act and its associated regulations; and ! obtain any necessary approvals or permits required to undertake activities that have the potential for adverse impacts to species at risk and their habitat.” (McIntosh-Perry, July 2015 peer review, p. 11) We have in our hands the Provincial Policy Statement, the Endangered Species Act, the Natural Heritage Reference Manual. We have the McIntosh Perry peer review of the EIAs, John Urquhart’s species at risk data forwarded to the MNRF by Nature Conservancy Canada (NCC), the MNRF’s assessment of the proposal, and peer review SAR surveys for Whippoorwill and Bats.

Page 120 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Undeniably there are multiple species at risk on Johnston Point that were altogether missed in the settlement agreement. They are contained, in whole or in part, by Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW), Significant Woodland, Significant Wildlife Habitat, and Fish Habitat, and an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest, that by ANSI definition in the Provincial PolicyStatement, is “land and water containing natural landscapes or features that have been identified as having life science values related to protection, scientific study or education.” (PPS. p. 39; NHRM p. 90). Judging by our effort to protect this Natural Heritage gem in South Frontenac Township, what fuels the catastrophic decline in Canada’s wildlife is not missing evidence or strategy for mitigating climate-change impacts and for enhancing ecosystem resilience. What’s missing is simply political goodwill and bold action to lead us in the direction evidence tells us we urgently need to go. In March 2015, the Township’s own CAO had advised “that the Township does not have the processes or staffing capacity in place to effectively manage the agreement as written.” We can only assume it was this fundamental truth, exposed through Matt Rennie’s documentation of Applewood’s dock permit violations that led the Township to take the necessary bold action to deny the Conditions of Draft Plan Approval, prior to the OMB. We saw leadership and bold action from Township Council stopped in its tracks again last October, with the Motion on mitigation in response to the MNRF’s assessment of the proposal. Catherine Warren’s second letter to the Township made it clear that the proposed Plan of Condominium cannot avoid negative impact in particular to Blanding’s Turtle and Gray Ratsnake, and will likely contravene sections 9 and 10 of the ESA for both these species. In recognizing linkages between these two species and their habitat in and/or adjacent to significant wetland, significant woodland, significant wildlife habitat, fish habitat and ANSI, the plan as written cannot demonstrate that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions in general. Simple enforcement of the Natural Heritage Policy under the PPS would not permit any site alteration and development on Johnson Point. Had Township Council not been silenced by the amendment, it may have “resolved that the Township write the MNRF to express our preference for species at risk habitat on Johnston’s point be left as is, rather destroyed in a trade off”. The only unchallenged bold action we continued to see and hear is that of more heavy construction and the sounds of further blasting on Johnston Point, without conditions of approval having been met. David Miller, WWF-Canada president and CEO, says “Wildlife loss is not someone else’s problem. It’s a Canadian problem ….We all, collectively, have a moral duty — and a self-interest — to halt wildlife decline.” To this end, I look forward to the MNRF’s response to Mr. Thorne’s Bat survey of Johnston Point, and trust it opens wide channels of communication that go towards a call for an immediate Stop Work Order that is enforced, and withdrawal and review of any and all permits to be issued under section 17(2)c of the ESA. Respectfully, Meela Melnik-Proud

Page 121 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Personal Letter, Submission of Cambium Whippoorwill Survey, November 14, 2017 ! November 14th, London, England. Dear Council and Mayor, In light of the MNRF posting a provisionary notice of an upcoming Benefit Permit under section 17.2(c) of the Endangered Species Act of Ontario, we would like to ask for your support against the issuing of this permit for the Plan of Condominium at Johnston Point, a private development that is not in the interest of the citizens of South Frontenac Township. The benefit permit completely disregards significant evidence gathered by citizens of South Frontenac regarding the presence of at least two more species: Little Brown Myotis bats (Endangered), as well as Eastern Whippoorwill (Species at Risk). I attach a scientific survey conducted by Cambium that concludes there are breeding pairs of Whippoorwill on the peninsula. These two species require a separate benefit permit, making the issuing of this permit unlawful and countervening the decision by the OMB that proper measures are taken for the protection of Eastern Whippoorwill in this development. Moreover, the requested actions by the developer fall short of any meaningful improvement to the plight of the other two species identified in a report issued by South Frontenac Township: the Blandings Turtle (Species at Risk) and the Gray Rat Snake (Species at Risk). No action is taken either with regard to the fifth (Endangered) species, the Butternut Tree. We ask for your support in pressuring MNRF to stop this development, and we ask to present at the next available township meeting to state our case as to why this development is not only unlawful, but unethical in light of the continued destruction of habitat in what is the third most biodiverse area in Canada, and a United Nations Biosphere, the Frontenac Arch, as well as beautiful Loughborough Lake, a tourist destination, for the purpose of a private investor’s gain. Respectfully, Professor Roel Vertegaal, PhD Meela Melnik-Proud, Evonne Potts, and Matt Rennie.

Page 122 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Personal Letter, November 28, delegation for Call to Action on ESA Permit, December 2, 2017 ! “#$%!&$’(%!$)!+(,)-./0! !! 1/#$2#!2##!$33$-4#!$)!#/#-3%().-!-(5’!(6!!34#!5#3.3.()7!$2!5%(8.2#!$3!9,#2*$’:2!*#/#;$3.()<!!=(,!

.//!%#-$//7!?!%#6#%%#!3(!34#!6(//(>.);!3>(!(-,8#)32<!!@(%!’(,%!.)6(%8$3.()7!?!$8!5%(A..);!’(,! 34#!)$8#2!$)!/.)B2!3(!34#8!$2!6(//(>2C! •

•

DE((!+4(.-#27!F$!+4(.-#2:7!34#!GHIJ!K)A.%()8#)3$/!1%(3#-3.()!L#5(%3!(6!34#! K)A.%()8#)3$/!+(88.22.()#%!(6!M)3$%.(<!!!N43352COO#-(<()<-$O%#5(%32OGHIJP;((P -4(.-#2PQ$P-4(.-#2OR<! M)3$%.(:2!DK)$);#%#!S5#-.#2!T-3!S,Q8.22.()!S3$)*$%2!6(%!T-3.A.3’!L#A.#>!$)! IJNGRN-R!MA#%$//!F#)#6.3!1#%8.32:<!4335COO6./#2<()3$%.(<-$O#)A.%()8#)3P$)P #)#%;‘O25#-.#2P$3P%.2BO235%(UHVWIIX<56!

!Y#!4(5#!34#!9(>)24.5!>.//!#)(%2#!34#!F$33#%2#$!Z(,;4Q(%(,;4!Z$B#!T22(-.$3.()!5#3.3.()7! $)!>#!.)A.3#!#$-4!(6!’(,!3(!2.;)!.3!.).A.,$//’<!! !! “,#!3(!3.8#!-()23%$.)327!>#!>#%#!,)$Q/#!3(!5%#2#)3!34#!A.#(!2,88$%.[.);!(,%!-()-#%)2!6(%! (4)23()!1(.)3!34$3!>#!%$.2#!.)!9,#2*$’:2!#/#;$3.()<!!]#%#!.2!$!/.)B!3(!34#!A.#(<!!Y#!>#/-(8#! $)’!-(88#)32!’(,!8$’!4$A#<!! ! ! 43352COO’(,3,<Q#O&8TQ22W@^2! !! Z.B#!34#!5#3.3.()7!.3!4$2!Q##)!5(2.3.A#/’!%#-#.A#7!$)!.2!;#)#%$3.);!8,-4!5,Q/.-!.)3#%#237!! 5%(A.);!34$3!!5%(3#-3.()!(6!25#-.#2!$3!%.2B!$)!#23%,-3.()!(6!34#.%!4$Q.3$3!6(%!34#!Q#)#6.3!(6! *#A#/(58#)37!.2!)(3!,23!$!/(-$/!.22,#7!Q,3!.2!(6!-()-#%)!3(!$//!-.3.[#)2!(6!M)3$%.(7<!! !! !`M,%!23%#);34!?S!(,%!+(88,).3’a<! !! L#25#-36,//‘7!&##/$!!

Page 123 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Personal Letter, Council Agenda (a) Notice of Motion commenting on Environmental Registry listing 013-1130 and (b) Beach’s response to Delegation, December 5 , 2017 “#$%!&$’(%!$)!+(,)-./0! !?!8,23!$5(/(;.[#!6(%!Q%#$B.);!5%(3(-(/!>.34!%#25#-3!3(!/$23!9,#2$’:2!-$//!6(%!-/$%.3'7!$)!(5#).);!>.34!$! 23$3#8#)37!$)!)(3!$!b,#23.()!3(!6%$8#!8’!-()-#%)!(A#%!34#!%#25()2#!3(!34#!3>(!.3#82!()!34#!$;#)$! -()-#%).);!(4)23()!1(.)3!P!!+(,)-.//(%!S,34#%/$):2!&(3.()!$)!!E$%’!$)!&$%34$!F#$-4:2!%#25()2#!3(!(,%! c(A#8Q#%!Gd7!GHIJ!!#/#;$3.()<!! Y#!>#%#!!2$**#)#!$)!!.2$55(.)3#!34$3!)(!4$)2!>#)3!,5!6(%!+(,)-.//(%!S,34#%/$):2!&(3.()7!$)!)(! .88#.$3#!%#2(/,3.()!-$8#!(6!!+(,)-.//(%!L#A.//:2!b,.-B/’!%$>)!,5!c(3.-#!(6!&(3.()!3(!.)A.3#!34#!&cL@!3(! .2-,22!34#!(A#%$//!Q#)#6.3!5#%8.3<!!T2!KA())#!-/$%.6.#!6(%!+(,)-./7!;.A#)!34$3!34#!#$/.)#!3(!-(88#)3!()!34#! 34 5%(5(2#!5#%8.3!.2!”#-#8Q#%!II 7!(,%!>(%%’!.2!34$3!.3!.2!2.85/’!3((!/.33/#7!3((!/$3#a<!!! ]$*!.3!Q##)!5$22#*7!>#!34.)B!+(,)-.//(%!S,34#%/$)*:2!&(3.()!>(,/*!4$A#!Q##)!$3!/#$23!$3!/.33/#!4#/56,/7!$)*!! -#%3$.)/'!8(%#!Q#)#6.-.$/!34$)!4$A.);!34#!9(>)24.5!2$'!$Q2(/,3#/'!)(34.);!3(!34#!&cL@7!B)(>.);!34$3!Q$2#*! ()!34#!-()3#)3!$)*!),8Q#%!(6!%#25()2#2!3(!34#!5#3.3.()!?!2,Q8.33#*!3(!'(,!/$23!>##B7!-.3.[#)2!$%#!(,3%$;#*! Q'!34#!&cL@:2!*#-.2.()!3(!5(23!$!5%(5(2#*!Q#)#6.3!5#%8.3!3(!34#!K)A.%()8#)3$/!L#;.23%'<! !c#A#%34#/#227!>#!34$)B7!$)*!/((B!6(%>$%*!3(!+(,)-.//(%!L#A.//:2!&(3.()!)#e3!>##B<!!?3!.2!.85(%3$)3!3(!)(3#! 34$3!E$%'!$)*!&$%34$!F#$-42:!%#b,.%#8#)3!6(%!KST!5#%8.3!$,34(%.[$3.()!>$2!6.%23!Q%(,;43!3(!34#! 9(>)24.5:2!$33#)3.()!.)!+$34#%.)#!Y$%%#):2!S#53#8Q#%!WH7!GHIf!/#33#%!6%(8!34#!&cL@<!!Y.34!+(,)-.//(%! S,34#%/$)*:2!!M-3(Q#%!GHIf!()!&cL@!F#)#6.3!1#%8.3!T,34(%.[$3.()!$)*!&.3.;$3.()!,)$).8(,2/'!-$%%.#*7!!>#! #e5#-3#*!+(,)-./!3(!$/%#$*'!4$A#!Q##)!”#$%&’$!()!&’!+,-.!/0!0'1/&2%&2/03!42&!&’!5'6'7/#‘8!/0!&’! #8/18'33!/9!&’!3#’:2'3!%&!823;!(‘0'92&!%18’’<‘0&=>!! ?3!.2!>4’!34#!5(23.);!(6!34#!5%(5(2#!5#%8.3!3(!34#!K)A.%()8#)3$/!L#;.23%‘7!-$8#!2(!,)#e5#-3#/‘7!$)!6$//2! 6$%!24(%3!(6!(,%!#e5#-3$3.()2!,)#%!34#!1%(A.)-.$/!1(/.-’!S3$3#8#)3!N11SR7!!M&F!%,/.);7!(,%!K)A.%()8#)3$/!F.//! (6!L.;432!NKFLR!$)!34#!K)$);#%#!S5#-.#2!T-3!NKSTR7!$2!>#!()/’!4$!34#!(55(%3,).3’!3(!3(,-4!()!.)!(,%! 34 c(A#8Q#%!Gd !#/#;$3.()<! g/3.8$3#/‘7!$3!/#$23!34#!>$’!>#!.)3#%5%#3!34#!M&F!%,/.);7!.3!.2!34#!$,34(%.3’!(6!34#!+(,)3’!3(!#/$‘7!#)’!(%! ;%$)3!34.2!5%(5(2$/<!!S(!.)!(%#%!3(!Q#!$Q/#!3(!8$B#!$)!.)6(%8#!#-.2.()!>.34!$)’!8#$2,%#!(6!5,Q/.-! -()6.#)-#7!34#%#!8,23!Q#!$)!(5#)!$)!.%#-3!-4$))#/!(6!-(88,).-$3.()!Q#3>##)!34#!9(>)24.5!N$2!$)!$-3.);! $,34(%.3’!6(%!34#!+(,)3’R!$)!34#!&cL@<!!Y#!4(5#!34$3!-$)!Q#;.)!>.34!34#!5$22.);!(6!+(,)-.//(%!L#A.//:2! &(3.()!)#e3!>##B<! !&(23/’!.85(%3$)3/’!>.34!34.2!/#33#%7!>#!>(,/!/.B#!3(!#e5%#22!(,%!##5!-()-#%)!2,%%(,).);!(,%!)##!6(%! -/$%.3’!()!34#!23$3#8#)3!?!8$#!3(!(5#)!8’!5$%3!(6!(,%!#/#;$3.()!/$23!>##B<!!&’!-/$%.3’!b,#23.()!()!9,#2*$‘7! 24(,/!4$A#!$2B#C!!&$’(%!h$)#>$/!$)!+(,)-.//(%!&-”(,;$/7!()!>4$3!#A.#)-#!(!’(,!#6#)!’(,%! 5(2.3.()2!()!34#!23$3#8#)3!34$3!”#$%!&’()!$+!,%-%.!/%,0%/!,!123!4%.50#!#6!,7!44809,#:i! ?3!>$2!%#23$3#!$)!.32!2.;).6.-$)-#!(>)5/$’#!3(!/#)!2,55(%3!.)!#6#$3.);!+(,)-.//(%!S,34#%/$):2!&(3.()7! $)!b,.-B/’!8(A#!5$23!$)’!6,%34#%!.2-,22.()!(6!34#!F#$-4:2!/#33#%<!!94#!#854$2.2!>$2!()!34#!9(>)24.5:2! -()6.#)-#!.)!/#$A.);!34#!#-.2.()!8$B.);!,5!3(!34#!&cL@<!!+()2.#%.);!34#!2(,%-#!(6!34$3!b,(3#!P!34#!GHIJ! K)A.%()8#)3$/!1%(3#-3.()!L#5(%3!(6!34#!K)A.%()8#)3$/!+(88.22.()#%!(6!M)3$%.(!NK+MR!P!34.2!.2!Q(34! 8.2/#$.);!$)!8.2.)6(%8.);!34#!5,Q/.-<! !94#!b,(3#!.2!6%(8!+4$53#%!J!(6!34#!K+M:2!%#5(%3!P!;<%##0,=!344.6-8+!>.6,=?!!P!!%#!4.;4/.;43#!()!5$;#! GGI<!!94#%#!.2!$!2#-()!Q(/!23$3#8#)3!()!5$;#!Gjd<!`@$%!&’()!$+!A##%.87!B08%/!#6!0548%5%,#!#$%!8*C!

Page 124 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

%BB%9#0-%87D:!!!?3!.2!2,Q8.33#!3(!34#!Z#;.2/$3.A#!T22#8Q/’!(6!M)3$%.(!.)!$–(%$)-#!>.34!S#-3.()!Xd!NIR!(6!(,%! KFL!>.34!$!-(A#%!/#33#%!6%(8!34#!K+M!34$3!-()-/,#2!34$3!34#!&cL@!.2!A+0,=!!56/%.,0E*#06,!44.6-8+! B.5%C6.F!”!”#$%&’()(&#!+#,’”!&!(”-#”)#$,&($#%!#’($.#)"’#!+#&"-/-(-&#")# (-01$!‘2<a!Nhttps://eco.on.ca/reports/2017-good-choices-bad-choices/R<! !94#!K)A.%()8#)3$/!+(88.22.()#%!(6!M)3$%.(!.2!(,%!5%(A.)-#:2!#)A.%()8#)3$/!>$3-4*(;7!$)!(,%!;,$%.$)!(6! 34#!K)A.%()8#)3$/!F.//!(6!L.;432!,)#%!>4.-4!34#!(A#%$//!DQ#)#6.3:!5#%8.3!()!(4)23()!1(.)3!.2!5(23#!3(!34#! K)A.%()8#)3$/!L#;.23%’!!6(%!5,Q/.-!-(88#)3<!!!+(88.22.()#%!"%<!".$))#!S$e#!.2!$!+#%3.6.#!K)A.%()8#)3$/! Z$>!S5#-.$/.23!$-B)(>/#;#!!$2!()#!(6!34#!>(%/:2!3(5!GX!#)A.%()8#)3$/!/$>’#%2<!!]#%!#e5#%3!(5.).()! (#2):3!_,23!8$33#%!3(!,27!.3!8$33#%2!3(!$//!M)3$%.$)27!$)!>#!>$)3!3(!$-3!$–(%.);/’!3(!.3<!!F,3!.3!.2!.)!23$%B! -()3%$23!3(!34#!(5.).()2!#e5%#22#!Q’!&$’(%!h$)#>$/!$)!+(,)-.//(%!&-"(,;$/!$3!9,#2*$’:2!+(,)-./! 8##3.);!$)!34#!F#$-4:2!-/$.8!.)!34#.%!/#33#%!34$3!34#!&cL@!`%3!9"79277’$!2&3!<%0$%&’!8'3#/032(7)!%0$!20! %::/8$%0:’!42&!2&3!-‘1"7%&2/03!%0$!(‘3&!#8%:&2:‘3=>! !Y#!$%#!!%#25().);!3(!&$;#)3$!Y$3#%6%()3!"#A#/(58#)3!+(%5<7!5%(5(2#!KST!5#%8.3!NKL!)(3.-#!),8Q#%! HIWPIIWHR!!4$A.);!%#$!!+4$53#%!J!(6!34#!K+M:2!!%#5(%37!$2!.3!.2!%#6/#-3#!.)!(,%!!#e5#%.#)-#!(6!3%’.);!3(!>(%B!.)! 5$%3)#%24.5!>.34!34#!8,).-.5$/.3’!$)!34#!&cL@!3(!5%(3#-3!34#!25#-.#2!$3!%.2B!()!(4)23()!1(.)3<!!!!! !Y#!4$A#!/#$%)#7!()/’!Q’!2,Q8.33.);!$!6%##(8!(6!.)6(%8$3.()!%#b,#23!,)#%!34#!@%##(8!(6!?)6(%8$3.()! $)!1%(3#-3.()!(6!1%.A$-’!T-3!34$3!.)!!T,;,23!GHIf!$)!&cL@!$22#228#)3!>$2!#/.A#%#*!3(!K-(/(;.-$/!S#%A.-#2!

4.-4!%#$!34$3!34#!&cL@!!4$!?$’&‘8<20’$!&%&!8'1"7%&’$!%(2&%&!9/8!@8%)!-%&30%;’!%0$!1'0'8%7!%(2&%&!9/8! A7%0$201B3!C"8&7’!%8’!(/&!#8'3'0&!/0!32&’!%&!D/03&/0B3!E/20&!===!&’!#8/F’:&G!%3!:“88'0&7)!#8/#/3’$G!4277!72;‘7)! :/0&8%6'0’!3’:&2/03!H!%0$!IJ!/9!&’!KLM!N3#’:2'3!%0$!%(2&%&!#8/&’:&2/0O!9/8!(/&!&‘3’!3#’:2'3!===!%$$2&2/0%7! 209/8<%&2/0!23!8’P"28’$!&/!:/<#7’&’!+,-.B3!%33'33<‘0&!8'1%8$201!K%3&‘80!Q2##//84277G!A”&&‘80"&!%0$! A%&3===!===!4’!3&8/017)!‘0:/“8%1’!&’!#8/#/0'0&!&/!:/032$‘8!</$29)201!&’!#8/#/3’$!#8/F’:&!&/!%6/2$!2<#%:&201! 3#’:2'3!%&!823;=>! !9(;#34#%!>.34!+4$53#%!J!(6!34#!K+M:2!%#5(%37!.3!25#$B2!A(/,8#2!()!>4’!>#!Q#/.#A#!34#!+(,)3’!$)!34#! 9(>)24.5!-$))(37!>.34!$)’!5,Q/.-!-()6.#)-#7!$55%(A#!-().3.()2!X”!$)!XK!34$3!Q’!M&F!%,/.);! #8’!3(!'03"8'!&*%&!<%&&'83!/9!E8/620:2%7!20&'8'3&!%3!4'77!%3!&*'!#"(72:!20&'8'3&!R%8'S!%##8/#82%&'7)!%$$8'33'$! %0$!$"7)!3%9'1"%8$'$!<!!E.A#)!34#!$8$;#!$)!#23%,-3.()!34$3!4$2!$/%#$’!(–,%%#!()!(4)23()!1(.)3!34#’! 8(23!-#%3$.)/’!>#%#!)(3<! !?3+#4567#+%$#-/’#0-(0#%-#89:#,’;(!#!"#%-2#%,,<(&%-!=!===!3+#4567#($#)%(<(-=#!"#-"!#>1$!#,’"!&!# $,&($#%!#’($.#%$#(-!-00#1-0*’#!+#<%?@#A1!#%<$"#!"#<%0#))&!(/#’&"/‘2#,’"=’%;$=!T0!&’!(‘3&!:%3’G!&’! +,-.!%3!:8’%&’$!%!3)3&’<!&%&!7’%6'3!2&3'79!42&!%!<202<%7!8/7’!&/!#7%)U!20!&’!4/83’!:%3’G!2&!%3!%!:8’%&’$!%! 3)3&’<!$‘3210’$!&/!9%27=>! !1/#$2#7!&$’(%!h$)#>$/!$)!+(,)-.//(%!&-"(,;$/7!;.A#)!34#!K)A.%()8#)3$/!+(88.22.()#%:2!>$%).);2!3(!,2! 34$3!`&’!+,-.!%3!0'6'8!$‘02’$!%0!KLM!#‘8<2&!&/!%0)!%##72:%0&a!$)!!34$3!34#!&cL@!.2!6$./.);!3(!5%(3#-3! 25#-.#2!$3!%.2B!$2!.)3#)#!,)#%!34#!/$>7!()!>4$3!#A.#)-#!(!’(,!#6#)!’(,%!5(2.3.()2!3(!23$’!34#!-(,%2#! !$)!/#$A#!34.2!.%%#A#%2.Q/#!#-.2.()!,5!3(!34#!&cL@!_,23!Q#-$,2#!34#’!$%#!34#!#e5#%32i! !=(,%2!.)!5%(3#-3.);!34#!25#-.#2!$3!%.2B!()!(4)23()!1(.)37! &##/$!&#/).B7!KA())#!1(332!$)*!&$33!L#)).#!!

Page 125 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Catherine Warren’s Sept 2016 and Oct 2015 letters

Page 126 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Beach’s response to our Delegation, November 28, 2017 .pdf

Page 127 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

October 18, 2016 Motion on MNRF Benefit Permit Authorization and Mitigation

Page 128 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

David R. Donnelly, MES LLB david@donnellylaw.ca

December 11, 2017 Peterborough District Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Regional Operations Division ² Southern Region 200 Water Street, Floor 1 Robinson Place South Tower Peterborough ON K9J 8M5 Re:

Magenta Waterfront Development Corp Permit Response to EBR Registry Number: 013-1130 Loughborough Lake, Frontenac County

To whom it may concern, We represent Ms Evonne Potts and Ms Meela Melnik-3URXG WKH´5HVSRQGHQWVµ UHJDUGLQJWKHSURSRVHG0DJHQWD:DWHUIURQW’HYHORSPHQW&RUS ´0:’&µ 3HUPLW for activities with conditions to achieve overall benefit to the species ² Endangered Species Act ´(6$µ V F WKH´3HUPLWµ Please see attached the submissions of the respondent pursuant to the EBR Registry Notice Number 013-1130. MWDC has conditional zoning for a 15-unit condominium development and 1,100 metre roadway on Johnston Point on Loughborough Lake, in South Frontenac Township. Development is conditional on MWDC obtaining a Permit for habitat loss. Specifically, the Respondents submit that the MWDC consultants have failed to adequately demonstrate that there will be no negative impacts to the natural features or their ecological functions on site, including the habitat of numerous VSHFLHVDWULVNVXFKDVWKH%ODQGLQJ·V7XUtle, Gray Ratsnake, Eastern Whip-poor- will, Cerulean Warbler, Little Brown Myotis, etc.

t. 416 572 0464 f. 416 572 0465 Suite 203 ʹ 276 Carlaw Ave Toronto Ontario M4M 3L1

Page 129 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

P A G E

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Re: Magenta Waterfront Development Corp Permit December 11, 2017

Regarding the Permit and your review, critically the MWDC has failed to demonstrate that: avoidance and reasonable alternative to habitat destruction have EHHQFRQVLGHUHGIRUWKH%ODQGLQJ·V7XUWOH*UD\5DWVQDNHDQGRWKHUVSHFLHVDWULVN adverse effects have been adequately studied and considered;; adverse effects have been minimized;; and the development will result in an overall benefit to the species in Ontario. According to an expert retained by the Respondents, Mr. Gord Miller, B.Sc., M.Sc., ´015)VKRXOGnot issue the SURSRVHGRYHUDOOEHQHILWWRVSHFLHVSHUPLWµ This opinion confirms the finding by the District Planner for the MNRF Peterborough District Office that the overall benefit measures to be taken by MWDC are not apparent. Reducing road speeds, amphibian crossing signage and a prediction that the roadway will be only occasionally used by amphibians and reptiles is not sufficient to satisfy the condition of ESA clause 17(2)(c). Sections 9 and 10 of the ESA prohibits the killing of Species at Risk Ontario List threatened or endangered species, and the destruction of their habitat. The Ontario Municipal Board decision Magenta Waterfront Development Corp. v. South Frontenac (Township), 2016 Carswell 10613, dealt with a Zoning By-law $PHQGPHQW ´=%$µ DQG’UDIW3Oan approval, specifically a change to rezone the ODQGVIURP¶5XUDO·WRVLWHVSHFLILF5HVLGHQWLDO=RQHV7KH%RDUGOHIWLWWRWKH&RXQW\ of Frontenac to clear the conditions of draft plan approval. In particular, the rezoning is conditional on Condition 5(’WKDW´DOOUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVIURPWKH MNRF included in any Benefit Permit, if issued, related to Gray Rat Snakes and %ODQGLQJV7XUWOHRUDQ\RWKHUVSHFLHVDWULVNLGHQWLILHGµ>HPSKDVLVDGGHG@ In other words, the Board having heard evidence from ecological or biology experts, left the decision regarding the protection of species at risk and habitat to MNRF. In so doing, the Board also made clear that the development is entirely contingent on MNRF doing its job of carefully ensuring habitat is protected. Most importantly, as one of the stewards of the planning process and protection of the public interest, the Minister must be satisfied the development is beneficial to the species. Of greatest concern to the Respondents is the fact many of the species recorded on the site, including threatened and endangered species, are not the subject of the Permit application. This is a significant omission. The Respondents retained several qualified experts to conduct wildlife surveys regarding the property. In addition, they retained Mr. Bob Bowles, a renowned field naturalist to review the MWDC Environmental Impact Assessments, McIntosh 2

Donnelly Law t. 416 572 0464 f. 416 572 0465 276 Carlaw Ave Suite 203 Toronto Ontario M4M 3L1

Page 130 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

P A G E 1

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Re: Magenta Waterfront Development Corp Permit December 11, 2017

Perry Peer Review, additional field surveys for Whip-poor-will and bats, and the MNRF Registry Information Notice. According to Mr. Bowles: I am confident there exists great potential for a good population of %ODQGLQJ·VTurtle on site. A new reptile and amphibian habitat survey must be undertaken because I am confident this is a good place for five- lined skink, musk turtles, snapping turtles and map turtles. The bat and Eastern Whip-poor-will studies were very professionally done. They certainly document and map a healthy population of Whip- poor-will. The site should be re-surveyed for Little Brown Myotis (Endangered). This conclusion places a strong onus on MNRF to consider the adequacy of the application it has before it, particularly in light of the comments shared with the developer previously about the lack of apparent overall benefit actions prescribed for the project. It is respectfully submitted ´HGXFDWLRQDQGPRQLWRULQJDFWLRQVµDUHQRWVXIILFLHQWWR meet the strict onus on the Minister under the ESA to be satisfied the recovery and protection of the all species at risk is achieved. In Burleigh Bay Corporation v North Kawartha (Township) 2015 CarswellOnt 15154 (OMB), the Board was acutely aware of the need to treat the subject property DVD´ZKROHµZLWKRXWfalling into the trap of treating each species and wet area as discrete units of biological values. The decision states: ´7KHHYLGHQFHLQWKLVKHDULQJUHODWLQJWRWKHLQWHQVLW\DQGHFRORJLFDOO\ enriched character of the BBC Lands, and the surrounding area, very PXFK´V\QFVµZLWKWKHSROLFLHVRIWKH336LQWKDWLWEHFRPHVVHOI-evident as to why the Fraser PSW Complex and the Fairy Lake PSW Complex have been assessed and designated as natural heritage lands that are the most valuable and subject to the special protection afforded by the policies of the PPS. It is clear that s. 2.1.2 should not be considered OLJKWO\DVWKH336HPSKDVL]HV´WKHOLQNDJHVEHWZHHQDQGDPRQJ natural heritage features and areas, surface water features and ground ZDWHUIHDWXUHVµ,QWKH%RDUG·VYLHZEDVHGRQWKHHYLGHQFHSURYLGHGE\ WKHH[SHUWVWKLVUHFRJQLWLRQRIWKH´ZKROHµDQGWKHDUHDVLQDURXQG and between as part of the complex, linked to the PSWs and Stony Lake LVUHTXLUHGµ [para. 129] 3

Donnelly Law t. 416 572 0464 f. 416 572 0465 276 Carlaw Ave Suite 203 Toronto Ontario M4M 3L1

Page 131 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

P A G E 1

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Re: Magenta Waterfront Development Corp Permit December 11, 2017

The evidence from the Provincially Significant Wetland and ANSI of Johnston Point points in a similar direction, towards a comprehensive and cumulative impact assessment of the landscape. In other words, the Board in Magenta established a principle that does not support the MWDC rezoning without confirmation from MNRF that the ecological features and functions of the site are being protected, specifically with respect to species at risk habitat. We trust that given the extraordinary effort by the Respondents and others around the lake to retain multiple experts to provide you with solid, peer reviewed information, this will assist you in reaching a conclusion about whether an overall benefit permit should be issued. We respectfully submit the evidence clearly indicates this Permit should not be issued, and the property should remain zoned as it is. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 416-572-0464, or by email to david@donnellylaw.caFF·LQJsara@donnellylaw.ca, should you have any questions or comments.

Yours truly,

David R. Donnelly cc: Respondents

Donnelly Law t. 416 572 0464 f. 416 572 0465 276 Carlaw Ave Suite 203 Toronto Ontario M4M 3L1

Page 132 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

P A G E 1

AGENDA ITEM #c)

!"#"$%$&"’()’(+,(&’%-..$+’ !"#$%&’(#)0DJHQWD:DWHUIURQW’HYHORSPHQW&RUSRUDWLRQ·V3HUPLWIRU +,’-’,’".)/’,0)12(&’,‘2(.),2)+0’"-")3-"%$44)5"(“6’,),2),0”)78"+’".)²) 97).:);<=>?=+?)@)!"#$%&"’(")*+,-$++,&.,/$01)23,4556,9(-’%2(A"(,$4) !"#’.,%B)C2:)D;E@;;EDF) ;? 12(,$+,)G","%H2%2I#0)J’.,%’+,)K’(’.,%B)26)C$,I%$4)!".2I%+".)$(&) L2%".,.M)$(&)

? 7IHA’..‘2(.)&$,"&)J"+“AH”%);;N)>D;<:)

)

-/ !011234’

;: K.)9-2((")G2,,.)$(&)K.)K"“4$)K"4(‘O@3URXG WKH´5HVSRQGHQWVµ %”,$’("&) A")$.)$()"+242#’.,)$(&)H'242#’.,)/’,0)“P8”%,’.")’()"(-’%2(A"(,$4)$(&).8"+’".) $,)%’.O)824’+B)$(&)4"#’.4$,‘2(),2)8%2-’&")AB)28’(‘2()2(),0")Q(62%A$,‘2()C2,’+") ‘..I"&)C2-“AH”%)RN)>D;<)HB),0")K’(’.,%B)26)C$,I%$4)!".2I%+".)$(&)L2%".,%B) ´015)µ RIK$#"(WD:DWHUIURQW’HYHORSPHQW&RUSRUDWLRQ·V ´0:’&µ 8%282.$4)’()%“4$,‘2(),2)$()2-”%$44)H"(“6’,)8”%A’,))=,0")´G"%A’,µ?)I(&"%)+4$I.") F RIWKH(QGDQJHUHG6SHFLHV$FW ´(6$µ ’

: S0")8"%A’,)’.)/’,0)%".8"+,),2)T%$B)!$,.($O")=L%2(,"($+)P’.)G28I4$,‘2(?)$(&) %ODQGLQJ·V7I%,4")62%),0")8I%82.")26)&"-“428’(#);U)+2(&2A’(‘IA)42,.)2()$) 8”(’(.I4$)O(2/()$.)V20(.,2()G2’(,N)’()8$%,.)26)W2,.)>E)$(&)>X)12(+"..‘2(.)Y) $(&)<)’(),0")S2/(.0'8)26)72I,0)L%2(,"($+N)12I(,B)26)L%2(,"($+:))’ E: Q()AB)28’(‘2(N),0")KC!L).02I4&)(2,)’..I"),0")8%282."&)2-"%$44)H"(“6’,),2) .8”+’".)8"%A’,:))’ X: S0"%")’.)(2)H"(“6’,)&“A2(.,%$,”&)2%)”-"().I##".,"&)’(),0")Q(62%A$,‘2()C2,’+") %"#$%&’(#),0")T%$B)5DWVQDNHDQG%ODQGLQJ·V7XUWOHERWK7KUHDWHQHGVSHFLHV I(&"%),0")97:’

!" "

Page 133 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

U: V20(.,2()G2’(,)’.)$)8"(’(.I4$)/’,0)(2)+$8$+’,B),2)$++2AA2&$,")&’.84$+"&) .8"+’".:))S0")8%282."&);N;DD)A",%")%2$&/$BN)84I.)&%’-"/$B.N);U)%".’&"(,’$4) &/“44’(#.N).“8,’+).B.,“A.N)4’#0,’(#N)(2’.“N),%$66’+N)/$.,“N)0IA$(.N)8”,.N)”,+:) /‘44)“P82.”),0”.”).8”+’".)$(&)2,0"%.),2)6$,$4)’(,"%$+,‘2(.)62%)/0’+0)A’,’#$,‘2() +$((2,)H").I++"..6I4:))L’($44BN),0")&"-“428A”(,)/‘44)&".,%2B)$).IH.,$(,’$4) $A2I(,)26)0$H’,$,),0$,)+$((2,)H")%“84’+$,”&)("$%HB:))’ –/ 502678792:7;<=’ Y: Q)$A)$()"+242#’.,)$(&)H'242#’.,:))Q)0$-")$)5:7+:)=Z2(:?)5'242#B)$(&)K:7+:)’() G4$(,)9+242#B:))L%2A)>DDD),2)>D;UN)Q)."%-"&)$.)9(-’%2(A"(,$4)12AA’..‘2("%) 26)3(,$%‘2:))G%‘2%),2)AB)$882’(,A"(,N)Q)/2%O"&)62%),0")3(,$%‘2)K’(’.,%B)26),0") 9(-’%2(A"(,)62%);X)B"$%.)$.)$).+’"(,’.,N)A$($#"%)26),%$’(’(#)$(&) &"-“428A”(,)$(&)$.)$)&’.,%’+,)A$($#"%:)Q)0$-")&’%"+,)$(&)“P,”(.’-") “P8”%’"(+")/’,0)%"-’"/’(#)"(-’%2(A"(,$4)‘A8$+,)%“82%,.:) <: JI%’(#)AB),"(I%”)$.)12AA’..‘2("%N)Q)H"+$A")-"%B)6$A'4’$%)/’,0),0")015)·V 2-"%$44)H"(“6’,)8”%A’,)8%2+"..:))7’(+"),0’.),224)/$.)+%"$,"&N)KC!L)0$.)’..I"&) (IA"%2I.)8"%A’,.)$(&)$&-’+")4",,"%.)8"%A’,,’(#),0")&".,%I+,‘2()26).8"+’".)$,) %’.O)0$H’,$,:))Q,)/$.)AB)[2H),2)%"-’"/)$)(IAH"%)26),0".")8"%A’,.)’(),0") +2(,“P,)26)+2A84$’(,.)6%2A),0”)8IH4’+),0$,),0")8"%A’,.)/"%")(2,)8%2,"+,’-") “(2I#0)26)0$H’,$,)$(&)&’&)(2,)$442/)62%)8%28”%)8IH4’+)’(8I,)$(&)$88"$4.:))’ : 3OHDVHILQGDWWDFKHGP\&9 $WWDFKPHQW´$µ ) R: Q)0$-")H""()8%"-‘2I.4B)]I$4'6’"&)$.)$()“P8”%,)/’,("..)’(),%‘HI($4)8%2+""&’(#.) =V2’(,)52$%&N)3(,$%‘2)KI(’+‘8$4)52$%&N)$(&),0")9(-’%2(A"(,$4)!"-’"/) S%‘HI($4?)$(&)’()+2I%,),2)#’-")28’(‘2()"-’&"(+")’(),0")&’.+‘84’(".)%“6”%"(+"&) $H2-":) ) ) #" "

Page 134 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

—/

+>:27<>3’

;D: S0")!".82(&"(,.)%",$’("&)A")$.)$()"+242#’.,)$(&)H'242#’.,)/’,0)“P8”%,’.")’() “(-’%2(A”(,$4)$(&).8"+’".)$,)%’.O)824’+B)$(&)4"#’.4$,‘2(),2)8%2-’&")AB)28’(‘2() 2()’,.)8%282."&)K^J)G"%A’,)62%)$+,’-’,’".)/’,0)+2(&’,‘2(.),2)$+0’"-")2-"%$44) H"(“6’,),2),0”).8"+’".N)95!)!"#’.,%B)C2:)D;E@;;ED:))’ ;;: S0’.).,$,“A”(,)“P8%”..".)AB)8%26"..‘2($4)28’(‘2()%"#$%&’(#),0")Q(62%A$,‘2() C2,’+")’..I"&)C2-“AH”%)RN)>D;<)$(&).I882%,’(#)A$,"%’$4.)8%2-’&"&)HB),0") !HVSRQGHQWVOLVWHGLQ$SSHQGL[´5µ:’ -?/@37>8’,>=937A:7;<’;8’!0BC>9:’.2<D=’ ;>: S0")KJ^1).IH["+,)8%28"%,B)’.)$88%2P’A$,“4B)E<)0$)=R;)$+%”.?)42+$,"&) “P+4I.’-“4B)2()V20(.,2()G2’(,)2(),0”)(2%,0).02%")W2I#0H2%2I#0)W$O”)’() L%2(,"($+)12I(,B:) ;E: S0")KJ^1)8%28"%,B)’.)&"(.“4B)/22&"&N)/’,0)$)0”$4,0B)&’-"%.’,B)26)A$,I%")) ,%"".N)H%I.0)$(&)A$%.04$(&.:))5$%")%2+O)2I,+%28.)&2,),0")4$(&.+$8"N) ‘(+4I&’(#)."-"%$4)42/)4B’(#)/",)$%"$.)$(&)A$%.0".:))S0"%")’.)$)%’&#"),0$,) %I(.)$42(#),0")8"(’(.I4$:))) ;X: T"("%$44BN),0")8%28"%,B)+2(,$’(.)(IA"%2I.)($,I%$4)0"%’,$#")+2(.,%$’(,.N) ‘(+4I&’(#).’#(‘6’+$(,)/22&4$(&N).’#(‘6’+$(,)/‘4&4'6")0$H’,$,)$(&)6’.0)0$H’,$,:)) QAA"&’$,“4B)$&[$+”(,),2),0")8%28"%,B)’.),0")W2I#0H2%2I#0)W$O")^",4$(&) 12A84"P)=W2(#)5$B?N)$)G%2-’(+’$44B)7’#(‘6’+$(,)^",4$(&:) ;U: )S0")KC!L)C$,I%$4)Z"%’,$#")Q(62%A$,‘2()1"(,%")A$88’(#)’(&’+$,".),0") W2I#0H2%2I#0)W$O")7/$A8)’.)$)G%2-’(+’$4)W'6")7+’"(+")*%"$)26)C$,I%$4)$(&) 7+’"(,‘6’+),QWHUHVW ´$16,µ (2,‘ WKDWLVORFDWHGZLWKLQ/RQJ%D\ S0")*C7Q)“P,”(&.)2(,2),0")KJ^1)8%28"%,B:)))

$" "

Page 135 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

;Y: *++2%&’(#),2)KC!LN),0")8%282."&)&"-“428A”(,)8%28"%,B)+2(,$’(.)T%$B) 5DWVQDNH%ODQGLQJ·V7XUWOHKDELWDWDQG%XWWHUQXW) ;<: Q()$&&’,‘2(N),0")K^J1)8%28"%,B)$88"$%.),2)+2(,$’()0$H’,$,).I’,$H4")62%)2,0"%) 78"+’".)$,)!’.O)’()3(,$%‘2N)’(+4I&’(#F)

)

x x x x x x x x x x

9$.,"%()^0'8@822%@/‘44)=S0%"$,"("&?) 1"%I4"$()^$%H4"%)=S0%"$,"("&?) W"$.,)5’,,"%()=S0%"$,"("&?) 9$.,"%()^22&@G"/"")=78"+’$4)12(+"%(?) ^22&)S0%I.0)=78"+’$4)12(+"%(?) T24&"(@/’(#"&)^$%H4"%)=78"+’$4)12(+"%(?) K'4O.($O")=78"+’$4)12(+"%(?) 9$.,"%()!‘HH2(.$O")=78"+’$4)12(+"%(?) C2%,0"%()K$8)SI%,4")=78"+’$4)12(+"%(?) 5%2$&)5""+0)L"%()=78"+’$4)12(+"%(?)

?/ #<264=7=’;8’!7:>‘E;<=:327<:=’ ;: S0")+%’,’+$4)4’A’,’(#)6$+,2%)62%)+2(.’&"%$,‘2()26),0")%"]I".,"&)KC!L)2-"%$44) H"(“6’,)8”%A’,)’.),0$,)/")$%")&"$4’(#)/’,0)$)8"(’(.I4$:))S0’.)’.)$)-"%B)&“6’(”&) $(&)&’.+%",")$%"$)62%)$)(IAH"%)26).8"+’".)26)+2(+"%(),0$,)$%")(2,)0’#04B) A2H'4":’ ;R: )RUWKH*UD\5DWVQDNHDQG%ODQGLQJ·V7XUWOHWKLVLVDSDUWLFXODUO\DFXWH 4’A’,$,‘2(:))S0"%")’.)(2)+$8$+’,B),2)&’.84$+"),0".").8"+’".)2(),0")8"(’(.I4$:’

D: )J%’-"/$B.N)/“44.N)$)42(#)%2$&/$BN)02I.".N)”,+:)/‘44)&".,%2B)A$(B)26),0") .8"+’".)$(&),0"’%)0$H’,$,.)8%"."(,:))Q()AB)28’(‘2(N),0")&"-“428A”(,)/‘44))) +"%,$’(4B)&".,%2B)$).IH.,$(,’$4)$A2I(,)26)0$H’,$,:’ ;: V20(.,2()G2’(,)+$()H")+2(.’&"%"&)$)8"(’(.I4$)/’,0)$).IH.,$(,’$4)%$(#")26) .8"+’".)$,)%’.O:))GI,,’(#)$)+2(&2A’(‘IA)&"-“428A”(,)$42(#)("$%4B)’,.)"(,’%") 4"(#,0)’.)$()“P,%“A”)+$.")26)+2(64’+,’(#)-$4I”.)²)H",/""().8"+’".)$,)%’.O) +2(."%-$,‘2()$(&)%".’&"(,’$4)&"-“428A”(,:))) %" "

Page 136 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

: KC!L)’.)2H4’#$,"&),2)422O)$,),0")&"-“428A”(,)‘A8$+,.)+244"+,’-“4B)H"62%”) &"+’&’(#)I82(),0")G"%A’,:))Q(),0")A$,"%’$4)8%2-’&"&N)Q)0$-")(2,).""()$) +2A8%“0”(.’-")"-$4I$,‘2()26)+IAI4$,’-")‘A8$+,.:) E: S0"%")’.)(2)+2(.’&"%$,‘2()2%)&’.+I..‘2()26)2-"%$44)H"(“6’,.),2),0”).8"+’".) ‘A8$+,"&:))S0"%")’.)(2)H"(“6’,),2),0”).8"+’".)&’.+I..‘2()’(+4I&"&)’(),0") Q(62%A$,‘2()C2,’+")’(),0")95!)!"#’.,%B)82.,’(#:))) X: LI%,0"%A2%"),0")2-"%$44)H"(“6’,)$+,‘2(.),2)H”),$O"()$%")(2,)$88$%"(,:))) U: Q..I’(#),0’.)G"%A’,)/2I4&)H")$)-‘24$,‘2()26)H2,0)."+,‘2(.)R)$(&);D)26),0")97*:)) Q(),0’.)&"-“428A”(,)+2(,“P,)’:”:)$)8"(’(.I4$N),0"%")+$()H")(2)H"(“6’,),2),0”) .8"+’".:) Y: H."(,)6%2A),0")2-"%$44)H"(“6’,)+2(.’&”%$,‘2()’.),0")+%’,’+$4)A$,,"%)26)+$8$+’,B) 62%)&’.84$+“A”(,:) <: .)$)%".I4,N),0")’..I$(+")26),0")G"%A’,)%“8%”."(,.),0")82..‘H4")/%’,’(#)266) .IH.,$(,’$4)0$H’,$,)62%)$,)4"$.,).‘P).8"+’".)$,)%’.O:))Q()"+242#’+$4),"%A.N),0"%") ‘.)(2)82..‘H4")[I.,‘6’+$,‘2()62%),0’.)&"+’.‘2(:) : S0")3(,$%‘2)KI(’+‘8$4)52$%&)=´3K5µ?)&"+’.‘2()70("),8*)(%.%&"), 9(#(+&:’("),;&%:,#<,=&>)1,?%&")("*@,AB&C"21$:D3)>D;Y)1$%./“443(,);DY;E) =3K5?)&$,”&)VXQH WKH´3K5)‘HFLVLRQµ LVH[SOLFLWWKDWWKH &RQGLWLRQVRI’UDIW3ODQ$SSURYDO´ZLOOHQVXUHWKDWPDWWHUVRI3URYLQFLDO Q(,"%".,)$.)/“44)$.),0”)8IH4’+)’(,"%".,)’.)$88%28%’$,“4B)$&&%”.."&)$(&)&I4B) VDIHJXDUGHGµ) R: Q(),0")12(&’,‘2(.),2)*88%2-$4N)K^J1)AI.,)’(+2%82%$,")$44)%"+2AA"(&$,‘2(.) IURPWKH015)DQGLQFOXGLQJDQ\UHFRPPHQGDWLRQVLQD´%HQHILW3HUPLWµWR 8%2,"+,).8"+’".)$,)%’.O:)

&" "

Page 137 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

ED: Q,)’.)AB)28’(‘2(),0$,)’..I’(#).I+0)$)G"%A’,)%“8%”."(,.),0").$+%‘6’+’(#)26).2A") 2%)$44)26),02.").8"+’".)$.),0"%")’.)(2).I’,$H4")$&[$+"(,)0$H’,$,),0"B)+$(),$O") %“6I#”)’(:)) E;: V20(.,2()G2’(,)’.)$)HB)&“6’(’,‘2()$)I(’]I”)0$H’,$,)’(),0’.)4$(&.+$8":) E>: S0".")828I4$,‘2(.)0$-")4’A’,"&)%$(#".M)K^J1)+$((2,)#2)%“84$+”),0’.) 0$H’,$,N)"-"()‘6),0"B)/"%")8%282.’(#),2)&2).2N)/0’+0),0"B)$%")(2,:)) EE: KC!L)AI.,)’()A$O’(#)’,.)&"+’.‘2()A$O"),0")V20(.,2()G2’(,)8"(’(.I4$),0") 62+I.)26)+2(."%-$,‘2()“662%,:) EX: S0’.)’(+4I&”.),0")2,0"%).8"+’".)&","+,"&N)/0’+0)“4”-$,"),0")("+"..’,B)62%) 8%2,"+,’(#)0$H’,$,:) EU: Q()AB)28’(‘2(N),0")’(,"%$+,‘2()$.8"+,.)/’,0)$&[$+"(,)G7^)0$.)(2,)H""() 8%28"%4B)+2(.’&"%"&:) EY: Q,)+$((2,)H")$%#I"&),0"%")’.)$()2-"%$44)H"(“6’,)’(),0’.)+$.”)$.)%"]I’%"&)I(&"%) ."+,‘2();<=>?)26),0")!“E*“0(%(E,=:(@$(2,F@):))S0”%”)’.)(2)"-’&"(+"),0"%")’.)$() 2-"%$44)H"(“6’,)’(),0’.)+$.”:)) E<: 3()V20(.,2()G2’(,N),0").8"+’".)$(&)0$H’,$,)42..)/‘44)H")$H.24I,":))S0".") .8"+’".)/‘44)(2,)H")A2-’(#)266),2)$&[$+"(,)4$(&.:))S0")828I4$,‘2()/‘44).I%“4BN) “-”(,I$44B)H”)42.,:) E: 3(")0$.),2)#"("%$,")$)H"(“6’,)“4."/0”%”),2)"(+2I%$#")$(&).,‘AI4$,"),0") .8"+’".:))_2I)0$-"),2).02/),0"%")’.)$(2,0"%)828I4$,‘2().,‘AI4$,"&)$.) +2A84","),2,$4)%“84$+“A”(,N)84I.)$I#A”(,$,‘2(:) ER: KC!L).02I4&)(2,)H").$,’.6’"&)HB)’(+2A84",")A"$.I%".)²)LW·VQ2,),0").$A"),2) VKRZ´DEHQHILWµ)

‘" "

Page 138 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

XD: Q)/2I4&).$B),0’.)’.),0")+$.“N)2()$)62%”.,"&)8"(’(.I4$)$&[$+"(,)G7^F),0’.)’.),0") +$.")’()/0’+0)KC!L).02I4&)&’.$442/),0")G"%A’,:))S0")3K5)$(&)12I(,B)26) L%2(,"($+)+$((2,),0"()+4"$%),0")+2(&’,‘2(.)26),0")&%$6,)84$()$88%2-$4N),0") 8IH4’+)’(,"%".,)’.)(2,)8%2,"+,"&N)$(&),0")&"-“428A”(,).02I4&)(2,)8%2+""&:) X;: .’&")6%2A),0"),/2).8"+’".)$,)%’.O)$,)’..I")’(),0’.)(2,’+“N),0”)8%"."(+")26).I+0) $)4$%#")(IAH"%)26).8"+’".)$,)%’.O)’(),0’.).A$44)8"(’(.I4$)A$O".)’,)$)I(’]I") 8’"+")26)($,I%$4)0"%’,$#")4$(&),0$,).02I4&)H")8%2,"+,"&)6%2A)&"-“428A”(,:) S0’.)/$.)+4"$%4B),0")’(,"(,‘2()26),0")3K5)J"+’.‘2()/0’+0)A$O".)84$((’(#) $88%2-$4)+2(,’(#"(,)2()$++“8,$H4”)8%2,"+,‘2()62%).8"+’".)$,)%’.O:))7’(+")’,)’.) (2,)82..‘H4"),2)8%2,"+,),0")0$H’,$,)26).2)A$(B).8"+’".)$,)%’.O)’().I+0)$).A$44) $%"$)+2(-"%,"&),2)%".’&"(,’$4)&"-“428A”(,N),0")3K5)%"]I’%“A”(,)+$((2,)H") .$,’.6’"&:)) E;<960=7;<’ X>: ()2-"%$44)H"(“6’,)G”%A’,)’.)’($88%28%’$,")’(),0’.)+$.":))S2)H")4"#’,‘A$,“N),0”) H"(“6’,)0$.),2)H”)#%"$,"%),0$(),0")42..N)/0’+0)0$.)(2,)H""()&“A2(.,%$,”&)’() ,0’.)+$.")$(&).““A.)I(4’O"4B),2)H”)82..‘H4”:)’ XE: 5"+$I."),0"%")’.)(2)-’$H4")$%#IA"(,)8%"."(,"&)26)2-"%$44)H"(“6’,)’(),0’.)+$.“N) $)G”%A’,)I(&”%)."+,‘2();<=>?)26),0")97).02I4&)H")&"(’"&:) XX: S0")3K5)J"+’.‘2()+4"$%4B)’(&’+$,".),0$,),0")84$((’(#)$88%2-$4),0"B)0$-") ‘..I"&)%"]I’%".)8"%A’,.)$(&)+2(&’,‘2(.),0$,)A"",),0")%"]I’%“A”(,.)26),0") 97:)7’(+"),0’.)+$((2,)H")$+0’"-"&N)’,)’.),0")3K5)J"+’.‘2(),0$,)/‘44)&’.$442/) ,0")&"-“428A”(,:’

) )

;;)J"+)>D;<) )

)

))))))J$,")

(" "

Page 139 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

$SSHQGL[´$µ²’E033790601’?7:2>’ 1!!Q1WK)aQS*9))@))T3!J3C)9J^*!J)KQWW9!)' 9J1SQ3C)) ) 5:7+:)=Z2(:?)5'242#B);R<Y)('-"%.',B)26)TI"480N)3(,$%'2)) K:7+:)G4$(,)9+242#B);R<\)(’-"%.’,B)26)TI"480N)3(,$%‘2)) ) 1!99!)ZQ7S3!_) ) ;R«@;R<)K$($#"%N)5'2.B.,“A.)Q(+:N)TI"480)) ) ;R<@;R<R)K$($#"%N)G2,@1$4)W’A’,"&N)G$%%B)72I(&)) ) ;R<R@;R\D)7I8”%-’.2%N)K’&@^".,)K$(I6$+,I%’(#N)S0I(&"%)5$B)) ) ;R\D@;R>)7+’"(,’.,N)3(,$%‘2)K’(’.,%B)26),0")9(-’%2(A"(,N)S2%2(,2) ) @).“A’($4)%”."$%+0)’(,2)+2(.,%I+,"&)/",4$(&.)62%)/$.,"/$,"%),%"$,A"(,)) @)A$($#“A”(,)$(&)+2(,%24)26)’(-$.’-")$]I$,’+)/""&.)) @),0")‘A8$+,)26)$+’&)8%"+‘8’,$,‘2()2()6%".0)/$,"%)"+2.B.,“A.)) ) ;R>@;R\Y)7”(‘2%)9(-’%2(A"(,$4)366’+"%)=;R>?),0"()J’.,%’+,)366’+"%)=;R\X?N)) ) 3(,$%‘2)K’(’.,%B)26),0")9(-’%2(A"(,N)S’AA’(.)) @)&“4’-"%B)26),0”)8244I,‘2()$H$,“A”(,)8%2#%$A),2)$)4$%#")82%,‘2()26)(2%,0"$.,"%() 3(,$%‘2)) @)"(62%+“A”(,)26)G%2-’(+’$4)W"#’.4$,‘2()$(&)!"#I4$,‘2(.)) @)A$($#“A”(,)$(&),%$’(’(#)26);D)6’“4&)$(&)266’+”).,$66)) @)J’%"+,2%)I(&"%)G$%,)aQQ)26)9G*)) ) ;R\Y@;R\R)G%26"..2%N)7’%)7$(&62%&)L4"A’(#)1244"#“N)L%2.,)1$A8I.N)W’(&.$B)) ) @)+2@62I(&’(#)6$+I4,B)62%)$)(”/)"(-’%2(A"(,$4)8%2#%$A)+$44"&)) @)’(.,%I+,‘2($4)$%"$.)’(+4I&"&)"+242#BN).2'4).+’"(+“N)0B&%2#“242#BN)) “(-’%2(A”(,$4)4$/N)4’A(242#BN)/$,”%.0”&)A$($#“A”(,)) ) 7"(‘2%)K$($#"%N)S%$’(’(#)b)J"-“428A”(,:)3(,$%‘2)K’(’.,%B)26),0")9(-’%2(A"(,N)S2%2(,2)) ) @)A$($#’(#)$)+2A8%“0”(.’-"),%$’(’(#)$(&)&"-“428A”(,)8%2#%$A)62%).,$66)26),0") K’(’.,%B)26)9(-’%2(A"(,N)AI(’+‘8$4)/$,"%)$(&)/$.,"/$,"%)28"%$,2%.)$(&)2,0"%.)) @)62%A$,‘2()26),0")3(,$%‘2)9(-’%2(A"(,$4)S%$’(’(#)12(.2%,‘IA)26)+2AAI(’,B) +244"#".)$(&)+2(,’(I"&)4’$’.2()/’,0),0$,)#%2I8)) @)&"-“428A”(,)26)4"#’.4$,‘2()62%),0")1"%,‘6’+$,‘2()26)9(-’%2(A"(,$4)G"%.2((“4)$(&) $&-$(+“A”(,)26),0$,)&%$6,)4”#’.4$,‘2(),0%2I#0),0")$88%2-$4)8%2+"..)) ) ;RRE@;RR<)J’.,%’+,)K$($#"%N)C2%,0)5$B)J’.,%’+,)366’+")) ) 3(,$%‘2)K’(’.,%B)26)9(-’%2(A"(,)$(&)9("%#BN)C2%,0)5$B)) )" "

Page 140 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

)

@)&“4’-"%B)26),0”)8244I,‘2()$H$,“A”(,)8%2#%$A),2)G$%%B)72I(&)J’.,%’+,N)C'8’..’(#) J’.,%’+,N)$(&)$)82%,‘2()26)S’A’.O$A’(#)J’.,%’+,)) @)"(62%+“A”(,)26)G%2-’(+’$4)W"#’.4$,‘2()$(&)!"#I4$,‘2(.)) @)+2AA"(,)$(&)$&-’.")2()9(-’%2(A"(,$4).."..A"(,)$(&)84$((’(#)8%2+"&I%".)) @)&“4’-"%B)26)2,0”%)K:3:9:9:)8%2#%$A.),2)AI(’+‘8$4)$(&)’(&I.,%’$4)+4’"(,.)) @)J’%"+,2%)I(&"%)G$%,)aQQQ)26)9G))

) ;RR<@>DDD)G%".’&"(,N)K'44"%)9(-’%2(A"(,$4)7"%-’+".)Q(+:N)C2%,0)5$BN)3(,$%‘2)) ) @)"(-’%2(A"(,$4)+2(64’+,)%".24I,‘2()$(&)8%2H4"A).24-’(#)) @)"(-’%2(A"(,$4)84$((’(#)$(&)$88%2-$4.)) @)"(-’%2(A"(,$4),%$’(’(#)"(-’%2(A"(,$4).’,")$.."..A"(,.)) )

DDD@>D;U)9(-’%2(A"(,$4)12AA’..‘2("%)26)3(,$%‘2)) ) @)%"-’"/),0")‘A84"A"(,$,‘2()26)$(&)+2A84’$(+")26)A’(’.,%’".)/’,0),0")9(-’%2(A"(,$4) 5'44)26)!’#0,.)=95!?)) @)8%2-’&")"&I+$,‘2()8%2#%$A.)$H2I,),0")95!),2),0")8IH4’+)) @)%"-’"/),0")I.")26),0")95!)%"#’.,%B)) @)8%2-’&")%"]I".,"&)#I’&$(+"),2)A’(’.,%’".)) @)%“82%,)$((I$44B),2),0”)W"#’.4$,’-")..“AH4B)) @)A$O”).8"+’$4)%“82%,.)$.)%"]I’%”&)) ) FG@.-E#"-(&!’’ x K'44"%N)T:);R«:))14$..‘6’+$,‘2()26)3(,$%‘2)4$O".)H$."&)2(),0"’%).IHA"%."&)$(&) 642$,’(#)A$+%280B,")642%$:)K:7+:)S0".’.)('-"%.',B)26)TI"480N)TI"480N)3(,$%'2)) x J$4"N)Z:K:)$(&)T:9:)K'44"%:);R<\:)10$(#".)'(),0")*]I$,'+)A$+%280B,")642%$)26)^0',")) ^$,"%)W$O")("$%)7I&HI%BN)3(,$%'2)6%2A);RX<@;R<<:)1$($&'$()L'"4&)C$,I%$4'.,) R>=E?F)>YX@><D:)) x T:9:)K'44"%)$(&)Z:K:)J$4":);R<R:)*88$%"(,)&'66"%"(+".)'()$]I$,'+)A$+%280B,")642%$) 26)\)4$O".)'()KI.O2O$)J'.,%'+,)3(,$%'2)6%2A);RUE),2);R<<:)1$($&'$()L'"4&@ C$,I%$4'.,)RE=X?F)E\Y@ERD:)) x ^'4"N)Q:N)T:)G$4A$,""%N)$(&)T:9:)K'44"%:);R\;:).")26)$%,‘6’+’$4)/",4$(&.)62%) /$.,"/$,"%),%"$,A"(,:)Q().“4”+,"&)8%2+""&’(#.)26),0")A’&@/".,)+2(6"%"(+")2() /",4$(&)-$4I".)’()A$($#“A”(,:)VI(");<@;RN);R;:)7$’(,)G$I4N)K’((".2,$N):7:*:)) x 54$+ON)7:*:N)Q:)^'4")$(&)T:9:)K'44"%:);R\;:)7"/$#")"664I"(,),%"$,A"(,)'()$()$%,'6'+'$4) A$%.04$(&:);R\;)12(6"%"(+")26),0")^$,"%)G244I,'2()12(,%24)L"&"%$,'2()3+,2H"%)XN) ;R\;N)J",%2',N)K'+0'#$(N):7:*:)) x _$(N)C:J:)$(&)T:9:)K'44"%:);R;:)10$%$+,"%‘c$,‘2()26)4$O".)("$%)7I&HI%BN)3(,$%‘2:)) 10$8,"%);:)7,I&’".)26)4$O".)$(&)/$,"%.0"&.)("$%)7I&HI%BN)3(,$%‘2F)L’($4)S"+0(’+$4)) !“82%,)26),0”)7I&HI%B)9(-’%2(A"(,$4)7,I&BF)a24IA");N)3(,$%‘2)K’(’.,%B)26),0")) 9(-’%2(A"(,:) x K'44"%N)T:9:N)Q:)^‘4")$(&)T:T:)Z’,+0’(:);R\E:)G$,,"%(.)26)$++IAI4$,‘2()26).“4”+,"&) A",$4.)’()A"AH"%.)26),0").26,)/$,"%)A$+%280B,")642%$)26)+"(,%$4)3(,$%‘2)4$O".:) *]I$,’+)52,$(B);UFUE@YX)) x ^‘4"N)Q:)$(&)T:9:)K'44"%:);R\E:)S0")A$+%280B,")642%$)26)XY)$+’&‘6’"&)$(&)$+’&) ."(.’,’-").26,)/$,"%)4$O".)’()3(,$%‘2:)^$,"%)!".2I%+".)5%$(+0N)3(,$%‘2)K’(’.,%B)26) *" "

Page 141 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

x x

x x x

x x x ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

,0")9(-’%2(A"(,N)!“82%,)EU88:)) Z’,+0’(N)T:T:N)Q:)^‘4"N)T:9:)K'44”%)$(&)C:J:)$(:);R\X:)K$+%280B,")&$,$)6%2A)XY)) .2I,0"%()3(,$%‘2).26,)/$,"%)4$O".)26)-$%B’(#)8Z:)3(,$%‘2)K’(’.,%B)26),0") 9(-’%2(A"(,)J$,$)!“82%,N)J!\Xd;)) $(N)C:J:)$(&)T:9:)K'44”%:);R\X:)966"+,.)26)&“82.’,‘2()26)$+’&.)$(&)A”,$4.)2(),0")) +0"A’.,%B)$(&)H'242#B)26)4$O".)("$%)7I&HI%BN)3(,$%‘2:)88)>XE@>>)Q(F)9(-’%2(A"(,$4)) QA8$+,.)26)7A"4,"%.:)V:)C%’$#IN)9&:)*&-$(+".)’()9(-’%2(A"(,$4)7+’"(+".)7"%’".N)V:)) ^‘4"B)$(&)72(.)Q(+2%82%$,"&N)C::)) ^‘4"N)Q:N)T:9:)K'44"%N)T:T:)Z’,+0’()$(&)C:J:)$(:);R\U:)78"+’".)+2A82.’,‘2()$(&)) A$+%280B,")-"#",$,‘2()26)2(")$+’&‘6’"&)$(&),/2)$+’&@."(.’,’-")4$O".)’()3(,$%‘2:) 1$($&’$()L’“4&@C$,I%$4’.,)RR=E?F)ED@E;>:)) C:J:)_$(N)T:9:)K'44”%N)Q:)^‘4")$(&)T:T:)Z’,+0’(:);R\U:)!’+0("..)26)$]I$,’+) A$+%280B,")642%$.)26).26,)/$,"%)4$O".)26)&‘66"%’(#)8Z)$(&),%$+")A",$4)+2(,"(,)’() 3(,$%‘2N)1$($&$:)]I$,’+)52,$(BN)>EF><@XD)) ^‘4"N)Q:N)T:9:)K'44"%N)$(&)7::)54$+O:);R\U:)J".’#()$(&)I.")26)$%,‘6’+’$4)/",4$(&.:)88)

Y@)E<)Q(F)9+242#’+$4)12(.’&"%$,‘2(.)’()^",4$(&)S%"$,A"(,)’()KI(’+‘8$4) ^$.,"/$,"%.:)9&:)HB)G$I4)V:)T2&6%“BN)9&/$%&)e$B(2%N)70"4’$)G"4+c$4.O’)$(&)V:) 5”(.2%$&2:)a$()C2.,%$(&)!"’(024&)12:)C:_:)X<)88:) K'44"%N)T:9:);R\R:).")26)$%,'6'+'$4)+$,,$'4)A$%.0".),2),%"$,)."/$#")'()(2%,0"%() 3(,$%'2N)1$($&$)8:)YEY@YX>)Q(F)12(.,%I+,"&)^",4$(&.)62%)^$.,"/$,"%)S%"$,A"(,F) KI('+'8$4N)Q(&I.,%'$4)$(&)*#%'+I4,I%$4:)9&:)HB)J2($4&)*:)Z$AA"%:)W2I'.)GIH4'.0"%.) Q(+:)K'+0:N):7:*:)\E;)88:)) 7+0/$%,c"4N)9:)$(&)T:)K'44"%:)>DD;:)ZIA$()J’A"(.‘2(.)26)9+2.B.,“A)5$.”&) G4$((’(#)`.’(#),0")9(-’%2(A"(,$4)5'44)26)!’#0,.)=95!?),2)10$(#")G"%.8"+,’-".)2() 9+2.B.,“A)G4$((’(#:)G%2+”"&’(#.)26),0")G$%O.)!"."$%+0)L2%IA)26)3(,$%‘2)>DD;) ((I$4)K"",’(#:)88:)X<@U>)) K'44"%N)T:)>DDU:)1022.’(#)3I%)W"#$+BF)3-"%+2A’(#)a$4I")12(64’+,.),0$,)L%I.,%$,") 6RFLHW\·V(IIRUWVWR’HDO:LWK(QYLURQPHQWDO&KDOOHQJHV9DOXHDQG(WKLFVLQ 9&I+$,‘2($4)&A’(’.,%$,‘2(N)E=E?F;@<)) K'44"%N)T:)>DD<:)C"/)J’%"+,‘2(.)62%)G4$((’(#)’()3(,$%‘2:)3(,$%‘2)G4$((’(#)V2I%($4N)
=Y?FX>@XE)) K'44"%N)T:)>DD:)C"/)J’%"+,‘2(.)62%)G4$((’(#)’()3(,$%‘2:)G$%,)QQN)72I,0"%()3(,$%‘2:) 3(,$%‘2)G4$((’(#)V2I%($4)>E=;?)>@>R))

!+" "

Page 142 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

%#H(+‘E(&)$+$&E$‘F+$!$&"#"-(&!‘²’!E-$&"-)-E’#&,’"$EI&-E#.’’ x K'44"%N)T:9:);R<:))A",02&)26)".,$H4’.0’(#)($,’-")-"#",$,‘2()2()&’.,I%H"&).’,".)) +2(.’.,"(,)/’,0),0"),0"2%B)26)(I+4"$,‘2(:)G%"."(,"&)$,)E%&)((I$4)K"",’(#N) 1$($&’$()) x W$(&)!"+4$A$,‘2()..2+’$,‘2()12(6"%"(+“N)7I&HI%BN)3(,$%‘2)) x Z$(($N)V:9:)$(&)T:9:)K'44”%:);R<:)!"+4$A$,‘2()4"#’.4$,‘2()’()3(,$%‘2)$(&)’,.)) “66”+,’-"("..:)G%"."(,"&)$,);>,0)((I$4)K"",’(#N)1$($&’$()W$(&)!"+4$A$,‘2()) ..2+’$,‘2(N)7I&HI%BN)3(,$%‘2)) x K'44"%N)T:9:N)V:9:)Z$(($)$(&)J:)12A%’":);R\:)S0")$884’+$,‘2()26)+2(.,%I+,"&) /",4$(&.)$(&)#“2824BA”%),"+0(242#’".),2)%"+4$‘A),0")$H$(&2("&)e$A)e2,’$)K’(") 7’,“N)S’AA’(.N)3(,$%‘2:)G%”."(,"&)$,),0");E,0)((I$4)K"",’(#N)1$($&’$()W$(&) !"+4$A$,‘2()*..2+’$,‘2(N)3,,$/$N)3(,$%‘2)) x K'44"%N)T:9:);RRD:)S0")&".’#()26)I(&"%#%$&I$,")+I%%’+I4$)62%),0")"(-’%2(A"(,$4) 8%2,"+,‘2()’(&I.,%B:)G%"."(,"&)$,),0")12(6"%"(+")2()(&"%#%$&I$,")1I%%'+I4$)'()) x 9(-'%2(A"(,$4)7+'"(+"N)(’-"%.’,B)26)TI"480N)TI"480N)3(,$%‘2’

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' !!" "

Page 143 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

AGENDA ITEM #c)

$SSHQGL[´%µ%2:>3726’+>J7>K>D’’ XU: S2)8%2-’&"),0’.)28’(‘2(N)Q)%"-’"/"&)$(&)%“6”%"(+"&),0")62442/’(#F)’ : !"#$%&"’(")+,G’:@),F22(22’(")3,H&1"2&",I&$")3,:%(:%(E,JK, !@&+&0$@+,=(%#$@(2N)K$%+0);N);D;>:) 5: !"#$%&"’(")+,G’:@),F22(22’(")3,70("),8)(%.%&"), 9(#(+&:’(")<) 1: H&1"2&",I&$")3,I%(:%(E,JK,!@&+&0$@+,=(%#$@(2N)VI(");>N)>D;X) J: /(2:&“E$“0,L())(%,%(M,H&1"2&",I&$”),F@@(22,/&E3,I%(:%(E,JK, !@&+&0$@+,=(%#$@(23,L"H%I$%B)RN)>D;U:) 9: I((%,/(#$(C,&.,)1(,!”#$%&"’(")+,G’:@),F22(22’(")2,.&%,70("), 8)(%.%&"),9(#(+&:’(")3,L&>01J&%&>01,LN(3,I%(:%(E,JK,7@G")&21, I(%%KN)VI4B)>\N)>D;U:) L: 70("),8*)(%.%&"),9(#(+&:’("),;&%:,#<,=&>)1,?%&")("@, AB&C"21$:D3)>D;Y)1$%./“443(,);DY;E:) T: L())(%,)&,)1(,I%&:&”("),%(M,I%&:&2(E,I%&O(@),“E,)1(,!“E*“0(%(E, =:(@$(2,F@)3,PQQR3,I%(:%(E,JK,7$"$2)(%K,&.,S)>%+,/(2&>%@(2,“E, ?&%(2)%K3,C2-“AH”%)XN)>D;Y:) Z: 70(”),8*)(%.%&”),9(#(+&:’(”),;&%:<,I(%’$),.&%,@)$#$)$(2,C$)1, @&“E$)$&”,)&,@1$(#(,&#(%++,J(.$),)&,)1(,2:(@$(2,T,!=F,2<4RAPDA@D3,95!) !”#’.,%B)C2:)D;E@;;EDN)C2-“AH”%)RN)>D;<:) Q: ,,9%.),=>J’$22$&“2,“E,F))@1’(")2,&.,72,!#&””(,I&))2,“E,72, 7((+,/>E”$NTI%&>E,$",%(2:&“2(,)&,!-/,G”.&%’*)$&",S&)$@(,S&<,Q46T 446QN)J"+“AH”%);DN)>D;<:)) ' )

!#" "

Page 144 329Harmer , on behalf of the L ake Res… Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud and Ms.of Sarah

April 18, 2018 Report 2018 -3

Page 145 of 329Officer, will provide Council wi… Mr. Kelly Pender , Chief Administrative

Administrative Report

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Page 146 of 329Officer, will provide Council wi… Mr. Kelly Pender , Chief Administrative

CAO Schedule

Administrative Report, Frontenac County Council, April 18, 2018

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Frontenac CAO’s meeting, April 5, North Frontenac
Planning Advisory Committee Meeting, April 9
Frontenac Accessibility Advisory Committee Meeting, April 10
County Council, April 18
Administrative Building Design Task Force Meeting, April 18
EOWC Meeting, April 19 and 20, Calabogie
Community Development Advisory Committee, May 10
Planning Advisory Committee, June 11
Superior Court, Osgoode Hall, Sorensen et al and the County of Frontenac, June 21

Page 147 of 329Officer, will provide Council wi… Mr. Kelly Pender , Chief Administrative

AMCTO Legislative Update – Bills & Lawmaking • Bill 3, the Pay Transparency Act, was introduced and received second reading. Bill 3 would require certain employers to track and publish information about compensation in their organizations, with the goal of improving pay equity.

Administrative Report, Frontenac County Council, April 18, 2018

AGENDA ITEM #b)

• Bill 175, the Safer Ontario Act, passed third reading and received Royal Assent. The bill introduces a broad set of reforms to policing and community safety.

Page 148 of 329Officer, will provide Council wi… Mr. Kelly Pender , Chief Administrative

AMO Policy Update Canada-Ontario Infrastructure Bilateral Agreement released In keeping with our commitment to update members, the full Canada-Ontario Infrastructure Bilateral Agreement has been posted.

•

It sets out the annualized federal amounts for each of the funding streams for the next 10 years as well as eligible projects, costs and other requirements.

•

Ontario will be undertaking work to put its administrative processes in place for municipal submissions. Timing is unknown.

Administrative Report, Frontenac County Council, April 18, 2018

AGENDA ITEM #b)

•

Page 149 of 329Officer, will provide Council wi… Mr. Kelly Pender , Chief Administrative

AMO Update Provincial Matters OCEF funds projects that restore and protect affected watersheds. Not-for-profit organizations, First Nations and Métis communities, municipalities, schools, colleges, universities and conservation authorities are eligible. The deadline to submit an application is May 15, 2018. For more information, email ocef@ontario.ca or call Scotty McCaw, OCEF Project Manager at 416-314-0067.

•

Ministry of the Attorney General regulations for the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act, 2017 are posted. You can view copies of these regulations on Ontario’s e-Laws: O. Reg 102/18: Planning Act Appeals and O. Reg.101/18: Transitional Matters.

Administrative Report, Frontenac County Council, April 18, 2018

AGENDA ITEM #b)

•

Page 150 of 329Officer, will provide Council wi… Mr. Kelly Pender , Chief Administrative

AMO Update Provincial Matters •

The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) has released Call It Out - an interactive eLearning program and tool designed to raise awareness of the history and impact of racism and racial discrimination, and to promote a culture of human rights in Ontario. The Ministry of Housing’s Housing Delivery Group is available to work with municipal governments, developers and other organizations to reduce barriers for specific housing projects. For more information see the ministry news release or contact Paula Dill, Provincial Land and Development Facilitator.

•

Administrative Report, Frontenac County Council, April 18, 2018

AGENDA ITEM #b)

The Government of Ontario has released a consultation paper for public comment on potential regulations to implement Rowan’s Law (Concussion Safety) Act. The submission deadline is May 7, 2018.

Page 151 of 329Officer, will provide Council wi… Mr. Kelly Pender , Chief Administrative

AMO Update Federal Matters • Municipalities invested $1.3 billion from the federal Gas Tax Fund to improve the environment and strengthen communities. Learn more in AMO’s federal Gas Tax Fund Outcomes Report.

Applications are accepted until June 29, 2018 Administrative Report, Frontenac County Council, April 18, 2018

AGENDA ITEM #b)

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) is offering climate change staff grants for Canadian municipalities with populations of 150,000 or less, providing up to $125,000 over two years to supplement the salary of a new or existing municipal employee who will work on initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or improve adaptation to local climate change impacts.

Page 152 of 329Officer, will provide Council wi… Mr. Kelly Pender , Chief Administrative

2018 AMCTO Provincial Budget Update Ontario’s 2018 budget, A Plan for Care and Opportunity. This year’s budget, which comes just over two months before the 2018 provincial election, is full of new spending commitments in human services, health, and childcare. The most significant new investments in the budget were : •

Administrative Report, Frontenac County Council, April 18, 2018

AGENDA ITEM #b)

• • • • •

Free daycare for children aged two-and-a-half (beginning in 2020) $1 billion of funding for a Senior’s Healthy Home Program New funding for mental health and hospital operations A new Ontario Drug and Dental Program Expanding OHIP+ to all Ontarians over the age of 65 For local governments the budget contains few funding commitments or new initiatives. With the majority of new money dedicated to social programs and healthcare, the budget document primarily highlights historical spending and previous commitments to the municipal sector.

Page 153 of 329Officer, will provide Council wi… Mr. Kelly Pender , Chief Administrative

2018 AMCTO Provincial Budget Update Fiscal Overview

•

Ontario’s Ministry of Finance is forecasting 1.9 per cent average growth over the 2018-21 period, and a net debt‐to‐GDP ratio below its 2014–15 peak of 39.3 per cent—resuming its downward trend in 2022–23.

•

Last year’s budget was the government’s first balanced budget following a series of deficits that reached $19 billion at the height of the global recession in 2009. After one year of balance, the government is once again plunging the province back into deficit for the next six years by way of $20.3 billion of new spending.

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Administrative Report, Frontenac County Council, April 18, 2018

Page 154 of 329Officer, will provide Council wi… Mr. Kelly Pender , Chief Administrative

2018 AMCTO Provincial Budget Update Infrastructure: •

Following several years of budgets that contained significant new investments in infrastructure, transit, and housing, Budget 2018 primarily confirms previous infrastructure commitments, existing programs, and recent agreements, such as the bi-lateral agreement that the province recently signed with the Government of Canada.

Other commitments: • Budget 2018 allocates approximately $800 million from the Trillium Trust in 2018–19 to continue supporting key infrastructure investments across the province, including the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund and the Small Communities fund. The Trillium Trust is funded from proceeds of the sale of shares of Hydro One •

Administrative Report, Frontenac County Council, April 18, 2018

AGENDA ITEM #b)

A new Community Transportation Grant Program that will provide $40 million over five years to help municipalities, Indigenous communities, Indigenous‐led organizations and not‐for‐profits improve travel options in areas that are not served or are underserved by public transit and intercommunity bus service

Page 155 of 329Officer, will provide Council wi… Mr. Kelly Pender , Chief Administrative

2018 AMCTO Provincial Budget Update Infrastructure: • Increasing Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF) funding by an additional $5 million in 2018 to a total OMPF envelope of $510 (announced in previous budgets) • Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF) funding will increase to $300 million per year by 2018–19 to support the construction and renewal of critical road, bridge, water and wastewater infrastructure (previously announced)

Administrative Report, Frontenac County Council, April 18, 2018

AGENDA ITEM #b)

• In 2018–19 connecting links funding will increase by $5 million to $30 million, benefiting 22 municipalities (previously announced)

Page 156 of 329Officer, will provide Council wi… Mr. Kelly Pender , Chief Administrative

2018 AMCTO Provincial Budget Update Broadband Infrastructure • $500 million over three years to expand broadband connectivity in rural and northern communities. This will include an investment of up to $71 million towards improving cellular coverage in eastern Ontario, and up to $20 million to Telesat to support a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite constellation project

Administrative Report, Frontenac County Council, March 21, 2018

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Regional Economic Development • Additional investments of $100 million over the next 10 years for the Southwestern Ontario Development Fund and the Eastern Ontario Development Fund

Page 157 of 329Officer, will provide Council wi… Mr. Kelly Pender , Chief Administrative

2018 AMCTO Provincial Budget Update Public Library Funding: • $28 million over three years to create a provincial Digital Public Library that provides access to digital content • An increase in the Public Library Operating Grant by $51 million over three years Cyber-security • An additional $64 million over three years to enhance existing cyber-security programs and practices (primarily at the provincial level)

Administrative Report, Frontenac County Council, March 21, 2018

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Regional Transit Integration • A commitment to undertake regional transit planning, including a new commitment to explore potential provincial ownership of the TTC and other regional transit assets • A number of new initiatives around fare integration in the GTHA

Page 158 of 329Officer, will provide Council wi… Mr. Kelly Pender , Chief Administrative

2018 AMCTO Provincial Budget Update Railway Right-of-Way Property Taxation • Railway right-of-way property tax rates for 2018 will increase by approximately $7 per acre for 2018 • The lowest property tax rates on mainline railway rights -ofway will be increase to a minimum of $110 per acre in 2018 • Municipalities will have the option to increase rates per acre on high-tonnage rail lines based on a new adjusted tax rate schedule (Details of the schedule will be released in the spring) • The Province will continue to freeze shortline railway property tax rates at 2016 levels

Administrative Report, Frontenac County Council, April 18, 2018

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Airport Taxation • Conducting a review of the current approach used to calculate payments in lieu of property tax (PILT) for municipalities that have airports and collect taxes under this method

Page 159 of 329Officer, will provide Council wi… Mr. Kelly Pender , Chief Administrative

2018 AMCTO Provincial Budget Update Business Vacancy Rebate and Reduction Programs • Beginning in 2019 the education portion of property taxes will be aligned with changes that municipalities have made under the vacancy rebate and reduction program to ensure that they are consistent MPAC Large Business Property Advanced Disclosure Process • For the 2021 taxation year the valuation date for MPAC’s Advanced Disclosure process for complex and specialized business properties will be January 1, 2019

Administrative Report, Frontenac County Council, April 18, 2018

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Other MPAC Property Tax Updates • A commitment to reviewing the format of MPAC’s requests for information to ensure that they are clear and reasonable and introducing amendments in the fall of 2018 to provide a framework for addressing non-compliance

Page 160 of 329Officer, will provide Council wi… Mr. Kelly Pender , Chief Administrative

Economic Development •

Frontenac Ambassador Meetup April 5 at Mill Street Café in Sydenham 66 Ambassadors in attendance Presentation by Cabinscape on Brand and marketing your story

•

Ambassador Engagement 129 Total Ambassadors 70.5% Average newsletter opens 30.5% Average newsletter clicks

•

Tourism Development Ontario Highland’s Stakeholder Session May 2, 5:30 to 7:30 pm Back Forty Artisan Cheese,

•

Active Transportation Master Plan Consultant selected, work to begin in May

K&P Trail Construction: To resume late May – funding remains to complete an additional 500m of flooded trail.

Administrative Report, Frontenac County Council, April 18, 2018

AGENDA ITEM #b)

•

Page 161 of 329Officer, will provide Council wi… Mr. Kelly Pender , Chief Administrative

Civic Web Portal

Administrative Report, Frontenac County Council, April 18, 2018

AGENDA ITEM #b)

The County’s new Civic Web Portal officially launched on April 3 2018

Page 162 of 329Officer, will provide Council wi… Mr. Kelly Pender , Chief Administrative

Twitter Update

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Administrative Report, Frontenac County Council, April 18, 2018

Page 163 of 329Officer, will provide Council wi… Mr. Kelly Pender , Chief Administrative

Twitter Update

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Administrative Report, Frontenac County Council, April 18, 2018

Page 164 of 329Officer, will provide Council wi… Mr. Kelly Pender , Chief Administrative

• As part of the competency program introduced last month to County Council a staff recognition program called has been introduced • Staff who exhibit the core competencies of the County will be nominated by their peers and recognized quarterly • Six core competencies are:

Administrative Report, Frontenac County Council, April 18, 2018

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Professionalism, Respect and Integrity Client Service Orientation Accountability, Commitment and Perseverance Communication Innovation and Process Improvement Teamwork

Page 165 of 329Officer, will provide Council wi… Mr. Kelly Pender , Chief Administrative

Frontenac County Announcements Staff Updates Frontenac Paramedic Services • Chris McBain: Superintendent – Logistics • Marcus Goudie: Deputy Chief of Performance Standards • Meredith Staveley-Watson – Administrative Assistant

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Administrative Report, Frontenac County Council, April 18, 2018

Page 166 of 329Officer, will provide Council wi… Mr. Kelly Pender , Chief Administrative

Frontenac County staff showing support on Jersey Day, April 12 for all those impacted by the Humboldt Broncos tragedy.

AGENDA ITEM #b)

November 15, 1944- April 2, 2018

Frontenac County Warden 2010 & 2011

Page 167 of 329Officer, will provide Council wi… Mr. Kelly Pender , Chief Administrative

In Memory of Warden Gary Davison

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Page 168 of 329Officer, will provide Council wi… Mr. Kelly Pender , Chief Administrative

In Memory of Gord Rodgers 1946 - 2018

Principal at GKR Consulting; President, Fourteen Island and Mink Lakes Association; President, Frontenac Stewardship Foundation; Board Member, Frontenac Biosphere Reserve Network. Gord was influential with the Frontenac County Integrated Community Sustainability Plan and a Community Partnership.

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Denis Doyle and Gord Rodgers at the 2014 ICSP Workshop

Page 169 of 329Officer, will provide Council wi… Mr. Kelly Pender , Chief Administrative

A Moment of Silence

AGENDA ITEM #b)

AGENDA ITEM #a)

FRONTENAC Report 2018-054 Recommend Report to Council To:

Warden and Members of County Council

From:

Kelly J. Pender, Chief Administrative Officer

Prepared by:

Jannette Amini, Manager of Legislative Services/Clerk Joe Gallivan, Director of Planning and Economic Development

Date of meeting:

April 18, 2018

Re:

Planning and Economic Request by by the the Township Township of Economic Development Development — – Request South Frontenac for the County of Frontenac to investigate a possible violation of conditions of approval of the Johnston’s Point Condominium development, County File 10CD-2014-002

Recommendation Be It Resolved That the Council of the County Council receive the Planning and Economic – Request Development — Requestby bythe theTownship Township of of South South Frontenac Frontenac for for the the County County of of Frontenac to investigate a possible violation of conditions of approval of the Johnston’s Point Condominium development, County File 10CD-2014-002 report for information; And Further That the Council of the County of Frontenac accept the legal opinion from its solicitor for Planning services in its correspondence dated April 9, 2018 that the County does not have the authority to change the conditions of draft approval nor can it compel a subdivider/ owner to change or amend a draft condition of an OMB Order; And Further That a copy of this resolution and report be forwarded to the Township of South Frontenac. Background The application of Magenta Waterfront Development Corp. for draft approval of a plan of subdivision together with an implementing zoning bylaw was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) for hearing. A public hearing before the OMB was held in April 2016. The OMB issued its formal Order dated June 28, 2016: 1.

approving South Frontenac Zoning Bylaw, #2016-23 appended to that Order as Attachment 1; and
approving Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium appended to that Order as Attachment 2

subject to the fulfilment of the conditions set out in Attachment 3 to the Order. Attachment 3 to

Page 170 ofDevelopment 329 2018-054 Planning and Economic Request by the Township of So…

AGENDA ITEM #a)

D. WAYNE FAIRBROTHER, LL.B. T: 613.966-2620, wfairbrother@tmlegal.ca

Please respond to Belleville office

County of Frontenac By Email: jgallivan@frontenaccounty.ca 2069 Battersea Road Glenburnie, ON KOH 1S0 Attn: Joe Gallivan, Director of Planning &Economic Development Dear Mr. Gallivan RE:

Johnston Point Subdivision-Draft Conditions of Plan Approval Our File No. 04291

Further to your request, we are pleased to provide you with our legal analysis and opinion in the above-noted matter. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The application of Magenta Waterfront Development Corp. for draft approval of a plan of subdivision together with an implementing zoning bylaw was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) for hearing. A public hearing before the OMB was held in April 2016. The OMB issued its formal Order dated June 28, 2016:

approving South Frontenac Zoning Bylaw, #2016-23 appended to that Order as Attachment 1; and
approving Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium appended to that Order as Attachment 2 subject to the fulfilment of the conditions set out in Attachment 3 to the Order. Attachment 3 to the above Order was replaced with a revised Attachment 3 attached to an Order of the OMB issued August 25, 2016. One of the Conditions of Approval for the Draft Plan of Condominium that must be completed to the satisfaction of the Approval Authority (the County of Frontenac) before final approval can be given is Condition 5D which reads:

205 Dundas St E, Suite 200, Box 234, Belleville, ON K8N 5A2 Tel (613)966-2620 Fax (613) 966-2866 366 King St.E., Suite 401, Kingston,ON K7K6Y3 Tel (613) 542- 1889 Fax (61 3)542-8202

Templeman BELLEVILLE I KINGSTO N I BRO CKVILLE I TOR ONTO

tmlegal.ca

Page 171 ofDevelopment 329 2018-054 Planning and Economic Request by the Township of So…

9 Broad St., Suite 207, Brockville, ON K6V 6Z4 Tel (61 31498-4832 Fax 161 31498-6290 43 Front SI E, Suit e 400, Toronto, ON M5E 1B3 Tel 1416) 840-4256 Fax 14161840-4565

AGENDA ITEM #a) 2

“The owner shall confirm that MNRF have been consulted on all species at risk issues and that the Declaration and the Vacant Land Condominium Agreement shall incorporate all recommendations from the MNRF included in any Benefit Permit, if issued, related to Gray Rat Snakes and Blandings Turtles or any other species at risk

- - - - -ifieRtified…… .”- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The subdivider/owner, Magenta Waterfront Development Corp. has submitted to MNRF “a proposal in relation to an overall benefit permit under clause 17 (2) (c) of the Endangered Species Act, 2007 with respect to Gray Ratsnake and Blanding ’s turtle for the purpose of developing 15 condominium lots in the Township of South Frontenac”. Notice of the proposal was posted on the Environmental Registry as EBR Registry Number 013-1130 November 9, 2017 . It is our information that the MNRF has not, to date, made any decision with respect to the issuance of an overall benefit permit under clause 17 (2) (c) of the Endangered Species Act, 2007. On April 3, 2018 , the Council of the Township of South Frontenac passed a resolution as follows :

“That Council support the notice of motion and direct staff that the videos from the deputation of Sarah Harmer, Matt Rennie and Meela Melnik-Proud and the March 20, 2018 legal opinion from Donnelly Law on Rule 106 Ontario Municipal Board Rules of Procedure be forwarded to the County of Frontenac for investigation of a possible violation of conditions of approval of the Johnston’s Point Condominium development; and further that the County of Frontenac be asked to report back to the Township of South Frontenac on the actions taken.” It is our understanding that a deputation is scheduled to be made to the County Council on April 18. You have asked for our legal advice with respect to the questions posed below in order this letter may be presented to the County Council in open session at the meeting on April 18.

ISSUES AND LEGAL ADVICE 1.You have asked for our lega/ opinion as to whether or not the County of Frontenac has the legal authority to change any of the conditions of draft plan approval. Given that the approval of the draft plan was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board , the OMB exercised its powers under Section 51 (56) of the Planning Act and approved the draft plan subject to the fulfilment of the conditions noted above in this letter. Pursuant to Section 51 (56.1) of the Planning Act, the OMB gave the County of Frontenac “the authority to clear the conditions of draft approval and to administer the final approval of the plan of condominium for purposes of Section 51 (58)” of the Planning Act. As such, it is the County that is responsible for determining whether or not

Page 172 ofDevelopment 329 2018-054 Planning and Economic Request by the Township of So…

AGENDA ITEM #a) 3

the draft conditions have been fulfilled. However, it is clear, in our legal opinion, that the County does not have the authority to change the conditions of draft approval. The OMB expressly stated in its Order that “in the event that there are difficulties in implementing any of the conditions of draft approval, or if any changes to the draft plan ——-are-requiredrth e-B oard-ma¥-be-spokell-1oJudb8~bjsjs_acleaC_Statem enLtbaLth<;;—-

OMB has retained the authority to determine whether or not to change the conditions of draft approval if requested. In fact, this authority is specifically provided for in Section 51 (56.2) of the Planning Act which provides that the OMB has the authority ’to change the conditions of the approval of the draft plan at any time before the approval of the final plan of subdivision by the approval authority’ (Le. the County). A request to the OMB with respect to any “difficulties implementing any of the conditions of draft plan approval or if any changes to the draft plan are required’ could be made by any of the three parties to the OMB hearing namely Magenta Waterfront Development Corp., Township of South Frontenac or the County of Frontenac. However, given that the County of Frontenac is the Approval Authority it would, in our view, fall to Magenta or the Township to initiate such action. The law firm of Donnelly Law relies on Rule 106 of the OMB Rules of Practice and Procedure. However, in our opinion Rule 106 does not apply to the Board decision that was rendered in this matter. In any event, the wording of the OMB Order itself is all the authority that a party needs to contact the OMB if “there are difficulties implementing any of the conditions of draft plan approval, or if any changes to the draft plan or required”.

You have asked for our legal opinion as to whether or not the County of Frontenac has the legal authority to compel the subdivider/owner to change a condition of draft plan approval. As the Approval Authority, the County has the authority to determine whether or not the draft conditions of approval as contained in the OMB Order have been fulfilled. The County cannot compel a subdivider/owner to change or amend a draft condition, but the County does have the authority to make a determination that a particular condition has not been satisfied. Whether or not Condition 50 has or can be satisfied is beyond the scope of this opinion letter. However, it is important to note that, based on the wording of Clause 50, there are essentially two tests that must be satisfied, namely:
Has the owner confirmed to the County that it consulted with MNRF on all species at risk issues?
Has the Declaration and Vacant Land Condominium Agreement incorporated all recommendations from the MNRF included in any benefit permit, if issued? At this point in time, it is our understanding that no “Benefit Permit” has been issued by the MNRF. This is the fundamental factual matter that needs to be addressed as a first

Page 173 ofDevelopment 329 2018-054 Planning and Economic Request by the Township of So…

AGENDA ITEM #a) 4

order of business. Once it is determined whether or not a “benefit permit” will be issued by MNRF and. if so, with what recommendations, the County will then be able to determine whether and how Condition 50 has been or can be satisfied. *~ * * * * * * * *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

We trust the foregoing will be of assistance to Council in its deliberations with respect to this matter and would be pleased to provide any further assistance that you may require . Yours truly.

NE FAIRBROTHER OWF:pjo

Page 174 ofDevelopment 329 2018-054 Planning and Economic Request by the Township of So…

AGENDA ITEM #a)

AgendaItem#: 10(c) TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC RESOLUTION

Resolution No. :

2018-9-

Date: April 3, 2018

Moved by Councillor Seconded by Councillor

THAT Council support the notice of motion and direct staff that the videos from the

deputation of Sarah Harmer, Matt Rennie and Meela Melnik-Proud and the March 20, 2018 legal opinion from Donnelly Lawon Rule 106 Ontario Municipal Board Rules of Procedure be forwarded to the County of Frontenac for investigation of a possible violation of the Conditions of Approval of the Johnson’s Point Condominium development,

And further that the County of Frontenac be asked to report back to the Township of South Frontenac on actions taken.

CARRIED

^DEFEATED

DEFERRED

MAYOR I certify that this is a true copy of No.

Dated

and approved at

CLERK-ADMINISTRATOR RECORDED VOTES YES

YES

B. Barbeau

N. Roberts

P. Barr

M. Schjerning

J. McDougall

R. Sleeth

A. Revill

R. Sutheriand R. Vandewal

Page 175 ofDevelopment 329 2018-054 Planning and Economic Request by the Township of So…

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 176 ofDevelopment 329 2018-054 Planning and Economic Request by the Township of So…

Johnston Point Site Alterations

Page 177 ofDevelopment 329 2018-054 Planning and Economic Request by the Township of So…

‘Vegetation Maintained in a Natural State’ Quote from OMB Decision PL150246 “Conditions of Approval” Page 2 states…. 5A. “… the vacant land condominium agreement applying to all the waterfront units shall set out the municipalities environmental protection policies requiring that the area within 30 metres of the highwater mark of a waterbody or wetland shall be maintained in a natural state for soil and vegetation. This 30 metre environmental protection area is identified in Attachment ‘B’”.

14-Mar-18

AGENDA ITEM #a)

14-Mar-18

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 178 ofDevelopment 329 2018-054 Planning and Economic Request by the Township of So…

Attachment B

Page 179 ofDevelopment 329 2018-054 Planning and Economic Request by the Township of So…

Unit 8 – Shoreline Clearing

14-Mar-18

Add a footer

AGENDA ITEM #a)

https://youtu.be/nGZsTKbUEQM – Video of Shoreline Clearing

Page 180 ofDevelopment 329 2018-054 Planning and Economic Request by the Township of So…

Unit 5 – Shoreline Clearing https://youtu.be/dCKa8zVYEBs – Video of Shoreline Clearing

14-Mar-18

Add a footer

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 181 ofDevelopment 329 2018-054 Planning and Economic Request by the Township of So…

Unit 4 – Shoreline Clearing

14-Mar-18

Add a footer

AGENDA ITEM #a)

https://youtu.be/Eq0azqqUloY- Video of Shoreline Clearing

Page 182 ofDevelopment 329 2018-054 Planning and Economic Request by the Township of So…

Unit 2 – Shoreline Clearing https://youtu.be/vXkJ09MPD_w – Video of Shoreline Clearing https://youtu.be/Wsuo73sUmHA - Video 2 of Shoreline Clearing

14-Mar-18

Add a footer

AGENDA ITEM #a)

!”#"$%$&”’()’(+,(&’%-..$+’ !"#$%&’(#)0DJHQWD:DWHUIURQW’HYHORSPHQW&RUSRUDWLRQ·V3HUPLWIRU +,’-’,’".)/’,0)12(&’,‘2(.),2)+0’"-")3-"%$44)5"(“6’,),2),0”)78"+’".)²) 97).:);<=>?=+?)@)!"#$%&"’(")*+,-$++,&.,/$01)23,4556,9(-’%2(A"(,$4) !"#’.,%B)C2:)D;E@;;EDF) ;? 12(,$+,)G","%H2%2I#0)J’.,%’+,)K’(’.,%B)26)C$,I%$4)!".2I%+".)$(&) L2%".,.M)$(&)

? 7IHA’..‘2(.)&$,"&)J"+“AH”%);;N)>D;<:)

)

-/ !011234’

: S0")8"%A’,)’.)/’,0)%".8"+,),2)T%$B)!$,.($O")=L%2(,"($+)P’.)G28I4$,‘2(?)$(&) %ODQGLQJ·V7I%,4")62%),0")8I%82.")26)&"-“428’(#);U)+2(&2A’(‘IA)42,.)2()$) 8”(’(.I4$)O(2/()$.)V20(.,2()G2’(,N)’()8$%,.)26)W2,.)>E)$(&)>X)12(+"..‘2(.)Y) $(&)<)’(),0")S2/(.0'8)26)72I,0)L%2(,"($+N)12I(,B)26)L%2(,"($+:))’ E: Q()AB)28’(‘2(N),0")KC!L).02I4&)(2,)’..I"),0")8%282."&)2-"%$44)H"(“6’,),2) .8”+’".)8"%A’,:))’ X: S0"%")’.)(2)H"(“6’,)&“A2(.,%$,”&)2%)”-"().I##".,"&)’(),0")Q(62%A$,‘2()C2,’+") %"#$%&’(#),0")T%$B)5DWVQDNHDQG%ODQGLQJ·V7XUWOHERWK7KUHDWHQHGVSHFLHV I(&"%),0")97:’

!" "

Page 183 ofDevelopment 329 2018-054 Planning and Economic Request by the Township of So…

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 184 ofDevelopment 329 2018-054 Planning and Economic Request by the Township of So…

AGENDA ITEM #a)

—/

+>:27<>3’

$" "

Page 185 ofDevelopment 329 2018-054 Planning and Economic Request by the Township of So…

AGENDA ITEM #a)

)

x x x x x x x x x x

D: )J%’-"/$B.N)/“44.N)$)42(#)%2$&/$BN)02I.".N)”,+:)/‘44)&".,%2B)A$(B)26),0") .8"+’".)$(&),0"’%)0$H’,$,.)8%"."(,:))Q()AB)28’(‘2(N),0")&"-“428A”(,)/‘44))) +"%,$’(4B)&".,%2B)$).IH.,$(,’$4)$A2I(,)26)0$H’,$,:’ ;: V20(.,2()G2’(,)+$()H")+2(.’&"%"&)$)8"(’(.I4$)/’,0)$).IH.,$(,’$4)%$(#")26) .8"+’".)$,)%’.O:))GI,,’(#)$)+2(&2A’(‘IA)&"-“428A”(,)$42(#)("$%4B)’,.)"(,’%") 4"(#,0)’.)$()“P,%“A”)+$.")26)+2(64’+,’(#)-$4I”.)²)H",/""().8"+’".)$,)%’.O) +2(."%-$,‘2()$(&)%".’&"(,’$4)&"-“428A”(,:))) %" "

Page 186 ofDevelopment 329 2018-054 Planning and Economic Request by the Township of So…

AGENDA ITEM #a)

: KC!L)’.)2H4’#$,"&),2)422O)$,),0")&"-“428A”(,)‘A8$+,.)+244"+,’-“4B)H"62%”) &"+’&’(#)I82(),0")G"%A’,:))Q(),0")A$,"%’$4)8%2-’&"&N)Q)0$-")(2,).""()$) +2A8%“0”(.’-")"-$4I$,‘2()26)+IAI4$,’-")‘A8$+,.:) E: S0"%")’.)(2)+2(.’&"%$,‘2()2%)&’.+I..‘2()26)2-"%$44)H"(“6’,.),2),0”).8"+’".) ‘A8$+,"&:))S0"%")’.)(2)H"(“6’,),2),0”).8"+’".)&’.+I..‘2()’(+4I&"&)’(),0") Q(62%A$,‘2()C2,’+")’(),0")95!)!"#’.,%B)82.,’(#:))) X: LI%,0"%A2%"),0")2-"%$44)H"(“6’,)$+,‘2(.),2)H”),$O"()$%")(2,)$88$%"(,:))) U: Q..I’(#),0’.)G"%A’,)/2I4&)H")$)-‘24$,‘2()26)H2,0)."+,‘2(.)R)$(&);D)26),0")97*:)) Q(),0’.)&"-“428A”(,)+2(,“P,)’:”:)$)8"(’(.I4$N),0"%")+$()H")(2)H"(“6’,),2),0”) .8"+’".:) Y: H."(,)6%2A),0")2-"%$44)H"(“6’,)+2(.’&”%$,‘2()’.),0")+%’,’+$4)A$,,"%)26)+$8$+’,B) 62%)&’.84$+“A”(,:) <: .)$)%".I4,N),0")’..I$(+")26),0")G"%A’,)%“8%”."(,.),0")82..‘H4")/%’,’(#)266) .IH.,$(,’$4)0$H’,$,)62%)$,)4"$.,).‘P).8"+’".)$,)%’.O:))Q()"+242#’+$4),"%A.N),0"%") ‘.)(2)82..‘H4")[I.,‘6’+$,‘2()62%),0’.)&"+’.‘2(:) : S0")3(,$%‘2)KI(’+‘8$4)52$%&)=´3K5µ?)&"+’.‘2()70("),8*)(%.%&"), 9(#(+&:’("),;&%:,#<,=&>)1,?%&")("*@,AB&C"21$:D3)>D;Y)1$%./“443(,);DY;E) =3K5?)&$,”&)VXQH WKH´3K5)‘HFLVLRQµ LVH[SOLFLWWKDWWKH &RQGLWLRQVRI’UDIW3ODQ$SSURYDO´ZLOOHQVXUHWKDWPDWWHUVRI3URYLQFLDO Q(,"%".,)$.)/“44)$.),0”)8IH4’+)’(,"%".,)’.)$88%28%’$,“4B)$&&%”.."&)$(&)&I4B) VDIHJXDUGHGµ) R: Q(),0")12(&’,‘2(.),2)*88%2-$4N)K^J1)AI.,)’(+2%82%$,")$44)%"+2AA"(&$,‘2(.) IURPWKH015)DQGLQFOXGLQJDQ\UHFRPPHQGDWLRQVLQD´%HQHILW3HUPLWµWR 8%2,"+,).8"+’".)$,)%’.O:)

&" "

Page 187 ofDevelopment 329 2018-054 Planning and Economic Request by the Township of So…

AGENDA ITEM #a)

‘" "

Page 188 ofDevelopment 329 2018-054 Planning and Economic Request by the Township of So…

AGENDA ITEM #a)

) )

;;)J"+)>D;<) )

)

))))))J$,")

(" "

Page 189 ofDevelopment 329 2018-054 Planning and Economic Request by the Township of So…

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 190 ofDevelopment 329 2018-054 Planning and Economic Request by the Township of So…

AGENDA ITEM #a)

)

DDD@>D;U)9(-’%2(A"(,$4)12AA’..‘2("%)26)3(,$%‘2)) ) @)%"-’"/),0")‘A84"A"(,$,‘2()26)$(&)+2A84’$(+")26)A’(’.,%’".)/’,0),0")9(-’%2(A"(,$4) 5'44)26)!’#0,.)=95!?)) @)8%2-’&")"&I+$,‘2()8%2#%$A.)$H2I,),0")95!),2),0")8IH4’+)) @)%"-’"/),0")I.")26),0")95!)%"#’.,%B)) @)8%2-’&")%"]I".,"&)#I’&$(+"),2)A’(’.,%’".)) @)%“82%,)$((I$44B),2),0”)W"#’.4$,’-")..“AH4B)) @)A$O”).8"+’$4)%“82%,.)$.)%"]I’%”&)) ) FG@.-E#"-(&!’’ x K'44"%N)T:);R«:))14$..‘6’+$,‘2()26)3(,$%‘2)4$O".)H$."&)2(),0"’%).IHA"%."&)$(&) 642$,’(#)A$+%280B,")642%$:)K:7+:)S0".’.)('-"%.',B)26)TI"480N)TI"480N)3(,$%'2)) x J$4"N)Z:K:)$(&)T:9:)K'44"%:);R<\:)10$(#".)'(),0")*]I$,'+)A$+%280B,")642%$)26)^0',")) ^$,"%)W$O")("$%)7I&HI%BN)3(,$%'2)6%2A);RX<@;R<<:)1$($&'$()L'"4&)C$,I%$4'.,) R>=E?F)>YX@><D:)) x T:9:)K'44"%)$(&)Z:K:)J$4":);R<R:)*88$%"(,)&'66"%"(+".)'()$]I$,'+)A$+%280B,")642%$) 26)\)4$O".)'()KI.O2O$)J'.,%'+,)3(,$%'2)6%2A);RUE),2);R<<:)1$($&'$()L'"4&@ C$,I%$4'.,)RE=X?F)E\Y@ERD:)) x ^'4"N)Q:N)T:)G$4A$,""%N)$(&)T:9:)K'44"%:);R\;:).")26)$%,‘6’+’$4)/",4$(&.)62%) /$.,"/$,"%),%"$,A"(,:)Q().“4”+,"&)8%2+""&’(#.)26),0")A’&@/".,)+2(6"%"(+")2() /",4$(&)-$4I".)’()A$($#“A”(,:)VI(");<@;RN);R;:)7$’(,)G$I4N)K’((".2,$N):7:*:)) x 54$+ON)7:*:N)Q:)^'4")$(&)T:9:)K'44"%:);R\;:)7"/$#")"664I"(,),%"$,A"(,)'()$()$%,'6'+'$4) A$%.04$(&:);R\;)12(6"%"(+")26),0")^$,"%)G244I,'2()12(,%24)L"&"%$,'2()3+,2H"%)XN) ;R\;N)J",%2',N)K'+0'#$(N):7:*:)) x _$(N)C:J:)$(&)T:9:)K'44"%:);R;:)10$%$+,"%‘c$,‘2()26)4$O".)("$%)7I&HI%BN)3(,$%‘2:)) 10$8,"%);:)7,I&’".)26)4$O".)$(&)/$,"%.0"&.)("$%)7I&HI%BN)3(,$%‘2F)L’($4)S"+0(’+$4)) !“82%,)26),0”)7I&HI%B)9(-’%2(A"(,$4)7,I&BF)a24IA");N)3(,$%‘2)K’(’.,%B)26),0")) 9(-’%2(A"(,:) x K'44"%N)T:9:N)Q:)^‘4")$(&)T:T:)Z’,+0’(:);R\E:)G$,,"%(.)26)$++IAI4$,‘2()26).“4”+,"&) A",$4.)’()A"AH"%.)26),0").26,)/$,"%)A$+%280B,")642%$)26)+"(,%$4)3(,$%‘2)4$O".:) *]I$,’+)52,$(B);UFUE@YX)) x ^‘4"N)Q:)$(&)T:9:)K'44"%:);R\E:)S0")A$+%280B,")642%$)26)XY)$+’&‘6’"&)$(&)$+’&) ."(.’,’-").26,)/$,"%)4$O".)’()3(,$%‘2:)^$,"%)!".2I%+".)5%$(+0N)3(,$%‘2)K’(’.,%B)26) *" "

Page 191 ofDevelopment 329 2018-054 Planning and Economic Request by the Township of So…

AGENDA ITEM #a)

x x

x x x

x x x ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Y@)E<)Q(F)9+242#’+$4)12(.’&"%$,‘2(.)’()^",4$(&)S%"$,A"(,)’()KI(’+‘8$4) ^$.,"/$,"%.:)9&:)HB)G$I4)V:)T2&6%“BN)9&/$%&)e$B(2%N)70"4’$)G"4+c$4.O’)$(&)V:) 5”(.2%$&2:)a$()C2.,%$(&)!"’(024&)12:)C:_:)X<)88:) K'44"%N)T:9:);R\R:).")26)$%,'6'+'$4)+$,,$'4)A$%.0".),2),%"$,)."/$#")'()(2%,0"%() 3(,$%'2N)1$($&$)8:)YEY@YX>)Q(F)12(.,%I+,"&)^",4$(&.)62%)^$.,"/$,"%)S%"$,A"(,F) KI('+'8$4N)Q(&I.,%'$4)$(&)*#%'+I4,I%$4:)9&:)HB)J2($4&)*:)Z$AA"%:)W2I'.)GIH4'.0"%.) Q(+:)K'+0:N):7:*:)\E;)88:)) 7+0/$%,c"4N)9:)$(&)T:)K'44"%:)>DD;:)ZIA$()J’A"(.‘2(.)26)9+2.B.,“A)5$.”&) G4$((’(#)`.’(#),0")9(-’%2(A"(,$4)5'44)26)!’#0,.)=95!?),2)10$(#")G"%.8"+,’-".)2() 9+2.B.,“A)G4$((’(#:)G%2+”"&’(#.)26),0")G$%O.)!"."$%+0)L2%IA)26)3(,$%‘2)>DD;) ((I$4)K"",’(#:)88:)X<@U>)) K'44"%N)T:)>DDU:)1022.’(#)3I%)W"#$+BF)3-"%+2A’(#)a$4I")12(64’+,.),0$,)L%I.,%$,") 6RFLHW\·V(IIRUWVWR’HDO:LWK(QYLURQPHQWDO&KDOOHQJHV9DOXHDQG(WKLFVLQ 9&I+$,‘2($4)&A’(’.,%$,‘2(N)E=E?F;@<)) K'44"%N)T:)>DD<:)C"/)J’%"+,‘2(.)62%)G4$((’(#)’()3(,$%‘2:)3(,$%‘2)G4$((’(#)V2I%($4N)
=Y?FX>@XE)) K'44"%N)T:)>DD:)C"/)J’%"+,‘2(.)62%)G4$((’(#)’()3(,$%‘2:)G$%,)QQN)72I,0"%()3(,$%‘2:) 3(,$%‘2)G4$((’(#)V2I%($4)>E=;?)>@>R))

!+" "

Page 192 ofDevelopment 329 2018-054 Planning and Economic Request by the Township of So…

AGENDA ITEM #a)

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' !!" "

Page 193 ofDevelopment 329 2018-054 Planning and Economic Request by the Township of So…

AGENDA ITEM #a)

!#" "

Page 194 ofDevelopment 329 2018-054 Planning and Economic Request by the Township of So…

AGENDA ITEM #a)

David R. Donnelly, MES LLB david@donnellylaw.ca

Magenta Waterfront Development Corp Permit Response to EBR Registry Number: 013-1130 Loughborough Lake, Frontenac County

t. 416 572 0464 f. 416 572 0465 Suite 203 ʹ 276 Carlaw Ave Toronto Ontario M4M 3L1

Page 195 ofDevelopment 329 2018-054 Planning and Economic Request by the Township of So…

P A G E

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Re: Magenta Waterfront Development Corp Permit December 11, 2017

Donnelly Law t. 416 572 0464 f. 416 572 0465 276 Carlaw Ave Suite 203 Toronto Ontario M4M 3L1

Page 196 ofDevelopment 329 2018-054 Planning and Economic Request by the Township of So…

P A G E 1

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Re: Magenta Waterfront Development Corp Permit December 11, 2017

Donnelly Law t. 416 572 0464 f. 416 572 0465 276 Carlaw Ave Suite 203 Toronto Ontario M4M 3L1

Page 197 ofDevelopment 329 2018-054 Planning and Economic Request by the Township of So…

P A G E 1

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Re: Magenta Waterfront Development Corp Permit December 11, 2017

Yours truly,

David R. Donnelly cc: Respondents

Donnelly Law t. 416 572 0464 f. 416 572 0465 276 Carlaw Ave Suite 203 Toronto Ontario M4M 3L1

Page 198 ofDevelopment 329 2018-054 Planning and Economic Request by the Township of So…

P A G E 1

AGENDA ITEM #a)

the above Order was replaced with a revised Attachment 3 attached to an Order of the OMB issued August 25, 2016. At its meeting held April 3, 2018, the Council of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac passed the following resolution in respect of the OMB order: That Council support the notice of motion and direct staff that the videos from the deputation of Sarah Harmer, Matt Rennie and Meela Melnik-Proud and the March 20, 2018 legal opinion from Donnelly Law on Rule 106 Ontario Municipal Board Rules of Procedure be forwarded to the County of Frontenac for investigation of a possible violation of the Conditions Conditions of violation of the of Approval Approval of of the the Johnston’s Johnston’s Point Point Condominium Condominium development; And further that the County of Frontenac be asked to report back to the Township of South Frontenac on actions taken. A copy of the resolution passed by the Township of South Frontenac is attached to this report as Appendix B. Comment Upon receipt of the correspondence from the Township of South Frontenac, County staff requested a legal opinion from its solicitor for planning service to determine if the County of Frontenac has the legal authority to change any of the conditions of draft plan approval or to compel the subdivider/ owner to to change change aa condition condition of of draft draft plan plan approval. approval. A legal opinion was provided by Mr. Wayne Fairbrother, LL.B. on April 9, 2018, a copy of which is attached to this report as Appendix A. Sustainability Implications identifies Governance Governance as Directions for our Future identifies as a a key key focus focus in in the the County’s County’s Sustainability plan, specifically around appropriate stewardship of County resources. Financial Implications There are no financial implications directly associated with this report other than the cost of the legal legal opinion opinion provided the provided by by the the County’s County’s solicitor. solicitor. Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Alex Lemieux, Deputy Treasurer Wayne Fairbrother, B, Templeman Fairbrother, LL. LL.B,

Recommend Report Report to to Council Planning and Economic Development Development — – Request Request by the Township of South Frontenac for the County of Frontenac to investigate aa possible possible violation violation of conditions of approval of the Johnston’s Point Condominium development, development, County CountyFile File10CD-2014-002 10CD-2014-002 April 18, April 18, 2018 Page 2 of 2

Page 199 ofDevelopment 329 2018-054 Planning and Economic Request by the Township of So…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

FRONTENAC Report 2018-051 Recommend Report to Council To:

Warden and Council of the County of Frontenac

From:

Kelly J. Pender, Chief Administrative Officer

Prepared by:

Susan Brant, Director of Corporate Services/Treasurer

Date of meeting:

April 18, 2018

Re:

Corporate Services Services — – 2017 2017County County of of Frontenac Frontenac Audited Audited Financial Statements

Recommendation Resolved That the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Corporate Services 2017 Audited Financial Statements report; And Further That the Council of the County of Frontenac approve the 2017 Audited Financial Statements of the Corporation of the County of Frontenac. Background The County is required to prepare financial statements, comprised of a Financial Report and a Financial Information Return, on an annual basis. The financial statements are to be audited. Allan Allan Chartered Chartered Accountant Accountant Professional Professional Corporation was appointed as the County auditors for 2017. Municipalities are required to present financial statements which comply with the requirements of the Public Sector Accounting Board Standards (PSAB). These standards require a presentation that reflects full accrual accounting. Comment PSAB reporting requires the ongoing valuation of depreciation, an expense which recognizes the the use use of of the the County’s County’s long-lived assets throughout the year. Depreciation

200 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

is not an expense that is funded through the tax levy. Municipalities levy reserve allocations to provide for the future costs of asset replacement. Ontario municipal financial statements feature a municipal equity section which includes reserve and reserve fund balances plus the net book value of County assets, less the amount of debt outstanding and any unfunded employee benefit obligation. The following table reports the composition of the 2017 consolidated municipal equity showing it to be representative of a combination of assets offset by the debenture and the unfunded employee obligation. 2017 Consolidated Schedule of Municipal Equity Total reserves and reserve funds

$12,889,547

Surpluses Invested in tangible capital assets

Assets

23,526,802

Debenture

-6,265,381

Net

17,261,421

Unfunded employee benefit obligation Total Municipal Equity

-69,296 $30,081,672

Consolidated Statement of Financial Position: Cash/ Short Term Investments and Long Term Investments: In 2016, Johnson, Johnston and Macrae Investment Management services was was hired hired to to assist assist in in the the County’s County’s long At the the end end of of December, December, $3,807,547 $3,807,547 in short term investments range investment plans. At was transferred on January 2, 2018 to a high interest saving account with LAS Investment Program, which provided a higher return than our existing GICs. Accounts Receivable: There was a substantial decrease in the amounts receivable from the Ministry of Transportation and the Townships offset by an increased receivable for the City of Kingston and OPSEU as compared to 2016. Accounts Payable: In 2017, the timing of vendor payments resulted in a decrease in the outstanding payables at the end of the year. Deferred Revenue: Deferred revenue includes prepaid ferry passes, community paramedicine funding, behavioural support funding and other grant funding not utilized in 2017. Tangible Capital assets: The change in the net book value of tangible assets includes the following: Recommend Report Services — – 2017 Corporate Services 2017 Audited Audited Financial Financial Statements April 18, 2018

201 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

Page 2 of 5

AGENDA ITEM #b)

• •

•

Land purchase and land improvements related to the K&P Trail Equipment purchases and upgrades included new paramedic carbon monoxide detectors and computers. At Fairmount, asset purchases included air conditioning and building automation systems, as well as the replacements of a bathing system, oven, lifts and beds. Vehicle replacements include three ambulances and three supervisory new vehicle vehicle was was purchased purchased with with South East LHIN funding vehicles. AA new dedicated to the Community Paramedicine service.

Consolidated Statement of Operations Revenue Taxation from other governments (-$55,229): Township year end reconciliations included lower supplementary taxes, payments in lieu and write-offs than budgeted. User Charges (+$94,515): Event revenue, resident fees, and ferry fees, were higher than budgeted. Province of Ontario (+$252,916): Frontenac Paramedic Service received $37,600 more in operational funding than anticipated. Also, flow through funding ($152,200) for a research project on the Canadian Standard for paramedic ground emergency vehicle response vehicles and equipment as well as the community paramedicine initiative. Ferry funding is $63,100 greater than budgeted as petitioned to MTO in 2017. Economic development development projects projects to to be be funded funded through through 150th 150th Heritage Federal (-$75,178): Economic grant funding were lower than budgeted. The balance of the funding will arrive and offset expenses incurred in 2018 for K&P Trail construction. Other municipalities (-$67,283): The The City’s City’s contribution contribution was $94,300 lower than budget for Fairmount Home and the contribution was $22,800 greater for Land Ambulance, due to the higher than budgeted costs. The remaining variance is Township contribution to the RED project which was not budgeted. Provincial Offences Fines (+$22,706): The net revenue was greater than budgeted in based on 2017, based on the the City City of of Kingston’s Kingston’s reconciliation. reconciliation. Investment Income (+$25,722): Investments initiated in November 2016 have resulted in a greater return than budgeted. Other (+$278,749): A stretch of the K&P Trail was funded and completed by the CFDC and EOTA in 2015. The increase in the book value of the K&P Trail was recognized as a $220,000 donation in-kind (i.e. non-cash) to offset the initial cost incurred to build that segment. Expense General Government (-$180,512) •

Council, warden and committee material and services were $33,600 less than budget.

Recommend Report Services — – 2017 Corporate Services 2017 Audited Audited Financial Financial Statements April 18, 2018

202 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

Page 3 of 5

AGENDA ITEM #b)

•

County administration supplies were $18,000 less than budgeted includes an under expenditure on building maintenance and advertising expenses.

•

MPAC fees were $31,700 less than budgeted.

•

Special projects included $70,000 for work order software and computers, which were purchased and recorded as a capital asset in 2017.

•

Variance also includes legal fees, cellular service, internet services, fuel, vehicle, and equipment maintenance lower than budgeted.

Protection to Persons and Property - Emergency Management (-$3,671): Maintenance contracts and public relations initiatives were less than budgeted in 2017. Transportation Services (+$42,136): Salary costs were higher than anticipated due to long term illnesses. Legal fees were significantly higher than budgeted, but were offset by a decrease in maintenance and cellular services. Ambulance Services (-$208,929): WSIB savings from the switch to Schedule 2 has resulted in a transfer to the WSIB reserve in the amount of $479,400 as opposed to paying WSIB Schedule 1 fees. The under budget variance is offset by higher than budgeted sick time and accommodated work costs. The purchase of uniforms and medical supplies, equipment maintenance, building maintenance and cross border expenses all exceeded budget. Health Services (+$8): This amount is invoiced by the Kingston Frontenac Lennox and Addington Health Unit. Social and Family Services (-$147,869): The social service reconciliation from the City provided a surplus of $48,657. Fairmount Home is under budget $47,493 on salaries and benefits, as well as under expenditures in equipment maintenance, special projects, training, high intensity needs expense and landscaping costs. Libraries (-$8,621): The under expenditure relates to operating requirements of the library, which were lower than budgeted in 2017. Social Housing (-$45,497): The social housing budget is reconciled by the City and 2017 saw an under expenditure in administrative expenses. Planning and Economic Development (+$105,956): Legal fees were greater than budgeted in 2017 which were offset through a transfer from the sustainability reserve. An over budget on seniors housing projects was offset by an under expenditures on Federal Gas Tax funded projects anticipated for 2017 that were not completed. Other (+$0): This includes the Federal Gas Tax Transfer to the Townships and the grants provided to the University Hospital Foundation and Rural Routes Transportation. Working fund reserve ($1,220,798): Target balance is $1.2 million. Year-end surplus $325,184

Recommend Report Services — – 2017 Corporate Services 2017 Audited Audited Financial Financial Statements April 18, 2018

203 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

Page 4 of 5

AGENDA ITEM #b)

The year-end surplus is 0.75% of the total budget and, in in accordance accordance with with the the County’s County’s budget policy will be transferred to the Stabilization reserve. Sustainability Implications Audited financial reporting confirms for the residents, businesses and visitors of the County that the financial resources are being utilized appropriately. It also offers the necessary transparency and assurances to our community of the high level of stewardship being achieved. Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Senior Leadership Team Allan Chartered Accountant Professional Corporation

Recommend Report Services — – 2017 Corporate Services 2017 Audited Audited Financial Financial Statements April 18, 2018

204 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

Page 5 of 5

AGENDA ITEM #b)

205 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

206 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

207 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

208 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

209 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

210 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

211 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

212 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

213 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

214 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

215 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

216 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

217 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

218 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

219 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

220 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

nl y

CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2017

CONTENTS

Five Year Financial Review ………………………………………………………………………………………………….1 - 2

Management’s Responsibility for the Consolidated Financial Statements …………………………………………3

Independent Auditor’s Report ……………………………………………………………………………………………….4 - 5 Consolidated Statement of Financial Position ………………………………………………………………………………6

Consolidated Statement of Operations ……………………………………………………………………………………….7

Consolidated Statement of Changes in Net Financial Assets ………………………………………………………….8 Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows ………………………………………………………………………………………9

ss io n

Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements ………………………………………………………………….. 10 - 22 Schedule 1 ▸ Continuity of Reserves and Reserve Funds …………………………………………………… 23 - 24 Schedule 2 ▸ Tangible Capital Assets ……………………………………………………………………………… 25 - 26

is cu

Independent Auditor’s Report ▸ Trust Funds …………………………………………………………………….. 27 - 28 Trust Fund ▸ Statement of Financial Position and Statement of Financial Activities………………………. 29

fo r

Trust Fund ▸ Notes to the Financial Statements………………………………………………………………………. 30

221 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

County of Frontenac Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2017

AGENDA ITEM #b)

County of Frontenac Five Year Financial Review (not subject to audit) 2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

Population (Statistics Canada)

26,677

26,375

Number of Households (MPAC)

19,461

19,358

19,296

19,183

18,433

Residential Multi-residential Commercial Industrial Farmland

$ 5,229,875 5,697 49,096 15,368 153,079

$ 5,274,145 5,416 48,787 13,117 130,330

$ 4,994,041 5,093 47,928 12,249 125,041

$ 4,717,670 4,769 47,059 12,137 118,822

$ 4,435,145 4,446 45,056 12,826 112,955

Total

5,453,115

5,471,795

5,184,352

4,900,457

4,610,428

Revenues for County Purposes (000’s) Taxation Government transfers Other Revenues related to capital assets

se s

0.166857 0.166857 0.166857 0.166857

0.170059 0.170059 0.170059 0.170059

0.171918 0.171918 0.171918 0.171918

0.178401 0.178401 0.178401 0.178401

$ 9,400 25,304 5,310 444

$ 9,041 24,619 4,948 746

$ 8,745 23,536 4,907 (1,370)

$ 8,356 23,312 5,124 1,996

$ 8,242 22,756 4,641

40,458

39,354

35,818

38,788

35,639

38,698 1,576

38,642 1,420

37,147 1,508

36,128 1,417

35,867 1,606

15.80% 67.25%

13.00% 55.52%

13.15% 56.10%

9.81% 45.54%

9.23% 40.97%

Total

fo r

▸ ▸ ▸ ▸

0.175201 0.175201 0.175201 0.175201

ss i

D is cu

residential (municipal) multi-residential (municipal) commercial (municipal) industrial (municipal)

Rates of Taxation ▸ ▸ ▸ ▸

rp o

Taxable Assessment (000’s)

nl y

December 31

Expenditures (000’s)

▸ Operations ▸ Amortization

Net Financial Assets (Net Debt) ▸ % of Operating Revenue (>(20%))** ▸ % of Taxation (>(50%))**

** Represents the Provincial Low Risk Indicator. (Note: All dollar amounts are in thousands of dollars.)

222 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

County of Frontenac Five Year Financial Review (not subject to audit) December 31

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

▸ Net long term debt (000’s)

6,265

7,368

8,406

9,381

10,300

▸ Long term debt charges (000’s)

1,528

▸ Total annual repayment limit (000’s)

2,194

2,092

1,959

1,443

1,431

▸ Long term debt per household (Frontenac portion)

107

122

▸ Debt charges (000’s) ▸ tax supported ▸ City of Kingston ▸ Government of Ontario

334 711 483

12,889

12,770

13,619

13,468

13,871

17,261

15,614

14,048

15,520

12,407

36.40%

35.38%

34.81%

30.38%

30.64%

33.31%

33.05%

36.66%

37.28%

38.79%

▸ Sustainability ▸ financial assets to liabilities

1.6056

1.3997

1.3753

1.2443

1.1989

▸ financial assets to liabilities excluding long term debt

4.0163

3.3864

3.8531

3.1281

3.0479

▸ long term debt to tangible capital assets

26.63%

32.06%

37.44%

37.67%

45.36%

▸ capital reserves to accumulated amortization

47.34%

51.40%

53.71%

53.57%

62.20%

▸ Flexibility ▸ Debt charges to total operating revenue (<5%)**

3.82%

3.96%

4.12%

3.94%

4.15%

▸ Total operating revenue to taxable assessment

0.73%

0.71%

0.72%

0.79%

▸ Working capital to operating expenses (>10%)**

32.53%

32.06%

35.83%

36.50%

38.13%

▸ Vulnerability ▸ Operating government transfers ▸ to operating revenue

63.24%

63.77%

63.36%

63.85%

▸ Total government transfers ▸ to total revenues

63.17%

64.45%

63.70%

63.92%

62.88%

se s

rp o Pu

Municipal Equity (000’s) ▸ Surplus and Reserves

▸ Invested in capital assets

ss i

▸ Asset consumption ratio

fo r

D is cu

▸ Reserves as % of operating expenses (>20%)**

Financial Indicators

nl y

Long Term Debt

223 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

nl y

AGENDA ITEM #b)

rp o

se s

Management’s Responsibility for the Consolidated Financial Statements

ss i

The accompanying consolidated financial statements of the Corporation of the County of Frontenac are the responsibility of the County’s management and have been prepared in compliance with legislation, and in accordance with Canadian Public Sector Accounting Standards. A summary of significant accounting policies are described in note 2 to the consolidated financial statements. The preparation of consolidated financial statements necessarily involves the use of estimates based on management’s judgement, particularly when transactions affecting the current accounting period cannot be finalized with certainty until future periods.

D is cu

The County’s management maintains a system of internal controls designed to provide reasonable assurance that assets are safeguarded, transactions are properly authorized and recorded in compliance with legislative and regulatory requirements, and reliable financial information is available on a timely basis for preparation of consolidated financial statements. These systems are monitored and evaluated by management.

fo r

The consolidated financial statements have been audited by Allan and Partners LLP, independent external auditors appointed by the County. The accompanying Auditor’s Report outlines their responsibilities, the scope of their examination and their opinion on the County’s consolidated financial statements.

Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer

Susan Brant, Treasurer

224 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

nl y

AGENDA ITEM #b)

rp o

To the Members of Council, Inhabitants and Ratepayers of the Corporation of the County of Frontenac:

se s

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT

We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the Corporation of the County of Frontenac which comprise the consolidated statement of financial position as at December 31, 2017 and the consolidated statement of operations, changes in net financial assets and cash flows for the year then ended and a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory information.

ss i

Management’s Responsibility for the Consolidated Financial Statements

fo r

Auditor’s Responsibility

D is cu

The Corporation of the County of Frontenac’s management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these consolidated financial statements in accordance with Canadian Public Sector Accounting Standards and for such internal control as management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of consolidated financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we comply with ethical requirements and plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free from material misstatement. An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgment, including assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the consolidated financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditors consider internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation and fair presentation of the consolidated financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the consolidated financial statements. 4

225 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

nl y

AGENDA ITEM #b)

We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion.

se s

Opinion

D is cu

Allan and Partners LLP Chartered Professional Accountants Licensed Public Accountants

ss i

rp o

In our opinion, these consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of the Corporation of the County of Frontenac as at December 31, 2017 and its consolidated results of operations, consolidated changes in net financial assets and its consolidated cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian Public Sector Accounting Standards.

fo r

Perth, Ontario, April 18, 2018.

226 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

County of Frontenac Consolidated Statement of Financial Position December 31

2017

2016

9,258,193 4,485,972 3,015,857

5,909,357 8,177,590 3,491,442

ASSETS Financial Assets

nl y

Cash Investments Accounts receivable

17,578,389

16,760,022

LIABILITIES

se s

Financial Liabilities

Pu ss i

D is cu

Tangible capital assets (note 14) Inventories Prepaid expenses

3,510,814 311,886 136,768 213,534 6,265,381

4,323,231 299,998 91,571 476,072 7,368,209

10,438,383

12,559,081

6,321,639

5,019,308

23,526,802 203,559 29,672

22,981,830 225,140 95,066

23,760,033

23,302,036

30,081,672

28,321,344

NET FINANCIAL ASSETS NON-FINANCIAL ASSETS

rp o

Accounts payable and accrued liabilities Employee future benefit obligations (note 3) Deferred revenues Deferred revenues ▸ obligatory reserve fund (note 4) Long term liabilities (note 5)

Commitments (note 11) Contingent Liabilities (note 9)

fo r

MUNICIPAL EQUITY (note 6)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

227 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

(Note 16) Budget

2017

2016

9,455,499 3,317,078 15,760,498 9,185,600 247,000 978,256 120,797 140,000 468,402

9,400,270 3,411,593 16,013,414 9,118,317 171,822 842,313 143,503 165,722 747,151

9,041,153 3,299,848 15,502,560 9,081,225 35,250 893,016 103,238 130,038 521,417

39,673,130

40,014,105

38,607,745

2,950,203 6,910 997,119 16,871,302 746,839 13,793,444 829,718 734,625 1,262,791 952,184

rp o

2,769,691 3,239 1,039,255 16,662,373 746,847 13,645,575 821,097 689,128 1,368,747 952,184

2,800,513 1,692 1,027,781 16,748,837 732,191 13,889,796 812,960 842,236 834,286 952,184

39,145,135

38,698,136

38,642,476

527,995

1,315,969

(34,731)

99,681

444,359

746,243

ANNUAL SURPLUS

627,676

1,760,328

711,512

County of Frontenac Consolidated Statement of Operations

28,321,344

27,609,832

28,949,020

30,081,672

28,321,344

For the year ended December 31

se s

TOTAL REVENUES

D is cu

TOTAL EXPENDITURES

ss i

General government Protection to persons and property Transportation services Ambulance services Health services Social and family services Libraries Social housing Planning and development Other

EXPENDITURES

NET REVENUES (EXPENDITURES) FROM OPERATIONS OTHER

Taxation ▸ from other governments User charges Government grants ▸ provincial ▸ other municipalities ▸ Federal Deferred revenues earned (note 4) Provincial offences fines penalties Investment income Other income

nl y

REVENUES

fo r

Grants and transfers related to capital Other municipalities

MUNICIPAL EQUITY, BEGINNING OF YEAR

MUNICIPAL EQUITY, END OF YEAR

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

228 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

County of Frontenac Consolidated Statement of Changes in Net Financial Assets

627,676

1,760,328

711,512

1,495,810 (1,529,105)

1,576,423 (2,161,531) (26,936) 67,072 (203,559) (29,672) 225,140 95,066

1,419,521 (1,975,647) (31,499) 59,416 (225,140) (95,066) 220,314 30,387

(33,295)

(457,997)

(597,714)

rp o

INCREASE IN NET FINANCIAL ASSETS

1,302,331

113,798

5,019,308

4,905,510

5,613,689

6,321,639

5,019,308

594,381

fo r

D is cu

ss i

NET FINANCIAL ASSETS, BEGINNING OF YEAR NET FINANCIAL ASSETS, END OF YEAR

2016

se s

Amortization of tangible capital assets Acquisition of tangible capital assets Loss on sale of tangible capital assets Proceeds on sale of tangible capital assets Acquisition of inventories of supplies Acquisition of prepaid expenses Consumption of inventories Use of prepaid expenses

2017

nl y

ANNUAL SURPLUS

(Note 16) Budget

For the year ended December 31

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

229 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

County of Frontenac Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows For the year ended December 31

2017

2016

1,760,328 1,576,423 (26,936)

711,512 1,419,521 (31,499)

OPERATING ACTIVITIES

nl y

Annual surplus for the year Amortization Gain on disposal of capital assets

3,309,815

532,948 632,008 13,601 (38,569) (81,648) (4,826) (64,679)

(455,310)

988,835

2,854,505

3,088,369

Net decrease (increase) in short term investments

3,691,618

(8,177,590)

Net decrease in investments

3,691,618

(8,177,590)

Acquisition of tangible capital assets Proceeds on sale of tangible capital assets

(2,161,531) 67,072

(1,975,647) 59,416

Net investment in tangible capital assets

(2,094,459)

(1,916,231)

Debt principal repayments

(1,102,828)

(1,037,462)

Net decrease in cash from financing activities

(1,102,828)

(1,037,462)

NET INCREASE (DECREASE) IN CASH

3,348,836

(8,042,914)

CASH, BEGINNING OF YEAR

5,909,357

13,952,271

CASH, END OF YEAR

9,258,193

5,909,357

rp o Pu

Working Capital from Operations

D is cu

ss i

INVESTING ACTIVITIES

CAPITAL ACTIVITIES

se s

475,585 (812,417) 11,888 45,197 (262,538) 21,581 65,394

Accounts receivable Accounts payable and accrued liabilities Employee future benefit obligations Deferred revenues Deferred revenues ▸ obligatory reserve funds Inventories Prepaid expenses

Net Change in Non-Cash Working Capital Balances

2,099,534

fo r

FINANCING ACTIVITIES

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

230 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

County of Frontenac Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2017

Status of the County of Frontenac

Significant Accounting Policies

se s

nl y

The County of Frontenac (the ‘County’) was incorporated in 1865 and assumed its responsibilities under the authority of the Provincial Secretary. The County operates as an upper tier government in the County of Frontenac, in the Province of Ontario, Canada and provides municipal services such as emergency measures, public health services, ambulance services, social and family assistance, planning and development and other general government operations.

rp o

The consolidated financial statements of the Corporation of the County of Frontenac are the representations of management and have been prepared in all material respects in accordance with Canadian Public Sector Accounting Standards. Significant aspects of the accounting policies adopted by the County are as follows:

The consolidated financial statements reflect financial assets, liabilities, operating revenues and expenditures, reserves, reserve funds and changes in investment in tangible capital assets of the County. The reporting entity is comprised of all organizations, committees and local boards accountable for the administration of their financial affairs and resources to the County and which are owned or controlled by the County. Interdepartmental and inter-organizational transactions and balances between these organizations are eliminated. These consolidated financial statements include:

D is cu

ss i

(i)

Basis of Consolidation

▸ Fairmount Home for the Aged (ii)

Non-consolidated entities:

fo r

Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox and Addington Public Health is not consolidated and only the contributions by the County are reported on the Consolidated Statement of Operations

The Kingston-Frontenac Public Library Board is not consolidated and only the contributions by the County are reported on the Consolidated Statement of Operations.

Basis of Accounting (i)

The consolidated financial statements are prepared using the accrual basis of accounting. The accrual basis of accounting records revenue as it is earned and measurable. Expenditures are recognized as they are incurred and measurable based on receipt of goods and services and/or the creation of a legal obligation to pay.

(ii)

Non-financial assets are not available to discharge existing liabilities and are held for use in the provision of services. They have useful lives extending beyond the current year, and are not intended for sale in the ordinary course of operations. The change in non-financial assets during the year, together with the excess of revenues over expenses, provides the change in net financial assets for the year.

(iii) Trust funds and their related operations administered by the County are not included in these financial statements but are reported separately on the Trust Funds Statement of Financial Activities and Financial Position.

231 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

County of Frontenac Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2017

Significant Accounting Policies / continued Basis of Accounting / continued Tangible Capital Assets

rp o Pu

10 - 30 years 10 - 50 years 4.5 - 15 years 3 to 30 years 16 to 50 years

Land Land Improvements Buildings Vehicles Machinery and Equipment Bridges Work in Progress

se s

nl y

Tangible capital assets are recorded at historical cost or where historical cost records were not available, other methods determined to provide a best estimate of historical cost and accumulated amortization of the assets. In certain cases the County used replacement costs and appropriate indices to deflate the replacement cost to an estimated historical cost at the year of acquisition. Costs include all amounts that are directly attributable to acquisition, construction, development or betterment of the asset. The cost, less residual value, of the tangible capital assets are amortized on a straight line basis over their estimated useful lives as follows:

ss i

Amortization is charged for the months in use. Assets under construction are not amortized until the asset is available for productive use, at which time they are capitalized.

D is cu

Tangible capital assets received as contributions are recorded at their fair value at the date of receipt, and that fair value is also recorded as revenue. Similarly, transfers of assets to third parties are recorded as an expense equal to the net book value of the asset as of the date of transfer.

fo r

When tangible capital assets are disposed of, either by way of a sale, destruction or loss, or abandonment of the asset, the asset’s net book value, historical cost less accumulated amortization, is written off. Any resulting gain or loss, equal to the proceeds on disposal less the asset’s net book value, is reported on the consolidated statement of operations in the year of disposal.

When conditions indicate that a tangible capital asset no longer contributes to the County’s ability to provide services or the value of the future economic benefits associated with the tangible capital asset are less than its net book value, and the decline is expected to be permanent, the cost and accumulated amortization of the asset are reduced to reflect the revised estimate of the value of the asset’s remaining service potential. The resulting net adjustment is reported as an expense on the consolidated statement of operations.

Leases Leases are classified as capital or operating leases. Leases which transfer substantially all of the benefits and risks incidental to ownership of property are accounted for as capital leases. All other leases are accounted for as operating leases and the related lease payments are charged to expenses as incurred.

232 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

County of Frontenac Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2017

Significant Accounting Policies / continued Inventories and Prepaid Expenses

nl y

Inventories and prepaid expenses held for consumption are recorded at the lower of cost or replacement cost. Pension and Employee Benefits

se s

The County accounts for its participation in the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (‘OMERS’), a multi-employer public sector pension fund, as a defined benefit plan. The OMERS plan specifies the retirement benefits to be received by employees based on length of service and pay rates.

rp o

Cash and Cash Equivalents

The County considers cash and cash equivalents to be highly liquid investments with original maturities of three months or less. Government Transfers

D is cu

Deferred Revenues

ss i

Government transfers are recognized in the financial statements as revenues in the period in which events giving rise to the transfer occur, providing the transfers are authorized, any eligibility criteria have been met, and reasonable estimates of the amounts can be made.

The County defers recognition of user charges and fees which have been collected but for which the related services have yet to be performed. Government transfers of gas taxes, are reported as deferred revenues in the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position. These amounts will be recognized as revenues in the fiscal year the services are performed.

fo r

The County receives restricted contributions under the authority of Federal and Provincial legislation and County by-laws. These funds by their nature are restricted in their use and until applied to applicable costs are recorded as deferred revenue. Amounts applied to qualifying expenses are recorded as revenue in the fiscal period they are expended.

Deferred revenue represents certain user charges and fees which have been collected but for which the related services have yet to be performed. Deferred revenue also represents contributions that the County has received pursuant to legislation, regulation or agreement that may only be used for certain programs or in the completion of specific work. These amounts are recognized as revenue in the fiscal year the services are performed or related expenses incurred. Investments Short-term and long-term investments are recorded at cost plus accrual interest. If the market value of investments become lower than cost and the decline in value is considered to be other than temporary, the investments are written down to market value. Investment income earned on available current funds and reserve funds (other than obligatory funds) are reported as revenue in the period earned. Investment income earned on obligatory reserve funds is added to the fund balance and forms part of the respective deferred revenue balance.

233 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

County of Frontenac Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2017

Significant Accounting Policies / continued Financial Instruments

nl y

All financial instruments are initially recognized at fair value on the consolidated statement of financial position. The County has classified each financial instrument into one of the following categories: held-for-trading financial assets and liabilities, loans and receivables, held-to-maturity financial assets and other financial liabilities. Subsequent measurement of financial instruments is based on their classification.

se s

Held-for-trading financial assets and liabilities are subsequently measured at fair value with changes in those fair values recognized in net revenues.

rp o

Loans and receivables, held-to-maturity financial assets and other financial liabilities are subsequently measured at amortized cost using the effective interest method.

The County classifies cash and cash equivalents as held-for-trading financial assets, accounts receivable as loans and receivables, and accounts payable and accrued liabilities as other financial liabilities. Measurement Uncertainty

Employee Future Benefit Obligations

fo r

D is cu

ss i

The preparation of consolidated financial statements requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenditures during the period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. These estimates are reviewed periodically and as adjustments become necessary, they are recorded in the consolidated financial statements in the period in which they become known.

Extended health care and dental:

The County provides extended health care and dental to employees who meet specific criteria within the Fairmount Home and Paramedic Services. Extended health care and dental benefits continue to be available to early retirees at 100% of their cost up to the age of 60, then between the age of 60 and 65, the retiree will generally be responsible for paying 50% of the benefit premiums. Retirement Benefits An independent actuarial study of the employee non-pension retirement benefits has been undertaken. The most recent valuation of the employee future benefits was completed at December 31, 2017.

The accrued benefit obligations relating to employee non-pension retirement benefits has been actuarially determined using the projected benefit method pro-rated on services. At December 31, 2017, based on actuarial update, the accrued benefit obligation was $311,886 (2016 $299,998).

234 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

County of Frontenac Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2017

Employee Future Benefit Obligations / continued The significant actuarial assumptions adopted in estimating the County’s accrued benefit obligation are as follows: 5% per annum 2% per annum 3% per annum 4% per annum 4% per annum

nl y

Discount rate Inflation rate Salary escalation Dental benefits escalation Health benefits escalation

rp o

se s

Employee benefit obligations are comprised of:

2016

299,998 12,817 11,963 (9,476) (3,416)

286,397 11,996 11,213 (6,193) (3,415)

311,886

299,998

D is cu

ss i

Accrued benefit obligation, end of year

Opening balance Expense recognized for the year Interest cost Benefit payments Amortization of actuarial losses

2017

Deferred Revenues

fo r

A requirement of public sector accounting standards of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada is that obligatory reserve funds be reported as deferred revenues. This requirement is in place as Provincial legislation restricts how these funds may be used and under certain circumstances these funds may possibly be refunded. The transactions for the year are summarized as follows:

2016

Federal Gas Tax ▸ January 1, 2017

476,072

557,719

Federal grant ▸ gasoline tax Investment income Transfer to operating fund Transfer to capital fund

816,080 8,831 (842,314) (245,135)

801,884 9,485 (893,016)

Federal Gas Tax ▸ December 31, 2017

213,534

476,072

2017

235 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

County of Frontenac Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2017

Long Term Liabilities The balance of long term liabilities reported on the “Consolidated Statement of Financial Position” is comprised of the following: 2017

2016

nl y

(a)

6,265,381

7,368,209

Net long term liabilities at the end of the year

6,265,381

7,368,209

se s

Debenture issue

rp o

A debenture was issued on September 12, 2002 maturing September 12, 2022, to finance a building project at Fairmount Home for the Aged. The debenture has an interest rate of 6.157% with principal repayments commencing on September 12, 2003. Debt repayment costs will be recovered from future revenue. The City of Kingston’s share of the debt repayment was established through a Mediated Settlement dated August 7, 2002 and is based on 50% of the repayments related to the 32 new beds and 74% of the repayments related to the 96 existing beds.

6,265,381

Interest expense on long term liabilities in 2017 amounted to $425,201 (2016 $490,254).

(c)

General Revenues

1,172,313 1,246,176 1,324,693 1,408,157 1,114,042

fo r

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

D is cu

ss i

(b) Principal payments fall due as follows:

(d) These payments are within the annual debt repayment limit prescribed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

236 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

County of Frontenac Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2017

Municipal Equity 2016

23,526,802 (6,265,381)

22,981,834 (7,368,209)

17,261,421

15,613,625

(69,296)

(62,604)

nl y

Investment in tangible capital assets Tangible capital assets Long term liabilities

2017

se s

Unfunded Future Employee Liabilities Reserves (Schedule 1)

11,165,782

1,346,988

1,604,541

rp o

Reserve Funds (Schedule 1)

11,542,559

30,081,672

28,321,344

Pension Contributions

Total Municipal Equity

D is cu

ss i

The County makes contributions to the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (“OMERS”), which is a multi-employer plan, on behalf of all permanent members of its staff. The plan is a defined benefit plan which specifies the amount of the retirement benefit to be received by the employees based on the length of service and rates of pay. Employers and employees contribute to the plan. Since any surpluses or deficits are a joint responsibility of all Ontario municipalities and their employees, the County does not recognize any share of the OMERS pension surplus or deficit in these consolidated financial statements.

Trust Funds

fo r

The amount contributed to OMERS was $1,577,988 (2016 $1,530,159) for current services and is included as an expenditure on the Consolidated Statement of Operations classified under the appropriate functional expenditure. Contributions by employees were a similar amount.

Trust funds administered by the County amounting to $8,474 (2016 $9,151) are presented in a separate financial statement of trust fund balances and operations. As such balances are held in trust by the County for the benefit of others, they are not presented as part of the County’s financial position or financial activities.

237 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

County of Frontenac Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2017

Contingent Liabilities (a)

The County is contingently liable for its share of any operating deficit of the Kingston-Frontenac Public Library Board, which is approximately 13% of the accumulated balance as at the end of the year for the Board. The County’s share of the accumulated operating surplus (deficit) is $ (2016 $(7,596)).

nl y

(b) The nature of municipal activities is such that there may be litigation pending or in prospect at any time. With respect to claims as at December 31, 2017, management believes that the County has valid defences and appropriate insurance coverages in place.

rp o

se s

In the event any claims are successful, management believes that such claims are not expected to have a material effect on the County’s financial position.

Contributions to Joint Boards

The assets and liabilities of the Kingston-Frontenac Public Library Board have not been consolidated. The County contributions to the Library Board for 2017 are $821,097 (2016 $812,959) and are reported on the Consolidated Statement of Operations.

(a)

Commitments (a)

The County leases premises under long term operating lease agreements with terms as follows: $27,000 per annum plus HST to December 31, 2017, adjusted annually for additional rent and realty taxes; adjusted annually for additional rent and realty taxes;

(i)

fo r

D is cu

ss i

(b) The assets and liabilities of the Kingston-Frontenac and Lennox and Addington Health Board have not been consolidated. The County made the following contributions to the Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox and Addington Health Board for 2017 $746,847 (2016 $732,191).

(ii) $28,000 per annum plus HST;

(iii) $27,450 per annum in 2017; (iv) $56,768 per annum plus HST to December 31, 2017; (v) $4,000 per annum plus HST first five year term to 2015 and the following 15 years $4,000 plus CPI escalator, plus HST;

(b) In 2008, the County pledged $54,000 annually for 10 years to the University Hospitals Kingston Foundation, a joint fund raising appeal undertaken by the Foundation on behalf of local hospitals. The County has provided $54,000 as the tenth of 10 payments, as of December 31, 2017.

238 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

County of Frontenac Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2017 Commitments / continued (c)

Cost Sharing Allocations

In 2012, the Kingston Frontenac Housing Corporation entered into an agreement with the City of Kingston to pay $12,500 per year beginning in 2012 to provide for a new septic system at the social housing site in Verona. Through the cost sharing agreement with the City of Kingston the County of Frontenac is obligated for 100% of the costs of the social housing units in the County, including this annual repayment.

nl y

Risk Management

ss i

rp o

se s

The Local Service Realignment sets out formulae under which the costs for Social Services, Child Care, Social Housing, Provincial Offences and Land Ambulance are shared between the County of Frontenac and the City of Kingston. A new cost sharing arrangement was derived for the period of 2004 to 2006 through an arbitrated settlement and continued on a year to year basis. Program costs for Social Services and Child Care are distributed on the basis of caseload and Social Housing costs are allocated by the location of the unit. The administrative costs for these services are allocated on the basis of weighted assessment. The cost of Land Ambulance and the net revenue of Provincial Offences are distributed on the basis of weighted assessment.

D is cu

In the normal course of operations, the County is exposed to a variety of financial risks which are actively managed by the County. The County’s financial instruments consist of cash, investments, accounts receivable and accounts payable and accrued liabilities. The fair values of cash, investments and accounts payable and accrued liabilities approximate their carrying values because of their expected short term maturity and treatment on normal trade terms.

fo r

The County’s exposure to and management of risk has not changed materially from December 31, 2016.

Credit Risk

Credit risk arises from the possibility that the entities to which the County provides services to may experience difficulty and be unable to fulfill their obligations. The County is exposed to financial risk that arises from the credit quality of the entities to which it provides services. The County does not have a significant exposure to any individual customer or counter party. As a result, the requirement for credit risk related reserves for accounts receivable is minimal.

Interest Rate Risk Interest rate risk arises from the possibility that the value of, or cash flows related to, a financial instrument will fluctuate as a result of changes in market interest rates. The County is exposed to financial risk that arises from the interest rate differentials between the market interest rate and the rates on its cash and cash equivalents. Changes in variable interest rates could cause unanticipated fluctuations in the County’s operating results.

239 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

County of Frontenac Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2017

Risk Management / continued Liquidity Risk

Tangible Capital Assets

se s

nl y

Liquidity risk is the risk that the County will not be able to meet its obligations as they fall due. The County requires working capital to meet day-to-day operating activities. Management expects that the County’s cash flows from operating activities will be sufficient to meet these requirements.

2016

959,898 2,275,832 15,839,439 1,207,139 2,444,058 745,129 55,307

627,268 1,693,564 16,309,737 1,001,872 2,590,944 758,445

23,526,802

22,981,830

rp o Pu on ss i

Land Land Improvements Buildings Vehicles Machinery and Equipment Bridges Work in Progress

2017

Segmented Information

fo r

D is cu

For additional information, see Schedule 2 ▸ Tangible Capital Assets.

The County is a diversified municipal government that provides a wide range of services to its citizens. The services are provided by departments and their activities are reported in the consolidated statement of operations.

Departments have been separately disclosed in the segmented information, along with the service they provide, as set out in the schedule below. For each reported segment, expenditures represent both amounts that are directly attributable to the segment and amounts that are allocated on a reasonable basis. Therefore, certain allocation methodologies are employed in the preparation of segmented financial information. The accounting policies used in these segments are consistent with those followed in the preparation of the consolidated financial statements as disclosed in note 2.

240 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

County of Frontenac Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2017

Segmented Information / continued Rents and Debenture Debt Interest

Materials & Services

External Transfers

Amortization

Total

1,257,414

1,166,368

952,737

345,356

3,721,875

Protection to Persons and Property

3,239

Transportation

937,111

98,082

Health Services Public Health Services Ambulance

–13,363,933

746,847 2,635,463

Recreation and Cultural Services Libraries

9,139,099

358,097

fo r

Planning and Development

25,055,654

se s

4,062

1,039,255

–662,977

746,847 16,662,373

1,217,196

2,300,051 689,128

564,028

12,428,379 689,128

821,097

rp o

425,201

1,217,196

1,010,650

1,368,747

425,201

10,688,121

952,737

1,576,423

38,698,136

2017

3,239

ss i

Social and Family Assistance General Assistance Assistance to Aged Persons Social Housing

D is cu

General Government Administration

nl y

Salaries, Wages & Employee Benefits

2017

241 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

County of Frontenac Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2017

Segmented Information / continued Rents and Debenture Debt Interest

Materials & Services

External Transfers

Amortization

Total

General Government Administration

1,339,311

1,181,893

953,392

278,101

Protection to Persons and Property

1,692

Transportation

932,510

91,209

Health Services Public Health Services Ambulance

–13,530,719

732,191 2,626,049

se s

1,692

4,062

1,027,781

–592,069

732,191 16,748,837

1,225,072

2,212,927 842,236

545,289

12,664,724 842,236

rp o

1,225,072

812,960

364,500

469,786

834,286

490,254

10,196,015

953,392

1,419,521

38,642,476

490,254

25,583,294

2016

9,416,254

fo r

Planning and Development

3,752,697

ss i

Recreation and Cultural Services Libraries

D is cu

Social and Family Assistance General Assistance Assistance to Aged Persons Social Housing

nl y

Salaries, Wages & Employee Benefits

2016

242 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

County of Frontenac Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2017 16.

Budget Figures

Budget

Actual

se s

nl y

The 2017 budget amounts that were approved were not prepared on a basis consistent with that used to report actual results (Public Sector Accounting Board Standards). The budget included capital items such as infrastructure replacements and estimated costs for constructed assets, as program expenses, but the actual expenses have been removed in the Statement of Operations. The revenues attributable to these items continue to be included in the Statement of Operations, resulting In a significant variance. The following analysis is provided to assist readers in their understanding of differences between the approved budget and the audited financial statements:

$ 40,014,105 (38,698,136)

$ 39,673,130 (39,145,135)

rp o

Total Revenues Total Expenditures

Net Revenues Amortization

Adjusted Net Revenues

ss i

Capital Revenues Funds Available

D is cu

Capital Expenditures Disposal of Tangible Capital Assets Principal Repayments Unfunded Expense

1,315,969 1,576,423

2,023,805

2,892,392

99,681

444,359

2,123,486

3,336,751

(1,529,105) –(1,102,828)

(2,161,531) 40,140 (1,102,828) 6,692

(508,447)

119,224

(508,447)

119,224

fo r

(Decrease) Increase in Operating Surplus

527,995 1,495,810

Allocated as Follows:

Net Transfers from reserves

243 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Schedule 1 ▸

County of Frontenac Continuity of Reserves and Reserve Funds (Note 16) Budget

2017

2016

Investment income

47,376

41,474

Total Net Revenues

47,376

41,474

1,333,782 (1,842,229)

152,134 (80,286)

(1,233,863) 344,268

Total Net Transfers

(508,447)

71,848

(889,595)

Balances, Change in Year

(508,447)

119,224

(848,121)

Balances, Beginning of Year

12,770,323

13,618,444

Reserves and Reserve Fund Balances, End of Year

12,261,876

For the year ended December 31

Revenues

O 12,889,547

fo r

D is cu

ss i

rp o

se s

Transfers from operations Transfers to capital acquisitions

nl y

Net Transfers From / (To) Other Funds

The accompany notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

244 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

12,770,323

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Schedule 1 ▸

County of Frontenac Composition of Reserves and Reserve Funds

For the year ended December 31

2017

2016

1,220,798 32,458 192,957 572,206 45,020 19,141 249,748

1,249,347 21,510 217,139 92,832 27,681 568 337,838

fo r

Total Reserves and Reserve Funds

Reserves

2,141,893 90,000 –865,669 1,181,914 621,145 1,472,721

1,788,953 80,000 299,637 846,752 1,285,740 809,366 1,204,655

206,390 227,686 100,858

188,769 215,186 100,858

–1,934,727

149,961 2,418,159

1,477,760

1,239,902

49,204 121,029 44,045 22,178

26,629 120,297 48,544

12,889,547

12,770,323

11,542,559

11,165,782

1,346,988

1,604,541

12,889,547

12,770,323

se s rp o

D is cu

ss i

Operating County of Frontenac ▸ working fund ▸ operating Frontenac Paramedic Service ▸ Severance ▸ WSIB Fairmount Home ▸ operating ▸ severance Sustainability Asset Replacement Capital replacement Ontarians with Disabilities Land acquisition Fairmont Home ▸ capital replacement Fairmount Home ▸ capital reserve fund * Frontenac Paramedic Service ▸ vehicle replacement ▸ equipment replacement External Agency Reserves Library reserve Social housing ▸ Out of Scope Renovates program reserve Strategic Regional Reserves Investing in Ontario reserve fund * Strategic projects reserve Stabilization Reserves County of Frontenac Legally Restricted Frontenac Howe Islander Ferry Reserve Donations * Pathways * Frontenac Howe Island Ferry WSIB

nl y

Reserves set aside for specific purposes by Council:

Reserve Funds *

Total Reserves and Reserve Funds

The accompany notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

245 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Schedule 2 ▸

County of Frontenac 2017 Tangible Capital Assets

Additions

(Disposals)

Cost 31/12/17

627,268

332,630

959,898

Land Improvements

2,234,066

779,982

3,014,048

Buildings

22,120,650

Vehicles

3,105,738

693,699

(700,685)

3,098,752

Machinery & Equipment

6,667,064

299,913

(23,290)

6,943,687

797,779

–(723,975)

Accumulated Amortization 01/01/17

Amortization

(Disposals)

Accumulated Amortization 31/12/17

Net Book Value 31/12/17

959,898

197,714

738,216

2,275,832

470,298

6,281,211

15,839,439

Land Land Improvements

540,502

Buildings

5,810,913

Vehicles

2,103,866

Bridges

se s

449,988

(662,241)

1,891,613

1,207,139

445,107

(21,598)

4,499,629

2,444,058

39,334

13,316

52,650

745,129

55,307

12,570,735

1,576,423

(683,839)

13,463,319

23,526,802

fo r

Work in Progress

55,307

36,990,121

4,076,120

D is cu

Machinery & Equipment

55,307 2,161,531

rp o

Asset Class

–35,552,565

Work in Progress

Bridges

ss i

Land

nl y

Cost 01/01/17

Asset Class

The accompany notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

246 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Schedule 2 ▸

County of Frontenac 2016 Tangible Capital Assets

Asset Class

Cost 01/01/16 $

Land

536,076

91,192

627,268

Land Improvements

2,092,468

147,978

(6,380)

2,234,066

Buildings

22,120,650

Vehicles

3,046,387

628,881

(569,530)

3,105,738

Machinery & Equipment

5,817,767

1,139,350

(290,053)

6,667,064

Bridges

797,779

Work in Progress

31,754

(31,754)

34,442,881

1,975,647

(865,963)

415,377

127,039

nl y

627,268

540,502

1,693,564

470,296

5,810,913

16,309,737

431,826

(546,080)

2,103,866

1,001,872

377,038

(290,052)

4,076,120

2,590,944

26,012

13,322

39,334

758,445

11,989,260

1,419,521

(838,046)

12,570,735

22,981,830

Vehicles

2,218,120

Machinery & Equipment

3,989,134

D is cu

5,340,617

fo r

Work in Progress

(1,914)

Buildings

Bridges

se s

(Disposals)

Net Book Value 31/12/16

rp o

Amortization

Land Improvements

35,552,565

Accumulated Amortization 31/12/16

Accumulated Amortization 01/01/16

Land

Cost 31/12/16

(Disposals)

ss i

Asset Class

Additions

The accompany notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

247 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

nl y

AGENDA ITEM #b)

rp o

To the Members of Council, Inhabitants and Ratepayers of the Corporation of the County of Frontenac:

se s

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT

We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the Corporation of the County of Frontenac which comprise the statement of financial position of the trust funds as at December 31, 2017 and the statement of financial activities of the trust funds for the year then ended and a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory information.

ss i

Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements

fo r

Auditor’s Responsibility

D is cu

The Corporation of the County of Frontenac’s management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with Canadian Public Sector Accounting Standards and for such internal control as management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we comply with ethical requirements and plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgment, including assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.

248 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

nl y

We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion.

Opinion

rp o

se s

The trust funds of the Corporation of the County of Frontenac derives receipts from the Homes for Senior Citizen residents, which are not susceptible to complete audit verification. Accordingly our verification of such receipts was limited to accounting for the amounts recorded in the records of the trust funds.

fo r

Perth, Ontario, April 18, 2018.

D is cu

Allan and Partners LLP Chartered Professional Accountants Licensed Public Accountants

ss i

In our opinion, except for the effect of adjustments which might have been required had receipts from the Homes for Senior Citizens residents been susceptible to complete audit verification, these financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the trust funds of the Corporation of the County of Frontenac as at December 31, 2017 and the financial activities for the year ended in accordance with Canadian Public Sector Accounting Standards.

249 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

County of Frontenac Trust Funds Statement of Financial Position

December 31

Fairmount Home Residents’

Bridget Fowler

2017

2016

4,286

4,188

8,474

9,151

4,286

4,188

8,474

Cash

9,151

rp o

se s

FUND BALANCES

nl y

ASSETS

Statement of Financial Activities Bridget Fowler

2017

2016

10,281

ss i

–441

10,281 441

11,677 410

10,281

441

10,722

12,087

11,099

–300

11,099 300

10,224 300

11,099

300

11,399

10,524

Fairmount Home Residents’

NET (EXPENDITURES) REVENUES FOR THE YEAR

(818)

141

(677)

1,563

BALANCE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR

5,104

4,047

9,151

7,588

BALANCE AT THE END OF THE YEAR

4,286

4,188

8,474

9,151

For the year ended December 31

REVENUES

EXPENDITURES

D is cu

Residents’ deposits Interest

fo r

Residents’ withdrawals Payments

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

250 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

County of Frontenac Trust Funds Notes to the Financial Statements December 31, 2017

Significant Accounting Policies Reporting Entity

fo r

D is cu

ss i

rp o

se s

nl y

Expenditures are reported on the cash basis of accounting with the exception of administrative expenses which are reported on the accrual basis of accounting, which recognizes expenditures as they are incurred and measurable as a result of the receipt of goods or services and the creation of a legal obligation to pay.

251 of 329 2018-051 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Audited Financial S…

AGENDA ITEM #c)

FRONTENAC Report 2018-050 Recommend Report to Council To:

Warden and Members of County Council

From:

Kelly J. Pender, Chief Administrative Officer

Prepared by:

Richard Allen, Manager of Economic Development

Date of meeting:

April 18, 2018

Re:

and Economic Economic Development Development— – Frontenac Planning and Frontenac Islands Waterfront Trail Agreements

Recommendation Whereas the Economic Development Charter for the Frontenacs highlights opportunities associated with trail development and a recreational lifestyle that highlights the natural assets of the Frontenac Region; And Whereas a connection to the Great Lakes Waterfront Trail will encourage additional exposure and promotion of the Frontenac region; Therefore Be It Resolved That the County of Frontenac advise the Waterfront Regeneration Trust that it wishes to participate in the extension of the Great Lakes Waterfront Trail through the Frontenac Islands and that it is willing to participate in the partnership program and contribute $500 to the Trust annually; And Further That Frontenac County advise the Waterfront Regeneration Trust that it will work in partnership with RTO 9 and the Township of the Frontenac Islands to install the required required Great Great Lakes Lakes Waterfront Waterfront Trail Trail signage signage on on roads roads which which are are under under the the Municipality’s Municipality’s jurisdiction and cover the one-time costs associated with digital and paper mapping; And Further That up to $10,000 be allocated from the Community Development Reserve to be used to match partnership funding from Regional Tourism Organization 9 (RTO 9) for the expansion of the Waterfront Trail to the Frontenac Islands, And Further That the Warden and Clerk be authorized to complete the necessary paperwork associated with the Great Lakes Waterfront Trail and RTO 9 partnership funding for the expansion of the Great Lakes Waterfront Trail.

Page 252 ofDevelopment 329 2018-050 Planning and Economic Frontenac Islands Waterfront …

AGENDA ITEM #c)

Background While working on various initiatives initiatives related related to to the the Ferry by Foot program with representatives County staff staff were were introduced introduced to to the the opportunity opportunity to work from MTO, MTO, County work with with The The Waterfront Regeneration Trust (WRT) (WRT) to to establish establish sections sections of the Great Lakes Waterfront Trail on the Frontenac Islands. The Thetrail trailis is aacontinuous continuous signed signed route along the Canadian Canadian shoreline shoreline of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River.

The Great Great Lakes Lakes Waterfront Waterfront Trail Trail is is part part of of aa broader broader strategy strategy to to protect, connect and Lakes/St. Lawrence Lawrence River River basin. basin. The The first first section of celebrate the Great Lakes/St. of the the Great Lakes Waterfront Trail was established along the Lake Ontario shoreline between Trenton and Stoney Creek in 1995. ItIthas hassince sincegrown grown to to over over 2800 2800 km km in in length, length, connecting connecting 140 communities and communities and First First Nations Nations along along Lakes Lakes Ontario, Ontario, Erie, Erie, St. Clair and southern Lake Huron, as well as the Lake Huron North Channel and the St. Lawrence, Detroit and St. Clair Rivers. The Trail presently connects 500 parks and natural natural areas areas including including wetlands, beaches, forest, UNESCOBiospheres, Biospheres, and and 21 21 national national heritage heritage sites. sites. three UNESCO cycling amenity, the Trail is promoted by the Waterfront While considered both a walking and cycling Regeneration Trust Trust and and partners partners as as aasignature signature cycle cycle tourism tourism attraction attraction for Ontario. It is also Regeneration recognized as aa popular popular fitness fitness and active active transportation transportation amenity. Wolfe Island has has four four existing existing cycling cycling routes. The expansion of the Waterfront Trail will will incorporate/connect Region to to the the larger larger provincially provincially incorporate/connect these routes and the Frontenac Region significant Waterfront Waterfront Trail Trail network. Further, this this expansion will will create create an important and significant international for the Waterfront Trail. international connection connectionbetween between the the USA USA and Canada Canada for

The GLWT GLWTserves servesaanumber numberofofprovincial provincialpolicy policypriorities priorities including: including:

CycleON: Ontario’s Ontario’s Cycling Cycling Strategy Strategy Ontario’s Ontario’s Great Great Lakes Lakes Strategy Strategy Trails of Distinction Distinction Program The Ontario Trails Strategy Tour by Bike — – Ontario’s Ontario’s Cycle Cycle Tourism Tourism Plan Plan

The Great Great Lakes Lakes Waterfront Waterfront Trail Trail travels travels into into the the City City of Kingston along Bath Road to Front and along along Ontario Ontario Street Street into into Downtown Downtown Kingston, Kingston, where itit connects to kilometer zero Road and which is The Waterfront Waterfront Trail then of the K&P Trail, which is established established at at Confederation ConfederationPark. Park. The continues past continues past the the Wolfe Wolfe Island Island Ferry Ferry Dock Dock and and across across the the LaSalle LaSalle Causeway Causeway where it follows Highway follows Highway 22 past past Howe Howe Island Island to to Gananoque Gananoque and and along along the the St. St. Lawrence Lawrence River. Maps can be found on the Great Lakes Waterfront Trail website. Comment County staff Great Waterway) Waterway) for for partnership partnership staff have have submitted submitted aa proposal proposal to toRTO RTO 99 (The Great funding for end of of April. April. funding for this this project projectand and expect expect to to receive receive a response before the end

Recommend Report to Council Planning and Economic Frontenac Islands Islands Waterfront Waterfront Trail Agreements Economic Development Development — – Frontenac April 18, 2018

Page 253 ofDevelopment 329 2018-050 Planning and Economic Frontenac Islands Waterfront …

Page 2 of 3

AGENDA ITEM #c)

In order to include the Frontenac Islands in the Great Lakes Waterfront Trail online mapping for 2018, a route needs to be confirmed confirmed and and aa signage signage audit audit conducted. conducted. Staff have coordinated this with representatives from the Waterfront Regeneration Trust. Once the route is confirmed, mapping created and signage installed, the loops on the Frontenac Islands will be promoted as part of the larger trail. In addition, it is possible that the Great Waterfront Trail Adventure will include the Frontenac Islands as part of their tour during July 29 to August 3, 2018, if the routes are established in advance. Staff are seeking authority to join the Waterfront Trail partnership program to use funds from the Community Development Reserve to match potential funding from RTO 9 to purchase wayfinding signage and to create the the associated associated mapping mapping required required by by the the trail. trail. The Township of Frontenac Islands has committed the resources to install the required signage as part of this project. Sustainability Implications The Great Lakes Waterfront Trail was created to protect, connect and celebrate the world’s largest group of freshwater lakes, and is the first step in a broader strategy to regenerate Ontario’s Ontario’s Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River. The Trail is a well-loved and used recreation, fitness and green transportation amenity and a world-renowned tourism attraction. Financial Implications Staff are seeking approval to use up to $10,000 from the Community Development Reserve This is is an unplanned expenditure to match RTO 9 funding to implement implement the the trail trail expansion. expansion. This from the reserve, and staff will need to make adjustments to future planned projects in order to accommodate. Participation in the Waterfront Trail Partnership program involves an annual fee of $500. Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Regional Tourism Organisation 9 (RTO 9) County Finance and Administration Ministry of Transportation for Ontario Township of Frontenac Islands Kingston Accommodation Partners Tourism Kingston

Recommend Report to Council Planning and Economic Frontenac Islands Islands Waterfront Waterfront Trail Agreements Economic Development Development — – Frontenac April 18, 2018

Page 254 ofDevelopment 329 2018-050 Planning and Economic Frontenac Islands Waterfront …

Page 3 of 3

AGENDA ITEM #d)

FRONTENAC Report 2018-055 Recommend Report to Council To:

Warden and Members of County Council

From:

Kelly J. Pender, Chief Administrative Officer

Prepared by:

Richard Allen, Manager of Economic Development

Date of meeting:

April 18, 2018

Re:

and Economic Economic Development Development— – Ferry Planning and Ferry by by Foot: Foot: Big Sandy Bay Weekend Shuttle Service (Pilot Program)

Recommendation County Staff Whereas County Staff are are implementing implementing a a “Ferry “Ferry by by Foot” Foot” program program to to encourage encourage visitors to Wolfe Island to experience the island through active transportation; part of of the the “Advancing “Advancing Economic And Whereas this program has been developed as part Economic Development in in the the Frontenacs Frontenacs through through Collaboration” Collaboration” Rural Economic Development funding Development program (RED); And Whereas RED does not fund transportation initiatives; Be It Resolved That up to $6,000 be allocated from Strategic Reserves to be used to match partnership funding from Regional Tourism Organization 9 (RTO 9) for a weekend shuttle service from Marysville to Big Sandy Bay in July and August of 2018; And Further That the Warden and Clerk be authorized to complete necessary paperwork associated with RTO 9 funding. Background During the summer months, ferry congestion increases significantly for residents, businesses, and visitors attempting to reach Wolfe Island. Visitors who wish to take their vehicle on the ferry can wait for up to 2 hours before they are able to board. The capacity for pedestrians and cyclists is much higher than it is for vehicles. With rare exceptions, pedestrians and cyclists can board their desired ferry within minutes of arriving at the dock. As part of the County Rural Economic Development (RED) funding program, staff have prepared “Ferry by the ferry ferry and prepared a a “Ferry by Foot” Foot” campaign campaign to to encourage encourage visitors visitors to to walk walk or or bike bike onto onto the and to assist in the alleviation of vehicle congestion.

Page 255 ofDevelopment 329 2018-055 Planning and Economic Ferry by Foot: Big Sandy Bay …

AGENDA ITEM #d)

An awareness awareness campaign campaign will will begin in late May May using using online online content marketing, a social strategy, and printed printed brochures. Promotion Promotion of of this this content will continue through June, July, and August. These These initiatives initiatives include:

AAcontent contentmarketing marketing campaign campaign • Familiarization (FAM) (FAM) Tour Tour bringing bringing social media influencers to Wolfe Island driving online • Social media campaign driving online audience audience to to Ferry Ferry by by Foot Foot web page • Features on all Wolfe Island Frontenac Ambassadors • A handful of informative and engaging blogs
Kingston Kingstonferry ferry dock dock signs signs Where to to leave leave your your car car in in Kingston Kingston • Where of Marysville • Map of • Tips for making the most of a Wolfe Island visit visit
Printed Printedbrochure brochure • This will include similar similar information information as as the above signs • Will include ferry schedule the Kingston Kingston dock, Kingston Visitor • Available at the Visitor Information Information Centre Centre and downtown Kingston businesses • Provide the the right right information at the the right right time time to to inform inform visitor visitor decisions EnhanceWolfe WolfeIsland’s Island’scycle-friendly cycle-friendly reputation reputation
Enhance • Support businesses in becoming Ontario By Bike Certified • Install bike racks through Marysville • Sign cycling routes visitor traffic A key driver of visitor traffic by by motorized motorized vehicle vehicle is isthe the Big BigSandy Sandy Bay Bay Conservation Conservation Area. This destination destination sports sportsaa number number of of sand sand dunes dunes and and aa long, long, sand sand beach beach and and has has become a popular place for visitors visitors to to Wolfe Wolfe Island to enjoy the outdoors. option for active adults, given the distance from the While cycling to Big Sandy Bay is an option village, most visitors visitors choose choose to to drive drive aa vehicle vehicle to to access access the the conservation conservation area area and enjoy the beach. These These vehicles vehicles add addto to the thecongestion congestion on on the the ferry ferry dock, dock, which which impacts impacts visitors visitors and residents on the island alike. Comment In March of 2018, 2018, Planning Planning and and Economic Economic Development Development staff staff submitted submitted aa proposal proposal to (RTO 9, 9,formerly formerly the the Great Great Waterway) Waterway)to tosolicit solicit partnership partnership Regional Tourism Organization 9 (RTO funding for for a shuttle bus pilot pilot program program to to take take visitors visitors from from Marysville Marysville to to Big Big Sandy Sandy Bay during peak times. The proposed shuttle shuttle will willoperate operatefrom from9:00 9:00 a.m. a.m. to to 7:30 7:30 p.m. every Saturday, Sunday, and holiday during The shuttle shuttle will travel during the the months months of of July July and and August August (18 (18 days in total). The Recommend Report to Council Planning and Economic Ferryby byFoot: Foot: Big Big Sandy Sandy Bay Bay Weekend Weekend Shuttle Shuttle Service Service (Pilot (Pilot Program) Program) Economic Development Development — – Ferry April 18, 2018 Page 2 of 4

Page 256 ofDevelopment 329 2018-055 Planning and Economic Ferry by Foot: Big Sandy Bay …

AGENDA ITEM #d)

between the village and the beach on a schedule that coincides with the ferry and will be free of charge to riders. Working with the businesses in Marysville, Economic Development staff will provide a coupon book to all shuttle bus riders. These special discounts will encourage riders to visit the shops in the village after their day at the beach. This part of the initiative is intended to encourage businesses to be invested in the success of the shuttle, gives them an ongoing sense of ridership, and creates a sense of collaboration among the businesses. This proposal received financial commitments and letters of support from both Tourism Kingston and Kingston Accommodation Partners (Visit Kingston) who will assist in the promotion of the program through their tourism-focused communications. Goals of the Ferry by Foot program and Weekend Shuttle Service to Big Sandy Bay

Make the Big Sandy Bay experience more attractive to all visitors.
Reduce vehicles in the ferry line-up, shortening wait times and improving the overall

experience for ferry users who require their vehicle for the trip. 3. 3. Encourage shuttle riders to shop at Marysville businesses while on the island. 4. Generate data that informs future decisions about the long-term viability of a shuttle 4. bus and any demand/need for some form of accessible transportation (i.e., total number of riders, time of day demand, etc.) 5. 5. Create awareness of Big Sandy Bay and the Marysville experience. Accessibility Considerations Frontenac County strives to ensure its programs and facilities meet or exceed the standards In the the case case of transportation, compliance is not set by the required accessibility accessibility legislation. legislation. In required for shuttle services, but for conventional and specialized services for which a fare is Inthe the case case of of the the shuttle shuttle service service pilot pilot program, program, no no fare will be charged in 2018. charged. In The General provisions of the Integrated Accessibility Standards, Section 5 requires that designated public sector organizations shall incorporate accessibility design, criteria and features when procuring or acquiring goods, services or facilities, except where it is not practicable to do so and and ifif not not practicable, practicable, provide, provide, upon upon request, request, an anexplanation. explanation. The following research was conducted to lease an accessible transportation option:

McCoy Bus Service & Tours, Kingston: Does not have any accessible buses.
Robert Hogan Bus Lines, Kingston: Does not have any accessible buses.
Hulton’s Hulton’s Bus Service, Wolfe Island: Does not have any accessible buses.
Stock Transportation, Kingston: Has a few accessible buses, which vary in capacity. They can carry one wheelchair at a time, and have between two and five standard school bus seats. seats. They They have have no no additional additional storage storage room. room. This is the only Recommend Report to Council Planning and Economic Ferryby byFoot: Foot: Big Big Sandy Sandy Bay Bay Weekend Weekend Shuttle Shuttle Service Service (Pilot (Pilot Program) Program) Economic Development Development — – Ferry April 18, 2018 Page 3 of 4

Page 257 ofDevelopment 329 2018-055 Planning and Economic Ferry by Foot: Big Sandy Bay …

AGENDA ITEM #d)

accessible option available, however it makes transportation impractical if groups of 5 or larger seek to visit Big Sandy Bay. 5. Accessible Accessible Taxi: Taxi: There are no options for accessible taxi located on Wolfe Island. Amey’s Taxi Taxi in in Kingston Kingston offers offers a a wheelchair wheelchair accessible accessible taxi, Amey’s taxi, however however it it cannot be booked in advance and would have to travel from Kingston to Wolfe Island to provide the service. As noted under Goals of the Program, the data generated will determine the need/demand for accessible transportation to to the the beach; beach; however however at at this this time, time, itit is is not not practicable practicableto toso. so. It should be noted that the Wolfe Island Ferry provides priority boarding to vehicles displaying accessible parking permits and as such, these vehicles would not be subjected to extended wait times before they are able to board the ferry. Sustainability Implications The Ferry by Foot program promotes active transportation on Wolfe Island and encourages Decreasing congestion in the ferry line visitors to the island to avoid use use of of motor motor vehicles. vehicles. Decreasing will also reduce emissions from idling vehicles. Financial Implications The funds for the Ferry by Foot program have been budgeted through the strategic reserve as part part of of the the “Advancing “Advancing Economic Development in in the the Frontenacs Frontenacs through Collaboration” as Economic Development through Collaboration” program. Staff are seeking approval to use strategic reserve funds to match RTO 9 funding for this Big Sandy Bay Shuttle bus service. Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Regional Tourism Organisation 9 (RTO 9) County Finance and Administration Ministry of Transportation for Ontario Township of Frontenac Islands Kingston Accommodation Partners Tourism Kingston

Recommend Report to Council Planning and Economic Ferryby byFoot: Foot: Big Big Sandy Sandy Bay Bay Weekend Weekend Shuttle Shuttle Service Service (Pilot (Pilot Program) Program) Economic Development Development — – Ferry April 18, 2018 Page 4 of 4

Page 258 ofDevelopment 329 2018-055 Planning and Economic Ferry by Foot: Big Sandy Bay …

AGENDA ITEM #e)

FRONTENAC Report 2018-056 Recommend Report to Council To:

Warden and Members of County Council

From:

Kelly J. Pender, Chief Administrative Officer

Prepared by:

Richard Allen, Manager of Economic Development

Date of meeting:

April 18, 2018

Re:

and Economic Economic Development Development— – Proposed Planning and Proposed Regional Gateway Sign Design and Locations

Recommendation Whereas the RED funding agreement has been amended to include Gateway Signage as part of the Brand Recognition Campaign; Resolved That the Council of the County of Frontenac approve the concept design and proposed locations for regional gateway signage, And Further That staff be directed to seek approval from townships to install regional gateway signs in the road allowances as identified Appendix A of this report. Background In June of 2016 the County of Frontenac was successful in its application to provincial Rural Report 2018-043 2018-043 describes describes the work completed as part of Economic Development program. program. Report the program to date, and amendments to the contribution agreement to allow for the inclusion of Gateway Signage as part of the Brand Recognition initiative. Comment Since August of 2017, staff have been working with BMDODO Strategic Design to develop a uniform signage system for implementation across the region. This system will include recommendations for size, accessibility, consistency and application of various forms of signage including wayfinding signs, hamlet signs, directional signs and informational signs. Staff expect to share draft system recommendations with Township Councils later in 2018. In order to ensure regional gateway signs are designed, produced and installed prior to the end of the RED funding in 2019 it is recommended that Council proceed with gateway signs prior to the adoption of a complete complete signage signage system. system. The regional gateway signs are designed to let let the the visitor visitor know know they designed to they “have “have arrived” arrived” to to the the Frontenac Frontenac region. region.

Page 259 ofDevelopment 329 2018-056 Planning and Economic Proposed Regional Gateway Sig…

AGENDA ITEM #e)

Priority 1 2 3 4 Priority 5 6 7 8 Priority 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Priority 19 20 21 22 23 25 24 26

Billboard Highway 401 Eastbound Highway 401 Westbound Highway 7 Westbound Highway 7 Eastbound Large Gateway Road 38 Highway 41 / Road 506 Perth Rd Horne’s Ferry Dock Standard Gateway Sydenham Rd Marysville Ferry Dock Battersea Rd (From Kingston) Howe Island Ferry Dock Howe Island Foot Ferry Dock Dawson Point Ferry Dock Perth Rd (From Westport) Sunbury Road Crow Lake Rd Westport Rd Small Gateway Yarker Rd Wilton Rd Bellrock Rd Arden Rd Buckshot Lake Rd Elphin Maberly Rd Battersea Rd (from L&G) South Lavant Rd

Page 260 ofDevelopment 329 2018-056 Planning and Economic Proposed Regional Gateway Sig…

AGENDA ITEM #e)

FRONTENAC SIGNAGE

Frontenac Signage Hwy 401 - Billboard Hwy 7 - Billboard Large Gateway Standard Gateway Small Gateway

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

Data Source: OGDE, MPAC & The County of Frontenac. Created: April 12th, 2018 Reference: Produced by the County of Frontenac with data supplied under license by members of the Ontario Geospatial Data Exchange. The County of Frontenac disclaims all responsibility for errors, omissions or inaccuracies in this publication.

Page 261 ofDevelopment 329 2018-056 Planning and Economic Proposed Regional Gateway Sig…

AGENDA ITEM #e)

144”

Large gateway signage

54”

Page 262 ofDevelopment 329 2018-056 Planning and Economic Proposed Regional Gateway Sig…

AGENDA ITEM #e)

Large gateway signage

Front

Side

Top view

Page 263 ofDevelopment 329 2018-056 Planning and Economic Proposed Regional Gateway Sig…

Back

AGENDA ITEM #e)

Standard gateway signage 54”

44”

120”

4” or 6”

Page 264 ofDevelopment 329 2018-056 Planning and Economic Proposed Regional Gateway Sig…

AGENDA ITEM #e)

Small gateway signage 44”

44”

120”

Page 265 ofDevelopment 329 2018-056 Planning and Economic Proposed Regional Gateway Sig…

AGENDA ITEM #e)

Sign Locations Staff reviewed the various entrances to the Frontenac region and identified priorities based on the following criteria: •

Visibility and Volume of Traffic: Is the sign to be located in an area where many visitors, business and residents will see it?

•

Profile: Is the sign to be located near a high profile entrance, such as a federal or provincial border?

•

Visitor-focused: Is the sign on a route that a visitor is likely be taking to reach a destination in our region?

The 24 gateway entrances into Frontenac were then prioritized to sign type based on the above and to make the best use of budgeted dollars to ensure all identified entrances are able to have gateway signage. Please see Appendix A and B for a list and map for locations. Sign Concepts The concepts are designed to let a visitor know they have entered the Frontenac region and will located at at road road entrances entrances to to the the region region that that they they have have arrived arrived and and are are now now “in “in will be be located Frontenac.” Frontenac.” The sign concepts in Appendix C of this report are broken into three categories. 1.

Large Gateway Signs (4) These signs have been identified for placement in areas with high visibility in diverse locations across the region. Due Due to to size size and and specific specific design design treatments, they have a premium pricing, which limits the number of signs that can be produced. The design will incorporate additional design features like wood and stone into the bases of the signs. Large Gateway signs are expected to cost $15,000 - $18,000 per sign for production and installation.
Standard Gateway Signs (10)

These sign concepts are smaller, more cost effective signs to produce and install for use at regional entrances with with lower lower visibility visibility and and average average volumes volumes of of traffic. traffic. They will still be large enough to impress upon a visitor that they have arrived to the region. Standard Gateway signs are expected to cost approximately $4,300 per sign for production and installation. 3. 3. Small Gateway Signs (8)

Recommend Report to Council Economic Development Development — – Proposed Planning and Economic Proposed Regional Regional Gateway Gateway Sign Sign Design Design and Locations April 18, 2018

Page 266 ofDevelopment 329 2018-056 Planning and Economic Proposed Regional Gateway Sig…

Page 2 of 3

AGENDA ITEM #e)

These signs are designed for lower volume entrances to Frontenac as well as entrances on roads that may have constrained conditions for installation of regional Small Gateway Gateway signs signs are are estimated estimated at at $3,300 $3,300 for for production and installation. signage. Small Next Steps Staff will seek approval from townships for installation in the various road right-of-way’s right-of-way’s identified. In In addition, addition, townships townships will will have have the the ability ability to to partner partner with the County to increase the size of identified signs, such as converting a location identified for a Standard Gateway Sign to a Large Gateway Sign. Sustainability Implications Gateway signs are important beacon’s to let let visitor’s visitor’s know know they they have beacon’s to have arrived arrived at at our our destination, destination, or that they are passing passing through through it. it. As Tourism is a focus of the the Economic Economic Development Development Charter Charter through its “Trips “Trips and and Trails” Trails” and and “Recreation” “Recreation” priorities, priorities, signage signage will help help strengthen strengthen the through awareness of the Frontenac region making it more attractive to all visitors. Financial Implications The funds for design, production and installation of regional gateway signage are available as part of the RED project funding. Large Gateway signs are expected to cost $15,000 - $18,000 per sign while Standard Gateway signs are expected to cost approximately $4,300 each and Small Gateway signs estimated at $3,300 each. Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Central Frontenac Township Public Works Department South Frontenac Township Public Works Department North Frontenac Township Public Works Department Township of Frontenac Islands Public Works Department

Recommend Report to Council Economic Development Development — – Proposed Planning and Economic Proposed Regional Regional Gateway Gateway Sign Sign Design Design and Locations April 18, 2018

Page 267 ofDevelopment 329 2018-056 Planning and Economic Proposed Regional Gateway Sig…

Page 3 of 3

AGENDA ITEM #f)

FRONTENAC Report 2018-053 Council Recommend Report To:

Warden and Members of County Council

From:

Kelly J. Pender, Chief Administrative Officer

Prepared by:

Paul J. Charbonneau, Chief Paramedic/Director

Date of meeting:

April 18, 2018

Re:

Emergency and and Transportation TransportationServices Services— – Community Emergency Paramedicine — – Overdose Paramedicine Overdose Prevention Prevention Site Site (OPS) (OPS) at Street Health Centre

Recommendation Be It Resolved That the Council of the County of Frontenac accept the Emergency and Services — – Overdose Transportation Services Overdose Prevention Prevention Site Site (OPS) (OPS) at at Street Street Health Centre report; And Further That the Council of the County of Frontenac authorize the Warden and Clerk to execute an agreement with the Kingston Community Health Centre for funding in the amount of $87,000, if the pilot OPS is approved for funding by the Government of Ontario. Background A collaborative team approach to the ongoing opioid crisis in Kingston is being developed and led by Kingston Community Health Centre. The partners include the Street Health Centre, Kingston Frontenac Lennox and Addington (KFL&A) Public Health, the South East Local Health Integration network (SE LHIN), Kingston Health Sciences Centre (KHSC), and Frontenac Paramedic Services (FPS). The proposal being developed for funding is an OPS located at Street Health Centre which is a 365 days a year harm reduction health centre, located in downtown Kington. Street Health Centre specializes in providing, accessible, responsive, and nonjudgmental care to individuals who often experience many barriers with traditional forms of healthcare services. Their mandate is to serve all members of our community, with special consideration for: people who use substances, people who work as sex workers, people who are homeless or are under housed, people living with or at risk of acquiring hepatitis C, and people who are incarcerated or recently released from incarceration.

Page 268 of 329 Services Community Paramedicine – … 2018-053 Emergency and Transportation

AGENDA ITEM #f)

Street Health Centre operates under a multidisciplinary framework, with a team consisting of: Physicians, Nurse Practitioners, Registered Nurses, Outreach Workers, Counsellors, an Indigenous Elder, and Community Support Workers. Additionally, they have support from many partnering agencies, in the form of seconded staff. With these collaborations, they are able to bring the expertise and resources from different organizations, and and provide provide quality qualityservice serviceto toclients clientsunder underone oneroof. roof. Their services include: primary health care; opioid substitution therapy; a core needle syringe program; hepatitis C treatment and care; indigenous health program, take-home naloxone program, and counselling services. Based on the opioid mortality data from the office of the Chief Coroner released for 1053 1053 opioid opioid related related deaths between January to February 2018, there were a total for October 2017 (52% increase from the year before, 2016, in the same time period). This represents 3-4 deaths per day or 105 deaths per month. KFL&A Public Health has a death case rate of 10.7 per 100,000 people (Ontario average is 7.4). (See attached pdf). “KFL&A has “KFL&A has not not been been spared spared by by the the consequences consequences of of the the opioid opioid epidemic. epidemic. In In fact, fact, this this region has been hit harder than many communities with higher rates of both morbidity and mortality. Deaths due to an opiate in Ontario have risen from a rate of 3.7/100,000 in 2007 2007 to to 6.2/100,000 6.2/100,000 in death rates rates remained remained relatively in in 2016. 2016. Conversely, Conversely, Kingston’s Kingston’s death relatively stable between 2007 and 2015 with an average of 5 deaths per 100,000 but in 2016 this figure rose sharply to 8 deaths per 100,000 people. source: Adam Adam van van Dijk, Dijk, KFL&A KFL&A Public PublicHealth HealthUnit Unit— – Epidemiologist Data source: Our teaching hospital Kingston Health Sciences Centre (KHSC) also admits a large number of clients for infectious endocarditis, secondary to the consequences of injection drug use. Since September September of Since of 2015, 2015, Street Street Health’s Health’s Opioid Opioid Overdose Overdose Prevention Prevention (SHOOP) Program has dispensed more than 1400 kits, trained nearly 5000 community members to recognize and respond to overdose, and 195 overdoses have been successfully reversed in the community (41% have called 911). On average, our SHOOP Program captures 8 overdoses per month. Comment Kingston Community Health Centre will be submitting an application for a six-month pilot project to establish and receive provincial funding for an OPS. The OPS will allows 3 people to inject at one-time, while being monitored by 1 Paramedic (per shift) and 3 community support workers (peers)/outreach staff. This Community Paramedicine opportunity aligns to our goal of 911 response reduction and Emergency Room (ER) avoidance. Sustainability Implications Directions for Our Future, under Capacity Building and Governance on page 36, states: “Strong links relationships between between community community and and municipalities.” municipalities.” “Strong links ensure ensure seamless seamless relationships contributes to to the the sustainability sustainability indicator indicator— – number This work also contributes number of collaborative Recommend Report to Council Emergency and and Transportation TransportationServices Services— – Community Paramedicine Paramedicine — – Street Emergency Street Health Health Centre April 18, 2018

Page 269 of 329 Services Community Paramedicine – … 2018-053 Emergency and Transportation

Page 2 of 3

AGENDA ITEM #f)

projects developed and implemented with two or more municipalities and many outside stakeholders in the primary health care field. Financial Implications this Community Community Paramedicine Paramedicine initiative through the project and The funding of this initiative will will be through sponsored by KFL&A Public Health and the Kingston Community Health Centre. Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Tooley, PMP®, PMP®, Cert. Cert. APM, APM, Sr. Sr. Consultant Consultant— – Performance Darryl Tooley, Performance Optimization, Optimization, South East Local Health Integration Network Mike Bell, Chief Executive Officer, Kingston Community Health Centre Dr. Kieran Moore, Medical Officer of Health, KFL&A Public Health Mike McDonald, Executive Vice President Patient Care & Community Partnerships, KHSC

Recommend Report to Council Emergency and and Transportation TransportationServices Services— – Community Paramedicine Paramedicine — – Street Emergency Street Health Health Centre April 18, 2018

Page 270 of 329 Services Community Paramedicine – … 2018-053 Emergency and Transportation

Page 3 of 3

AGENDA ITEM #a)

FRONTENAC Report 2018-049 Information Report to Council To:

Warden and Council Members of the County of Frontenac

From:

Kelly J. Pender, Chief Administrative Officer

Prepared by:

Susan Brant, Director of Corporate Services/Treasurer

Date of meeting:

April 18, 2018

Re:

Corporate Services— – Finance Corporate Services Finance – —2018 2018Reserve Reserveand and Reserve Reserve Funds

Recommendation This report is for information purposes only. Background Council adopted a Reserve and Reserve Fund Policy in May 2015, which aligned the requirements and long term direction of Council. Reserve and Reserve funds are defined in six categories: 1.

Operating Reserves
Capital Reserves
Levy Stabilization Reserves
Strategic Project Reserves
External Agency Reserves
Restricted Reserves

Comment Council maintained its commitment to the Reserve and Reserve Fund Policy during its 2017 budget deliberations. Operating Reserves: A new operating reserve for County activities, such as asset condition assessments, compensation reviews, actuarial assessments, etc. which occur on an intermittent basis was established in 2016.

271 of 329 2018-049 Corporate Page Services Finance 2018 Reserve and Reserve Funds

AGENDA ITEM #a)

The Fairmount Severance Reserve was fully depleted in 2016, but it is anticipated that the annual allocations of $30,000 will be adequate moving forward. In the 2017 budget, an annual allocation of $30,000 was added to the FPS Severance The initial initial balance was provided to Reserve to ensure adequate funds are are maintained. maintained. The the County from the Province at the time of transition, and has been steadily declining. The FRC Sustainability Reserve has been key in supporting the extensive costs related to OMB hearings in 2016 and 2017. Council approved an additional annual allocation to this reserve in 2016 to bring it to a more sustainable balance. The cost of the Communal Services project will require $80,000 in 2018. Capital Asset Management Reserves Caution: The Capital Asset Management Reserves are below the amount recommended by Public Sector Digest in their Asset Management Review. However, the current plan of a .65% increase per year (2017 was year three of ten) included the potential for borrowing borrowing in in the the land land and and building building assets assets category. category. As the Capital Asset Management Reserve does not currently anticipate the acquisition of any new capital assets, ongoing monitoring is required. Frontenac Paramedic Services is awaiting a new defibrillator model before replacing all these units, rather than replacement on a regular schedule. The only equipment replaced in 2017 are Toughbook laptops and CO2 detectors. The Land Acquisition Reserve has been depleted in 2017 to facilitate completion of the K&P Trail. The 2017 budget included the Work Order software, which, once fully implemented, will provide more accurate information with respect to asset replacement requirements. Staff will re-evaluate reserve requirements at that time. Stabilization Reserve: The 2017 surplus, $325,184, was allocated to the Stabilization Reserve and $108,022 was estimated as the 2017 budget mitigation requirement. project proposals, proposals, the Council approved two project the competency competency review review and and the the County’s County’s share share of the Fairmount Administration air conditioning project to be funded from this reserve. The target threshold for this reserve is 15% of the levy. The balance of this reserve is currently at the $1.4 million target. Caution: The Stabilization Reserve is below the amount recommended by KPMG in the Service Delivery and Organizational Review. Strategic Regional: This reserve will continue to be utilized for the projects identified by Council, which include Seniors Housing, Economic Development, Waste Management, and Community Improvement Plans. No new allocations are included. WSIB Reserves: These have been established to support the Council direction to move to self-funding WSIB through Schedule 2 for Land Ambulance, Ferry and Municipal Operations. The budget continues to anticipate the WSIB payroll costs as with the WSIB- funded Schedule 1, but these amounts are transferred to the respective reserves. Until the Municipal Operations WSIB reserve balance can fully support the insurance Information Report Corporate Services Services— – Finance Corporate Finance – —Reserve Reserveand and Reserve Reserve Funds April 18, 2018 Page 2 of 4

272 of 329 2018-049 Corporate Page Services Finance 2018 Reserve and Reserve Funds

AGENDA ITEM #a)

and ongoing claims payments the difference will be taken from the Stabilization reserve, but will be replenished to to that that reserve reserve in in future future years. years. The Land Ambulance and Ferry WSIB reserves were able to support the costs of insurance and ongoing claims in 2017. Sustainability Implications Governance — – appropriate appropriate stewardship stewardship of of County County resources. Financial Implications The following table reflects the 2017 audited year end balances: 2017 Reserve and Reserve Funds

2017 Actual

Target Balance

$ Operating

2,354,507

Meets current requirements

Asset Reserves

6,373,342

Underfunded — – ongoing Underfunded ongoing review and annual allocation

External Agency Reserves

534,933

Meets current requirements

Strategic Regional Reserves

1,934,727

Meets current requirements

FRC Stabilization Reserve

1,477,760

Meets current requirements

Legally Restricted

214,278

Meets current requirements

FRC Federal Gas Tax Reserve Fund

213,534

Total*

13,103,081

*16% of the total reserve balance is held jointly with the City of Kingston for Land Ambulance and Fairmount Home. From a policy perspective, in terms of adjusting reserve targets, no changes are recommended in Reserves and Reserve Funds at this time.

Information Report Corporate Services Services— – Finance Corporate Finance – —Reserve Reserveand and Reserve Reserve Funds April 18, 2018 Page 3 of 4

273 of 329 2018-049 Corporate Page Services Finance 2018 Reserve and Reserve Funds

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected

Information Report Corporate Services Services— – Finance Corporate Finance – —Reserve Reserveand and Reserve Reserve Funds April 18, 2018 Page 4 of 4

274 of 329 2018-049 Corporate Page Services Finance 2018 Reserve and Reserve Funds

AGENDA ITEM #b)

FRONTENAC Report 2018-052 Council Information Report To:

Warden and Council of the County of Frontenac

From:

Kelly J. Pender, Chief Administrative Officer

Prepared by:

Alex Lemieux, Deputy Treasurer

Date of meeting:

April 18, 2018

Re:

Corporate Services Services — – 2017 2017County Countyof of Frontenac Frontenac Investment Investment Report

Recommendation This report is for information purposes only. Background On January 20, 2016, County Council adopted By-law 2016-001, a By-law to adopt an investment policy and is attached as Appendix A that outlines objectives, standards of care, and investment parameters to be considered when investing any surplus funds retained by the County. The policy requires that the Treasurer report to Council annually on investment activities as per the requirements under Ontario Regulation 438/97. After County staff conducted a competitive process to identify an investment management firm, Council passed by-law 2016-026 to authorize a contract be undertaken with Johnson, Johnston and MacRae (JJM) Investment Management services. Comment The Performance benchmark identified in the policy suggests that the investment yield should be be higher higher than should than the the rate rate given given by by the the County’s County’s bank. The interest on bank balances is a floating rate equal to the prime rate less 1.75%. Through June 2017, the return on bank balances was 0.95%, though that rate has crept up to 1.70% as of March 2018 with recent increases in interest rates.

275 of 329 2018-052 Corporate Page Services 2017 County of Frontenac Investment Report

AGENDA ITEM #c)

FRONTENAC Report 2018-057 Council Information Report To:

Warden and Council

From:

Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer

Prepared by:

Lisa Hirvi, Administrator

Date of meeting:

April 18, 2018

Re:

Home — – Public Fairmount Home Public Posting Posting of of Home Home Performance Performance Levels

Recommendation This report is for information purposes only. Background The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) is making changes to its website as part of ongoing efforts to improve the transparency of public information related to the Long-Term Care Homes Quality Inspection Program in Ontario. The performance information will will be public website website in in the be published published on on the the ministry’s ministry’s public the near near future. future. Comment The ministry has developed a comprehensive Long-Term Care Homes Quality Inspection Program Performance Assessment Framework (LPA). Data from multiple sources is compiled to assess the performance of a home in meeting the requirements of the legislation and in providing quality care for residents. The performance results will be at a point in time and updated each quarter. The LPA data will be used by the LTC Inspection Branch as a performance management tool assisting with the following: •

Prioritizing and scheduling of inspections i.e. resident quality inspections

•

Creation of longitudinal record performance on on key key performance performance Creation of longitudinal record of of home’s home’s performance criteria

•

Identification of trends within LTC homes

•

Evaluation of strategies to respond to homes that are struggling (e.g. enforcement strategies, operational meetings with Licensees, etc.)

329 of Home Performance Levels 2018-057 FairmountPage Home 276 PublicofPosting

AGENDA ITEM #c)

•

Decision support for the ministry in the roll out of new programs to LTC homes

The performance levels are as follows: good standing, improvement required, significant improvement required and licence revoked. The LPA combines data from the following sources: compliance data, Resident Instrument — – Minimum Assessment Instrument Minimum Data Data Set Set (RAI (RAI MDS), MDS), Long-Term Long-Term Care Home Service Accountability Agreement (LSAA) indicators and qualitative data As at at December December 31, 31, 2017, 2017, Fairmount Fairmount Home Home has has been been deemed deemed to to be be “In “In Good Good Standing”, Standing”, As which which is is defined defined as as follows: follows: “Acts “Acts to to address address areas areas of of concern concern with with provincial provincial standards standards for resident care and home operations; report incidents and corrects issues identified in high risk risk areas; areas; generally generally manages complaints.” high manages complaints.” For further details, attached is the memorandum dated April 4, 2018 from the MOHLTC. Sustainability Implications Not applicable Financial Implications Not applicable Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Fairmount Home

Information Report to Council Fairmount Home PublicPosting Posting of of Home Home Performance Performance Levels Home — – Public April 18, 2018

329 of Home Performance Levels 2018-057 FairmountPage Home 277 PublicofPosting

Page 2 of 2

AGENDA ITEM #c)

329 of Home Performance Levels 2018-057 FairmountPage Home 278 PublicofPosting

AGENDA ITEM #c)

329 of Home Performance Levels 2018-057 FairmountPage Home 279 PublicofPosting

AGENDA ITEM #c)

329 of Home Performance Levels 2018-057 FairmountPage Home 280 PublicofPosting

AGENDA ITEM #c)

329 of Home Performance Levels 2018-057 FairmountPage Home 281 PublicofPosting

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Committee Report To:

Warden and Council Members of the County of Frontenac

From:

Jannette Amini, Manager of Legislative Services/Clerk

Date of meeting:

April 18, 2018

Re:

Planning Advisory Committee – Report to Council

All items listed on the Planning Advisory Committee Report shall be the subject of one motion. Any member of County Council may ask for any item(s) included in the Planning Advisory Committee Report to be separated from that motion and considered separately, whereupon the Planning Advisory Committee Report without the separated item(s) shall be put to the vote and the separated item(s) shall be considered immediately thereafter. The Planning Advisory Committee reports and recommends as follows: 1.

2018-046 Planning Advisory Committee Amendment Number 5 to the Township of Frontenac Islands Official Plan to re-designate lands legally described as Part Lot 16, South Range known municipally as 1729-1739 Howe Island Drive, Howe Island from Agriculture to Rural (St. Philomena Roman Catholic Church) – Frontenac Islands ByLaw No. 05-2018 Whereas the Council of the County of Frontenac considered all written and oral submissions received on this application, the effect of which helped Council to make an informed decision; Be It Resolved That the Council of the County of Frontenac approve Frontenac Islands Official Plan Amendment No. 5 to the Township of Frontenac Islands Official Plan, as contained in By-Law No. 05-2018 attached to this report as Appendix A.

Page 282 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 283 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 284 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 285 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 286 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

………… …………….

……………………………….

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 287 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 288 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 289 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

msm

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 290 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 291 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 292 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 293 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 294 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 295 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 296 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 297 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 298 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 299 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

amza.

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 300 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

%.u.?:.

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 301 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 302 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 303 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 304 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 305 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 306 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 307 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

AGENDA ITEM #a)

:m.

Em :n

oq mp

3 ms xm 3

_<m

Page 308 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 309 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 310 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 311 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 312 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 313 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 314 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 315 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 316 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 317 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 318 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

Page 319 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

0.1

comuv

~II‘uIIe

. This map is a user generated stauc output from the County oi Frontenac lntemet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current.or olherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION.Includes Material © 2014 of the Queen’s Printer for Ontario. All Rights Reserved.

0 1 K"HomeIers

G‘ St Philomena Catholic Church Property- Zoning 1/rontenac

SCHOOL cnossme

WATCH FOR CHILDREN WATCH FOR EICYCLES

CROSSING CHEVRON PARKING

NO PARKING

5: E (-

Q. I

5»

Tourist Commercial Zone

Enter Map Description

Notes

111,768

—

cr I:

CF CommunityFacility Zone

Fl Zoning El A Agricullural Zone c Commercial Zone I

rm INFO

:21

STEEF HILL SCHOOLZONE

SUPPERY WHENWET

Do NOT BLOCK STOP AHEAD INTERSECTION TURN AHEAD SIDE ROAD wwnmeROAD

ROADENDS

«I»

<8,

\‘

<..

<.r

Wu)

HWY95 SPEED LIMIT2o SPEED LIMIT50 SPEED LIMITso SPEED LIMIT ao

HWY 95

STOP STREET SIGN TOWNSHIP SIGN FERRY SIGN COMMUNITYSIGN coumv ROAD 22

F |__Signs

Legen d

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 320 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

54,

.57.‘ L4/l’1?[/VCE

/f/l’[A’

Agriculture toRural change from

,’l

.__

I |||]|||IIIrIu|||||[|i

.by .ng
Rural
azard
and
2%!‘llslh.: mend

Amend to: potantlal brldga locations

‘

Special Poliy 5.3.4 e)

“(pun -“V P

1.0137

allofLots22, Amendbyrerlesignaling to Rural 23and24fromAgriculture

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Minutes of the Planning Advisory Committee Meeting April 9, 2018 A meeting of the Planning Advisory Committee was held in the Bud Clayton Memorial Room, County Administrative Office, 2069 Battersea Road, Glenburnie on Monday, April 9, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. Present: Councillor Smith, Chair Councillor Vandewal, Vice-Chair Warden Higgins Deputy Warden Doyle Phil Leonard Jim McIntosh Barbara Sproule Staff Present: Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer Jannette Amini, Manager of Legislative Services/Clerk (Recording Secretary) Megan Rueckwald, Community Planner Joe Gallivan, Director of Planning and Economic Development 1.

Call to Order

The Chair called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. 2.

Adoption of the Agenda

Moved By: Seconded By:

Warden Higgins Mr. Leonard

That the agenda for the April 9, 2018 meeting of the Planning Advisory Committee be adopted. Carried 3.

Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof

There were none.

Page 321 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Adoption of Minutes a)

Minutes of Meeting held February 12, 2018

Moved By: Seconded By:

Ms. Sproule Mr. McIntosh

That the minutes of the Planning Advisory Committee meeting held February 12, 2018 be adopted. Carried 5.

Deputations and/or Presentations 

Briefings a)

Mr. Joe Gallivan, Director of Planning and Economic Development provided the Planning Advisory Committee with his regular Directors briefing. Mr. Gallivan paid particular attention to the recent Ontario Municipal Board decision regarding Brougham v. South Frontenac OMB Case: PL 160674, that focused on Non-Conforming Use vs. Non-Complying Structure and the implications that this may have to Frontenac County and all of cottage country. There was some discussion around the wording that the Township used in its By-law did not appear to ensure that the property owner retained the right to re-build on a previously developed lot. There was also concerns expressed on the pressures that this will place on Committees of Adjustment to ensure what can and cannot be allowed. With respect to the expansion of Highway 7 to 4 lanes, it was suggested that staff speak to Renfrew County planning staff and elected officials regarding the exercise that it went through with a similar expansion of Highway 17.

Ms. Megan Rueckwald, Community Planner, provided the Planning Advisory Committee with a briefing on the new Local Planning Appeal Tribunal resulting from the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 (Bill 139). It was questioned if the County has the ability to set up its own appeal board which in theory could be an excellent resource although it would be difficult to set up such a process. The key focus here is that municipalities have their policies in place or decisions will default to the Provincial Policy Statement. There was discussion on the conformity/consistency test and the implications for Frontenac County.

Planning Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes April 9, 2018

Page 322 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

Page 2 of 4

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Deputy Warden Doyle exited the meeting at 11:25 p.m. 7.

Reports to the Planning Advisory Committee a)

Moved By: Seconded By:

Warden Higgins Mr. Leonard

Whereas the Council of the County of Frontenac considered all written and oral submissions received on this application, the effect of which helped Council to make an informed decision; Be It Resolved That the Council of the County of Frontenac approve Frontenac Islands Official Plan Amendment No. 5 to the Township of Frontenac Islands Official Plan, as contained in By-Law No. 05-2018 attached to this report as Appendix A. Carried It was questioned if the actual cemetery designation also needs to be changed as there are a lot of restrictions in the Cemeteries Act as to what can and cannot be done with cemeteries. b)

2018-047 Planning Advisory Committee Application for Proposed Plan of Vacant Land Condominium 10CD2018-001 Set Date for Public Meeting and Site Visit

Moved By: Seconded By:

Mr. McIntosh Mr. Leonard

Be It Resolved that the Planning Advisory Committee confirm the date to receive comments from the public on the proposed plan of vacant land condominium as noted in the report; And Further That Councillor Vandewal, Warden Higgins and Jim McIntosh be permitted to attend a site visit as required under the County of Frontenac’s Site Visit Policy to be completed prior to the public meeting. Carried A discussion arose around access to the site and the private road policies which will be addressed in the report going to the Public Meeting.

Planning Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes April 9, 2018

Page 323 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

Page 3 of 4

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Communications 

Other Business

Councillor Vandewal noted a recent seminar he attended where participants learned that respect to opposition against development, a recent survey that was carried out regarding the Capital Condo Development in downtown Kingston resulted in 74% of respondents saying to build it, 13% saying there should be no development. This really goes to show that only 10% of citizens oppose development. 10.

Next Meeting a)

The next regular meeting of the Planning Advisory Committee is scheduled for Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. at the County Administrative Building. There will be a Planning Advisory Committee Pubic meeting on Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Township of South Frontenac Council Chamber to receive public comments on the an application for Proposed Plan of Vacant Land Condominium, File 10CD-2018-001

Adjournment

Moved By: Seconded By:

Mr. Leonard Councillor Higgins

That the meeting hereby adjourn at 11:56 a.m. Carried

Planning Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes April 9, 2018

Page 324 Committee of 329 All items listed on the Planni… Report of the Planning Advisory

Page 4 of 4

AGENDA ITEM #a)

By-Law Number 2018-0016 of The Corporation of the County of Frontenac being a by-law to Authorize the Warden and Clerk to Execute an Agreement with the Great Lakes Waterfront Trail and the Regional Tourism Organization 9 (RTO 9) for partnership funding for the expansion of the Great Lakes Waterfront Trail Whereas the County of Frontenac wishes to participate in the extension of the Great Lakes Waterfront Trail through the Frontenac Islands; and, Whereas the Frontenac County is willing to work in partnership with Regional Tourism Organization 9 and the Township of the Frontenac Islands to install the required Great Lakes Waterfront Trail signage on roads which are under the Municipality’s jurisdiction and cover the one-time costs associated with digital and paper mapping; and, Whereas the Regional Tourism Organization 9 RTO 9 (The Great Waterway) provides partnership funding for projects such as this; Now Therefore Be It Resolved That the Council of the Corporation of the County of Frontenac hereby enacts as follows: 1.

That the Council of the County of Frontenac authorize the Warden and Clerk to Execute an Agreement with the Great Lakes Waterfront Trail and the Regional Tourism Organization 9 (RTO 9) for partnership funding for the expansion of the Great Lakes Waterfront Trail.

That this By-law shall come into force and take effect upon the date of final passing.

Read a First and Second Time this 18th day of April, 2018. Read a Third Time, Signed, Sealed and Finally Passed this 18th day of April, 2018.

The Corporation of the County of Frontenac

Ron Higgins, Warden

Jannette Amini, Clerk

Page 325 of to 329 To Authorize the Warden and Clerk Execute an Agreement with the Great…

AGENDA ITEM #b)

By-Law Number 2018-0017 of The Corporation of the County of Frontenac being a by-law to Authorize the Warden and Clerk to Execute an Agreement with the Kingston Community Health Centre for funding in the amount of $87,000, (if the pilot OPS is approved for funding by the Government of Ontario). Whereas a collaborative team approach to the ongoing opioid crisis in Kingston is being developed and led by Kingston Community Health Centre; and, Whereas the partners for this team approach include the Street Health Centre, Kingston Frontenac Lennox and Addington (KFL&A) Public Health, the South East Local Health Integration network (SE LHIN), Kingston Health Sciences Centre (KHSC), and Frontenac Paramedic Services (FPS); and, Whereas Kingston Community Health Centre will be submitting an application for a six-month pilot project to establish and receive provincial funding for an Overdose Prevention Site (OPS) at Street Health Centre which is a 365 days a year harm reduction health centre, located in downtown Kington; and, Whereas the County of Frontenac wishes to enter into Agreement with the Kingston Community Health Centre for funding in the amount of $87,000, should the funding be approved by the Government of Ontario: Now Therefore Be It Resolved That the Council of the Corporation of the County of Frontenac hereby enacts as follows: 1.

That the Council of the County of Frontenac authorize the Warden and Clerk authorize the Warden and Clerk to execute an agreement with the Kingston Community Health Centre for funding in the amount of $87,000, if the pilot OPS is approved for funding by the Government of Ontario.

That this By-law shall come into force and take effect upon the date of final passing.

Read a First and Second Time this 18th day of April, 2018. Read a Third Time, Signed, Sealed and Finally Passed this 18th day of April, 2018. The Corporation of the County of Frontenac

Ron Higgins, Warden

Jannette Amini, Clerk

Page 326 of to 329 To authorize the Warden and Clerk execute an agreement with the Kings…

AGENDA ITEM #c)

By-Law Number 2018-0018 of The Corporation of the County of Frontenac being a by-law to Authorize the Warden and Clerk to Execute an Agreement with the Regional Tourism Organization 9 (RTO 9) for partnership funding for the Ferry by Foot Program Whereas the County of Frontenac is implementing a “Ferry by Foot” program to encourage visitors to Wolfe Island to experience the island through active transportation; and, Whereas the Regional Tourism Organization 9 RTO 9 (The Great Waterway) provides partnership funding for projects such as this; Now Therefore Be It Resolved That the Council of the Corporation of the County of Frontenac hereby enacts as follows: 1.

That the Council of the County of Frontenac authorize the Warden and Clerk to Execute an Agreement with the Regional Tourism Organization 9 (RTO 9) for partnership funding for the Ferry by Foot program.

That this By-law shall come into force and take effect upon the date of final passing.

Read a First and Second Time this 18th day of April, 2018. Read a Third Time, Signed, Sealed and Finally Passed this 18th day of April, 2018.

The Corporation of the County of Frontenac

Ron Higgins, Warden

Jannette Amini, Clerk

Page 327 of to 329 To Authorize the Warden and Clerk Execute an Agreement with the Regio…

AGENDA ITEM #d)

By-Law No. 2018-0019 of The Corporation of the County OF Frontenac being a by-law to confirm all actions and proceedings of County Council on April 18, 2018

Whereas Section 8 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c.25 and amendments thereto provides that a municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority under the Municipal Act or any other Act; and; Whereas Subsection 2 of Section 11 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c.25 and amendments thereto provides that a lower-tier municipality and an upper-tier municipality may pass by-laws respecting matters within the spheres of jurisdiction described in the Table to Subsection 2 subject to certain provisions, and; Whereas Section 5 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c. 25 and amendments thereto provides that a municipal power, including a municipality’s capacity, rights, powers and privileges under Section 8 shall be exercised by its council and by by-law unless the municipality is specifically authorized to do otherwise; and; Whereas the Council of the County of Frontenac deems it expedient to confirm its actions and proceedings; Now Therefore Be It Resolved That the Council of the Corporation of the County of Frontenac hereby enacts as follows:

That all actions and proceedings of the Council of the County of Frontenac taken at its regular meeting held on April 18, 2018 be confirmed as actions for which the municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person.
That all actions and proceedings of the Council of the County of Frontenac taken at its regular meeting held on April 18, 2018 be confirmed as being matters within the spheres of jurisdiction described in Subsection 2 of Section 11 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c.25 and amendments thereto.
That all actions and proceedings of the Council of the Corporation of the County of Frontenac taken at its regular meeting held on April 18, 2018 except those taken by by-law and those required by by-law to be done by resolution are hereby sanctioned, ratified and confirmed as though set out within and forming part of this by-law.

Page 328 of 329By-law No. 2018-0019] Confirmation of Proceedings [Proposed

AGENDA ITEM #d)

That this by-law shall come into force and take effect as of the final passing thereof. Read a First and Second Time this 18th day of April 2018. Read a Third Time and Finally Passed, Signed and Sealed this 18th day of April 2018.

The Corporation of the County Of Frontenac

Ron Higgins, Warden

Jannette Amini, Clerk

By-Law No. 2018-0015 – To Confirm all Actions and Proceedings of County Council March 21, 2018

Page 329 of 329By-law No. 2018-0019] Confirmation of Proceedings [Proposed

Page 2 of 2

Help support independent journalism

If NFNM’s reporting matters to you, Buy Me a Coffee is a simple way to help keep local watchdog coverage going.