Committee of the Whole - 11 Apr 2017 - Agenda

Published April 11, 2017

Word Count 8190 words

Reading Time 39 min read

Body: Committee of the Whole Type: Agenda Meeting: Committee of the Whole Date: April 11, 2017 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: South Frontenac

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/south-frontenac/Agendas/Committee of the Whole/2017/Committee of the Whole - 11 Apr 2017 - Agenda.pdf)

Document Text

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING AGENDA

TIME: DATE: PLACE:

6:00 PM, Tuesday, April 11, 2017 Council Chambers.

Call to Order

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof

Scheduled Closed Session

(a)

Litigation

***Recess - reconvene at 7:00 p.m. for Open Session

Delegations

(a)

Bev Disney, Account Manager, MPAC re: 2017 Assessment with a focus on Farm Land

3 - 34

(b)

Cambrium - 2016 Annual Waste Site Reporting

35 - 75

Reports Requiring Action

(a)

Lindsay Mills, Planner, re: Assumption of a Portion of Keir Road: Storrington District.

Reports for Information

(a)

Louise Fragnito, Treasurer, re: Annual Repayment Limit in respect to long-term deb and financial obligations

Rise & Report

(a)

Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority

(b)

Quinte Region Conservation Authority

(c)

Rideau Valley Conservation Authority

Information Items

(a)

Jannette Amini, Manager of Legislative Services/Clerk, County of Frontenac, re: Expanded Public Notification Provisions

82 - 84

(b)

Cheryl Latour, re: Desert Lake Resort Noise By-law Exemption

85 - 86

Notice of Motions

Announcements

Question of Clarity (from the public on outcome of agenda items)

Closed Session (if requested)

Adjournment

76 - 78

79 - 81

Page 2 of 86

DELIVERING THE 2016 ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Bev Disney

Tuesday, April 11th, 2017

Account Manager

Page 3 of 86

Township of South Frontenac

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT & PROPERTY TAXES

Page 4 of 86

WHO IS MPAC?

THE MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION (MPAC) is an independent, not-for-profit corporation funded by Ontario’s municipalities

15-MEMBER

OVER 1,700

OVERSIGHT

employees across the province

provided by the Ministry of Finance

Board of Directors Made up of municipal, Provincial and taxpayer representatives, appointed by the Ministry of Finance

Page 5 of 86

MPAC is responsible for accurately assessing and classifying all properties in Ontario in compliance with the Assessment Act and related regulations set by the Ontario Government.

OUR ROLE

Accurately assess and classify more than 5 million properties

Respond to enquiries from property taxpayers and municipalities/ taxing authorities

Deliver Assessment Rolls each year

Provide Supplementary/ Omitted Listings (growth)

Other legislated products:

Preliminary List of Electors Jury Duty Lists Population Reports

Page 6 of 86

ONTARIO’S ASSESSMENT CYCLE

2008

2012

2016

2009-2012 Tax Years

2013-2016 Tax Years

2017-2020 Tax Years

January 1, 2008 (valuation date)

January 1, 2012 (valuation date)

January 1, 2016 (valuation date)

Page 7 of 86

CHANGES IN APPROACH Improved data and valuation readiness – extensive data cleansing and post-value review



25 week Notice mailing schedule (April to November)



Improved touch points and channels: Redesigned Property Assessment Notice, new videos and information sources, enhanced Aboutmyproperty.ca, new Municipal Connect 2.0

Page 8 of 86



CHANGES IN APPROACH 

Open and transparent approach to pre-Roll consultation, disclosure and engagement with property owners, municipalities and industry associations



Changes in valuation approach were communicated, with an opportunity for feedback, taking into account the complexities of the properties. Stakeholders • Municipal (Elected and Non-Elected) • Property Owners • Industry Associations • Government • Media • Assessment Review Board

Page 9 of 86

Property Sectors • Residential • Farm • Mining • Pits and Quarries • Big Box & Shopping Centres • Golf Courses • Five-star Hotels • Lands in Transition • Special Purpose Business Properties

QUALITY ASSURANCE  Quality Service Commissioner complete independent Assessment Roll Quality (ARQ) reviews in order to attest to the accuracy and uniformity of the 2016 current value assessments and for certification of the fitness of use of the assessment roll.

Page 10 of 86

 In addition, MPAC has engaged an independent third party, the International Property Tax Institute (IPTI), to review and attest to MPAC values to ensure we are meeting the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) standards.

2016 PROPERTY ASSESSMENT NOTICE OVERVIEW

Jan

Mar

Feb

May

Apr

Jul

Jun

Sep

Aug

Nov

Oct

Amended Notices

Farm and Business Notices

Assessment Roll

Page 11 of 86

Residential Notices

Dec

2016 ASSESSMENT SUMMARY Page 12 of 86

2016 Assessment Summary

Page 13 of 86

Assessment Change Summary by Property Class – South Frontenac Property Class/Realty Tax Class

TOTAL

Percent Change 2012 to 2017 -1.2% 5.2% -4.1% 6.2% -0.1% -5.1% -8.6% 24.9% -6.4% -11.2% 0.4% 8.8% -13.0%

5.06%

-0.98%

Page 14 of 86

R Residential M Multi-Residential C Commercial G Parking Lot X Commercial (New Construction) I Industrial J Industrial (New Construction) F Farm T Managed Forests (PIL) R Residential (PIL) C Commercial (PIL) H Landfill E Exempt

Percent Change 2012 to 2016 3.6% 20.8% 4.0% 24.6% 9.1% 22.8% -7.8% 100.0% 7.4% -5.0% 8.1% 48.9% -8.8%

2016 Assessment Summary Careful and deliberate focus on increased transparency and a shared understanding of property assessments



Deliberate attention given to property sectors where there was a change in assessment methodology – collaboration with municipalities and property owners to deliver fair and accurate assessments



Significant improvements introduced including the early mailing of Notices, revamped AboutMyProperty™ site, redesigned Property Assessment Notices and pre-roll discussions – with the common goal of greater stability and predictability to the municipal tax base



2016 Assessment Roll for 2017 has been delivered



We enter the first year of Ontario’s next 4-year assessment cycle with a continued focus on supporting all stakeholders with regards to 2016 base year assessments.

Page 15 of 86



QUESTIONS ABOUT PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS? Property Owners and Municipalities Page 16 of 86

NOTICE MAILING SCHEDULE

Property Type

Notice Mailing Date

Request for Reconsideration Deadline

Farm Properties

October 11, 2016

February 8, 2017

Business Properties

October 18, 2016

February 15, 2017

Multi-Partition Residential Properties

October 24, 2016

February 21, 2017

Business and Special Purpose Properties, Landfills, Managed Forests

November 28, 2016

March 28, 2017 Page 17 of 86

Deadline for multi-residential and business property owners to file an appeal with the Assessment Review Board is March 31, 2017

RESOLVING ASSESSMENT CONCERNS STEP 1: Review Review and validate your Property Assessment Notice carefully to make sure the information is correct. If a factual error has been made, we will correct it.

STEP 2: Compare Visit aboutmyproperty.ca to review the information MPAC has on file for your property.

STEP 3: Contact us We’re here to help. Contact us and one of our property assessment experts will help guide you through your Property Assessment Notice.

STEP 4: Request For Reconsideration or Appeal

Business – File a Request for Reconsideration with MPAC before the deadline shown on the Notice or an appeal with the Assessment Review Board before March 31.

Page 18 of 86

Farms, Managed Forest and Conservation Land – File a Request for Reconsideration with MPAC before the deadline shown on the Notice (120 days from the date of Notice mailing).

RESIDENTIAL Comparing the 2016 Residential Experience to 2012 2016 Residential Notices were mailed from April to August (South Frontenac – May 9th with September 6 th RfR deadline)

•

Improved Notice provides a clear and simple explanation of the property assessment process, phase-in and five key factors that affect value

•

Expanded AboutMyProperty.ca with Residential Market Trends for each municipality and easy to understand videos and materials explaining the assessment process

•

120 day Request for Reconsideration deadline to help ensure property assessment concerns resolved ahead of roll return

•

Approximately 198 RfRs have been received for the 2017 tax year with 150 from residential owners in South Frontenac (out of a total of 52,099 total residential RfRs received).

•

Following the 2012 Assessment Update, MPAC received 93,460 residential RfRs for the 2013 tax year and 494 were received for properties in South Frontenac (all properties were subject to a standard March 31, 2013 deadline)

Page 19 of 86

•

ABOUTMYPROPERTY - FARM AND BUSINESS

Page 20 of 86

ABOUTMYPROPERTY.CA Learn how and why your property was assessed the way it was and compare your assessment with others in your neighbourhood.

FOUR KEYS TO ABOUTMYPROPERTY.CA Market Trends: Learn more about property values and market trends in your area. How Assessment Works: Learn more about how your property was assessed and more about the relationship between property assessment and property taxation My Property: Check out the information MPAC has on file for your property and view, print or save your Property Assessment Notice Page 21 of 86

My Neighbourhood: Use the interactive map to compare your property to similar properties in your neighbourhood, and view up to 100 properties and download a report with details on up to 24 properties

MARKET TRENDS

Page 22 of 86

3 LEVELS OF DISCLOSURE

Page 23 of 86

CONTACT MPAC

We are here to help. Contact MPAC with any questions you may have regarding your property assessment. CALL our Customer Contact Centre 1 866 296-MPAC (6722) or 1 877-889-MPAC (6722) TTY ONLINE at mpac.ca VISIT a local field office WRITE to P.O. Box 9808, Toronto ON M1S 5T9

If you have accessibility needs, please let us know how we can best accommodate you

Page 24 of 86

FAX 1 866 297 6703

FARM PROPERTY PORTFOLIO UPDATE Page 25 of 86

FARMS

MPAC has strengthened the accuracy and equity of farm valuations for the 2016 Assessment Update. After consulting with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs, farmers and municipalities, we: •

improved the farm sale verification process

•

completed a comprehensive review of vacant farm land sales back to January 2008 reduced the number of farm neighbourhoods from 228 to 167

•

Implemented a new Agricultural Cost Guide

Page 26 of 86

•

FARMS

Farm Value Comparison 64% or 16% annually

ZONE 1 South West

ZONE 2 Golden Horseshoe 16%

Annual 4-Year Change

64%

18%

ZONE 4 City of Toronto

13%13% 52%52%

Annual 4-Year Change

18%

East 16%16% 64% 64%

Annual 4-Year Change

18% 72%72%

19% 19% 76% 76%

Page 27 of 86

18%

ZONE 7 North

18%

N/A

ZONE 6

18%

Annual 4-Year Change

N/A

18%

ZONE 5 Central North East Annual 4-Year Change

48% 48% 18%

ZONE 3 GTA Central Ontario Annual 4-Year Change

12%

Annual 4-Year Change

ANNUAL CHANGES IN FARM VALUES

2009

6.2%

2010

6.8%

2011

14.3%

2012

30.1%

2013

15.9%

2014

12.4%

2015

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

Source: Farm Credit Canada 2015 Farmland Report

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Page 28 of 86

0.0%

6.6%

5,200

Page 29 of 86

Class 1 Rate Per Acre

Page 30 of 86

FARM LAND RATES

2016 CVA

2012 CVA

Description

Class 1

Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6

City of Kingston/ LoyalistErnesttown and Bath/South Frontenac

5,200

3,725

2,900

1,550

1,150

650

2,650

2,025

1,650

775

600

300

Class 1 Rate Change 2012 to 2016 CVA Page 31 of 86

96.23%

2016 FARM VALUES EXPLAINED

Page 32 of 86

CONTACT

Municipal and Stakeholder Relations Contacts Bev Disney Account Manager Lanark, Leeds and Grenville, Frontenac, Lennox & Addington Area E-mail: Beverley.Disney@mpac.ca Phone: 613-342-3296 or 1-877-275-7779, Ext. 218 or Mobile 613-349-0233

Kim Bennett

Page 33 of 86

Account Support Coordinator Lanark, Leeds and Grenville, Frontenac Area E-mail: Kim.Bennett@mpac.ca Phone: 613-342-3296 or 1-877-275-7779, Ext. 228

QUESTIONS?

Page 34 of 86

ANNUAL UPDATE WASTE DISPOSAL SITES Township of South Frontenac April 11, 2017

Page 35 of 86

OVERVIEW • Current System Overview – Annual Monitoring & Reporting – 5 Active Waste Disposal Sites (landfill) – 5 Closed Sites (former landfills)

Page 36 of 86

Page 37 of 86

OVERVIEW (CONT’D) • Annual Monitoring & Reporting – Collection of required groundwater, surface water samples, and landfill gas annually. – Completion of updated topographic capacity surveys at active sites. – MOECC Guidelines and Accredited Lab – Inspection – Operational information – Summarized in annual report to the MOECC, as required by ECA (PC of A) 4

Page 38 of 86

OVERVIEW (CONT’D)

Page 39 of 86

PORTLAND WDS – Operating as a landfill with diversion material transfer – Groundwater (10 x 2) & Surface Water (5 x 4) sampling – Annual survey & Report – Groundwater flows towards the north-northeast in the overburden – Mound partially closed/capped, mantle installed – Groundwater meets Compliance Assessment, surface water is ongoing with new locations. Surface water has been a challenge but action has been taken. – A remaining volume of 177,925 m³ and an average annual fill rate of 6,445 m³, the remaining life is approximately 28 years – Scales recently installed 6

Page 40 of 86

Page 41 of 86

Page 42 of 86

LOUGHBOROUGH WDS – Operating as a landfill with diversion material transfer – Groundwater (27 x 2), no surface water sampling – Annual Monitoring Report – Groundwater flows towards northeast and southeast – Groundwater Compliance requires further assessment. – A remaining volume of 18,090 m³ (1,600 m³ in 2016) in Phase 2A and an average annual fill rate of 3,500 m³, the remaining life is approximately 5 years in Phase 2A. – Remaining capacity of Phase 2 can be realized upon confirmation of groundwater compliance. – As per ECA, Phase 1 should now be capped and closed. – Approved design may need to be revised.

Page 43 of 86

LOUGHBOROUGH WDS – Recommendations: • Geophysical survey is recommended in 2018. • Remaining capacity of Phase 2 can be realized upon confirmation of groundwater compliance. • Phase 1 should now be capped and closed. • Approved design may need to be revised.

Page 44 of 86

Page 45 of 86

Page 46 of 86

Page 47 of 86

BRADSHAW WDS – Operating as a landfill with blue box material transfer – Groundwater (8 x 3), surface water (4 x 3) sampling & landfill gas monitoring – Annual survey & Report – Groundwater flows towards the southeast – Groundwater Compliance Values trigger sporadically. Surface water stable, but impacted. – A remaining volume of 3,230 m³ (no change (trench) but 150 m³ in 2016) and an average annual fill rate of 300 m³, the remaining life is approximately 11 years. – Old site closed and no monitoring or reporting

Page 48 of 86

BRADSHAW WDS (CONT’D) – Recommendations: • Remove one groundwater location (MW101) • Surface water assessment • New location to be added; existing locations should be assessed for suitability • Remove summer sampling event • Approval required from the MOECC prior to implementation

Page 49 of 86

Page 50 of 86

Page 51 of 86

SALEM WDS – Operating as a landfill with blue box material transfer – Groundwater (8 x 2) & Surface Water (6 x 3) sampling – Annual survey & Report – Groundwater flows to the northeast – Groundwater meets RUC; however, trigger values are exceeded (PWQO) – Surface water exceeds Compliance Triggers. – A remaining volume of 10,620 m³ (440 m³ in 2016) and an average annual fill rate of 1,000 m³, the remaining life is approximately 11 years.

Page 52 of 86

SALEM WDS (CONT’D) – Recommendations: • Complete comprehensive analytical suite in spring • Add calcium, magnesium, sodium to surface water suite (MOECC; LIPs) • Investigate a new background surface water location • Due to minor trigger exceedances, an environmental study and a surface water are required to confirm no adverse impacts are occurring downstream • Consideration for closing the east extent of the waste mound; should be discussed with MOECC

Page 53 of 86

Page 54 of 86

Page 55 of 86

Page 56 of 86

GREEN BAY WDS – Operating as a landfill with blue box material transfer – Groundwater (7 x 3) & Surface Water (4 x 3) sampling – Annual survey & Report – Groundwater flows southeast – Groundwater and surface water meet Compliance Triggers – A remaining volume of 3,720 m³ (310 m³ in 2016) and an average annual fill rate of 275 m³, the remaining life is approximately 18 years.

Page 57 of 86

GREEN BAY WDS (CONT’D) – Recommendations: • Three monitoring wells removed from the groundwater program. • A new surface water background location. • Summer sampling event should be removed. • Samples should be sampled for reduced parameter suite. • Approval be sought from the MOECC prior to implementation. • The active working area should be covered four (4) times per year.

Page 58 of 86

Page 59 of 86

Page 60 of 86

Page 61 of 86

FISH CREEK WDS – Closed landfill (10 years), no operations – Groundwater (4 x 1) & Surface Water (3 x 1) sampling – Annual Report – Groundwater flows northeast – Site is in compliance with applicable groundwater and surface water regulations/guidelines – Observed to be in good condition with no evidence of erosion, seeps, litter, or vermin present

Page 62 of 86

FISH CREEK WDS (CONT’D) – Recommendations: • Three monitoring wells should be removed from the monitoring program • Analytical reduced to LIPs • One surface water location should be removed from the monitoring program • Reports should be written only once every three years

Page 63 of 86

Page 64 of 86

CROW LAKE WDS – Closed landfill (2002), no operations – Groundwater (2 x 2) & Surface Water (3 x 3) sampling – Report…every 5 years (2018) – Groundwater flows southeasterly – Groundwater and surface water meet Compliance Triggers – Observed to be in good condition with no evidence of erosion, seeps, litter or vermin present

Page 65 of 86

Page 66 of 86

MASSASSAUGA WDS – Closed landfill (2012), no operations – Groundwater (5 x 2) & Surface Water (4 x 2) sampling – Annual Report – Groundwater flows southeast – Impacts to groundwater and surface water are minimal, continue monitoring – Site meets groundwater and surface water compliance criteria – Observed to be in good condition with no evidence of erosion, seeps, litter or vermin present

Page 67 of 86

MASSASSAUGA WDS – Recommendations: • Two (2) groundwater, two (2) surface water monitoring locations should be removed • Monitoring should occur only once annually (spring) • Only LIPs (8) should be analyzed • The reporting frequency should be reduced to once every three (3) years

Page 68 of 86

Page 69 of 86

Page 70 of 86

BURRIDGE WDS – Closed landfill (1991), no operations – Groundwater (1 x 2) & Surface Water (2 x 3) sampling – Report – Approval to reduce monitoring and reporting after 2015 to once every three (3) years (2018) – Minor impacts observed in groundwater and surface water, continued monitoring. – Observed to be in good condition with no evidence of erosion, seeps, litter or vermin present

Page 71 of 86

Page 72 of 86

SITE CAPACITY, 2015 Portland

Loughborough

Bradshaw

Salem

Green Bay

Municipality

Approved waste disposal capacity (m³)

380,100

173,400

16,200

59,000

10,000

638,700

Existing volume of waste used (m³)

201,300

153,710

12,970

47,940

5,970

421,890

Capacity Used in 2016 (m³)

8,100

1,030

210

2,000

170

11,510

Remaining volume of capacity (m³)

178,800

19,690

3,230

11,060

4,030

216,810

Average annual waste placement (m³)

6,445

3,575

300

830

200

11,350

Remaining site life (years)

27.7

5.5

10.8

13.3

20.2

19.1

*Loughborough values for Phase 1 and 2A only.

Page 73 of 86

SITE CAPACITY Portland

Loughborough

Bradshaw

Salem

Green Bay

Municipality

Approved waste disposal capacity (m³)

380,100

173,400

16,200

59,000

10,000

638,700

Existing volume of waste used (m³)

202,175

155,310

12,970

48,380

6,280

425,115

Capacity Used in 2016 (m³)

875

1,600

440

310

3,225

Remaining volume of capacity (m³)

177,925

18,090

3,230

10,620

3,720

213,585

Average annual waste placement (m³)

6,445

3,500

300

1,000

275

11,520

Remaining site life (years)

5.2

10.6

*Loughborough values for Phase 1 and 2A only.

Page 74 of 86

– Based on diversion rates and site operation, overall available capacity within the Township has remained the same.

COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS

Page 75 of 86

Page 76 of 86

REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AGENDA DATE: April 11, 2017

REPORT DATE: April 6, 2017

SUBJECT: Assumption of a Portion of Keir Road: Storrington

Recommendation: The recommendation is that the Committee receive the Planning Report dated April 6, 2017 and consider a request to assume and maintain an extended portion of Keir Road in Storrington District.

Background: By letter dated March 31, 2017, a prospective property-owner (Tom Brennen) is requesting to know whether Council would agree to assume and provide regular public road maintenance of an extended portion of Keir Road. Mr. Brennen proposes to construct a portion of the road to minimum Township standards for a length of 76 metres (250 ft.) along the road allowance ie., extending the maintained road for a distance of 76 metres. The purpose of this would be to provide the required road frontage for a proposed severance from the property on the south side. As Council is aware, any newly created nonwaterfront lot in the Township must have a minimum lot frontage of 76 metres on a fully maintained public road. At present, the maintained Keir Road does not extend to the severed area proposed. Attachment #1 shows the location of the road extension and illustrates the proposed severed lot with frontage on Keir Road. Council will recall that, in 2014, the western-most extent of the road allowance (approximately 202 metres) was stopped up, closed and ownership transferred to the Applewood Condominium development. However, approximately 255 metres of the road allowance, measured from the turning bulb on Keir Road, was left in Township ownership in consideration that it would continue to provide future access to the western-most property owned by Kendall Poole and that future severances would be anticipated along the route as well. Accordingly, the present request proposes such a severance. Attachment #2 shows the proposed severance in relation to the Applewood developed area. Staff are seeking direction as to whether Council would have any objections to the assumption of maintenace of this extended road. The Manager of Public Works has reviewed the request and has indicated no concerns with the extension. Approved by: Forbes Symon

attachments RoadClosureReportBrennen

Submitted/Prepared by: Lindsay Mills

Page 77 of 86

Page 78 of 86 %r?l

ATTACHMENT #2

a.! 11!

(% u

:ffi/

J l

,,!’ 1

[

% % % s

%l1

/J/

/ /

}

/ /

}

‘,"

7 ‘%y

,!0,(,X-%

,,4,.t

7 l

/ /

/ / I’ /

,!’ ,/

‘%

I i

l l

k i

! ! s %

O’

LO,,,x?b

l %

}

/’

f /

‘,

)

’l

‘(

?Sl%

‘, i? L,,41loo?o ’ :: : : aJ.19. a€ : : : : : : : :: :.;l ? : .’ : : .1’ : 2 :::2

?" 5U

=13-

%,’%

‘S

:la

%’l

‘S

:i6ml'5 }

‘,

‘y

‘%

2’l

20?

4qi

//J" ? !

, ,s’,)m o#

?o?

0,,<) ,

,-1614 l€=d,

,o@‘0

/ i’

,.4 /

8 –l

:::::?::::::l

?,? X ‘%

I ::::::

?……… & …………

] j J l j

j r / l? ‘%/ %

l:::::::::l j:::::::::%

:::::::::::.’) :::::::::::?j :::::::::::: ::::::::::::

‘%

" a ’ ?’; amI -

$H lllliml=="

-?-=l

?—-

‘- : : ‘- ‘- : : ‘( : " ‘i a ’ a ’ ? a ’ a " a a " " " '

[

‘a’!

‘W

::::::::l ::::::::I ::a:’:::l :as;Q :::l :l

22 ::l

k::::::::l

ffi !

::::::::::::::::A :::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::1 1 ::::::::::::::::

:12 ——–I l—–

:::::::Y::::: 3’

a**-i?***** %&.*i-

:::::l::::::::l

?71

/’

r t l L L t t [

. ,,,11

l l ]

.1 0,

‘?9

.il

n.. ai’all Mlll

i t

/’

t,,,(t

voo,%o,t%n

,6&-

‘9

Q’ovoS’o

l l

y l

’s

{

o 37.5 ?is

l Meters

150

225

300

l i

! i

llaa

Page 79 of 86

REPORT TO COUNCIL Treasury Department

AGENDA DATE:

April 11, 2017

SUBJECT: Annual Repayment Limit in respect to long-term debt and financial obligations

RECOMMENDATION This report is for information only.

BACKGROUND On a yearly basis, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing reports on the Township’s Annual Repayment Limit (ARL) in respect to long-term debt and financial obligations. The ARL is based on 25% of the Township’s net own source revenues reported in the Financial Information Return (FIR). As per our reserve policy, the Township’s preference for funding capital projects is to save for large projects to avoid debt financing where practical. For the year 2017, the Township’s ARL is $4,838,416. This is based on 25% of the net own source revenues reported in our 2015 FIR. As an example, borrowing at a rate of 5%, the ARL would allow the Township to undertake long-term borrowing over 20 years in the amount of $60,284,893. In 2016, the Township’s ARL was $4,708,242. Using the similar example of borrowing at a rate of 5% over 20 years, this ARL would have allowed to undertake borrowing of $58,675,096.

ATTACHMENTS MMAH 2017 Annual Repayment Limit Submitted/approved by:

Prepared by:

Louise Fragnito, Treasurer

Our strength is our community.

Page 80 of 86

Ministry of Municipal Affairs

Ministère des affaires municipales

777 Bay Street,

777 rue Bay,

Toronto, Ontario M5G 2E5

Toronto (Ontario) M5G 2E5

2017 ANNUAL REPAYMENT LIMIT (UNDER ONTARIO REGULATION 403 / 02)

MMAH CODE:

46619

MUNID:

10013

MUNICIPALITY:

South Frontenac Tp

UPPER TIER:

Frontenac BM

FIR CLEAN FLAG:

REPAYMENT LIMIT:

Accepted Clean

4,837,416

The repayment limit has been calculated based on data contained in the 2015 Financial Information Return, as submitted to the Ministry. This limit represents the maximum amount which the municipality had available as of December 31, 2015 to commit to payments relating to debt and financial obligation. Prior to the authorization by Council of a long term debt or financial obligation, this limit must be adjusted by the Treasurer in the prescribed manner. The limit is effective January 01, 2017

FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY, The additional long-term borrowing which a municipality could undertake over a 5-year, a 10-year, a 15-year and a 20-year period is shown. If the municipalities could borrow at 5% or 7% annually, the annual repayment limits shown above would allow it to undertake additional long-term borrowing as follows:

5% Interest Rate (a)

20 years @ 5% p.a.

60,284,893

(a)

15 years @ 5% p.a.

50,210,721

(a)

10 years @ 5% p.a.

37,353,242

(a)

5 years @ 5% p.a.

20,943,479

(a)

20 years @ 7% p.a.

51,247,651

(a)

15 years @ 7% p.a.

51,247,651

(a)

10 years @ 7% p.a.

33,975,984

(a)

5 years @ 7% p.a.

19,834,360

7% Interest Rate

Page: 01 of 02

Date Prepared:

28-Mar-17

DETERMINATION OF ANNUAL DEBT REPAYMENT LIMIT Page 81 of 86 (UNDER ONTARIO REGULATION 403/02) MUNICIPALITY:

South Frontenac Tp

MMAH CODE:

46619 1

Debt Charges for the Current Year

0210

Principal (SLC 74 3099 01). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18,319 . . . . . . .

0220

Interest (SLC 74 3099 02). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,677 . . . . . . .

Subtotal

0299 0610

37,996

Payments for Long Term Commitments and Liabilities financed from the consolidated statement of

operations (SLC 42 6010 01) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. . . . .

Total Debt Charges

9910

37,996 1

Amounts Recovered from Unconsolidated Entities

1010

Electricity - Principal (SLC 74 3030 01) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. . . . .

1020

Electricity - Interest (SLC 74 3030 02) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 . . . .

1030

Gas - Principal (SLC 74 3040 01) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. . . . .

1040

Gas - Interest (SLC 74 3040 02) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 . . . .

1050

Telephone - Principal (SLC 74 3050 01) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. . . . .

1060

Telephone - Interest (SLC 74 3050 02) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 . . . .

Subtotal

1099

1410

Debt Charges for Tile Drainage/Shoreline Assistance (SLC 74 3015 01 + SLC 74 3015 02) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,065 . . . . . . .

1411

Provincial Grant funding for repayment of long term debt (SLC 74 3120 01 + SLC 74 3120 02). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. . . . .

1412

Lump sum (balloon) repayments of long term debt (SLC 74 3110 01 + SLC 74 3110 02). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. . . . .

1420

Total Debt Charges to be Excluded

2,065

9920

Net Debt Charges

35,931 1 $

1610

Total Revenues (Sale of Hydro Utilities Removed) (SLC 10 9910 01). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24,552,307

Excluded Revenue Amounts 2010

Fees for Tile Drainage / Shoreline Assistance (SLC 12 1850 04) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 . . . .

2210

Ontario Grants, including Grants for Tangible Capital Assets (SLC 10 0699 01 + SLC 10 0810 01 + SLC10 0815 01) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,805,174 . . . . . . . .

2220

Canada Grants, including Grants for Tangible Capital Assets (SLC 10 0820 01 + SLC 10 0825 01) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179,033 . . . . . . . .

2225

Deferred revenue earned (Provincial Gas Tax) (SLC 10 830 01) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2226

Deferred revenue earned (Canada Gas Tax) (SLC 10 831 01) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2230

Revenue from other municipalities including revenue for Tangible Capital Assets ( SLC 10 1098 01 + SLC 10 1099 01) . . . . . . . . . . . . 742,038 . . . . . . . .

2240

Gain/Loss on sale of land & capital assets (SLC 10 1811 01) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -140,538 . . . . . . . .

2250

Deferred revenue earned (Development Charges) (SLC 10 1812 01) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,000 . . . . . . . .

2251

Deferred revenue earned (Recreation Land (The Planning Act)) (SLC 10 1813 01) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129,854 . . . . . . . .

2252

Donated Tangible Capital Assets (SLC 53 0610 01) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,025,215 . . . . . . . . .

2253

Other Deferred revenue earned (SLC 10 1814 01) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 . . . .

2254

Increase / Decrease in Government Business Enterprise equity (SLC 10 1905 01) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. . . . .

Subtotal

2299 2410

0 118,144

5,058,920

Fees and Revenue for Joint Local Boards for Homes for the Aged . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 . . . .

2610

Net Revenues

19,493,387

2620

25% of Net Revenues

4,873,347

9930

ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPAYMENT LIMIT

4,837,416

(25% of Net Revenues less Net Debt Charges)

SLC denotes Schedule, Line Column.

Page: 02 of 02

Date Prepared:

28-Mar-17

Page 82 of 86

From: Jannette Amini [mailto:jamini@FRONTENACCOUNTY.CA] Sent: April-05-17 9:28 AM To: Cheryl Robson cao@northfrontenac.ca; Cathy MacMunn cmacmunn@FRONTENACCOUNTY.CA; Darlene Plumley dplumley@kos.net Cc: Kelly Pender kpender@FRONTENACCOUNTY.CA; Joe Gallivan JGallivan@FRONTENACCOUNTY.CA; Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Subject: Request from the Township of South Frontenac for expanded public notification provisions regarding planning applications Greetings Township CAO’s. As you are aware, the County of Frontenac now has a Planning Advisory Committee that is responsible for advising County Council on all regional development, planning, and the Planning Act implications of economic development within the County of Frontenac in accordance with the County’s Official Plan document. As part of that role, Public Meetings held pursuant to the Planning Act will be conducted through the Planning Advisory Committee on behalf of County Council, a role which was previously carried out by the Townships. As a result, the County of Frontenac is in receipt of a request from the Council of the Township of South Frontenac (please note attached) to implement expanded public notification provisions when considering proposed subdivision and vacant land condominium developments in South Frontenac, which the Township was previously doing as required through Schedule 11 to Township of South Frontenac By-law 201673. Specifically, in addition to the requirements set out in the Planning Act, the Township of South Frontenac is asking that for any subdivision or plan of condominium greater than 3 units be subject to the following enhanced provisions: 1.

Bring to the attention of the public through a presentation to the Committee of the Whole any proposal for subdivision or plan of condominium greater than 3 units, after the developer has completed the pre consultation phase. This shall occur no later than 30 days before the notice for a statutory public meeting; 2. Provide six calendar weeks’ notice of the statutory public meeting through the regulated means of advertising. (Currently, the Planning Act only requires 20 days notice); 3. Have the developer install, at their expense, a durable sign, notifying the community of the public meeting at least six weeks in advance of the meeting date; 4. Ensure that the sign for the proposed development is in a visible location at the edge of the property on the road abutting the property. The developer is to remove the signage 30 days after the public meeting; 5. Ensure that the sign shall be at least 1 metre by 1.2 metres in size and contain the information specified by the Planning Department; 6. Have the developer provide photographic evidence that the sign is erected on the date required; 7. Advertise a summary of the Notice in the weekly banner advertising directing readers to the website six weeks in advance of the meeting. A subsequent notice shall be published three weeks In advance and again one week in advance of the meeting. Given that the County must apply consistency across the entire County when considering planning applications, any approval by County Council to implement these expanded public notification provisions would be applied to proposed subdivision and vacant land condominium developments in all 4 Townships. Staff will be taking a report to the June 12th Planning Advisory Committee meeting with recommendations regarding this request and would appreciate your Township comments and feedback as any recommendations will have a direct effect on planning applications in your respective Townships. As part of the County’s commitment to openness and transparency, the County will also be soliciting comments from the public, including the development community, to be included in the staff report.

Page 83 of 86

Your comments would be appreciated no later than May 29th and should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, Jannette Amini, Dipl.M.M., CMO Manager of Legislative Services/Clerk Corporate Services County of Frontenac 2069 Battersea Road, Glenburnie ON K0H 1S0 Phone: 613-548-9400 ext. 302 Fax: 613-548-8460 jamini@frontenaccounty.ca FrontenacCounty.ca

Page 84 of 86

Schedule “11” to By-law 2016-73 Procedures for Notice – Development In addition to the requirements as set out in the Planning Act, the municipality shall: For any subdivision or plan of condominium greater than 3 units:

•

Provide six calendar weeks’ notice of the statutory public meeting through the regulated means of advertising

•

Have the developer install, at their expense, a durable sign, notifying the community of the public meeting at least six weeks in advance of the meeting date.

•

Ensure that the sign for the proposed development is in a visible location at the edge of the property on the road abutting the property. The developer is to remove the signage 30 days after the public meeting.

•

Ensure that the sign shall be at least 1 metre by 1.2 metres in size and contain the information specified by the Planning Department

•

Have the developer provide photographic evidence that the sign is erected on the date required.

•

Advertise a summary of the Notice in the weekly banner advertising directing readers to the website six weeks in advance of the meeting. A subsequent notice shall be published three weeks in advance and again one week in advance of the meeting.

Page 85 of 86

From: cheryl latour [mailto:cheryl.latour@gmail.com] Sent: April-05-17 10:19 AM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Subject: Desert Lake Noise Bylaw Exemption Dear Mr. Orr, It has come to my attention by READING the Frontenac News that the campground has requested a Noise Bylaw Exemption for this coming season. I’m aware that the Desert Lake Property Owners Association was informed a few weeks ago about the issue and none of the neighbors were informed. Is there a reason why the township didn’t notify residents in the area about the exemption? It’s very disappointing that residents in the immediate area and areas beyond were not considered when this issue was discussed at the council meeting in March. I realize that this is a business, but there has been no regard for the neighbors since I’ve lived here with respect for the noise bylaw. The live bands, dances, special events draw in the campers and the neighbors are expected to put up with the excessive, intrusive, disturbing noise! I"m enclosing an email I forwarded to Rik Saaltink Cheryl

Page 86 of 86

———- Forwarded message ———From: cheryl latour cheryl.latour@gmail.com Date: Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 6:49 PM Subject: Desert Lake Resort To: riksaaltink@gmail.com Hi Rick, I was very surprised to read in the Frontenac News last week about Sheena’s request for a noise bylaw exemption for this coming season. I understand that members of the Desert Lake Association attended the meeting last week regarding the noise bylaw exemption and I live up the hill from the resort and had no idea that Sheena was approaching the township about this. We have lived in the neighborhood for over 30 years and have tolerated the noise from the campground without complaint. We as residents are required to abide by the noise bylaws so why do the CAMPERS feel that they can make all the noise that they want? The music is way too loud and listening to that for 3 hours or more on weekends is more than annoying. It’s only been recently that we’ve had some reprieve from the noise as the 11 o’clock cut off time is being followed. I’ve had noise complaints about a barking dog!!! The noise level is excessive,disturbing and unacceptable on weekends when they have bands or regular dances. The entire residential area and areas beyond can hear the music because it’s so loud. There has been no regard for the neighbors as long as I’ve lived here. This is our home and I’m tired of having to keep my windows closed in the summer to try and drown out some of the noise and the smoke from the fires. I understand that you are meeting with Sheena to try and come up with a solution that will satisfy all involved and we are willing to give you our input on this matter. I know that this is a business and dances, bands, special events attract campers, but what about the residents who live here year round! We’ve all put up with it for far too long! Respectfully yours, Cheryl

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.