Published April 3, 2013
Word Count 11147 words
Reading Time 53 min read

Body: Council Type: Agenda Meeting: Regular Date: April 3, 2013 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: Frontenac County

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/frontenac-county/Published Agendas/Advisory Committees of Council/Sustainability Advisory Committee/2013/Sustainability Advisory Committee - 03 Apr 2013.pdf)

Document Text

SUSTAINABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA

Date and Time

Wednesday, April 3, 2013 at 1:30 p.m.

Place

County of Frontenac Administrative Boardroom 2069 Battersea Road, Glenburnie

Members: Geoff Sandiford, Chair Ron Hipfner, Vice Chair John McDougall, County Councillor

Denis Doyle, County Councillor Don Ross, Community Member

Page 1.

Call to order

Adoption of the agenda

Disclosure of pecuniary interest and general nature thereof

Deputations and/or presentations •

3-7

Rachelle Hardesty, General Manager, Land O’ Lakes Tourism Association will address the Sustainability Advisory Committee regarding recent and upcoming activities of the Land O’ Lakes Tourism Association.

Adoption of minutes •

Minutes of meeting held February 6, 2013.

Business arising from the minutes

Communications

8-18

•

Property-Assessed Payments for Energy Retrofits PAPER Report Update

19-20

•

Correspondence received from the Town of Halton Hills “Caught You Green Handed” - Recognizing employees who act sustainably in the workplace

Reports/Topics for Discussion

21-23

•

2013-060 Solar Power Production – April 2013 Update

24-28

•

2013-061 Sustainability Advisory Committee – 2013 Work Plan Update

29-33

•

2013-074 Community Improvement Plans – Future Directions

Other business

  1. Next meeting date

Page 1 of 33

Page 10. Next meeting date •

The next regular meeting of the Sustainability Advisory Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, June 5, 2013 at 1:30 p.m.

  1. Adjournment

Page 2 of 33

AgendaItem#5•

Minutes of the Sustainability Advisory Committee Meeting February 6, 2013 A meeting of the Sustainability Advisory Committee (SAC) was held in the Frontenac Boardroom of the County Administrative Office, 2069 Battersea Road, Glenburnie, on Wednesday, February 6, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. In attendance:  Geoff Sandiford, Chair  Ron Hipfner, Vice Chair  John McDougall, County Councillor  Don Ross, Community Member  Warden Janet Gutowski, Ex-Officio Other Councillors:  Councillor Doyle Staff:    

Elizabeth Savill, CAO/Clerk Alison Vandervelde, Communications Officer Jannette Amini, Deputy Clerk, Recording Secretary Kieran Williams, Municipal Intern Call to order The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. Adoption of the agenda Moved by: Seconded by:

Councillor McDougall Mr. Hipfner

THAT the agenda be confirmed. CARRIED It was noted that the date of the next meeting is April 3rd and not April 1st as noted on the agenda. Disclosure of pecuniary interest and general nature thereof The Chair requested the Recording Secretary to make note in the minutes that no members of the committee declared any disclosures of pecuniary interest.

Sustainability Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes February 6, 2013 Received by County Council February 20, 2013

Minutes of meeting held February 6, 2013.

Page 1 of 5

Page 3 of 33

AgendaItem#5•

Adoption of minutes Moved by: Seconded by:

Mr. Hipfner Councillor McDougall

THAT the minutes of the Sustainability Advisory Committee meeting held November 8, 2012 be approved. CARRIED Deputations and/or presentations There were none. Reports/Topics for Discussion a)

2013-035 Sustainability Advisory Committee – 2013 Work Plan Update Moved by: Seconded by:

Mr. Ross Councillor McDougall

THAT the Sustainability Advisory Committee receives this 2013 Work Plan Update report for information only. CARRIED Ms. Vandervelde provided an overview of the Sustainability Exchange report and notes made of the various workshops. Although many of the sustainability goals identified in the package are geared more to lower tier municipalities, it was noted that many of the services are administered at the regional level. With respect to the statistics prepared by Mr. Don Grant, staff clarified that his findings reflected the need for a Sustainability Plan to transcend the four year term of Council. It was for that reason that his findings indicated CAO buy-in was seen as more important than Council buy-in. From the Exchange, staff feels the County of Frontenac is leading the way with its ICSP, as many communities are still developing their plans. It was noted that in larger municipalities, Sustainability Plans are being promoted by large organizations which places political pressure on Councils; however this is not the case in rural areas. It was suggested that the Land O’Lakes Tourism Association would be a valuable partner to promote the County’s Plan and that this relationship should be strengthened. The Committee discussed the upcoming FCM conference and the types of information it would like attendees to bring back. The following were identified as key topics that members of the Committee would like the attendees to seek information on if available:

Sustainability Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes February 6, 2013 Received by County Council February 20, 2013

Minutes of meeting held February 6, 2013.

Page 2 of 5

Page 4 of 33

AgendaItem#5•

   

Waste Management PAPER Program Transportation Community Improvement Plans

The committee discussed the potential for CIPs to enhance the overall attractiveness and cohesiveness of our local communities. The committee agreed that support for community-wide initiatives must come from the ground up in order to be successful. A second effort within the CIP areas after the initital investments have been made could result in further improvements as seen in other communities. DIRECTION TO STAFF Begin preliminary research on potential next stages for enhancements through Community Improvement Plans.

community-wide

Mr. Sandiford and Mr. Ross will report back to the Sustainability Advisory Committee on the FCM Conference. It was suggested that there be discussions with Township Councils as well as community groups to determine what topics community engagement and education sessions should focus on. Community engagement sessions of this nature could become the first steps in advancing high priority areas identified in Sustainable Actions 2012. It was suggested that the focus of such sessions should be limited to one subject that will be universal in order to get everyone moving in the same direction. It was also suggested that a session on the PAPER Project might be well received. DIRECTION TO STAFF Develop and issue a survey to gather public input on the most relevant topics for community engagement and education sessions and report back at the next meeting. The Committee agreed that the Annual Breakfast should be scheduled for Friday, May 24, 2013. The Committee supported the six community partnerships proposed by staff as well as the proposed potential partnership program with local businesses that would sponsor employees to volunteer locally. DIRECTION TO STAFF Pursue the six partnership opportunities for presentation at the Annual Breakfast. Research and present further information on the partnership program with local businesses. Ms. Vandervelde will confirm the Verona Cattail Festival (and not the Garlic Festival) received funding from the County through the support for small events fund. Sustainability Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes February 6, 2013 Received by County Council February 20, 2013

Minutes of meeting held February 6, 2013.

Page 3 of 5

Page 5 of 33

AgendaItem#5•

With respect to an Awards program, it was noted by Councillor McDougall that the Frontenac Accessibility Advisory Committee is also looking at developing a similar program and it was suggested that this could be done jointly. Staff will share the FAAC’s work with Committee members. It was suggested that the focus of a Youth Retention and Attraction Working Group should be the creation of jobs in the County, as lack of employment is felt to be a major factor in why youth leave the area. Staff suggested that this Working Group could offer preliminary insight into aspects of County life that deter youth from staying, returning or coming to the area. The Committee discussed that the work of this group could lead to more youth returning to Frontenac County rather than another rural community. DIRECTION TO STAFF Staff will take the next steps in forming a Youth Retention and Attraction Working Group, while being mindful of the limitations of the County’s influence. With respect to liaising with other like-minded groups to gain insights and share expertise, the Committee directed staff to invite Rachelle Hardesty, General Manager, Land O’Lakes Tourism Association, to the April 3rd meeting. The Committee agreed that members need to look for opportunities as they arise, such as networking through the upcoming FCM conference. With respect to stimulating relationships and synergies with the Townships, the Committee agreed on the following dates for making presentations to Township Councils and that the presentation will focus on the February FCM conference: South Frontenac – Tuesday, March 19, 7:00 p.m. Central Frontenac – Tuesday, March 26, 6:30 p.m. Frontenac Islands – Monday, May 13, 6:30 p.m. Wolfe Island North Frontenac – Monday, April 8, 9:00 a.m. Ms. Amini will make arrangements with the Townships to register a delegation at their respective Council meetings and confirm attendance at each meeting with Mr. Sandiford and Mr. Ross. Staff will ensure copies of Sustainable Actions 2012 will be distributed to each County Councillor at the next County Council meeting. Councillors will be asked to display these in their Township offices.

Sustainability Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes February 6, 2013 Received by County Council February 20, 2013

Minutes of meeting held February 6, 2013.

Page 4 of 5

Page 6 of 33

AgendaItem#5•

b)

2013-041 Sustainability Exchange 2012 Moved by: Seconded by:

Warden Gutowski Mr. Ross

THAT the Sustainability Advisory Committee receives this Sustainability Exchange 2012 report for information only. CARRIED Communications a)

Community Sustainability Plan Leading Practices for Bridging the Gap Between Planning and Implementation Moved by: Seconded by:

Councillor McDougall Warden Gutowski

THAT the Community Sustainability Plan Leading Practices for Bridging the Gap Between Planning and Implementation presentation be received for information only. CARRIED Other business There was none. Next meeting date The next meeting of the Sustainability Advisory Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, April 3, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. at the County Administrative Office. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:24 p.m.

Sustainability Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes February 6, 2013 Received by County Council February 20, 2013

Minutes of meeting held February 6, 2013.

Page 5 of 5

Page 7 of 33

AgendaItem#7•

The Implications of Legislative Changes for Municipal PropertyAssessed Payments for Energy Retrofits (PAPER) Introduction A substantial amount has been written on Local Improvement Charges (LICs) for energy efficiency retrofits and this paper is not intended to replicate it, but rather attempts to distill main ideas and identify opportunities for our local municipal area.

Background By now most people are familiar with at least some of the dire predictions surrounding severe climate change. These undesirable impacts can be characterized by a number of indicators such as increased localized droughts and flooding, increased forest fires, migration of insect pests and disease vectors. Needless to say, any actions that move us away from such an unpleasant outcome are desirable. In Ontario, a great amount of GHG emissions are caused by residential heating and cooling of homes and domestic water sources. Energy efficiency home improvements are important and attainable means to lower our carbon footprint that benefit a range of stakeholders, including our environment. In the scenario under discussion, Homeowners will benefit: By improved costs and comforts associated with temperature regulation in their homes From access to lines of credit that are not dependant on, or that influence, personal credit ratings and also by accessing lower interest rates secured by the municipality than they would be able to obtain individually. From increased property values as a direct result of the improvements Communities will benefit: Because instillation work is primarily done by local businesses As additional linkages can be created to training programs that promote employment Benefits of scale may be obtainable if multiple community members participate simultaneously Municipalities may benefit: If participation in carbon credit programs is initiated, such energy retrofits may count towards carbon credits for revenue Local employment may increase, with an associated potential increase in local spending By moving further towards their GHG reduction goals

Property-Assessed Payments for Energy Retrofits

Page 8 of 33

AgendaItem#7•

Previously, legislative barriers have existed that prevented municipalities from providing funding for energy efficient retrofits in private homes. This has now changed. On October 25, 2012, Regulation 322/12 was filed under the Municipal Act, 2001 to amend O. Reg.586/06. In the new legislative landscape, this regulation allows municipalities to provide financing (undertake works) for energy efficiency or renewable energy improvements in private homes and to impose special charges on the property in which the improvements have been made. This system, known as property-assessed payments for energy retrofits (PAPER) is a form of LIC that allows for repayment to be made alongside property tax payments under a time frame that does not exceed the expected lifespan of the improvement. Local improvement charges have previously been employed by a number of municipalities in Ontario for improvements on parks, curbsides and other spaces directly influencing private homes. PAPER is the primary model being touted for energy efficiency retrofit programs for application by municipalities who do not control their local utilities. There are additional programs based on On-Utility Bill Financing (or Pay as you save), however, this is only applicable to the County of Frontenac through partnerships with utilities providers and will not be discussed further here. As previously mentioned, a great amount of energy savings can be made through renovating the existing residential housing pool. However, three main barriers exist for homeowners who wish to undertake such improvements. First, the high upfront costs are often prohibitive. Secondly, expensive financing rates limit the homeowner‟s ability to conduct the work individually on a credit basis, and finally, the average length of home ownership is often shorter than the repayment horizon. The PAPER model overcomes each of these barriers because the money is available up front, at lower rates, and the loan is tied to the property and remains there in the event of a sale.

Next Steps Recent presentations to the County‟s Green Energy Task Force have generated interest in pursuing a pilot LIC project within this area. Frontenac County could provide important data from a rural Ontario setting on the application of a PAPER project which, to date, have primarily been implemented in urban areas. County staff have been in discussion with Sonja Persram, a consultant from Sustainable Alternatives Consulting, who is actively assisting in the creation of collaboration between municipal groups and the Toronto Atmospheric Fund to develop pilot programs. Sonja requested a formal email expression of interest which she sent on to the Toronto Atmospheric Fund. This body applied to NRCan for funding support for research and information sharing costs and NRCan has provided conditional support for $50,000.00. They have created an LIC Collaboration Group which has met and discussed collaboration and possible pilot design elements. An email for further information on the progress and intentions of this group has been sent to Mary Pickering, Vice-President, Programs and Partnerships, Toronto Atmospheric Fund.

Property-Assessed Payments for Energy Retrofits

Page 9 of 33

AgendaItem#7•

Sonja Persram also offered to facilitate communication with Cameron Smith from Leeds and the Thousand Islands. As the development of these connections progresses, directions for future funding and program options will become clearer. In the meantime, it may be advisable to familiarize ourselves with the various design elements of any future pilot projects.

Key Points to Consider A review of the literature has highlighted the importance of careful and considered project design. The following presents main points for discussion when considering the development of a pilot project.

  1. Program delivery and administration The effective daily operations of such a program would generally entail a number of functions, some of which include application processing, evaluating proposals and assessing energy audits. Project approvals would need to be granted and possible inspections could also be included. Finally, financial tasks would include handling and recording repayment details. This work could be undertaken by various groups including, municipal staff, “a separate municipal corporation or other agency established specifically to run the program.” Or, Contracts could be devised to retain community partners from the non-profit or private/financial sectors or another third-party agencies Whichever agency undertakes program administration, the process should be made as simple as possible to ensure public uptake. A primary way to do this is to house all functions in one place. This could even include providing a list of pre-approved contractors to ensure quality control. Many existing programs also develop a website to communicate, educate and involve the public. If such administrative capacity is deemed to be beyond the means of one municipality, opportunities exist for the creation of a regional agency, or other body, which could provide administration to a number of municipalities within their area. Persram suggests that, “Collaborative efforts would assist municipalities in aspects of optimum program development to provide economies of scale: goals, eligibility criteria; indicators; identifying appropriate cost-effective measures; program process, delivery and costing; application, communications and marketing; developing educational

Property-Assessed Payments for Energy Retrofits

Page 10 of 33

AgendaItem#7•

workshops; and training and certification systems for evaluators, retrofit practitioners and products.”1 2. Program cost effectiveness Consideration should be given to the administrative and transaction costs associated with this sort of program. Will an administration fee be included in the loan and if so, how will this amount be set? The regulation allows for “reasonable administrative costs” to be covered and some models set the interest rate to also include opportunity costs, had the municipality invested the money in markets instead. Homeowners will also be interested in whether the loan can be paid off early, how the payment timescale is set, and if there any flexibility to refinance if difficulties arise. Some programs are designed to take an extra payment which acts as a reserve pool in case of defaults, which is paid back to the applicant (providing there have been no defaults) at the end of the term, effectively finishing the loan earlier. Some further suggestions, which can be found in more detail in This Green House, include design elements like upfront costs for audits which are only refunded after work is agreed in order to promote participation in the entire project. Cost effectiveness is also concerned with the type of projects that will have the best returns. There must be awareness regarding cost efficiency, as the value of very small or low efficiency retrofits may be outweighed by administrative costs. This assessment can be used to create an eligibility list, designed to exclude improvements that do not provide an efficient return. Some programs have had successes in reducing energy demand through projects under $7000.00,2 while others are designed to make more thorough improvements that often run from $13,000$15,000. It seems likely that regional variance in economic situations for homeowners may induce varying levels of acceptance to each of these price brackets. The greatest level of homeowner participation will be generated when repayment rates match, or are below, savings amounts arising from the retrofit. This is especially important for low-income homes where any additional increase to monthly expenditure may be unfeasible. In addition, homeowners should not lose out on the savings associated with retrofits through increased municipal taxes resulting from higher property values. Such renewable energy measures would be tax exempt under the Ontario Assessment Act. Interest rates will play a key role in balancing costs with savings, as will energy prices. In Frontenac County, many heat or supplement their heating bills with firewood (some directly from their own woodlots) and thereby reduce their costs. In situations such as this, where costs are lower, repayment times are often longer to 1

Page 28, Persram, S. 2011, Property Assessed Payment for Energy Retrofits: recommendations for regulatory change and optimal program features. David Suzuki Foundation and Sustainable Alternatives Consulting. Vancouver. 2 Duffy R. and Fussell H., 2011, This Green House: building fast action for climate change and green jobs. Center for Civic Governance, Columbia Institute. Vancouver .

Property-Assessed Payments for Energy Retrofits

Page 11 of 33

AgendaItem#7•

maintain the cost savings versus repayments balance. This may pose a challenge for some applications, in cases where the repayment horizon exceeds the lifespan of the improvement. Also, carbon emissions are different when calculated for biomass, as there is an absorption of carbon from the atmosphere as the biomass is grown. This could affect the overarching aim of reducing emissions. Further assessment of whether a PAPER program would work for such homeowners, and what proportion they represent in Frontenac County, should be evaluated. 3. Standards In order to be able to quantify energy gains arising from the program, and to justify its continued value, baseline energy audits should be done before and after retrofit instillation. It has been suggested that municipalities who wish to rapidly move forward with a program could employ auditors who are licensed under existing programs at higher levels of government. 3 Audit information is also necessary to assess and identify the projects with the greatest potential for improvement in energy savings which relates directly to eligibility criteria. Further information is needed regarding the availability of accredited auditors in Frontenac County/Kingston. Local job creation will not be as beneficial as hoped if all auditors have to come from Toronto. 4. Possible Funding Sources A primary concern in developing such a project is where the funds will come from. Projects should be designed to be revenue-neutral with a full cost-recovery approach. For the purpose of developing a pilot project in Frontenac County it is likely that a set funding source will be developed through collaboration with the Toronto Atmospheric Fund. However, for general information, this report will also list alternative options. A number of funding possibilities have been identified in previous works, including: Low-interest borrowing via provincial municipal finance pools (such as the Infrastructure Ontario‟s Loan Program). The establishment of a federal or provincial energy-efficiency loan fund. Municipal/community bonds. Credit-enhanced capital pools. Local „green fund‟ Partnerships with credit unions or other financial institutions. Energy utilities as “banks “for municipally administered retrofit financing. Pilot-project funding from the FCM‟s Green Municipal Fund.

3

Duffy R. and Fussell H., 2011, This Green House: building fast action for climate change and green jobs. Center for Civic Governance, Columbia Institute. Vancouver.

Property-Assessed Payments for Energy Retrofits

Page 12 of 33

AgendaItem#7•

Additional, but less desirable funding sources could include the use of municipal reserves or loans from private financial institutions. Further details about each of these types of financial mechanisms can be found in the report, This Green House.4 5. Risk Financial risk assessment should always be considered. A well designed PAPER program that effectively aligns payments to be less than savings and is secured by a property lien pose a low risk of default. However, a number of steps can be implemented to further reduce risk. Imposing an upper limit that is a small percentage of the property value, known as a loanto-value ratio, Ensuring that the loan is attached to the property as a priority property lien, Incorporating extra payments into the overall financed amount to hedge against delinquencies, and possibly including emergency refinancing options Homeowners do not have to worry about personal credit limits or ratings because the loan is not to the individual. Mortgage lenders may require special sureties and Duffy and Fussell from the Columbia Institute suggest that liens should be “…structured so that in the event of default, the municipality collects only the missed payments rather than total cost of retrofit and then transfers the remainder of retrofit payments as continued special assessment to the new owner of the property.”5 Duffy and Fussell also suggest that municipalities concerned about debt ratios should look to higher levels of government such as Infrastructure Ontario‟s Loan Program which may not treat the loan as a debt.6 General obligation bonds are another option that would not add to municipal debt, as Ontario Regulation 403/02 allows municipalities to make annual adjustments for such payments. Additionally, the PAPER project could be funded so that a set number of initial projects are completed and further funding release will depend on repayments from the first wave of instillations. As for applications with pre-existing mortgages, approval would have to be sought from the existing lender. The key criterion for assuring existing mortgage lenders is that it is only the 4

Duffy R. and Fussell H., 2011, This Green House: building fast action for climate change and green jobs. Center for Civic Governance, Columbia Institute. Vancouver. 5 Pg25, Duffy R. and Fussell H., 2011, This Green House: building fast action for climate change and green jobs. Center for Civic Governance, Columbia Institute. Vancouver. 6 Duffy R. and Fussell H., 2011, This Green House: building fast action for climate change and green jobs. Center for Civic Governance, Columbia Institute. Vancouver.

Property-Assessed Payments for Energy Retrofits

Page 13 of 33

AgendaItem#7•

defaulted payment amount, and not the loan total that is applied as a priority lien in the event of default. Other risk-reducing options could include setting minimum levels of homeowner equity and/or the requirement for some form of loan insurance, similar to mortgage loan insurance from the CHMA. One such example of loan insurance could come from the private sector as a guarantee of energy savings from the retrofit installer, as backed by a larger fund. This option is being discussed for a development by Windmills and the Toronto Atmospheric Fund.7 Housing Form While the housing stock in Frontenac County is primarily single detached dwellings, different considerations must be made if alternative forms of housing such as renting, multi-unit housing and condominiums are to be included in the program. The publication8 This Green House, makes a number of suggestions for tailoring the program for multi-unit buildings, however, this may be more pertinent to subsequent program phases, depending on pilot results. 6. Public outreach, education and promoting participation Clear marketing and community education are critical for community and homeowner buy-in and participation. A number of clear messages must be communicated for the project to be successful, especially in areas where word of mouth has a strong influence and may change the message as it is passed along. The report9, This Green House outlines a list of the following key messages, This is not an added tax and that participation is on an entirely voluntary basis. The program will not require subsidization by nonparticipating neighbors and will be financially self-sufficient. Homeowners will save money as the retrofits reduce their energy bills. The program is designed for full cost recovery and risk is minimized for the homeowner and the municipality. Home improvements will employ local contractors who spend in their local area. Increasing energy efficiency is the most cost effective way for the community to reduce its green house gas emissions to prevent climate change. It will also be very important to educate the public on what sort of improvement measures will have the most significant impact on energy savings. For example, the cosmetic effects of new windows make them appealing to homeowners while there are often more effective „hidden‟ gains to be made in areas such as insulation. Not only will homeowners need to be made aware 7

Persram, S. 2011, Property Assessed Payment for Energy Retrofits and Other Financing Options. David Suzuki Foundation and Sustainable Alternatives Consulting. Vancouver 8 Duffy R. and Fussell H., 2011, This Green House: building fast action for climate change and green jobs. Center for Civic Governance, Columbia Institute. Vancouver. 9 Duffy R. and Fussell H., 2011, This Green House: building fast action for climate change and green jobs. Center for Civic Governance, Columbia Institute. Vancouver.

Property-Assessed Payments for Energy Retrofits

Page 14 of 33

AgendaItem#7•

of the particulars of the program, they must also be educated once in the program, to ensure that changes in behavior, such as increased energy use, do not simply offset the energy savings. It is also stressed that it is not just homeowners that should be target for education and outreach, but it is also critical to connect with the relevant stakeholders in finance and real estate sales and appraisals. Real estate agents may be able to mitigate the psychological impact on buyers who find additional costs attached to their tax bill, while an improved appraisal process can highlight the desirability of energy efficient homes. Without hard evidence on how, or if, such buyer perceptions will affect housing market sales, it may be difficult to overcome homeowner reluctance and this may still present a deciding factor for homeowners. 7. Identifying Potential Partnership Opportunities Partners can play a key role in finance, administration, marketing for public engagement and education. Some possible local partnerships could include, among others: Frontenac Arch Biosphere, Local Conservation Authorities, and other environmental organizations Sustainable Eastern Ontario St. Lawrence College and Algonquin College SWICTH Kingston Construction Association Kingston Home Builders Association Carpenters Local 249 Kingston and Area Real Estate Association Homebuilders and building contractors‟ associations Local finance institutions Local libraries The KFL&A Health Unit

Existing Case Studies LICs have a long history of use for improvements such as sidewalks, but recently various forms of PAPER-like programs have been implemented for energy retrofits in the USA and Canada. USA The American government took a proactive approach a number of years ago and developed the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program. Babylon New York, Boulder Colorado, and San Francisco California are a few examples of places that have implemented some form of PACE program. These cities have created their own variations of PACE to best suit their own

Property-Assessed Payments for Energy Retrofits

Page 15 of 33

AgendaItem#7•

needs. Charts comparing the following three programs can be found in the Center for Civic Governance publication entitled This Green House.10 The Town of Babylon in New York State has implemented the Long Island Green Homes Initiative, which includes an informative website for public education and participation, http://ligreenhomes.com/. Since 2008, this program has improved over 600 homes. This initiative is very similar to the PAPER program discussed previously in that it requires bill payments to be less than savings, and a loan that is attached to the property itself. It also requests past energy data and a home audit, while providing a list of pre-approved contractors and energy specialists. Eligible improvements include upgrading insulation, high efficiency heating systems, ventilation and duct improvements and air sealing. Improvements are capped at $12,000 per home, with a ten year maximum payback and the municipality funds the program directly from their solid waste fund by defining wasted energy as a component of solid waste. A 3% interest rate is used to cover administration fees. An additional criterion is a savings-to-investment ratio of 1.3 or higher. Interestingly, payments are billed on monthly municipal services bills and are attached to the tax bill only in the event of missed payment. It is only then that the priority lien aspect comes into effect. Of 700 energy audits completed, as of May 2011, 638 of these underwent improvements. The remaining 62 chose not to undertake the recommended actions and it is not clear how many applications did not pass the prescreening process. The ClimateSmart Loan Program, developed in Boulder Colorado, has a different method of securing funds. An application window allows the county to aggregate bonds for market sale. This program also has a much wider list of eligible projects and caps improvements at a maximum of $50,000 or 20% of the property value, whichever is less. Loan minimums were set at $3000.00 with a maximum term of 15 years. Unlike the program in Babylon, homeowners in Boulder can employ any certified contractor, who is then paid directly by the County. Also, an initial energy audit is not mandatory and therefore it is not possible to calculate actual energy savings. Homeowners are, however, required to participate in educational workshops. San Francisco has implemented GreenFinanceSF, one of the largest PACE-type programs, with a budget of a $150 million dollars. Renewable Funding, a third party company, undertook not only the administration, but also underwrote the program and was set to provide micro-bonds for each project that would then subsequently be bundled and sold on the wider bond market. Projects had a minimum loan value of $5000.00 and a maximum of the lower of either $50,000 or 10% of the property‟s value. Financing terms included a 7% rate of interest, a 7.5% debt reserve charge, a $300.00 application fee and administrative costs of approximately 5.5% Both the San Francisco and Boulder programs have run into conflict with the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). When so many US homeowners went into default during the recent housing crisis, the FHFA stepped in to limit PACE programs over concerns regarding mortgage 10

Duffy R. and Fussell H., 2011, This Green House: building fast action for climate change and green jobs. Center for Civic Governance, Columbia Institute. Vancouver.

Property-Assessed Payments for Energy Retrofits

Page 16 of 33

AgendaItem#7•

security during such defaults. The issue is still in process in the US legal system and due to differences in the legislative and mortgage landscape between the US and Canada, this does not have much bearing on Canadian initiatives. Canada In 1998, the Yukon Government started the Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Program, LIC program in order to provide electrical services to inhabitants living outside of incorporated communities. Over time, the project evolved away from ground-based transmission lines to stand-alone renewable energy instillations and expanded to include well water services. Due to their rural location, residents already paid taxes directly to the province and projects had to have a minimum value of $1000.00, but not exceed 25% of the property value with a maximum 15 year term. In 2012 the Halifax Regional Municipality Charter was amended to allow LIC financing measures to be employed for energy efficiency and renewable energy financing for private homes. As a result, the City of Halifax is in the process of implementing its Solar City Initiative. This initiative plans to spend $8.5 million to assist and encourage the instillation of solar panels to heat residential hot water systems. The $5 million dollar pilot project aims to install two panels per home in 500-700 homes. The project is designed to be cost neutral to both the Municipality and the homeowner and homeowner payback is projected to be about $400/ per year over 5-10 years.

Further Information The following publications and websites provide further background reading on this subject. Duffy R. and Fussell H., 2011, This Green House: building fast action for climate change and green jobs. Center for Civic Governance, Columbia Institute. Vancouver. Persram, S. 2011, Property Assessed Payment for Energy Retrofits and Other Financing Options. David Suzuki Foundation and Sustainable Alternatives Consulting. Vancouver. Persram, S. 2011, Property Assessed Payment for Energy Retrofits: recommendations for regulatory change and optimal program features. David Suzuki Foundation and Sustainable Alternatives Consulting. Vancouver. Peters R., Horne M. and Heap N. 2004, Using Local Improvement Charges to Finance Building Energy Efficiency Improvements: a concept report. Pembina Institute. Drayton Valley. Peters R., Horne M. and Heap N. 2004, Using Local Improvement Charges to Finance Energy Efficiency Improvements: applicability across Canada. Pembina Institute. Drayton Valley.

Property-Assessed Payments for Energy Retrofits

Page 17 of 33

AgendaItem#7•

http://www.climatesmartloanprogram.org/ http://www.community.gov.yk.ca/property/retp_guide.html https://energyupgradeca.org/county/san_francisco/overview http://www.halifax.ca/solarcity/ http://www.hprcenter.org/best-practices http://ligreenhomes.com/ http://pacenow.org/pace-programs/

Property-Assessed Payments for Energy Retrofits

Page 18 of 33

AgendaItem#7•

Get Caught Green Handed Program Objective: The objective of the ‘Get Caught You Green Handed’ initiative is to recognize Town staff who take steps to be environmental champions. Under this initiative, any Town employee who meets pre-defined ‘green criteria’ or actions will be recognized and entered into a draw for prizes. Length of Program: The program begins October 2010. A review of the program will be completed in October 2011. Participants: The Town Sustainability Team encourages all Town staff (from all facilities) to participate. Staff persons are eligible to win a maximum of one prize per calendar year. How Can Staff Participate? Staff who complete a green action as per the list below, may forward their name to their departmental representative. Next, the departmental representative will forward the name of the staff person who was ‘Caught Green Handed’ to Jennifer Spence at jennifers@haltonhills.ca Staff may also participate by nominating each other. For example, if one employee observes a fellow employee complete a green action, he/she may nominate that employee by forwarding their name to the departmental representative who will in turn forward to Jennifer Spence. Recognition Employees who ‘Get Caught Green Handed’ will be recognized in the following ways;

  1. The employee’s name will be entered into a bi-monthly draw for prizes. The value of each prize will depend on the difficulty of the green action taken, ranging from $10 to $30 per prize. The difficulty rankings and associated prizes for each green action are listed below.  Level 1: $10 value  Level 2: $20 value  Level 3: $30 value
  2. The winner of the draw will get to display the Caught Green Handed Gnome at their workstation for two months until the next winner is drawn.
  3. A recognition certificate. Nomination When nominating an employee, please cut, paste and complete the following information to Jennifer Spence at jennifers@haltonhills.ca. Nominations can be submitted at any time throughout the duration of the program. Prize draws will be held on the last day of the month (bi-monthly), unless this falls on a weekend. CAUGHT GREEN HANDED NOMINATION FORM DATE: NAME OF STAFF CAUGHT GREEN HANDED: DEPARTMENT: EXTENSION: GREEN ACTION(S) TAKEN (Please describe):

NOMINATION SUBMITTED BY: DEPARTMENT: EXTENSION: 1

Correspondence received from the Town of Halton Hills

Page 19 of 33

AgendaItem#7•

AIR

RANK

Have a live plant at your work station

1

Choose not to idle

2

Lower emissions by walking, biking or carpooling

3

Minimized driving by choosing to walk instead of driving

3

ENERGY Turn off lights after a meeting is finished

1

Use portable heaters / fans at work station only when necessary

1

Turn off air conditioner for the weekend if possible

1

Take the stairs instead of the elevator

1

Recycle (batteries, paper, cell phone or what you can)

1

Turn off lights; use natural lighting by opening window coverings

2

Reduce the amount of lighting in your area

2

Turn off computer and monitor when not in use

2

FOOD Litter-less lunch

1

Homemade lunch in reusable containers and local produce

1

Bring a cold lunch (no microwave)

1

Use a reusable mug instead of a throw-away cup

1

Dispose proper waste in the green bin

1

Choose silverware instead of plastic utensils

2

Minimal waste at meetings

2

No garbage use throughout the day

2

Buy local food – participate in the Local Food Box Program

2

TRANSPORTATION Organize teleconference call instead of driving to a meeting

2

Take the more environmentally responsible mode of transportation to off site meetings (e.g. GO Transit, TTC, VIA Rail, to attend training or workshop

3

WATER Use a water cooler or drink tap water instead of bottled water

1

Use a Brita Pitcher instead of bottled water

1

Use re-usable water bottle instead of one time use

1

OTHER Print two-sided

1

Use scrap paper instead of post-it notes

1

Pick up litter

1

Host green meetings / events

2

Attend green / sustainability workshops

2

Volunteer on green related sustainability committees

2

Voluntarily lead or implement a green project or initiative Help at sustainability events (e.g. Earth Day Clean Up, Earth Hour)

2

Provide the most creative sustainable tip of the month

2

Use green supplies, FSC paper, compostable spoons, biodegradable pens

2

Go as paperless as possible

2

2

2

Correspondence received from the Town of Halton Hills

Page 20 of 33

AgendaItem#8•

Report 2013-060

COMMITTEE REPORT To:

Chair and Members of the Sustainability Committee

From:

Elizabeth Savill CAO

Prepared by:

Peter Young Community Planner

Date prepared:

March 27, 2013

Date of meeting:

April 3, 2013

Re:

Sustainability Advisory Committee – April 2013 Solar Power Production Update

Recommendation THAT the Sustainability Advisory Committee receive this Sustainability – April 2013 Solar Power Production Update report for information only.

Background At its July 21, 2010 meeting, County Council approved the County’s participation in a Countyled microFIT project initiative to install at least one roof-top MicroFIT project in each participating Township and one in the County. Council has further authorized staff to apply for two additional solar projects on County-owned facilities within the City of Kingston. Construction began in late 2010 on a ground-mounted solar project at the new Sydenham Road ambulance base in South Frontenac, with completion in April 2011. A roof-mounted solar project was constructed in 2011 at the Palace Road ambulance base in Kingston. Council also passed a resolution at its January 16, 2013 meeting authorizing staff to proceed with the submission of a MicroFIT application located at the County Administration/Fairmount Home property.

Comment The contract for the Sydenham base was awarded to Isolara Solar Power with a bid of $79,689. The contract for the Palace Road base was awarded to Evergreen Power Ltd. with a bid of $58,950. The total cost for both projects was $138,639.

Sustainability Advisory Committee – April 2013 Solar Power Production Update April 3, 2013

2013-060 Solar Power Production – April

Page 1 of 3

Page 21 of 33

AgendaItem#8•

Combined, the two County-owned projects have produced 47,281 kWh. To the end of December 2012, the County has been paid $33,295 for the energy produced by these two projects, or approximately 24% of the total project cost. The projects produced 31,792 kWh and earned $22,943 for the County in 2012, the first full calendar rate of operation. At this rate the balance of the capital cost will be paid off in 2017. Please note that all dollar amounts in this report exclude HST. Month

Sydenh Sydenham Palace Palace Total Total kWh $ to date am $ Rd Rd $ monthly monthly to date kWh kWh kWh $ Apr-11 *1,995

Sustainability Advisory Committee – April 2013 Solar Power Production Update April 3, 2013

2013-060 Solar Power Production – April

Page 2 of 3

Page 22 of 33

AgendaItem#8•

Solar Power Generated by County (monthly) 2,500 2,000 1,500 Sydenham kWh

1,000

Palace Rd kWh

500

Dec-12

Nov-12

Oct-12

Sep-12

Jul-12

Aug-12

Jun-12

Apr-12

May-12

Feb-12 Mar-12

Jan-12

Dec-11

Nov-11

Oct-11

Sep-11

Jul-11

Aug-11

Jun-11

Apr-11

May-11

0

Sustainability Implications Increased generation of renewable electricity can contribute toward a reduction of fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions. According to an emissions calculator, the electricity generated to date by these two solar projects has offset the equivalent of 21.6 tons of CO2, or of planting two acres of trees.

Financial Implications The two existing MicroFIT projects are generating revenue for the County and have long term contracts that extend to 2031. Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Finance Department

Sustainability Advisory Committee – April 2013 Solar Power Production Update April 3, 2013

2013-060 Solar Power Production – April

Page 3 of 3

Page 23 of 33

AgendaItem#8•

Report 2013-061

COMMITTEE REPORT To:

Chair and Members of the Sustainability Advisory Committee

From:

Elizabeth Savill CAO

Prepared by:

Alison Vandervelde Communications Officer

Date prepared:

March 26, 2013

Date of meeting:

April 3, 2013

Re:

Sustainability Advisory Committee – 2013 Work Plan Update

Committee Recommendation THAT the Sustainability Advisory Committee receives this 2013 Work Plan Update report for information only.

Background Action has been taken on a number of 2013 work plan items. An update of progress made to date follows here. Comment The following are updates and discussion points relevant to the 2013 work plan.

  1. Maintain expertise in sustainability to ensure valuable advice can be offered to Council as required (strategically support webinars, workshops and conferences) including input into the annual budgeting process  FCM Sustainable Communities Conference Committee Chair Geoff Sandiford, Committee Member Don Ross, along with Deputy Warden Bud Clayton and Manager of Economic Sustainability, Anne Marie Young, attended the Federation of Canadian Municipality’s Annual Sustainable Communities Conference on February 13-15 in Windsor. Ms. Young presented a follow-up report on the conference to County Council at its March 21, 2013 meeting. Click here to see that report.  Monieson Centre Economic Revitalization Conference The Monieson Centre at the Queen’s School of Business will host the 2013 Economic Revitalization Conference, Building Resilience through Innovation & Entrepreneurship on Sustainability Advisory Committee Report – 2013 Work Plan Update April 3, 2013

2013-061 Sustainability Advisory Committee

Page 1 of 5

Page 24 of 33

AgendaItem#8•

Monday, April 8 2013. The Conference will take place at the Holiday Inn Kingston Waterfront Hotel and the registration fee is $50. Any committee members wishing to attend the conference can click here to register online. Until the 2013 County budget is passed, reimbursement of these costs to members is uncertain. 2. Consider opportunities to further engage and educate communities including: a. Community Sessions and Events Staff has drafted a survey to gather public input on the possibility of hosting Community Information and Discussion Sessions. Click here to access the draft survey. The committee is asked to provide feedback on the draft survey prior to its release to the public. b. Annual Breakfast The Annual Sustainability Celebration Breakfast will be held on Friday, May 24, 2013.

Committee Recommendation THAT the Sustainability Advisory Committee recommend the Annual Integrated Sustainability Planning Celebration Breakfast be held on May 24, 2013 at an approximate cost of $1,000. c. Partnership Opportunities As directed at the February 6, 2013 SAC meeting, staff have approached the following organizations to sign Community Partnership Agreements. All organizations have responded favourably, and are taking some time to consider the opportunity with their respective organizations. It is expected that the majority of these Community Partnership Agreements will be presented at the 2013 ICSP Celebration Breakfast.      

Sharbot Lake Farmer’s Market Canonto Lake Land Owners Association Friends of Arden Verona Garlic Festival (rather than Verona Cattail Festival, as previously reported) Land O’ Lakes Tourism Association KFL&A Health Unit (Food Charter)

d. Awards Events The Joint Accessibility Advisory Committee (JAAC) has done some work towards developing an Awards Program. Ms. Jannette Amini, Deputy Clerk has prepared the following information for the JAAC’s review. The SAC is asked to consider contributing to the development of the JAAC’s program to create an awards initiative that could potentially be used by all Advisory Committees.

Disability impacts the lives of many Ontarians, and the numbers of people with disabilities is increasing. Today, 15.5% of Ontario’s population has a disability and this number will continue to grow as the population ages. Improving accessibility is the right thing to do. It’s also the smart thing to do. According to the Royal Bank of Canada, people with disabilities have an estimated spending power of about $25 billion annually across Canada. People with disabilities also represent a large pool of untapped employment potential. When we make Ontario accessible to people with disabilities everyone benefits. Establishing an award that recognizes those in the community who improve accessibility for those with disabilities will help promote and encourage others to help in making the County of Frontenac a barrier free community for all its citizens.

Sustainability Advisory Committee Report – 2013 Work Plan Update April 3, 2013

2013-061 Sustainability Advisory Committee

Page 2 of 5

Page 25 of 33

AgendaItem#8•

The Joint Accessibility Advisory Committee is considering a possible accessibility awards program and looked to other area municipalities that currently have an established awards program in place, specifically, the City of Brockville, which created an Accessibility Award in 2008 and the City of Kingston following suit in 2011 with its International Day of Persons with Disabilities Access Award. Once per year, both municipalities honour a person, group or organization that has made a significant contribution towards improving access for persons with disabilities in their respective communities. The City of Brockville uses a process in which the Brockville Municipal Accessibility Advisory Committee determines who the nominees would be whereas the City of Kingston uses a public nominations process. It is felt that the public nominations model used by the City of Kingston is a more open and transparent process where the recipient of the award would be chosen by the community of which they serve. When making a call for public nominations for its International Day of Persons with Disabilities Access Award, the City of Kingston developed a set of criteria to be used as guidelines for members of the public when submitting a nomination for a recipient of the award. The criteria for such an award being established by the County of Frontenac would need to recognize the unique challenges faced in the rural community. As such, the criteria for a body to be nominated should be more individually focused. In determining the type of award that the County could offer, both the City of Brockville and the City of Kingston present the recipient with a framed certificate. The Frontenac Joint Accessibility Advisory Committee could consider offering a framed certificate to its recipient as well as displaying a multi-plated plaque for perpetual recognition which would be displayed at the County Administrative Offices.  Volunteer Encouragement Program At its last meeting, the committee discussed a program that would target employers to “sponsor” their employees with paid time off to volunteer in the County. Although research is being conducted on similar programs in the area – for example, United Way’s Day of Caring is a model that compresses this idea into one major day of volunteerism – it cannot be assumed that this would be a suitable solution for the organizations seeking volunteers in the County. It seems it is the local annual events that are feeling much of the impact of declining volunteerism in Frontenac County, as the Parham Agricultural Society’s struggle to attract new volunteers for organizing the 2013 Parham Fair demonstrates. To ensure the usefulness of a potential volunteer encouragement program, efforts have been made to contact community members directly involved in the organization of major annual events. With input from those people facing the challenges presented by declining volunteerism, the Committee can make informed decisions regarding the potential for initiatives in this area. Alison Vandervelde, Communications Officer will offer a verbal report of her discussions with local event organizers for the committee’s consideration. Suggestions for additional community contacts from committee members are welcome and resulting conversations will be offered at the next Committee meeting.  Youth Retention and Attraction Working Group Staff is arranging a brainstorming session for April to discuss the possible focus and capabilities of a Youth Retention and Attraction Working Group. The following community members have been invited to participate:  Joyce Bigelow, Northern Connections Adult Learning Centre, Sharbot Lake  Dianne Dowling, National Farmers Union, Howe Island  Joanne Sortberg, Occasional Teacher, Sydenham High School Sustainability Advisory Committee Report – 2013 Work Plan Update April 3, 2013

2013-061 Sustainability Advisory Committee

Page 3 of 5

Page 26 of 33

AgendaItem#8•

   

Katie Ohlke, Arts Teacher, North Addington Education Centre, Cloyne Maribeth Scott, Child Care Center, Sharbot Lake Louise Dignum, Central Frontenac Resident Jeff Peck, Frontenac CFDC Board

  1. Liaise with other like-minded groups to gain insights and share expertise  SWITCH Green Energy Conference Through a $1,000 sponsorship, the County of Frontenac had an exhibition booth at the 2013 SWITCH Green Profit Conference. Councillor Denis Doyle attended the conference and manned the booth throughout the day. Occupying a space immediately inside the only entrance door to the exhibition space, Councillor Doyle spoke to many conference attendees throughout the day. He will provide a verbal report of his experience at the conference.  CHEERIO Advisory Group Further to a recommendation from the former Green Energy Task Force, the County of Frontenac has become involved in an initiative through the Clean Air Partnership called Collaboration on Home Energy Efficiency Retrofits in Ontario (CHEERIO). The County is a member of the CHEERIO Advisory Group. As one of the only rural municipalities involved, the County of Frontenac offers a unique perspective as progress is made towards the project’s overall goal – collaboratively design a high-quality, multi-municipality pilot that will (a) assess the effectiveness of the Local Improvement Charges (LIC) financing powers in accelerating deep residential energy retrofits and (b) provide insights and guidance regarding full-scale implementation. The priority focus will be on the residential sector in Ontario, both single-family and multi-unit. There are four specific objectives of the proposed project:
  2. To convene Ontario municipalities and other key stakeholders to jointly develop a recommended set of LIC pilot design parameters and formulate a pilot framework for local implementation.
  3. To create communications tools and templates that will assist cities in communicating the rationale for municipalities utilizing the LIC mechanism.
  4. To jointly assess key issues related to pilot design for example, marketing and communications strategies, integration with other relevant, program delivery models, criteria for selection of eligible measures, finance administration, legal issues.
  5. To create a monitoring and evaluation protocol for use in local pilots. Through local improvement charges, municipalities have the ability to recover the costs of capital improvements made on public or privately owned land from property owners who will benefit from the improvement. Local improvement charges can now be used by municipalities to help undertake and finance energy efficiency improvements for property owners. In this type of program, financing and administration costs would be paid back to the municipality though a charge on the property tax bill, and the project would be pay for itself for the homeowner through reduced energy costs. Peter Young, Community Planner participated in a CHEERIO teleconference call on March 19,
  6. The consulting firm, Dunsky, discussed case studies and lessons learned from similar programs in other jurisdictions. Input was gathered from Advisory Group members on a variety of aspects of their model such as potential target audiences, sources of funding, program implementation etc. More information is expected in mid-April. Sustainability Advisory Committee Report – 2013 Work Plan Update April 3, 2013

2013-061 Sustainability Advisory Committee

Page 4 of 5

Page 27 of 33

AgendaItem#8•

  1. Stimulate relationships and synergies with the Townships by presenting at Council meetings and through other meeting opportunities Chair Geoff Sandiford and Committee Member Don Ross have presented highlights of the FCM Conference to the councils of South Frontenac Township and Central Frontenac Township. They will present to North Frontenac Township on April 8th and to Frontenac Islands Township on May 13th. Mr. Sandiford will provide a verbal report on the presentations.
  2. Assist with the preparations for the Annual Workshop The Annual Workshop will be hosted in the fall. Planning will begin in the summer months.
  3. Contribute to the development and presentation of the annual Sustainable Actions report to Council Sustainable Actions 2012 has been published and is available both in hardcopy and online at www.directionsforourfuture.ca. Staff will begin drafting Sustainable Actions 2013 in the fall.

Comment on the draft Communications Plan being developed for Council’s approval in 2013

Staff expects to present a draft Communications Plan to the Committee at its June meeting for comment. 

Updated Statistics on Current Communications Initiatives:

Facebook  51 Likes (up from 41 at February Meeting)  23 People “talking about” the page  Weekly Total Reach: As high as 465 in the week of March 17-23. Twitter  Following 119 (up from 114 at February Meeting)  347 Followers (up from 297 at February Meeting)  147 Tweets (In total) E-Newsletter Date Sent

Email Name 03/04/2013 February 2013

Sent

Bounces Opt-outs

Opens

Clicks

Forwards

609

19

238

18

0

1

Financial Implications None.

Sustainability Advisory Committee Report – 2013 Work Plan Update April 3, 2013

2013-061 Sustainability Advisory Committee

Page 5 of 5

Page 28 of 33

AgendaItem#8•

Report 2013-074

COMMITTEE REPORT To:

Chair and Members of the Sustainability Advisory Committee

From:

Elizabeth Savill CAO

Prepared by:

Joe Gallivan Manager of Sustainability Planning Peter Young Community Planner

Date prepared:

March 27, 2013

Date of meeting:

April 3, 2013

Re:

Sustainability – Community Improvement Plans – Future Directions

Committee Recommendation RESOLVED THAT the Sustainability Advisory Committee receive the Sustainability – Community Improvement Plan – Future Directions report and the attached report for consideration and discussion. Background A CIP (Community Improvement Plan) is a planning tool that ties together economic development, infrastructure and planning. CIPs outline a community’s plan to encourage improvements to key areas of the community such as a commercial main street, and they allow municipalities to provide financial incentives that promote revitalization and community improvement goals. Community Improvement Plans were identified as a community priority in Sustainable Actions, adopted by Council in September 2009, and have continued to be a priority identified in Sustainable Actions 2010, 2011 and 2012. CIPs allow municipalities to provide grants and loans to owners and tenants, with the goal of supporting the improvement and rehabilitation of a targeted area. This can include projects such as improving the facade of a main street store and providing incentives to redevelop vacant properties. CIPs can also help to coordinate infrastructure and public space improvements, and can be used by municipalities to acquire, rehabilitate and dispose of land (e.g. a former industrial site). They are used in cities, towns, and villages across Ontario, and can also touch on a wide range of related topics including green energy, brownfields, and recreational opportunities. Generally individual CIPs are in operation for at least five years.

Sustainability Advisory Committee – Community Improvement Plan – Future Directions April 3, 2013

2013-074 Community Improvement Plans –

Page 1 of 4

Page 29 of 33

AgendaItem#8•

CIPs in Frontenac County There are a number of communities in the County of Frontenac that could potentially benefit from a Community Improvement Plan. In order to best realize the benefits of a CIP in the County, the County prepared a background study in 2010 using a variety of criteria to determine which village or hamlet would be most appropriate for a Community Improvement Plan Pilot Project. These criteria included the planning policy framework of the local Official Plans, the community’s shape and form, the size of the residential and business communities, the availability of public land and amenities, and the support of businesses within the community for CIP-type initiatives. This study created a priority list of five potential pilot project locations, recommending the selection of Verona as a pilot project CIP (the conclusions of the study are attached to this report). Council adopted this recommendation at its November 17, 2010 meeting, and the CIP was launched Spring 2012, with dozens of applications over the summer. CIPs were then brought to Central Frontenac (completion Summer 2012) and Frontenac Islands (ongoing). It is anticipated a CIP would be brought forward to North Frontenac should Council approve additional funding in the 2013 budget. Comment The purpose of this report is to discuss possible future directions for Community Improvement Plans in the County. By 2014 each Township would potentially have a CIP in place and staff may seek additional direction from Council on the future of CIPs in the Frontenacs. There are additional opportunities for the County to support CIPs in the Frontenacs through staff resources and/or funding, and there may even be a possibility for a County-wide CIP. Municipal Infrastructure An important factor in the success of many CIPs is municipal support of improvements made by private property owners through related public projects. This could include new sidewalks, benches, parkland, signage, and other relevant municipal works. For example, South and Central Frontenac are both undertaking major road renovations in the CIP area. Each CIP has a list of priority projects identified by the community that could be the basis for municipal funding and/or grant applications. The County’s role could be to encourage the Townships to undertake additional projects and potentially fund or apply for grants to help support these CIP projects. Additional Communities One option to support future community improvement could be an expansion of CIPs to other parts of the County. This could potentially be based on the FoTenn report, which identified Harrowsmith and Sydenham among the other top candidates for a pilot project. Alternatively the County could help to develop a CIP that applied to several hamlets within a Township. For example, the Haldimand County Downtown Financial Incentives CIP applies to several towns within that municipality (http://www.haldimandcounty.on.ca/Business.aspx?id=10796). Funding and development of the plan could be using a similar model as the previous CIPs, or the development of the plan could be done with assistance from the County while the Townships fund the individual incentive programs.

Sustainability Advisory Committee – Community Improvement Plan – Future Directions April 3, 2013

2013-074 Community Improvement Plans –

Page 2 of 4

Page 30 of 33

AgendaItem#8•

Additional subject areas Some municipalities have looked at new non-traditional CIPs that go beyond regular mainstreetoriented plans. The County could look at an issue that affects a number of areas in the Frontenacs or has been identified as Council priority and develop a CIP to help tackle that issue. Examples include:  Prince Edward County has a CIP that focuses on the Rural Economy (http://www.pecounty.on.ca/government/eng_dev_works/development_services/pdf/CR ECIPFinalasapprovedDecember202011.pdf).  Chatham-Kent has a CIP targeting “Bluefields,” which are institutional or community facilities that are no longer in use, including former schools, hospitals, long-term care facilities, courthouses or similar uses (https://portal.chathamkent.ca/economicdevelopment/financialincentives/pages/brownfieldbluefield.aspx)  The City of Hamilton has a LEED Grant program CIP that helps applicants with the costs of development and fees associated with LEED certification (http://www.investinhamilton.ca/incentives-programs/going-green/)  The City of Kitchener has a Energy and Water Efficiency for Land and Buildings CIP which provides incentives for green housing which gives grants for new housing based on LEED and EnerGuide certifications (http://app.kitchener.ca/ciplan/Docs/PublishedCurrentText//Energy%20and%20Water% 20Efficiency%20for%20Land%20and%20Buildings%20CIP.pdf) Upper-Tier CIPs Ontario Regulation 550/06 prescribes a number of matters that upper-tier municipalities may have CIPs on. These matters include:  infrastructure within the upper-tier municipality’s jurisdiction (communications, electricity/utilities, transportation, waste management, and water/ wastewater/ stormwater);  land and buildings within and adjacent to existing or planned transit corridors that have the potential to provide a focus for higher density mixed-use development and redevelopment; and  affordable housing. The County could potentially be involved with an infrastructure-related CIP (e.g. green energy) or an affordable housing CIP. Both areas have been discussed though the ICSP, and affordable housing has been expressed as a great need in the County through the Municipal Housing Strategy. The County would first require an Official Plan, anticipated to be adopted by Council in 2014. Council could then send a request to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to be a prescribed Upper-Tier municipality and have the ability to pass a County-wide CIP (currently the Regional governments in Ontario are the only upper-tier governments permitted to have CIPs through Ontario Regulation 221/07).

Sustainability Implications CIPs are a key planning tool used to encourage redevelopment and investment in a community. They can also be used for cultural, social, economic and environmentally-related projects such as enhancing heritage resources, the creation of affordable housing, and the promotion of green buildings. Continuing the work of CIPs will help the Frontenac economy and contribute to capacity-building in the region.

Sustainability Advisory Committee – Community Improvement Plan – Future Directions April 3, 2013

2013-074 Community Improvement Plans –

Page 3 of 4

Page 31 of 33

AgendaItem#8•

Financial Implications The draft 2013 budget continued the funding of CIP programs and/or the development of CIPs for each Township, including $70,000 for investment and $7,000 in production (e.g. street renderings and meeting costs). Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected All Townships in Frontenac County Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Sustainability Advisory Committee – Community Improvement Plan – Future Directions April 3, 2013

2013-074 Community Improvement Plans –

Page 4 of 4

Page 32 of 33

2013-074 Community Improvement Plans –

Conclusions/Recommendations This project has been structured as a pilot project for future Community Improvement Plans in the County. The CIP will be the vehicle for focusing and stimulating action and investment by public, private and community partners for the chosen community, and will form the basis for future CIPs. Given this, the community selected for this CIP must have both a great potential for success and attributes that will transfer well to other CIPs. The chosen community should have an appropriate form, a diverse land base, many community assets and the support of the business community. Two distinct types of communities became evident during the review of information: smaller communities with unique attributes but little to no business activity and larger communities with distinct commercial, institutional, public and residential activities. The smaller communities often had community support and interest but their small number of businesses reduce their potential to be a CIP “pilot project” since business development and a diverse property base are needed for the more traditional financial incentive programs to work. These smaller communities can still benefit from a CIP program, but likely one that is focused on municipal improvement projects such as unique signage or other infrastructure improvements. The larger communities are more appropriate for a pilot project in that they offer a more diverse land base and provide more opportunities for uptake of the programs that will be developed. Marysville, Harrowsmith, Sydenham, Verona and Sharbot Lake all have positive attributes making them plausible communities for the pilot project. It is recommended that Verona be chosen for this pilot Community Improvement Plan. Verona offers the most diverse and unique commercial base while still being located primarily on a single road. Verona contains the most households and acts as a hub for the surrounding rural area. The Farmer’s Market is unique to Verona, drawing people from the greater community and Verona contains one of the largest employer in the County. Verona’s community form (single main street) is similar to many other communities in the County making a CIP there more easily transferrable to other communities in the County. Given this is a pilot project, transferability is an important criteria that is weighted heavily. An Official Plan Amendment should be pursued immediately for South Frontenac. Consideration should be given to including the entire Township as a CIP area to provide the most diverse possibilities for future CIP development.

AgendaItem#8•

Page 33 of 33 43 | P a g e

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.
Buy Me a Coffee