Body: Committee of the Whole Type: Agenda Meeting: Committee of the Whole Date: March 12, 2019 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: South Frontenac
[View Document (PDF)](/docs/south-frontenac/Agendas/Committee of the Whole/2019/Committee of the Whole - 12 Mar 2019 - Agenda.pdf)
Document Text
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING AGENDA
TIME: DATE: PLACE:
6:00 PM, Tuesday, March 12, 2019 Council Chambers.
Call to Order
Frontenac County Strategic Planning Process
(a)
Council Input requested on the County Strategic Planning Process (6:00 pm to 7:00 pm)
Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof
Approval of Agenda
Scheduled Closed Session - n/a
Recess - n/a
Public Meeting - n/a
Delegations
(a)
Jim Miller, Utilities Kingston, re: 2018 Sydenham Water Treatment Plant Report
Reports Requiring Direction
(a)
Changes to the Tax Levy By-law
(b)
New Administration Offices - Next Steps
29 - 62
(c)
Joint County Meeting - Waste and Roads
63
Reports for Information
(a)
Response to Meela Melnik Proud questions from February 19
Rise & Report from Committees of Council
(a)
Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority
(b)
Quinte Conservation Authority
(c)
Portland District and Area Heritage Committee
(d)
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority
Information Items
3
4 - 27
28
64 - 65
Page 2 of 65
Notice of Motions
Announcements/Statements by Councillors
Question of Clarity (from the public on outcome of agenda items)
Closed Session (if requested)
Adjournment
Page 3 of 65
County Strategic Planning TOWNSHIP DISCUSSION GUIDE Tuesday, Mar.12 (6pm) | Twp. Offices, 4432 George St. Sydenham
Consultation with South Frontenac
Facilitator: Rob Wood
Our goal for this consultation is to explore Township perspectives on county-level issues as the County develops its strategic priorities, direction and plans for the current term of Council. Input is being gathered from all four townships in the Frontenacs, and will be compiled for a County Council strategic planning workshop in late March. We appreciate your input and look forward to the discussion.
- The County of Frontenac must consider a wide range of issues as it develops its next strategic plan, including those below. Which of the following priorities, choices or key issues do you feel are most important from the perspective of local residents and/or the Township?
Fairmount Home and Long Term Care Frontenac Paramedic Services Planning and Property Development Economic Development Transportation (Moving People) Roads and Bridges Regional Waste Management Future Use and Impacts of Technology Broadband and Gaps in Cell Services
HR and Talent Management Advocacy/Communications/Branding Shared Delivery of Services Financial, Debt and Tax Issues Relationships with Municipal Partners Relationships with Other Partners Environmental Issues Impacts of Climate Change Other?
- What do you feel are the most important outcomes to be accomplished by the County through its next strategic plan?
- What opportunities, risks or challenges do you see (or not) in working more closely with the County of Frontenac to deliver services and work together to find solutions on community issues?
- If the County could accomplish just one breakthrough goal in its next strategic plan, what do you feel that should be?
Consulting support provided by
© 2019, 8020Info Inc.
Page 4 of 65
Utilities Kingston
ANNUAL SUMMARY REPORT 2018 SYDENHAM WATER TREATMENT PLANT WATERWORKS NUMBER: 260069290
Reporting Period January 1, 2018- December 31, 2018
Submitted by: Jim Keech, Professional Engineer President & C.E.O.
Page 5 of 65
%re Utilities Kingston ANNUAL SUMMARY REPORT
2018 SYDENHAMWATERTREATMENT PLANT WATERWORKSNUMBER 260069290
ThisannualsummaiyreporthasbeenpreparedasrequiredunderOntarioRegulation17003
oftheSafeDrinkingWaterAct to acknowledge compliancewiththe tcims andconditions ofthe Drinking WaterWorks Pennit (DWWI>)and Municipal Drinking WaterLicence (MDWL) issued for theSydeaham WaterTreatment Plant, to comment on anyincidents of non-complianceduringthereportingperiod,to summarizethequandtiesofthewater
suppliedandtocomparethesummariestotheratedcapacityandflowratesapprovedinthe system s pennits andapprovals during the reporting period.
This report is speciBc to the Sydeaham Water Tteatment Plant (WTP) located at Point Rd.
in Sydeaham, and its associated distribudon system which selves Sydenham’s municipal water customers in tfaevillage ofSydenham. TheWTP andits associated distribudoa system are owned by the Township of South Prontenac, with Utilities Kingston acting as the operating authority.
Non-Compliancewith Terms and Conditions of the DWWPand MDWL There were no incidences ofnon-compliance during this reporting period.
Compliance with the Terms and Conditions of the DWWPand MDWL
TheTreatment Group ofUtilities Kingston, fortheTownship ofSouthFrontenac, operates andmaintains the Sydenham WaterTreatment Plant (WTP) andcomplies with the turns
andconditions ofthe DrinkingWaterWorks Pemut (DWWP) andMuaidpal Drinking watefLicence(MDWL)issuedfortheWTP. TheUnderground Infrasttucture Departtnent andtheTreatmentGroupofUrilidesKingstonoperateandmaintaintheassociated
distribution system andstorage facilides. Staffingismaintained atlevels to ensure adequate numbersoftrainedaadlicensedpersonnelareavailableforproperoperationsduring emergencyorupsetconditions,vacadon/sickrelief,or to dealwithequipmentbreakdown. ; 1
2018 Summary Report
Page 6 of 65
Utilities Kingston Qualitymanagementsystems,contingencyplansandoperationsmanualsareestablishedand arelocatedin theappropriatefacilidesandavailableto appropriatestaff. A quality management system (QMS) for the Township ofSouth Frontenac’s drinking water supply systems hasbeendeveloped andimplemented byUtilides Kingstonmanagement and staffto ensure thecontinued safetyandsecurity ofthecommunity’s drinkingwaterby meeting or exceedingthe requitemeats ofall relevant legislation andregulations, andthe DrinkingWater QualityManagement Standard.
Operations manualsincludeinformation necessaty for the dayto dayoperations and maintenanceoftheWTPanddistributionsystemaswellasinformationthatmaynot be regularly used but thatmight berequired to beaccessed quickly for various puiposes. Contingency plansincludeinformation thatmayberequired forproper operation ofthe WTP or distribution system duringemetgency or upset conditions, and contain items such as emergency plans and contact lists, alternate materials supply sources and nouficadon lists.
The operations strategy ofUtiBues Kingston includes; ensuring that permits andapprovals arein place, thatefficientmaintenance andoperations ensures the quality ofwatersupplied to its customersmeetsorexceedstheminimumrequirements assetoutin theSafeDrinking Wateract,aadthatpemussible flowrates aienot exceeded. TheTownship ofSouth Frontenac,asa meansofsourcewaterprotection,considerstheimpactofdecisionsmade within its authority on the drinking water supply source for the WTP.
Flowmeasuiingdevices formeasuring theamount ofwatertaken CtomSydenhamLake,and theamount ofwatersupplied to thedistnbudon systemarecalibiatedannuallybya third psittyr. Accuracyin thesemeasurements ensures thattteatment chemicals areprecisely appliedandthatflows donotexceedthecapacityatwhichtheWTPis designed to be efifecuve. Tliese flows arerecorded to provide current and historical infonnatton whichis
usedfot operational decisionmaking, andto allowboththepublicandtheMinistry ofthe Environment, ConservationandParks(MECP) theabilityto reviewWTPopetadons. Waterquality analyzers thatmonitorparameters suchaschlorine residualandturbidityof criticalprocessstreamsandofthewaterdiiectedto thedistributionsystemarealann equipped and are maintained in accordance with the manufacturet’s recommendations as wdl as the conditions of the DWWPand MDWL.
Water sampling is conducted to the minimum requirements ofschedule 13 ofOntario
Regukdon 17003 oftheSafeDrinking waterAct Rawwater sampling is conducted to ghre operational staffinformation required to determine the level oftteatment to make the water
potable. In-plant process stream samples provide monitoring oftteatmeat processes. Treated and distribution system sampling provides information regarding thequality of waterdelivered to customers. All ofthesesamples areanalyzedbyeitherlicensed staffofby laboratoriesaccreditedbytheStandardsCouncilofCanadathroughtheCanadian AssociationforEnvironmentalAnalyticalLaboratories.
2018 Summary Report
Page 7 of 65
Utilities Kingston All samplu^uifonnadoa, annualreports, andall otherdocumentation tequiredbythe DWWP, DWMLandreguladons areavailable for public viewing on the UtUides Kingston websiteaswdlasattheUtflidesKingstonandTownshipofSouthFrontenacoffices. Residentsofthevillage ofSydeahamareencouraged to reviewthisinfoimarion, the availability ofwhich is adverdsed through various local media.
Notifications ofAdverse Water QualityResults Under Ontario Regulation 17003, nodficattons arerequired for anyinstances where a sampleresultindicates thata parameter usedto measure waterqualityexceedsa Maximum
Acceptable Concentration (MAC). Oncea nottficarion isreceived froma laboratory,
conectiveactionasdictatedby theregulationsisinitiatedin aneffortto coafitmtheinitial
result Ifconfinned,fiutheractionmayberecommendedbytheMedicalOfficerofHealth.
Ifnotconfumed samplingwilltypicallytetum tothenormalscheduleordependingonthe parameter, Urilides Kingston maychoose to increase the sampling frequency to more closely monitortheparameterfor a periodoftime.
- NotificationofanindicatorofadversewaterqualitywasreceivedfromCaduceoa EnvironmentalLaboratoriesregardinga samplecollectedonJanuaryVf’ forTotal Colifonn
pTC) with a count of 6 cfu/lOOmL. Total chlorine residual at the rime of
samplingwas1.64mg/L.Norificauomweremadeto theSpillsActionCenterand to the Environmental Health Division ofthe local Ministty ofHealth. Resamples were collected from the same location, upstream and downstream and sent to thelab
for analysis. With the total chlorine residual present in the original sample andthe
subsequentre-samplesnotindicatinganyadveisecondittons,a contaminatedsample bottle or sampling enot is suspected.
Summaiy ofthe Quantity ofWater SuppBed During theReporting Period
Listedin Table 3 following this report are the treated water flows for the Sydenham Water Treatment Plant for the year2018.The typical Canadian averagewater usageper person is 250- 350litres pet day (source: Environment Canada). Once all services to thewater
distributionsystematecompleted,anaccuratecalcularionofwaterusageperpersonforthe
village ofSydenham can be calculated.
2018 Summary Report
Page 8 of 65
Utilities Kingston
Summary of Flow Rate Exceedances Therewerenoinstancesduringthisreportingperiodwheredailytotal flowsexceededthe maximum allowable flowrate of 1290 m3/d. Listed in Tables 1 & 2 following this report ate the rawwater flows (water taken from SydenhamLake) for the SydenhamWaterTreatment Plant for the year2018.
Summary ofTreatment Chemicals Used There are three treatment chemicals in useat this treatment plant. Sodium Hypochlorite is used fot primaty disinfecrion, XL1900 (Polyalumiaum
Chloride) used as the coagulant and
AmmoniumSulphatecombinedwithSodiumHypochloriteto formchloraminesfor secondaty chlorination for the WTP.
Sodium Hypochlorite is dosed at the treatment plant at a rate which ensures that an adequate chlorine Contact Time (CT) value is maintained for the rate of flow. Average chlorine
dosagesforthis treatmentplantareapproximately4.35mg/1. AmmoniumSulphateis added atanapproximaterate of3.5:1 ratio (chlorine/ammonia) to reactwiththe freechlorineto form chloramines for secondaty chlorinarion. An adequate chloramiaes residualis maintained at those points in the distribution system that are farthest ftom the point ofentry oftreated water to the system. Residuals ate routinely measured in the distribution system and the treatment plant chlorine dosagesareadjustedasrequired to meet the distribution system taiget residuals and the required CT values.
Typically XL1900 (Polyaluminum Chloride) dosages for this treatment plant were in the range of 15-19 mg/L Tliis dosage is also adjusted to ensure efficiency in tfaecoaguladon process asvarious changes occurin the rawwater. Changes arebasedon things suchas filterheadloss,pH, temperature, turbidity,anddiealuminumresidualin dietreatedwater.
Summary Ths Sydenham Water treatment Plant supplied water to residents ofSydenham at rates
whichallowedadequatebeatmentwhUeaotexceedingpermitted flows. Waterofgood
2018 Summary Report
Page 9 of 65
Utilities Kingston quality whichis safe to drink wasproduced by the treatment plant during this reporting period. Further information is available for this system andis included in the annual reports which can be accessed from the Utilittes Kingston Website at aww. iiliEticikiiastaii. com or is available at the Township of South Prontenac offices. For further infonnadon about this report or any questions regardingaccessibility contact MeganLockwood at mhskwniidtal. iitililicikinpslas. mm, or call 613-546-1181 Ext2 2 9 1.
2018 Summary Report
Page 10 of 65
a5 Lappan’i Ln P.O. Box 790 Kingston, Ontario K7L4X7
Utilities
(613)546-1181
Kingston
Sydenham Watcf ’t’tcabncnt Phnt - Raw Water Flowa 2018
Cubic mcKtt per day
D,.
Feb
[an
MM
16 229
1
289 139 119 151 195 55 220 44 220 78 228
239
286 300
3 4
115
5
286
152 249
6 7
100 1
8
272 Z79
9
10
285 281
11
271 82
12 13
239 241
15 16
f
17
367
236
5
143
253
245 271 18 248 210
287
236
18
216 205
19 20
an 270 35 238 71 232 61 233 98 256 135 31 259
237
21
2
22
299 265
23 34 25
1
26
209 177
27
303 206
266
28
219
29
255 277
30 31
Tad Av^Dvf PmducBDn
Avwgc Min MM
]un
229 .3 318 272
227 217 239 39 250 227 114 194 112 262
252
14
May
Apr
263 247 160
311 366
234 264 258 357
306 244
2
479
144 171 486 363
334 313
89
403
157
190
93 443 98
176 418
1
173 388
157 426
225 349 242
328
4
165
283
380
2
24
m
3
291
94
342
187
490 94
257
389
498
400
254
247 48il
489
491
490
139
217
«4
490
469
324
249
362
217
256
207
115 166 270
241 163
185 69
278 2U
242
309
439
456 489
489
279
228
312
16fi
471
53S
295
23
165
333
349 283 248
2
289
489
4fi9
445
80
70
254 489
2
67
332
2311
338
293 189
423
489
489
29
B4
137
281
233
208
193
IB 311
200
385
217
221
134 3OT
220
279
216
250
258
I
296
an
203
224
226
328 377
490
161
182 102
69 U7 477 489
321
Iffi
265
521
288
2
387
401
Dec
Nov
252
266
Z70 361
124 487 20
Oct
489 35
489
322 227
Sep
AME
N
1
285
280
269
256
473
193
4,277
3,698
- 382
4, 583
5^48
5,661
8^871
9.175
6.OTS
4391
4,483
4,217
214 138
205 132
169 141
183 isa
262 169
257 226
296 286
328 2%
304 223
255 148
224 149
211 136
30(1
303
289
443
487
489
4318
535
489
387
387
349
Pf’XWAawmit
1,290 m /d»y
YcariyAverage Average DayPmducdon Yearly Mia YcB rfyMwc
Page 1 of 3
184 245 535
Yearly Total
65, 881
Page 11 of 65
85 Lappnn’s Ln P. O. Bos 790 Kinjpton, Ontario K7L4X7
^1 Utilities
f613)M6-tI81
Kingston
SydcnhamWaterTreatment Plant- Peak(Raw) Flow 2018 Uno per minute Day
la.
Feb
Mar
Apt
482 458
1 2
458 455 Ml 444 555 443 480 361 483 461 471
482
450 429
3 4
383
5
478
6 7
487 404
372
455 407 168 465 410
414
471
8 9
10 11 12 13
513
14
470 439 477
15 16 17
479
2
516
464
467
479 483
483 377
19 20
478 482 471 491 }70 485 356 476 468 475 459 482 41i6
458
474
21 22
478 450 447 464 426
23 24 25 26 27
477 449
453
28
463
29
460 453
30 31
Max
487
PTTVAmoimt
516
555
1^44 /ftrcf/mtaii
U» mj/fl6y
443
4«0 395
490 507
443 408 vn 430 347
452 538 437 4«5 468 473
462 424
484
448
447
430
460
416
462
426
460
431
471
402
450
467
457
403
416
440
450
456 452
47C
425
41»
446
452 421 432
424
471 479
463
427
428
472
469 454
446
460
466
*S9
462
44«
440
5.02
399
424
448
438
440
420
466
631
422
436 427
599
444
455
423
435
530
425
417
434
499
462
465
448
294
437 432
438
YcariyMin Yearly Max
Page 2 of 3
406
421
431 467
455 433
416
462
470
417
474
475
420
427
459
428
444
416
461
420
424
421
461
480
473 418
424
477
440
464
422
422
420
412
461
460
455
440
SUB
631
478
475
498
Yearly Avenge Avenge Day Production
476
3
4M
431
453
530
418
428
vs
467
474 413
486
456
486
4<i2 417
U9
K.4 412
447
488
427
481
437 433
404 458 414
Dec
466
456
428 446 457
Nov
422
444
461
507
428
393
447
481
551
436
474
464 447
Oct
Sep
450
469
44S 433
6
Atift
430
440 435
492 484 511 551 448
386
18
464 479 489 459
481 472 481 351 500 471 483 468 494 481 349
lul
Iun
May
420
<S31
479
486
480
Page 12 of 65
SSLappansLn
/^.gy
P.O. Box 7W Kingston, Ontario K7L4X7
^1 Utilities
(613)546. 1181
Kingston
Sydcnham Water Ticatment Plant - Tnatod Water Flow 2018
Cubic mcten perday
0^
[in
Feb
Mar
1
257
2
278 2110
3 4
280 114 116 Ill 210 12 235 21 225 11 209
73
5
317
143 213
6 7
37
8
Z70 235
9
10
282 241
11
269 45
12 13
217
205 231
u
232 213
144
17
2
248
15
27 178
145
219 167 M4
218
13 182
19 20
313 184
252 285
as4 212
235 149
22S 40 230 28 231 55 242 101 15 212
316 203
23 24
317 144
25 26
235
27
w
262
28
196
29
287 197
30 31
93 389 55
175 345
405 »
271
397
159 382 275
259
156
187
280 TO
W) 33
291
386
230 411
252
204 435
390
260
172
390
452 182
388
234
310
242
180 284 222
361
422
208
218
71
439
299
Ill
173
274
61
201 298
273 207 285
279
216
151 151
162
428
373
25
173
166
190 272
166
313
194
170
282
20
147
221
210
321
445 52
428
238
*w
126
135
241
Z76
313
217
410
246
223
333
250
443
251
220
86
254
2U)
262
157
83
us 223 41B 84
380
4
221
244
215
400
185
285
270
228
200 264
185
90
36
174
180
118
268 328
274
170 320
147 365
a
Dec
267
2
404
406
Nov
26
331
232
274
421
21 22
151 239
Oct
262
115
258
19
30 124 35i> 375
233 201
238 190
205 201
252 Ill
Sep
Ai«
395
293
207
18
221
298 253 144 130 138 127 148
Id
)un
295
263
14
Msf
Apr
187
248
408
256
279
278
228
132
Tool Av»Dfl?
3^92
3,404
3^25
3,881
4,495
4,673
7,480
7,255
5,245
3,496
4,035
3.792
Pnxhxticn
194 119
213 122
153 123
185 134
250 us
234 159
267 241
279 234
238 ITS
206 113
212 135
200 122
316
317
280
3B9
421
449
428
328
333
298
Avwagp Min
Max
CoAAmount
1^90 m-’/dy
40fi Ycaily Average
AverageDayProduction YcartyMin
YearlyMax
Page 3 of 3
452 in 221
4S2
YcadyTotal
55,273
Page 13 of 65
2018 ANNUAL REPORT ON DRINKING WATER QUALITY JANUARY 1 TO DECEMBER.31 2018
SYDENHAM WATER TREATMENT PLANT Drinking Water System Number: 260069290 Drinking Water System Owner: Township of South Frontenac Drinking Water System Category: Large Municipal Residential
Drinking Water Quality Utilities Kingston is proud to present this annual report on drinking water quality. This report has been prepared in accordance to Section 11 of Ontario Regulation 170 03. Regulation 170 03 sets requirements for public waterworks with regard to sampling and testing, levels of treatment, licensing of staff, and notification of authorities and the public about water quality. Free copies of this report and the Summary report prepared in accordance to Schedule 22 of Ontario Regulation 170 03, are available by public request at any City of Kingston offices, at our water plant locations and at www.utilitieskingston.com. Notices of availability are generally made through the local newspapers and radio. Further information on the Drinking Water Regulations can be found on the Ministry of the Environment web site at www.ene.gov.on.ca. For further information about this report or any questions regarding accessibility contact Megan Lockwood at mlockwood@utilitieskingston.com , or call 613-546-1181 Ext 2 2 9 1
Inside This Report 1.
Plant Description and Treatment Process
Monetary expenses incurred during this reporting period
Notifications Submitted in accordance to the Safe Drinking Water Act
Definitions and Terms
Process Diagram
Water Quality Test Results
Page 14 of 65
- Plant Description & Treatment Processes Raw Water Source. The source of water treated by this plant is Sydenham Lake. The intake is located 128m east of the treatment plant, at approximately 6m of water depth. Zebra Mussel Control. Pre-chlorination takes place at the mouth of the intake. This protects the intake from becoming encrusted with zebra mussels, which would restrict the flow of water through the intake. Screening. Two stationary screens located in the low lift pumping well remove any large debris such as weeds, fish, etc. Low Lift Pumps. These pumps lift the water from lake level to the main treatment building. There are three submersible pumps each with a capacity of 7.8 l/sec which pump the water into the main building for treatment. Chemical Feed System XL1900 (Polyaluminum Chloride) is added to the water as it enters the process building just prior to passing through the in-line mixer. The particles in the water will collide with the PACl particles as the water flows in a spiral motion through the mixer, and then join together to form larger particles called floc. Filters. Three pressure filtration tanks containing a ceramic filtration media remove the floc
formed from the addition of PACl and the particles present in the water. Water flows through the filters into two baffled clean water reservoirs called clear wells. Backwash. Filters are washed to remove the particulates they have collected over the previous 48 hrs. Clean water from the clear well is pumped backwards through the filter, and the filter is agitated by air scouring the filter media to break up any large particles. Process Waste Management Effluent water from the backwash process is directed to a backwash storage tank for further settling. The supernatant (the clear water at the top of the tank after settling) is directed back to Sydenham Lake and the settled sludge is mechanically removed and sent for further treatment. GAC Contactors During periods of high dissolved organic content in the source water, filter effluent water is directed to two pressure filtration tanks containing granular activated carbon (GAC). The GAC contactors assist in the removal of dissolved organics which react with chlorine to produce chlorination byproducts. The GAC contactors are periodically backwashed to remove the particulates they have collected. Primary Disinfection Primary disinfection of the filtered water is achieved via UV light and free chlorine residual. 2 UV reactors (duty/standby) each using 12 low pressure high output lamps, provide the UV light disinfection. Free chlorine disinfection follows the UV process with the use of two chemical metering pumps
1 2018 Annual Report
Page 15 of 65
(duty/standby) which provide sodium hypochlorite to an application point downstream of the UV reactors at the entrance to the detention piping.
Elevated Tank. The elevated tank has a storage capacity of 1019 m3 and provides pressure to the distribution system.
Secondary Disinfection Secondary disinfection is the maintenance of a disinfectant residual throughout the distribution system which is achieved with chloramines. Following the free chlorine disinfection process, ammonium sulphate is added with the use of two chemical metering pumps (duty/standby), at an approximate rate of 4:1 ratio (chlorine/ammonia), to react with the free chlorine residual to form chloramines. The application dosages of sodium hypochlorite and ammonium sulphate is adjusted to produce a sufficient in plant combined chlorine residual to ensure that minimum residuals are maintained in the distribution system.
Distribution System. There are approximately 6363 meters of water mains, and 47 fire hydrants in the system. Once all connections to the distribution system have been completed, the drinking water system will supply water to 274 customer connections.
Clear Wells. Two baffled clear wells, each with a volume of 115 m3, provide storage of filtered water and allow for a sufficient amount of chlorine contact time with the water to ensure proper disinfection. High Lift Pumps. Three high lift pumps move treated water from the clear wells into the distribution system. Standby Equipment. A 130 kW standby diesel generator provides electricity to the water plant during power interruptions. The generator and standby equipment is tested regularly to ensure proper operation when required.
- Monetary expenses incurred during this reporting period Under Section 11 of Ontario Reg. 170/03, a description of any major expenses incurred during this reporting period must be included in the annual report. The major expenses for this drinking water system are listed below. -Leak detection was performed by Utilities Kingston underground infrastructure department in order to locate water leaks in the distribution system.
- Replacement of one of the three filter pressure vessels including underdrain system, garnet and filter media.
- Replacement of UV reactor bulb and quartz sleeve.
- Installation of a Variable Frequency Drive system on high lift #3 in preparation for future work required on the water tower. -Cleanout and inspection of both treated water clear wells at the plant.
2 2018 Annual Report
Page 16 of 65
the lab for analysis. With the total chlorine residual present in the original sample and the subsequent resamples not indicating any adverse conditions, a contaminated sample bottle or sampling error is suspected.
-Extensive system flushing in the summer of 2018 for chloramination residual management
- Notifications submitted in accordance to the Safe Drinking Water Act
Under Ontario Reg. 170/03, notifications were required for any instances where a sample result indicated that a parameter used to measure water quality exceeded a Maximum Acceptable Concentration (MAC). Once a notification is received from a laboratory or an observation of any other indicator of adverse water quality is made by operations personnel, corrective action as dictated by the regulations is initiated in an effort to confirm the initial result. If confirmed, further action may be recommended by the Medical Officer of Health. If not confirmed sampling will typically return to the normal schedule, or depending on the parameter, Utilities Kingston may choose to increase the sampling frequency to more closely monitor the parameter for a period of time.
Notification of an indicator of adverse water quality was received from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories regarding a sample collected on January 10th for Total Coliform (TC) with a count of 6 cfu/100mL. Total chlorine residual at the time of sampling was 1.64 mg/L. Notifications were made to the Spills Action Center and to the Environmental Health Division of the local Ministry of Health. Resamples were collected from the same location, upstream and downstream and sent to
- Definition & Terms TCU - True Colour Units mg
- milligram
N/A - Not Applicable N/D - Non -Detectable NTU - Nephelometric Turbidity Units - A measure of the amount of particles in water. mg/l - Milligrams per litre. This is a measure of the concentration of a parameter in water, also called parts per million (ppm). µg/L - Micrograms per litre, also called parts per billion. ng/l - Nanograms per litre, parts per trillion. Parameter-A substance that we sample and analyze for in the water. AO
- Aesthetic objective. AOs are not health related, but may affect the taste, odour, colour or clarity of the water OG - Operational guideline. Set to ensure efficient treatment and distribution of water. MAC - Maximum Acceptable Concentration. This is a health-related drinking water standard established for contaminants having known or suspected
3 2018 Annual Report
Page 17 of 65
adverse health effects when above a certain concentration. The length of time the MAC can be exceeded without injury to health will depend on the nature and concentration of the parameter.
4 2018 Annual Report
Page 18 of 65
- Flow Diagram
5 2018 Annual Report
Page 19 of 65
- Water Quality Test Results Microbiological testing done under regulation 170 03, during this reporting period MAC (E. Coli & Total Coliforms)
Number of Samples
Range of E. Coli or Fecal Results (min # - max # )
Range of Total Coliform Results (min # - max #)
Number of HPC Samples
Range of HPC Results ( min # max #)
Raw
N/A
52
0 - 20
0 – 1,080
0
Treated
51
0
0
51
<10 – 40
Distribution System
107
0
0-6
54
<10 – 150
*Indicator of adverse water quality if detected
Operational testing done under schedule 7, 8 or 9 of regulation 170/03 during this reporting period Parameter
MAC
Number of Samples
Range of Results
Results Average
Unit of Measure
Parameter Description
( min # max #) Turbidity Raw Water
N/A
Continuous
0.215 – 2.61*
N/A
NTU
Turbidity is a measure of particles in water.
Turbidity Treated Water
N/A
Continuous
0.131 – 1.07*
N/A
NTU
Turbidity is a measure of particles in water.
Combined Chlorine Residual Treated Water
See parameter description
Continuous
0.84 – 2.80*
N/A
mg/l
Recommended level of at least 1.00 mg/l in distribution system to maintain microbiological quality. 0.25 mg/l minimum.
Turbidity Filter#1
1.0 NTU for
15 min.
Continuous
0.03 – 0.96
0.16
NTU
Turbidity is a measure of particles in water.
Turbidity Filter#2
1.0 NTU for
Continuous
0.04 – 0.85
0.16
NTU
Turbidity is a measure of
6 2018 Annual Report
Page 20 of 65
Parameter
MAC
Number of Samples
Range of Results
Results Average
Unit of Measure
Parameter Description
( min # max #)
15 min.
particles in water.
Turbidity Filter#3
1.0 NTU for
15 min.
Continuous
0.03 – 0.92
0.16
NTU
Turbidity is a measure of particles in water.
Chloramines Residual Distribution System
See parameter description
Continuous
0.40 – 2.58
N/A
mg/l
Recommended level of at least 1.0 mg/l combined chlorine in distribution system to maintain microbiological quality. 0.25 mg/l combined chlorine minimum.
- Note: For these parameters the range of results is determined through in house lab testing.
Additional testing and sampling carried out in accordance with the requirements of the DWWP or MDWL Sample Location
MAC
Parameter
Number of Samples
Results Average
Unit of Measure
Parameter Description
15
Total Suspended Solids
12
7.8
mg/l
A measure of the particulates collected in the filtration process.
Backwash Wastewater Effluent
Summary of Raw water parameters tested during this reporting period Parameter
MAC
Number of Samples
Results Range
Unit of Measure
7 2018 Annual Report
MAC Exceedance
Parameter Description
Page 21 of 65
Parameter
MAC
Number of Samples
Results Range
Unit of Measure
MAC Exceedance
Parameter Description
Microcystin
1.5
22
<0.10 – 1.18
µg/L
No
Naturally occurring (released from blooms of blue-green algae)
Summary of treated water Schedule 23 inorganic parameters tested during this reporting period Parameter
MAC
Number of Samples
Results Range
Unit of Measure
MAC Exceedance
Parameter Description
Antimony
0.006
1
<0.0001
mg/l
No
Discharge from petroleum refineries; fire retardants; ceramics; electronics; solder
Arsenic
0.025
1
0.0002
mg/l
No
Naturally occurring in surface waters / mine drainage
Barium
1.0
1
0.045
mg/l
No
Erosion of natural deposits. Discharge from metal refineries, oil drilling wastes.
Boron
5.0
1
0.020
mg/l
No
Erosion of natural deposits, industrial waste effluents.
Cadmium
0.005
1
< 0.000015
mg/l
No
Industrial discharge
Chromium
0.05
1
<0.002
mg/l
No
Industrial residues
Mercury
0.001
1
<0.00002
mg/l
No
Erosion of natural deposits, industrial discharges.
Selenium
0.01
1
< 0.001
mg/l
No
Discharge from refineries, mines, chemical manufacture
Uranium
0.02
1
< 0.00005
mg/l
No
Erosion of natural deposits.
8 2018 Annual Report
Page 22 of 65
Summary of treated water Schedule 24 organic parameters tested during this reporting period Parameter
MAC
Number of Samples
Results Range
Unit of Measure
MAC Exceedance
Parameter Description
Alachlor
5
1
<0.3
µg/L
No
Agricultural herbicide
Atrazine + Ndealkylated metobolites
5
1
<0.5
µg/L
No
Azinphos-methyl
20
1
<1
µg/L
No
Insecticide
Benzene
5
1
<0.5
µg/L
No
Discharge from plastics manufacturing, leaking fuel tanks
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.01
1
<0.005
µg/L
No
Formed from the incomplete burning of organic matter.
Bromoxynil
5
1
<0.3
µg/L
No
Agricultural herbicide
Carbaryl
90
1
<3
µg/L
No
Agricultural/Forestry/ Household insecticide
Carbofuran
90
1
<1
µg/L
No
Agricultural insecticide
Carbon Tetrachloride
5
1
<0.2
µg/L
No
Discharge from chemical and industrial activities
Chlorpyrifos
90
1
<0.5
µg/L
No
Agricultural/ Household insecticide
Diazinon
20
1
<1
µg/L
No
Agricultural/ Livestock Operation/ Residential insecticide
Dicamba
120
1
<5
µg/L
No
Agricultural herbicide
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
200
1
<0.1
µg/L
No
Discharge from industrial chemical factories
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
5
1
<0.2
µg/L
No
Discharge from industrial chemical factories
Agricultural herbicide
9 2018 Annual Report
Page 23 of 65
Parameter
MAC
Number of Samples
Results Range
Unit of Measure
MAC Exceedance
Parameter Description
1,2-Dichloroethane
5
1
<0.1
µg/L
No
Discharge from industrial chemical factories
1,1-Dichloroethylene
14
1
<0.1
µg/L
No
Discharge from industrial chemical factories
Dichloromethane
50
1
<0.3
µg/L
No
Discharge from pharmaceutical and chemical factories
2-4 Dichlorophenol
900
1
<0.1
µg/L
No
Industrial contamination/ reaction with chlorine
2,4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4-D)
100
1
<5
µg/L
No
Agricultural/ Residential herbicide
Diclofop-methyl
9
1
<0.5
µg/L
No
Agricultural herbicide
Dimethoate
20
1
<1
µg/L
No
Agricultural/ Livestock Operation/ Forestry insecticide
Diquat
70
1
<5
µg/L
No
Agricultural/ Aquatic herbicide
Diuron
150
1
<5
µg/L
No
Agricultural/ Industrial/ herbicide
Glyphosate
280
1
<25
µg/L
No
Agricultural/Forestry/ Household herbicide
Malathion
190
1
<5
µg/L
No
Fruit & Vegetable / pest control insecticide
2-methyl-4chlorophenoxyacetic acid (MCPA)
0.1
1
< 0.00010
mg/L
No
Metolachlor
50
1
<3
µg/L
No
Agricultural herbicide
Metribuzin
80
1
<3
µg/L
No
Agricultural herbicide
(vinylidene chloride)
10 2018 Annual Report
Leaching and/or runoff from agricultural and other uses
Page 24 of 65
Parameter
MAC
Number of Samples
Results Range
Unit of Measure
MAC Exceedance
Parameter Description
Monochlorobenzene
80
1
<0.2
µg/L
No
Discharge from industrial and agricultural chemical factories and dry cleaning facilities
Paraquat
10
1
<1
µg/L
No
Agricultural/ Aquatic herbicide
Pentachlorophenol
60
1
<0.1
µg/L
No
Pesticide/ wood preservative residue
Phorate
2
1
<0.3
µg/L
No
Agricultural insecticide
Picloram
190
1
<5
µg/L
No
Industrial herbicide
Polychlorinated Biphenyls(PCB)
3
1
<0.05
µg/L
No
Residue from various industrial uses
Prometryne
1
1
<0.1
µg/L
No
Agricultural herbicide
Simazine
10
1
<0.5
µg/L
No
Agricultural herbicide or its residue
Terbufos
1
1
<0.3
µg/L
No
Agricultural insecticide
Tetrachloroethylene
30
1
<0.2
µg/L
No
Leaching from PVC pipes; discharge from factories, dry cleaners and auto shops (metal degreaser)
2,3,4,6Tetrachlorophenol
100
1
<0.1
µg/L
No
Triallate
230
1
<10
µg/L
No
Agricultural herbicide
Trichloroethylene
5
1
<0.1
µg/L
No
Discharge from metal degreasing sites and other factories
2,4,6Trichlorophenol
5
1
<0.1
µg/L
No
Trifluralin
45
1
<0.5
µg/L
No
11 2018 Annual Report
Wood preservative
Pesticide manufacturing Agricultural herbicide
Page 25 of 65
Parameter
MAC
Number of Samples
Results Range
Unit of Measure
MAC Exceedance
Parameter Description
Vinyl Chloride
2
1
<0.2
µg/L
No
Leaching from PVC pipes; discharge from plastics factories
Summary of other regulatory treated water parameters tested during this reporting period Parameter
MAC
Number of Samples
Results Range
Unit of Measure
MAC Exceedance
Parameter Description
Fluoride
1.5
1
<0.1
mg/l
No
Naturally occurring.
Nitrite
1
4
<0.1
mg/l
No
A natural component of water at this level.
Nitrate
10
4
<0.1 – 0.2
mg/l
No
Runoff from fertilizer use, erosion of natural deposits
Sodium
20
1
11.4
mg/l
No
Occurs naturally in the earth’s crust. *Notification is required every 60 months if greater than 20 mg/l.
Summary of additional treated water parameters tested during this reporting period Parameter
MAC
Number of Samples
Results Range
Unit of Measure
MAC Exceedance
Parameter Description
Microcystin
1.5
22
<0.1 – <0.15
µg/L
No
Naturally occurring (released from blooms of blue-green algae)
12 2018 Annual Report
Page 26 of 65
Summary of regulatory distribution drinking water parameters tested during this reporting period Parameter
MAC
Number of Samples
Result Value
Unit of Measure
Exceedance
Parameter Description
N/A
14
96 – 125
mg/l
No
A measure of the resistance of the water to the effects of acids. Expressed as calcium carbonate.
0.08 (Annual avg.)
4
0.025
mg/L
No
By-product of drinking water disinfection with chlorine. Based on a running annual average
0.01
13
0.000070.00068
mg/l
No
Internal corrosion of household plumbing, erosion of natural deposits.
pH
6.5–8.5 OG
2
8.01 - 8.10
No
An indicator of the acidity of water.
Total Trihalomethanes
100
4
0.033
No
By-product of chlorination.
- The MAC for THMs of 100 µg/L is based on a running annual average.
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Total Haloacetic acids
Lead
µg/L
(Annual avg.)
Summary of raw water testing analyzed by in house laboratory during this reporting period Parameter
MAC
Number of Samples
Results Range
Unit of Measure
Exceedance
Parameter Description
N/A
113
55.5 – 90.6
%
No
UV transmittance is a measure of the percentage of transmittance of UV light
UV Transmittance
13 2018 Annual Report
Page 27 of 65
Summary of treated water testing analyzed by in house laboratory during this reporting period Parameter
MAC
Number of Samples
Results Range
Unit of Measure
Exceedance
0.1
107
0.002 – 0.145
mg/l
No
N/A
113
0.07 – 0.55
mg/l
No
Residual from the addition of Ammonium Sulphate for the secondary disinfection process
3.0
113
0.84 – 2.50
mg/L.
No
Chloramines are produced when ammonia is added to chlorinated water during the disinfection process.
N/A
116
79.8 – 94.9
%
No
UV transmittance is a measure of the percentage of transmittance of UV light
Aluminum
Free Ammonia
Monochloramines
UV Transmittance
14 2018 Annual Report
Parameter Description
May be naturally present or a residual from the coagulation process.
Page 28 of 65
REPORT TO COUNCIL TREASURY DEPARTMENT AGENDA DATE:
March 12, 2019
SUBJECT:
Changes to Tax Levy By-law
RECOMMENDATION: For information BACKGROUND: Now that Council has adopted the 2019 Capital and Operating Budget the next step is to adopt the Tax bylaw. Typically, the tax levy by-law is brought forward without a staff information report, however for 2019 there is a change with the wording of the by-law that will impact approximately 250 Commercial, Industrial, Multi-Residential, Parking lot or mixed assessment properties. In 2019 capping has been completely phased out County wide. Previously, the timing of the capping information for Commercial, Industrial, Multi-Residential, Parking lot or mixed assessment required us to separately process the final tax billing for these 250 properties in August with a due date of August and September. As capping no longer applies and to improve the efficiency of the billing process, these properties will now be incorporated into our June billing. All properties including the 250 Commercial, Industrial, Multi-Residential, Parking lot or mixed assessment properties will be processed at the same time as all other properties with a consistent due date of June and September. Once the by-law is approved, all property owners impacted with this change will be sent a letter explaining the change to the billing cycle in advance of receiving the June tax bill. A Tax Bylaw, incorporating this change will be brought forward on March 19. ATTACHMENTS None
Submitted/approved/prepared by: Louise Fragnito, Director of Corporate Services & Treasurer
Our strength is our community.
Page 29 of 65
REPORT TO COUNCIL OFFICE OF C.A.O.
AGENDA DATE:
March 12, 2019
SUBJECT:
New Administration Office – Next Steps
RECOMMENDATION: That Council direct the Mayor and CAO to participate in a joint session with the County and CRCA Board members on March 27 and report back to Council. BACKGROUND: On February 19, Council was provided a copy of a Shared Facility Analysis. This assessment was produced as a result of preliminary discussions with the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority and the County of Frontenac about a new, joint administration facility. Council direction was to bring this matter back for discussion prior to taking any next steps. Forming the basis for this review, staff from each organization identified its current and future space needs. The three agencies then jointly funded an architect to conceptualize those needs and evaluate the estimated capital and operating costs of each organization building its own facility against the costs for a combined facility where common space, such as meeting rooms and washrooms could be shared. The report is attached again for your reference. The report considered factors beyond cost and can be reviewed independently. However readers are cautioned that the space configuration is only a block concept and has not been designed around function. The cost implications can be summed up as a joint facility saving $2.7 million dollars in capital costs and $110,000 in operating costs. The other two potential partners are interested in holding a joint session of their facility committees on March 27 at 1:00 pm at the County offices to further discuss the merits of proceeding and better understand the needs and concerns of all partners. Before proceeding to far along the discussions, Council needs to consider many factors including:
If it intends to proceed with planning for a new administration facility, as contemplated in the long range financial plan If it wants to enter into a shared facility model If it wants to explore different alternatives What type of ownership model is Council willing to participate in
Once this broad direction is provided, further recommendations will come through the Corporate Services Committee. FINANCIAL/STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: The long range financial forecast contemplates a new administration facility in 2022 and induces a place holder for $2.75million ATTACHMENTS:
Our strength is our community.
Page 30 of 65
REPORT TO COUNCIL OFFICE OF C.A.O.
Shared facility Analysis – Feb 4, 2019
Submitted/approved by:
Prepared by:
Wayne Orr, CAO
Wayne Orr, CAO
Our strength is our community.
Page 31 of 65
CKA
SHARED FACILITY ANALYSIS
for
CRCA / County of Frontenac / Township of South Frontenac
February 4, 2019
COLBOURNE & KEMBEL, ARCHITECTS INC.
Page 32 of 65
CRCA / County of Frontenac / Township of South Frontenac
Shared Facility Analysis February 4, 2018
Note to Reader: This analysis is based on basic space needs estimates provided by the users. No in-depth functional needs analysis has been completed at this point in the process. Refer to ‘Background & Assumptions’ paragraphs below. All floor plans and site plans have been created for cost comparison purposes only, and thus should not be considered concept designs or draft plans.
- INTRODUCTION 1.1. The Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority, County of Frontenac, and the Township of South Frontenac are discussing the possibility of constructing a joint facility, shared by all three groups, to serve as a base for the services offered by all three bodies. Colbourne & Kembel, Architects Inc (CKA) was retained by the Planning Group to complete conceptual plans and high-level cost analysis to inform the business case for moving forward. The designs and analysis below explore two options: Individual buildings for each group, and a shared facility for all three groups. The intent is to clarify what potential efficiencies can be realized by constructing and operating a shared building, including consideration of associated site and building services, as opposed to each group building and operating its own facility. 1.2. The three groups who are considering participation in this joint facility are: 1.2.1. Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) – A provincially mandated water management agency that manages 11 watersheds in the region, spanning from Brockville to Adolphustown, and north as far as Newboro, the CRCA currently runs their operations out of the Little Cataraqui Creek Conservation Area, just north of Kingston, where they house more than 30 planners, engineers, foresters, biologists, education specialists, and administrative & operations staff. 1.2.2. County of Frontenac (CF) – The county encompasses almost 4,000 square kilometres, from Wolfe Island in the south, and northward as far as Black Donald Lake. It is made up of four municipalities: Central Frontenac, Frontenac Islands, North Frontenac, and South Frontenac. Its offices are currently located on Battersea Road in Glenburnie. 1.2.3. Township of South Frontenac (SF) – Located in Frontenac County, South Frontenac is an amalgamation of the former townships of Bedford, Loughborough, Portland, and Storrington. Their administrative offices are currently located on George Street in Sydenham. 1.3. The joint planning group provided CKA with a space allocation estimate from each user group, specifying required space for staff and the public (refer to Appendix C - Shared Facilities Concept Planning Session). In that estimate were included areas that could be considered ‘shareable’ in a joint facility scenario. In general, the spaces considered sharable in the client program are meeting rooms, reception, washrooms, showers / lockers, kitchen / lunch room, and mechanical room. Although not all user groups listed them as such, we would also consider the IT / server room and the mail / copier room as shareable and have shown these accordingly on our concept plans.
Page 33 of 65 CRCA/Frontenac/South Frontenac Shared Facility Analysis
Feb 4, 2019
- BACKGROUND & ASSUMPTIONS 2.1. For the purposes of this analysis, we have assumed that all theoretical building sites will be of adequate size to fit all interior spaces on a single storey, and large enough to fit all required site work, including parking, fire access, and site services, including a septic system. Naturally, each concept is entirely hypothetical, and is being designed solely for costing purposes. For this reason, no architectural features or finishes that are only aesthetic are being shown or considered. This means that the resulting costing is base-line and more valid for comparison purposes. 2.2. For all occupancy-related assumptions, occupant loads have been calculated based on the following loads formulas that are stipulated by the OBC or the applicable by-laws: Meeting Rooms (A2 Occupancy) .75 m2/person (or 8.07 ft2/person) Office spaces (D Occupancy) for water closets 14 m2/person (or 151 ft2/person) 2.3. In reality, those spaces may well be designed with posted occupancy limits lower than the calculated values. However, for the sake of valid comparison, we have used the regulation formulas so that all figures are comparable. 2.4. For the load calculation of the office areas (D occupancy) we’ve used the staff count listed in the user’s space needs chart, plus 10 additional ‘visiting’ occupants, which would allow for increased occupancy for future growth, visiting clientele, summer students, interns, temporary staff, etc. 2.5. For the ‘dedicated’ floor space for each user group, we have used the estimates in the Space Allocation Estimates provided by each group, adjusted if necessary for space deemed ‘sharable’ in our joint facility. 2.6. For the calculation of the total area of meeting rooms required (A2 occupancy), we have used the areas on the conceptual floor plans, since the shared facility meeting room requirements are obviously based on meeting the needs of all users, and thus are based on a designed layout as opposed to hypothetical floor areas. 2.7. Similarly, for ‘shared’ or ‘shareable’ space we have used the areas drawn from the conceptual floor plans, since this area will more accurately reflect the efficiencies possible with the shared facility. 2.8. For purposes of consistency, it has been assumed that all concept buildings are in the Township of South Frontenac. Comprehensive Zoning By-Law Number 2003-75 has been used. 2.9. We are assuming the buildings would be on a lot zoned CF (Community Facility). It’s possible that they would be considered RC (Rural Commercial), but the lot size and road frontage requirements are the same for both of these zones, with only a slight difference in setback requirements. 2.10. We have calculated required parking using two different methods. For the comparative cost estimates, we have used the more stringent method. In reality, the numbers may be able to be reduced using lower posted occupancy limits, and by clarifying when full capacity may or may not occur. The two methods are: Assuming that the entire building is a government building, and falls under by-law paragraph 5.30.1.9, where one parking space is required for every 247.6 ft2 (23 m2) Assuming that the office space and 1/2 of the common space is a government building as above, and that the meeting space and 1/2 of the common space is a place of assembly and fall under by-law paragraph 5.30.1.13, where one parking space is required for every 3 people at maximum occupancy. This is the assumption we use in our estimates below.
2
Page 34 of 65 CRCA/Frontenac/South Frontenac Shared Facility Analysis
Feb 4, 2019
2.11. The required area for a septic drainage bed varies widely depending on soil and drainage conditions of a specific site. For the purposes of comparison, we have used a hypothetical drainage bed from a project with a similar occupancy to the CRCA building, and we’ve adjusted the size proportionally for each concept. When an actual site is selected, the size of the drainage bed would need to be based on the actual site condition and could be quite different than the hypothetical. 2.12. Note that because the user-provided floor areas were provided in imperial units, our figures in this report are also imperial. Typically, we would use metric units. 3. FACILITY OPTIONS (refer to Appendix A - Floor Plans) 3.1. Separate Facilities for Each Organization 3.1.1. Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority 3.1.1.1. According to the estimates in the ‘Shared Facilities Concept Planning Guide’, the CRCA requires 6,830 ft2 of dedicated office space. This figure includes an IT Room and lockers/showers. In our analysis, we have deemed these as shareable spaces, so for our concept plan we have adjusted this to 4,805 ft2. Based on the concept floor plan for a stand-alone CRCA building, an additional 5,613 ft2 would be required for building services, corridors, meeting rooms, and other spaces which could be considered ‘shareable’ space. The meeting rooms total 1,950 ft2. The staff count comes to 34. 3.1.1.2. The building has a gross floor area of 10,418 ft2. For the concept plan, there is a calculated maximum occupant load of 292 persons for the calculation of water closets. For the calculation of parking spaces, we’ve assigned 7,473 ft2 as office space and 2,945 ft2 as assembly space. This means there will need to be: 5 water closets for males 7 water closets for females 151 standard parking spaces 3 barrier free parking spaces 3.1.2. County of Frontenac 3.1.2.1. According to the estimates in the ‘Shared Facilities Concept Planning Guide’, the County of Frontenac requires 4,374 ft2 of dedicated office space. Based on the concept floor plan for a stand-alone County of Frontenac building, an additional 3,961 ft2 would be required for building services, corridors, meeting rooms, and other spaces which could be considered ‘shareable’ space. The meeting rooms total 1,250 ft2. The staff count comes to 27. 3.1.2.2. The building has a gross floor area of 8,335 ft2. For the concept plan, there is a calculated maximum occupant load of 192 persons for the calculation of water closets. For the calculation of parking spaces, we’ve assigned 6,357 ft2 as office space and 1,978 ft2 as assembly space. This means there will need to be: 4 water closets for males 6 water closets for females 106 standard parking spaces 3 barrier free parking space 3.1.3. South Frontenac 3.1.3.1. According to the estimates in the ‘Shared Facilities Concept Planning Guide’, the Township of South Frontenac requires 6,495 ft2 of dedicated office space.
3
Page 35 of 65 CRCA/Frontenac/South Frontenac Shared Facility Analysis
3.1.3.2.
Feb 4, 2019
This figure includes mail room/copier room/ lockers/showers. In our analysis, we have deemed these as sharable spaces, so for our concept plan we have adjusted this to 5,997 ft2. Based on the concept floor plan for a stand-alone South Frontenac building, an additional 5,607 ft2 would be required for building services, corridors, meeting rooms, and other spaces which could be considered ‘shareable’ space. The meeting rooms total 1,748 ft2. The staff count comes to 33. The building has a gross floor area of 11,604 ft2. For the concept plan, there is a calculated maximum occupant load of 259 persons for the calculation of water closets. For the calculation of parking spaces, we’ve assigned 8,866 ft2 as office space and 2,738 ft2 as assembly space. This means there will need to be: 5 water closets for males 7 water closets for females 148 standard parking spaces 3 barrier free parking space
3.2. Joint Facility 3.2.1. Since part of the goal of this analysis was to lay out conceptual plans for a joint facility, for our occupancy calculations on the shared facility we are using the areas from our concept plan. The total area of floor space dedicated to the user groups is 15,176 ft2. Based on the concept plan for a shared facility, an additional 11,191 ft2 of common, or ‘shared’ spaces would be required, including building services, corridors, meeting rooms, etc. The meeting rooms, which are configured to meet the needs of all user groups, total 2,903 ft2. The total staff count is 94. 3.2.2. The building has a gross floor area of 26,367 ft2 (2,450 m2). For the concept plan there is a calculated maximum occupant load of 422 persons for the calculation of water closets. For the calculation of parking spaces, we have assigned 21,860 ft2 as office space and 4,507 ft2 as assembly space. This means there will need to be: 7 water closets for males 10 water closets for females 274 standard parking spaces 4 barrier free parking spaces 4. BY-LAW ANALYSIS AND SITE AREA 4.1. For the purposes of this study, it has been assumed that all hypothetical sites will be in the Township of South Frontenac, and that Comprehensive Zoning By-Law No. 2003-75 will apply. In reality, the hypothetical individual buildings could be located in other jurisdictions, but overall this would not have a significant impact on the requirements or costs, and to simplify the comparison, we have based our analysis on one jurisdiction. 4.2. We have assumed that an appropriate lot can be found for each building within South Frontenac, and although by-law paragraph 5.17.1 allows that local government buildings can be built in any zone so long as they comply with the restrictions of that zone, our analysis is based on the restrictions of a CF Zone (Community Facility), as laid out in Section 29 of the by-law: Lot Area (Minimum) 8000 sq. metres (86,114 sq. ft.) Lot Frontage (Minimum) 76 metres (250 ft.) Front Yard (Minimum) 10 metres (32.8 ft.)
4
Page 36 of 65 CRCA/Frontenac/South Frontenac Shared Facility Analysis
Feb 4, 2019
Rear Yard (Minimum) 10 metres (32.8 ft.) Interior Side Yard (Minimum) 7.5 metres (24.6 ft.) Exterior Side Yard (Minimum) 10 metres (32.8 ft.) Lot Coverage (Maximum) 40 percent Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 5.30.
- Ontario Building Code (OBC) ANALYSIS 5.1. As stated earlier, we have assumed the site for each of the concept buildings will be of sufficient size to allow for a one-storey building. For every building, the selection of which OBC building conformance article to design to is based on site and design specific criteria. Factors that influence the decision and impact the required design include Occupancy Classification, building area, # of storeys, # of streets (or on-site access lanes) facing, combustible or noncombustible, and sprinklered or not. 5.2. If the selected site is on municipal water service, then providing a sprinkler and/or standpipe system is easier and less costly than if the site relies on a well for water supply. Since the only area in Frontenac County that has municipal water is the village of Sydenham, it is appropriate to consider that this building may be on a rural site with well water supply. 5.3. In terms of occupancy, all three User Groups are a Group D (offices) occupancy, however the inclusion of public meeting space above and beyond meeting space for occupants means that this becomes an A2 (Assembly) occupancy. If the building is designed to avoid a sprinkler system, the applicable Conformance Article would therefore be 3.2.2.25. 5.4. For all three of the individual buildings, the building area is small enough that under 3.2.2.25 they can face just one street, be non-sprinklered, and be of either combustible or noncombustible construction. 5.5. For the Joint Facility, the estimated building area of 2,450 m2 slightly exceeds the maximum permitted area under 3.2.2.25, even assuming it faces 3 streets. However, there are various options in the subsequent design stage to resolve this issue, including sprinkler the building if it lies in the serviced area of Sydenham (and use a different conformance article), reduce the building area slightly to be under 2,400 m2 (but this then leaves no flexibility for future additions unless they are separate ‘buildings’), or divide the ‘building’ in to two ‘buildings’ with a firewall. 5.6. If the building is not sprinklered, then depending on its location, fire department response time and availability of nearby fire department accessible water supply, there may be the need to include a fire tank on-site.
- COST ESTIMATES (refer to Appendix B - Cost Estimates) 6.1. Initial Costs (site & construction) 6.1.1.Separate Facilities: If each user group were to purchase their own site and construct a stand-alone facility using standard commercial-grade construction materials, the total sum cost would be approximately $9.9 M. 6.1.2.Joint Facility: A shared site and facility that housed all three user groups constructed using standard commercial-grade construction materials would cost approximately $7.2 M, for a savings of $2.7 M. 6.1.3. Environmental Sustainability: If an energy efficiency certification system (see 6.3.1 below) is utilized in the design and construction of stand-alone buildings, the total sum cost would be approximately $11.9 M (based on a rough up-charge of 20% for high energy efficiency design and construction, including consulting fees for certification). If the same 5
Page 37 of 65 CRCA/Frontenac/South Frontenac Shared Facility Analysis
Feb 4, 2019
system was utilized in the design and construction of a joint facility, the cost would be approximately $8.6 M, for a savings of $3.3 M compared to three stand-alone sites. 6.2. Operating Costs 6.2.1. Separate Facilities: Using rough estimates of the cost to run and maintain these hypothetical buildings, we estimate that the sum total annual cost to operate three standalone facilities of standard commercial-grade construction would be approximately $455 K. 6.2.2. Joint Facility: The annual cost to operate and maintain one site and building that houses all three groups in a building of standard commercial-grade construction would be approximately $345 K, for savings of $110 K per year compared to three stand-alone sites. 6.2.3. Environmental Sustainability: If an energy efficiency certification system (see 6.3.1 below) was utilized in the design and construction of stand-alone buildings, the total sum annual cost to operate and maintain the three sites would be approximately $340 K (based on a rough savings of 25% in maintenance & operating costs). If the same system was utilized in the joint facility, the annual operating and maintenance cost would be approximately $260 K, providing an annual savings of approximately $80 K compared to three stand-alone sites. Note that the savings realized by a certified energy efficient joint facility are less than those realized by a non-certified facility because the overall operating costs are lower. The life cycle costs are lowest in a certified joint facility, as illustrated in the attached life cycle cost spreadsheet. 6.3. Life Cycle Cost Analysis: 6.3.1.There are several recognized certification systems used in Canada to quantify and designate the design and construction of buildings as environmentally sustainable and responsible. The most widely recognized of these would be ‘Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design’ (LEED), but there is also the ‘Zero Carbon Building Initiative’ (aka Net Zero, or Carbon Neutral), ‘Passive House’, and ‘Green Globes’. All of these systems have their pros and cons, but each of them in their own way promotes and recognizes building owners and designers for constructing a structure that responds to the global crisis of our times by investing in methods, materials and technologies that reduce or eliminate the carbon footprint of a construction project. ‘Zero Carbon’, operated by the Canadian Green Building Council, is currently considered the best practice certification system in Canada. 6.3.2.Using a standard 30-year study period, the attached spreadsheet calculates a simple linear life cycle projection of a certified high-efficiency building (as per Zero Carbon, LEED, or other energy efficiency certification system) versus a non-certified facility. Note that the analysis does not include projected capital costs, financing costs, residual costs, or discount rates. This is simply an annualized operating cost projection to illustrate the longterm benefits of employing an energy efficiency certification system in the design and construction of a new building. 6.3.3. Although the initial cost of a high-efficiency building is higher, the utility costs (due to efficient energy and water uses) and maintenance costs (due to higher-quality and more durable finishes and materials) are lower. Additionally, user comfort and air quality both contribute to lower absenteeism and lower health care costs (these are difficult to include in a life cycle analysis, but financially benefit the owners of a building nevertheless). 6.3.4. Our analysis shows a payback period for a high-efficiency facility at approximately 16 years. Over the 30-year life cycle, a total savings of approximately $1.17 M could be realized from a facility designed to a high level of energy efficiency. 6
Page 38 of 65 CRCA/Frontenac/South Frontenac Shared Facility Analysis
Feb 4, 2019
Standard construction
$20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $Initial Cost Year 2 Year 4 Year 6 Year 8 Year 10 Year 12 Year 14 Year 16 Year 18 Year 20 Year 22 Year 24 Year 26 Year 28 Year 30
High-Efficiency Construction
CUMULATIVE COST
PAYBACK FOR ENERGY EFFICIENT FACILITY
- SUMMARY 7.1. Advantages of a Shared Facility: 7.1.1. A shared facility has both reduced site area and building area. Total Site Area for 3 Separate Sites: Shared Facility Site Area: % Savings:
9.85 Ac 5.12 Ac 48 %
Total Building Area for 3 Separate Sites: Shared Facility Building Area: % Savings:
30,357 ft2 26,367 ft2 13 %
7.1.2. Reduced capital cost due to reduced land cost and reduced construction cost. 7.1.3. Elimination of duplication in common site and building services (e.g. water, electrical, sanitary), and associated further cost savings. 7.1.4. Elimination of duplication in shareable site and building spaces (e.g. parking, meeting rooms, reception, mail room, copy room, IT services, lunch room, locker rooms), and associated further cost savings. 7.1.5. Reduced Construction cost /ft2 to build one larger facility than 3 smaller facilities. 7.1.6. Reduced overall operating costs. 7.1.7. Significant reduction in inactive time of meeting rooms and associated washrooms and parking spaces. If all three groups were to construct separate buildings, there would be a total of 4,950 ft2 of meeting space, with a calculated total occupancy of 613 persons, along with all the associated washrooms and parking spaces required by this quantity. In the joint facility, with meeting rooms that satisfy the minimum stated needs of all users, there is a total of 2,903 ft2 of meeting space, with a total calculated occupancy of only 359 persons. These rooms themselves would cost LESS to construct, and the reduced requirements for washrooms and parking would further reduce construction and operating costs. 7
Page 39 of 65 CRCA/Frontenac/South Frontenac Shared Facility Analysis
Feb 4, 2019
7.1.8. Housing these three sites in a common facility would allow for cooperation, collaboration, and team-building between these various governmental bodies with separate but overlapping areas of authority, governance, and expertise. 7.1.9. Buildings have environmental impact two different ways – they create waste and greenhouse gases when the building is constructed, and they create waste and greenhouse gases when they are being operated and occupied. The design and use of one shared facility versus three individual facilities will reduce the environmental impact of all three user groups in both of these phases. 7.1.10. Additionally, having the user groups in a combined space adds flexibility and efficiency for future expansions. If one user group expands and another shrinks, there will be possibilities for space exchange with the existing building. And any additions or expansions to the building will similarly be able to be shared between user groups in a more efficient manner. 7.1.11. Lastly, having these three user groups located in one community hub will allow all groups to provide on-site integrated service delivery, and to develop each group’s image with the public. Any member of the public using the services of one group will automatically be made aware of the presence and location of the other two groups, and community members will be able to efficiently get the information they need from any or all groups at one location and with one visit. 7.2. Disadvantages of a Shared Facility: 7.2.1. Locating all three user groups on one site forces each group to compromise on their ideal location. For instance, the CRCA is currently housed at the Little Cataraqui Conservation Area. A joint facility would likely be located some distance from any of the CRCA properties. Similarly, either of the other groups may end up having to locate somewhere distant from what they would consider their ideal location. Fortunately, all three user groups do have overlapping jurisdictions. The Township of South Frontenac is within Frontenac County, which is mostly within the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority. Ideally, a location for a joint facility will be able to be positioned reasonably central to all three regions. 7.2.2. Having all three user groups in one building may present some challenges regarding the branding and identity of each group, as the groups may blur in the mind of users that are only going to one building for all services. With good architectural design, distinct branding between user groups housed within a common building can be maintained and even enhanced. CKA has done this on previous projects. Additionally, the incidental exposure to the other two groups when a user visits one group means that public awareness of all three groups increases, which can only improve the delivery of services.
8
Page 40 of 65 CRCA/Frontenac/South Frontenac Shared Facility Analysis
Feb 4, 2019
- RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1. Based on the projected capital cost savings, operating cost savings, life cycle cost savings, reduced environmental impact, and operational synergies, it is our recommendation that development of a joint facility be pursued. 8.2. Furthermore, due to its central location within the user groups’ boundaries, and the fact that it is the only community within Frontenac County with municipal water service, we recommend that users acquire a roughly 5.0 Acre site somewhere in or adjacent to the water-serviced area of Sydenham, Ontario. 8.3. Lastly, CKA would recommend that an energy-efficiency certification be pursued for the project, ideally the ‘Zero Carbon Building Initiative’ recognition discussed above. Government projects act as a role model and standard for private construction projects of all sizes – the only way to encourage Canadians to build responsibly is for governments to take the lead, and the construction of high-profile carbon neutral project such as this would be a great opportunity to demonstrate Leadership. 8.4. CKA would be pleased to assist in defining required site parameters and assisting in a site options analysis and property acquisition process.
9
Page 41 of 65 CRCA/Frontenac/South Frontenac Shared Facility Analysis
Appendix A Hypothetical Floor Plans
Feb 4, 2019
Page 42 of 65
HYPOTHETICAL SEPTIC FIELD
SITE AREA STANDARD PARKING SPACES BARRIER-FREE PARKING SPACES
156,600 FT2 (3.6 ACRES) 151 3
FIRE TRUCK ACCESS REQUIRED ON ONE SIDE ONLY. PROJECT
No.
18091
DRAWING
CRCA / FRONTENAC / SOUTH FRONTENAC ANALYSIS
CRCA STAND-ALONE SITE
LOCATION
SCALE
Project Address:
1 :N.T.S. 750
CLIENT
DATE 1.29.2019
CRCA/FC/SF
DWG. No.
REVISED
SK-1
Page 43 of 65
MECH 300 ft²
CRCA DEDICATED 4,805 ft2
IT/SERVER 300 ft² SM MEET 120 ft²
SHOWERS/ LOCKERS 247 ft²
BF W/R 97 ft²
KITCHEN / LUNCH 450 ft²
MED MEETING 200 ft²
RECEP 100 ft²
MENS W/R 198 ft²
SM MEET 130 ft²
LARGE MEETING 1500 ft²
WOMENS W/R 252 ft²
BUILDING AREA = 10,418 ft2
PROJECT
No.
18091
DRAWING
CRCA / FRONTENAC / SOUTH FRONTENAC ANALYSIS
CRCA STAND-ALONE BUILDING
LOCATION
SCALE
Project Address:
- 1N.T.S
- 300
CLIENT
DATE 1.29.2019
CRCA/FC/SF
DWG. No.
REVISED
SK-2
Page 44 of 65
HYPOTHETICAL SEPTIC FIELD
SITE AREA STANDARD PARKING SPACES BARRIER-FREE PARKING SPACES
116,000 FT2 (2.7 ACRES) 106 3
FIRE TRUCK ACCESS REQUIRED ON ONE SIDE ONLY.
PROJECT
No.
18091
DRAWING
CRCA / FRONTENAC / SOUTH FRONTENAC ANALYSIS
FRONTENAC COUNTY STAND-ALONE SITE
LOCATION
SCALE
Project Address:
1 :N.T.S. 750
CLIENT
DATE 01.29.2019
CRCA/FC/SF
DWG. No.
REVISED
SK-3
Page 45 of 65
FC DEDICATED 4,374 ft2 MECH 150 ft²
IT/SERVER 200 ft² SM MEET 150 ft²
WOMENS W/R 202 ft² MENS W/R 172 ft²
MED MEETING 300 ft²
LARGE MEETING 800 ft²
LUNCH/ KITCHEN 400 ft² RECPT/ LOBBY 252 ft²
BF W/R 88 ft²
BUILDING AREA = 8,335 ft2
PROJECT
No.
18091
DRAWING
CRCA / FRONTENAC / SOUTH FRONTENAC ANALYSIS
FRONTENAC COUNTY STAND-ALONE BUILDING
LOCATION
SCALE
Project Address:
- 1N.T.S
- 300
CLIENT
DATE 01.29.2019
CRCA/FC/SF
DWG. No.
REVISED
SK-4
Page 46 of 65
HYPOTHETICAL SEPTIC FIELD
SITE AREA STANDARD PARKING SPACES BARRIER-FREE PARKING SPACES
156,400 FT2 (3.6 ACRES) 148 3
FIRE TRUCK ACCESS REQUIRED ON ONE SIDE ONLY. PROJECT
No.
18091
DRAWING
CRCA / FRONTENAC / SOUTH FRONTENAC ANALYSIS
SOUTH FRONTENAC STAND-ALONE SITE
LOCATION
SCALE
Project Address:
- 1 N.T.S.
- 750
CLIENT
DATE 1.29.2019
CRCA/FC/SF
DWG. No.
REVISED
SK-5
Page 47 of 65
MECH 321 ft²
SF DEDICATED 5,997 ft2
IT / SERVER 230 ft²
SM MEET 170 ft²
BF W/R 86 ft²
SHOWERS
SM MEET 190 ft² MED MEETING & SERVERY 408 ft²
KITCHEN / LUNCH 600 ft²
WAIT 143 ft²
LARGE MEETING 980 ft²
MALE W/R FEMALE W/R 210 ft² 262 ft² RECEPT 100 ft²
BUILDING AREA = 11,604 ft2
PROJECT
No.
18091
DRAWING
CRCA / FRONTENAC / SOUTH FRONTENAC ANALYSIS
SOUTH FRONTENAC STAND-ALONE BUILDING
LOCATION
SCALE
Project Address:
- 1N.T.S
- 300
CLIENT
DATE 1.29.2019
CRCA/FC/SF
DWG. No.
REVISED
SK-6
Page 48 of 65
HYPOTHETICAL SEPTIC FIELD
SITE AREA STANDARD PARKING SPACES BARRIER-FREE PARKING SPACES
223,200 FT2 (5.1 ACRES) 274 4
FIRE TRUCK ACCESS REQUIRED ON THREE SIDES. PROJECT
No.
18091
DRAWING
CRCA / FRONTENAC / SOUTH FRONTENAC ANALYSIS
SHARED SITE
LOCATION
SCALE
Project Address:
- 1N.T.S.
- 800
CLIENT
DATE 01.22.2019
CRCA/FC/SF
DWG. No.
REVISED
SK-7
CRCA SOUTH FRONTENAC FRONTENAC TOTAL = SHARED BUILDING AREA = DIFFERENCE =
Page 49 of 65
STAND-ALONE BUILDING AREA 10,418 ft2 11,604 ft2 8,335 ft2 30,357 ft2 26,367 ft2 3,990 ft2
CRCA DEDICATED 4,805 ft2
MECH 475 ft²
SHOWERS/ LOCKERS 476 ft² STAFF W/R’s 173 ft²
IT 400 ft²
KITCHEN / LUNCH 750 ft²
BF W/R 104 ft²
SM MEET 168 ft² SM MEETSM MEET 168 ft² 169 ft² JAN.
MAIL / COPY 400 ft²
FEMALE W/R 240 ft²
FC DEDICATED 4,374 ft2
MALE W/R 132 ft²
MED. MEET 408 ft²
LARGE MEET. RM. 1500 ft²
RECEPT. 252 ft²
SERVICE COUNTER
SF DEDICATED 5,997 ft2
MED. MEET. 490 ft²
BUILDING AREA = 26,367 ft2
PROJECT
No.
18091
DRAWING
CRCA / FRONTENAC / SOUTH FRONTENAC ANALYSIS
SHARED BUILDING
LOCATION
SCALE
Project Address:
- 1N.T.S
- 300
CLIENT
DATE 01.22.2019
CRCA/FC/SF
DWG. No.
REVISED
SK-8
Page 50 of 65 CRCA/Frontenac/South Frontenac Shared Facility Analysis
Feb 4, 2019
Appendix B Cost Estimates & Life Cycle Cost Analysis
Page 51 of 65 Feasibility Study for Shared Building - CRCA, Frontenac County, South Frontenac Township Class D Cost Estimate Area CRCA Concept Building Site Purchase Building Site Construction Development Costs Consultant Costs Total Cost Including upcharge for LEED certification
Cost/unit
Cost
3.6 acres 10,418 ft²
$ 50,000 $ $ 240 $ $ $ $ $ 20% $
180,000 2,500,320 400,000 50,000 250,000 3,380,320 4,056,384
2.7 acres 8,335 ft²
$ 50,000 $ $ 250 $ $ $ $ $ 20% $
135,000 2,083,750 350,000 50,000 225,000 2,843,750 3,412,500
3.6 acres 11,604 ft²
$ 50,000 $ $ 240 $ $ $ $ $ 20% $
180,000 2,784,960 400,000 50,000 250,000 3,664,960 4,397,952
$ 20% $
9,889,030 11,866,836
$ 50,000 $ $ 220 $ $ $ $ $ 20% $ $ $
255,000 5,800,740 600,000 50,000 450,000 7,155,740 8,586,888 2,733,290 3,279,948
County of Frontenace Concept Building Site Purchase Building Site Construction Development Costs Consultant Costs Total Cost Including upcharge for LEED certification Township of South Frontenac Concept Building Site Purchase Building Site Construction Development Costs Consultant Costs Total Cost Including upcharge for LEED certification
Unit
Sum of Total Cost for 3 separate bldgs (excl. LEED) Sum of Total Cost for 3 separate bldgs (incl. LEED) Shared Facility Concept Building Site Purchase 5.1 acres Building 26,367 ft² Site Construction Development Costs Consultant Costs Total Cost Including upcharge for LEED certification Approx. capital savings for shared facility excl. LEED Approx. capital savings for shared facility incl. LEED
28% 28%
ANNUAL OPERATING COST ESTIMATES
LIFE CYCLE COSTING ANALYSIS
Annual O&M Cost
Estimated Annual Savings if Operating LEED Cost (LEED)
13 $ 135,434 $ 20,000 $ 155,434
25% $ 116,576
30 $ 4,663,020 $ 3,497,265 $ 1,165,755 $
3,380,320 $ 4,056,384 $ 8,043,340 $ 7,553,649 $
489,691
13 $ 108,355 $ 20,000 $ 128,355
25% $ 96,266
30 $ 3,850,650 $ 2,887,988 $
962,663 $
2,843,750 $ 3,412,500 $ 6,694,400 $ 6,300,488 $
393,913
13 $ 150,852 $ 20,000 $ 170,852
25% $ 128,139
30 $ 5,125,560 $ 3,844,170 $ 1,281,390 $
3,664,960 $ 4,397,952 $ 8,790,520 $ 8,242,122 $
548,398
$ 454,641
$ 340,981
$
12 $ 316,404 $ 30,000 $ 346,404 Approx. operating cost savings for shared facility $ 108,237
25% $ 259,803 $ 81,178
Area CRCA Concept Building Building Site
Cost/ft²
10,418 $
County of Frontenace Concept Building Building 8,335 $ Site
Township of South Frontenac Concept Building Building 11,604 $ Site
Three separate buildings: Total
Period (Years)
Lifecycle Lifecycle Operating Operating Cost Cost (LEED)
Lifecycle Savings (LEED)
Initial Cost
Initial Cost (LEED)
Lifecycle Cost Lifecycle Cost (LEED)
Lifecycle Cost Savings if LEED
9,889,030 $ 11,866,836 $ 23,528,260 $ 22,096,259 $ 1,432,002
Shared Facility Concept Building Building 26,367 $ Site
30 $ 10,392,120 $ 7,794,090 $ 2,598,030 $ 7,155,740 $ 8,586,888 $ 17,547,860 $ 16,380,978 $ 1,166,882 Approx. Lifecycle cost savings for shared facility $ 5,980,400 $ 5,715,281
Note: This life cycle analysis is a simple annualized operating cost projection, and doesn’t include projected capital costs (e.g. Roof replacements), financing costs, residual values or discount rates to compensate for inflation. This is simply a linear comparison of LEED (or other high-efficiency benchmark) and non-LEED construction and operating costs.
Page 52 of 65
Page 53 of 65 CRCA/Frontenac/South Frontenac Shared Facility Analysis
Feb 4, 2019
Appendix C Shared Facilities Concept Planning Session
12
Page 54 of 65 CRCA – County of Frontenac Facility Planning Page 1 of 9
Shared Facilities Concept Planning Session: August 13th, 2018 Noon, Mon. August 13
Location: Frontenac County Offices - Frontenac Room
Facilitator: Rob Wood
Discussion Guide: Our goal for this session will be to confirm whether or not the CRCA and County of Frontenac (and/or South Frontenac Township) wish to pursue next steps to validate the potential for a partnership and co-location of administrative offices at a shared site. Informal Mixing Time / Lunch Provided
Noon 12:30 pm
Welcome and Overview of the Session
12:40 pm
Decision Point: Validate the Case for Shared Facilities, or Not? ▪
Review identified space requirements and potential efficiencies (pg 5).
▪
Review “downstream” issues to be set aside for now (shared services, site).
▪
Determine whether to further validate the initial concept in a next step, or not, and if so, to confirm what work-up might be required for partners to make their final, individual “in/out” decisions on a project — for example: — architectural/engineering analysis of the initial needs assessment, — preliminary conceptual/schematic floor plan based on partner needs, — potential configurations of common space for best efficiencies, — requirements for parking, water & similar services, building code etc, — potential options to preserve brand identities on shared site, and — initial budget-level estimates for comparison with stand-alone options.
▪
Confirm specific partnerships & sharing options for further analysis (pg 2).
▪
Confirm general search area/boundaries for any potential shared sites (pg 3).
▪
Review/confirm the timelines applicable to any potential shared options.
2:10 pm
Break
2:30 pm
Time Reserved for Further Discussion (as required)
3:15 pm
▪
Determine immediate next steps and timelines for decisions
▪
Communications and process tasks
Wrap-up/Next Steps & Takeaways
For Use of CRCA/County of Frontenac ONLY 2018, 8020Info Rights reserved. help@8020info.com – www.8020info.com
Page 55 of 65 CRCA – County of Frontenac Facility Planning Page 2 of 9
Highlights from Partner Meetings Since June 27th, 2018: Following the joint meeting held June 27th, the partners each held their own planning sessions to consider their positions on the shared administrative office option. These notes highlight some of the more significant outcomes.
Clarification of the Decision Framework: •
Each partner plans to compare the costs and benefits for a shared option against their own stand-alone options, which vary from partner to partner.
•
A significant potential (and credible) benefit will be needed to justify the trade-offs involved in sharing. For example, one suggested criteria was that a shared option should offer savings of 15% or more vs. going alone.
•
Non-financial concerns and brand/identity desires emerged more strongly as factors in any final decision.
•
The Township of South Frontenac has since indicated its potential interest in a shared facility and has engaged in the process. Some see the two municipalities as having a natural functional and brand fit on a shared site. Township participation is predicated on a location in South Frontenac.
•
Critical timelines for proceeding with either shared or stand-alone options vary from partner to partner. The process may require joint agreement on a “fish or cut bait” deadline, perhaps shortly after year end, for commitment decisions on whether to proceed together or not.
Process concerns: •
One concern was expressed about the potential risk of a partner bailing on a sharing deal part-way through the process, and how to manage that risk.
•
Resolutions will be needed from councils.
Current shortlist of options to be explored: •
County and CRCA
•
Three-way (CRCA, County and South Frontenac)
•
CRCA alone and County with South Frontenac
•
All three go on their own.
Even if the idea of a shared option goes no further, the current process needs to demonstrate due diligence and be able to explain a “no-go” for a joint project.
For Use of CRCA/County of Frontenac ONLY 2018, 8020Info Rights reserved. help@8020info.com – www.8020info.com
Page 56 of 65 CRCA – County of Frontenac Facility Planning Page 3 of 9
Functional space and other site/building requirements: •
Partners expressed desire for closer scrutiny of how much space (and cost) would really be saved by sharing a facility.
•
Further analysis of site requirements will also be needed, related to — parking lot and service/amenity needs, — impact on site services if a three-way/90-staff building is pursued, and — implications for “customer” or “user” traffic.
A shared site is not critical to opportunities for shared services: •
Consensus seemed to emerge that options for sharing services (such as backoffice functions) are not that dependent on sharing a site/facility. Some services are shared now and others could be in future, either way.
•
Some expressed scepticism about hard cost savings on services (although there may be potential for service quality improvements, ease of staffing, and/or better management of risk and future growth in costs).
•
It is probably premature and would complicate matters at this stage to enter into discussions with community agencies or other potential tenants who would not be full partners in developing the project.
Area of search / parameters for potential location of a shared site: The question of how many and which partners are willing to pursue a shared option must be resolved before more specific criteria for a site search can be determined. Location preferences, site size, building size and service requirements, brand implications and other strategic considerations will all depend on the priorities of the particular partners involved. In discussions with all parties to date, however, the boundaries of a potential area of search have been narrowed to: •
North of 401, south of Rutledge Road, east of Hwy 38 and west of Hwy10
•
South Frontenac (Harrowsmith, Inverary, Sydenham)
•
North part of Kingston close to the 401
Proximity to natural or other assets, services and infrastructure will no doubt be factors in selection of any final site. Information from studies currently under way, such as the Frontenac Communal Services Study expected later this year, may also inform or influence site selection options.
For Use of CRCA/County of Frontenac ONLY 2018, 8020Info Rights reserved. help@8020info.com – www.8020info.com
Page 57 of 65 CRCA – County of Frontenac Facility Planning Page 4 of 9
Budget estimates / options for capital and lifecycle costs:
•
There is continuing interest in design/build/lease options (if possible/available).
•
Partner options must take into account the costs of renovation and/or disposition of current assets. There may also be financial opportunity costs (e.g. other projects need investment).
•
Different financing options and costs depend on the partners involved.
•
A timeline for proposed building/financing etc should be 20 years (leases <21).
•
A growth factor of 2.5% per year has been built into estimates.
Timelines/milestones: •
Proposed timelines seem acceptable: — 2018: work through agreement in principle (“pre-nuptial”) by early fall — 2019: sort out the financing arrangements / budget issues — 2020: complete the design work — 2021: start the construction build, for completion perhaps in 2022
•
Any delays in moving forward will probably mean increased construction costs.
•
It will be necessary to accommodate the municipal election cycle in October and new councils taking office thereafter.
Next Step: Proposal for Decision/Direction THAT, on the basis of the partners’ initial discussions and high-level assessment of the potential for savings and other benefits by sharing administrative offices on a common site, IT IS RECOMMENDED that a budget of $12,000 be allocated to engage appropriate architectural and engineering expertise to confirm these assessments and provide a report by the end of October enabling the partners to make a final decision on pursuing a shared development project, or not. Costs of this assignment are to be shared equally among the partners. Scope of the assignment is to include: — — — — — —
architectural/engineering analysis of the initial needs assessment, preliminary conceptual/schematic floor plans to meet partner needs, options for potential configuration of common spaces for best efficiencies, implications for parking, water & similar services, building code etc, potential options to preserve brand identities on shared site, and initial budget-level estimates for comparison with stand-alone options.
For Use of CRCA/County of Frontenac ONLY 2018, 8020Info Rights reserved. help@8020info.com – www.8020info.com
Page 58 of 65 CRCA – County of Frontenac Facility Planning Page 5 of 9
Comparison of Space Needs and Potential for Sharing A follow-up task assigned at the June 27th joint meeting was to confirm initial estimates of space requirements for each partner (figures below now include South Frontenac), and to identify spaces that could be shared and might be further explored for potential space savings in a shared facility. The summary below provides highlights. (Note: Areas are estimated in square feet, with a 35% gross up to cover full space requirements beyond core functional needs.)
Frontenac County
CRCA
South Frontenac
DEDICATED SPACE
DEDICATED SPACE
DEDICATED SPACE
AMOUNT OF SPACE THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR SHARING IN WHOLE OR PART
Estimates of Sq. Ft. Required
FC
CRCA
SF
Total
Dedicated: Potential Shareable:
4,374 3,842
6,830 3,729
6,495 5,391 .
17,699 12,962
TOTAL REQ’T:
8,216
10,559
11,886
30,661
[58%] [42%]
Spaces identified for potential sharing include reception, storage and IT/server areas and meeting spaces. The major functional uses for potential sharing include: •
Council Chambers/Large Meeting Room (4,833 sq. feet total used by three)
•
Lunchrooms and Kitchens (2,103 sq. feet total currently for 3 partners)
•
Public & Staff Washrooms (2,160 sq. feet total currently for 3 partners)
Note: The potential for space reductions would vary upon levels of shared use.
For Use of CRCA/County of Frontenac ONLY 2018, 8020Info Rights reserved. help@8020info.com – www.8020info.com
Page 59 of 65 CRCA – County of Frontenac Facility Planning Page 6 of 9
Frontenac County Space Allocation Estimate Gross Up Pct:
Position
Space Need (sq. ft.)
35% Space Need Gross Up (sq.ft.)
Functional Group
Open/ Private
Comments
Communications Officer Exec Assistant Receptionist Foyer/Reception Area Finance Clerk A/P Finance Clerk A/P Payroll Clerk - 1 Payroll Clerk - 2 Financial Analyst Flex Workspace (4) GIS Specialist Service Desk Analyst Desk Top Space for I.S. Community Planner Comm Dev. Officer Director of Corp Srv/Treasurer Mgr of Leg Srv/Clerk Chief Administrative Officer Storage Space Deputy Treasurer Occ Health Nurse Mgr of HR HR Generalist Network Administrator Mgr of I.S.
96 96 96 150 96 96 96 96 96 384 120 96 96 96 96 200 120 200 144 120 120 144 96 120 120
130 130 130 203 130 130 130 130 130 518 162 130 130 130 130 270 162 270 194 162 162 194 130 162 162
C.S. C.S. C.S. C.S. Finance Finance Finance Finance Finance Flex I.S. I.S. I.S. Pl & Ec Dev Pl & Ec Dev C.S. C.S. C.S. C.S. Finance HR/Occ H HR/Occ H HR/Occ H I.S. I.S.
Open Open Open Open Open Open Private Private Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private
Access to public required Confidentiality concerns - secure area/Adj. to CAO Needs to be near foyer - security concerns Seating for 4 to 6 Confidentiality concerns - secure area Confidentiality concerns - secure area Confidentiality concerns - secure area Confidentiality concerns - secure area Confidentiality concerns - secure area Students, Interns, mobile office, quiet lounge Confidentiality concerns - secure area Confidentiality concerns - secure area Workbench area Access to public required Access to public required Confidentiality concerns - secure area Ideally close to Lg Meeting Room Ideally close to Lg Meeting Room Maybe two spaces Confidentiality concerns - secure area Confidentiality concerns - easy access for staff Confidentiality concerns - secure area Confidentiality concerns - secure area Confidentiality concerns - secure area Confidentiality concerns - secure area
Server Room Mechanical Meeting Room Sm Meeting Room Med Meeting Room Lg/Council Ch Mgr of Ec Dev Dir of Pl & Ec Dev Accessible Washrooms Copy Room Kitchen Lunch Room Total
200 150 150 300 800 96 200 400 200 200 200 6086
270 203 203 405 1080 130 270 540 270 270 270 8216
I.S. Mech Meeting Meeting Meeting Pl & Ec Dev Pl & Ec Dev Washroom I.S. Staff Staff
Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private
Maybe two spaces Secure area Generally staff use Access to public required Access to public required Access to public required Access to public required Assumes same as Fairmount Auditorium Noisy space Ideally close to Lg Meeting Room
Potential Sharable
2846
3842
For Use of CRCA/County of Frontenac ONLY 2018, 8020Info Rights reserved. help@8020info.com – www.8020info.com
Page 60 of 65 CRCA – County of Frontenac Facility Planning Page 7 of 9
South Frontenac Space Allocation Estimate Gross Up Pct: Space Need (sq. ft.)
Position CAO Executive Assistant Clerk Mayor VAULT storage
35% Space Need Gross Up (sq.ft.) Room Type
Public
150 100 120 120 120 120
203 135 162 162 162 162
OFFICE PRIVATE OFFICE OFFICE STORAGE STORAGE
a a
980
1323
MEETING
public
300 108
405 146
MEETING KITCHEN
public public
Treasurer Deputy Treasurer Accounting Clerk Payroll Clerk Treasury Clerk Treasury Clerk HR Officer Student IT specialist IT WORKSPACE Roll Files Front Counter storage
120 120 100 100 100 100 120 100 100 100 144 200 144
162 162 135 135 135 135 162 135 135 135 194 270 194
OFFICE OFFICE OPEN PRIVATE OPEN OPEN OFFICE OPEN OPEN OPEN STORAGE OPEN STORAGE
Director of Development Services Planner Planning Assistant GIS Specialist Building Admin Assistant Chief building Official Building Inpsector Building Inspector Student Roll Files Counter service
120 120 100 100 100 120 100 100 100 144 200
162 162 135 135 135 162 135 135 135 194 270
OFFICE OFFICE PRIVATE OPEN OPEN OFFICE OPEN OPEN OPEN STORAGE OPEN
Intake room / meeting for 8 Intake room / meeting for 8 Reception / waiting area for 6 Receptionist Washrooms for public mail/copier/office supplies
168 168 144 100 600 144
227 227 194 135 810 194
MEETING MEETING OPEN OPEN WASH OPEN
Kitchen and lunch room Washrooms for staff lockers and showers
600 600 225
810 810 304
KITCHEN WASH WASH
IT Server Room
225
304
IT
Growth: 3 offices Growth: 5 staff
360 500 8804
486 675 11885
Council Chamber / meeting room for (9 council, 5 staff, 40 public) Council Recess Room for ( 9 council and 5 staff) Servery
Total Potential Sharable
3993
b b
a
b
public public public public
b
5391
For Use of CRCA/County of Frontenac ONLY 2018, 8020Info Rights reserved. help@8020info.com – www.8020info.com
Page 61 of 65 CRCA – County of Frontenac Facility Planning Page 8 of 9
Admin, ODC, Maint Subtotal
CRCA Basic Space Needs
Admin, ODC, Maint Subtotal
Admin, Maint
Office Dimensions
Open/C losed Area (Ft2)
10x15
C
150
203
150
150
Assistant, Chair & General Manager
10x10
C
100
135
100
100
Receptionist/Clerk
10x10
O
100
135
100
100
General Manager
Grossed up - 35% Area (Ft2) Area (Ft2)
Admin
350 Manager, Corporate Services
473
Area (Ft2)
350
350
10x10
C
100
135
100
100
10x10
C
100
135
100
100
GIS Analyst
8x9
O
72
97
72
72
Applicaton Support Analyst
8x9
O
72
97
72
72
Student
6x6
O
36
49
36
36
Supervisor, Finance
10x10
C
100
135
100
100
Financial Analyst
8x9
O
72
97
72
72
Student
6x6
O
36
49
36
36
Supervisor, Communication & Education
10x10
C
100
135
100
100
Coordinator, Communications
8x9
O
72
97
72
72
Coordinator, Strategic Partnerships
8x9
O
72
97
72
72
Senior Conservation Educator
8x9
O
72
97
Conservation Educator
8x9
O
72
97
Conservation Educator
8x9
O
72
97
Student
6x6
O
36
Supervisor, Information Technology
1084 Manager, Conservation Lands
49 1463
36 868
10x10
C
100
135
100
10x10
C
100
135
100
Coordinator, Forestry
8x9
O
72
97
72
Coordinator, Operations & Enforcement
8x9
O
72
97
72
Conservation Operations
6x6
O
36
49
36
Conservation Operations
6x6
O
36
49
36
Coordinator, Operations Planning
8x9
O
72
97
72
Coordinator, Mac Johnson Wildlife Area
8x9
O
72
97
72
Coordinator, Little Cataraqui Creek
8x9
O
72
97
Student
6x6
O
36
Supervisor, Operations & Maintenance
668
49 902
36 868
36 596
100
72
36 208
Manager, Watershed Planning & Engineering
10x10
C
100
135
100
100
Supervisor, Development Review
10x10
C
100
135
100
100
Resource Planner
8x9
O
72
97
72
72
Resource Planner
8x9
O
72
97
72
72
Development Officer
8x9
O
72
97
72
72
Coordinator, Lands Stewardship
8x9
O
72
97
72
72
Engineer, Water Resources
8x9
O
72
97
72
72
Technologist, Water Resources
8x9
O
72
97
72
72
Coordinator, Watershed Planning
8x9
O
72
97
72
72
Coordinator, Source Protection
8x9
O
72
97
72
72
Student
6x6
O
36
49
36
812
1096
812
36 812
For Use of CRCA/County of Frontenac ONLY 2018, 8020Info Rights reserved. help@8020info.com – www.8020info.com
Page 62 of 65 CRCA – County of Frontenac Facility Planning Page 9 of 9
Admin, ODC, Maint Subtotal Open/C losed Area (Ft2)
CRCA Basic Space Needs
Admin, ODC, Maint Subtotal
Admin, Maint
Grossed up - 35% Area (Ft2) Area (Ft2)
Admin Potential to Share Grossed up
Area (Ft2)
Meeting Rooms Small (4 - 6 people)
10x12
C
120
162
120
120
162
Small (4 - 6 people)
10x12
C
120
162
120
120
162
Medium (10 people)
10x20
C
200
270
200
200
270
Large (30 people)
30x50
C
1500
2025
1500
1500
2025
1940
2619
1940
1940
2619
Meeting, Lunch, Storage Rooms Storage - Filing, Library & Office Supplies
15x20
C
300
405
300
300
Storage - Monitoring Equipment
10x12
C
120
162
120
120
Storage Building Maintenance
8x9
C
72
97
72
72
Locker Room(s) and Showers
30x40
C
1200
1620
1200
1200
Lunchroom/Kitchen
15x30
C
450 2142
608 2892
450
300 72
450
2142
2142
450 1110
Laboratory Space Electronics - rain gauges, telemetry, batteries
15x15
C
225
304
225
225
Wet - water quality, biology
15x20
C
300
405
300
300
Computer - desktop setup, servers, switches
15x20
C
300
405
300
Total Staff Space Requirements
300
825
1114
825
825
7,821
10,558
7,533
7,145
3,729
For Use of CRCA/County of Frontenac ONLY 2018, 8020Info Rights reserved. help@8020info.com – www.8020info.com
Page 63 of 65
REPORT TO COUNCIL OFFICE OF C.A.O.
AGENDA DATE:
March 12, 2019
SUBJECT:
Joint County Meeting – Waste and Roads
RECOMMENDATION: That Council attend a Joint County meeting, with the other Frontenac member municipalities, to discuss Solid Waste and Roads on April 17 at 5:00 pm in Fairmount Auditorium BACKGROUND: The County as part of its strategic plan has been coordinating a Solid Waste Study on behalf of the entire County. All Public Works Managers have been participating and the Consultant will be presenting the final results and recommendations to members of all five Councils. In addition the Joint CAOs group in conjunction with the Treasurers and Public Works Managers have been looking at ways to improve access to Provincial grants for Roads. This meeting will provide an opportunity to share the insights gained and the options available. FINANCIAL/STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: To be determined. ATTACHMENTS:
None
Submitted/approved by:
Prepared by:
Wayne Orr, CAO
Wayne Orr, CAO
Our strength is our community.
Page 64 of 65
REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA DATE:
March 12, 2019
REPORT DATE:
March 7, 2019
SUBJECT:
Response to February 19, 2019 delegation, Meela MelnikProud, re: Walking Bridge on Lot 6, Johnston Point
RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council receive this report for information. BACKGROUND: Ms. Meela Melnik-Proud made a delegation to Township Council at the February 19, 2019 meeting regarding concerns about the construction of a walking bridge on Unit 6, Johnston Point. In that delegation, Ms. Melnik-Proud requested a response to the following questions:
- Was the Township and the CRCA aware of this development activity?
- Who authorized and supervise the installation of the walking bridge?
- Why was this development permit, in general, and particularly in light of the fact that the overall benefit permit had not yet been issued?
- How was it demonstrated that there would be no negative impacts on the natural features or their functions according to the Provincial Policy Statement and the CRCA’s Ontario Regulation 148/06?
- Why hadn’t the Township’s lawyer raised the issue of the walking bridge prior to recommending that the Township enter into the Condominium Agreement last May? Response Cataraqui Regional Conservation Authority (CRCA) staff issued a permit for the walking bridge on Unit 6 under Ontario Regulation 148/06 in April 2018. CRCA staff confirmed that the work that has been done on the walking bridge to date is in compliance with their permit. The work is not fully completed and the permit with the CRCA remains open at this time. CRCA staff have supervised the construction of the walking bridge. By way of agreement, CRCA provides environmental planning services to the Township. These services include providing comments on applications from a Natural Hazard, Natural Heritage and Water Quality and Quantity components of the Provincial Policy Statement. The Township relies on the expertise of Conservation Authority staff to review the impact of proposed development on natural features and functions. Review of the Township condominium file cannot verify whether the Township Planner was consulted on either the design or placement of the walking bridge prior to the issuance of the Conservation Authority permit. The OMB issued a decision on the Johnston Point Vacant Land Plan of Condominium on June 28, 2016 (decision updated on August 25, 2016 by OMB to correct mapping error).
Our strength is our community.
Page 65 of 65
REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT The OMB decision included condition 8c): That, in recognition that access to the open water of Long Bay from proposed Unit 6 is by way of an island within a wetland, a walking bridge be installed under the supervision of the Conservation Authority to provide access to Long Bay. Such walking bridge must be installed to the satisfaction of the CRCA and the Township prior to registration of the Description and the vacant land condominium Agreement. The OMB decision does not prescribe the design of the walking bridge. The only reference to the design of the walking bridge in the OMB decision is included in attachment “C” – site plan matrix that states “1.5m bridge to island” on Unit 6. As stated in condition 8c) of the OMB decision, the Owner of Johnston Point, is required to construct the walking bridge on Unit 6 in before the condominium is given final approval (registration of the Condominium Description) and before the Owner enters into the Condominium Agreement with the Township. The developer has been advised by the Township Chief Building Official that a building permit is required for the walking bridge. A building permit application has been forwarded to the developer. Status of Johnston Point Development Council authorized the Mayor and Clerk to enter into a Condominium Agreement with Magenta Waterfront Development Corporation and 1324789 Ontario Inc. as a condition of draft plan approval of Johnston Point in June 2018. The Condominium Agreement was prepared by the Township solicitor. To date, the developer has not yet entered into this agreement with the Township. The OMB issued draft plan approval for Johnson Point on June 28, 2016. They issued the decision with a 3 year lapsing (17A) condition. As such, final approval must be obtained by June 28, 2019. In their decision, the OMB included a condition (17B) that permits the Owner to submit a request to for an extension of the Draft Plan Approval. The extension period shall be for a maximum of 3 years and must be submitted prior to the lapsing of Draft Plan Approval (June 28, 2019). Further extensions may be permitted at the discretion of the Township and the County. The last meeting date that County Council could consider extension to draft plan approval is June 19, 2019. FINANCIAL/STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: None ATTACHMENTS: None Submitted/approved by: Wayne Orr, CAO & Deputy-Clerk Prepared by: Claire Dodds, Director of Development Services
Our strength is our community.
