Body: Committee of the Whole Type: Agenda Meeting: Committee of the Whole Date: May 14, 2019 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: South Frontenac
[View Document (PDF)](/docs/south-frontenac/Agendas/Committee of the Whole/2019/Committee of the Whole - 14 May 2019 - Agenda.pdf)
Document Text
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING AGENDA
TIME: DATE: PLACE:
7:00 PM, Tuesday, May 14, 2019 Council Chambers.
Call to Order
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)
Gary Scandlan, Director, Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., re: Development Charges Background Study
3 - 24
(b)
Phillip Smith, re: Cowboy Mounted Shooting Proposal-7651 Road 38 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG6CUhLamsw
25 - 37
Reports Requiring Direction
(a)
Strategic Plan - Online Survey
38 - 41
(b)
Impacts of Bill 107 and Bill 108
42 - 52
(c)
Fermoy Hall - Next Steps
53 - 60
Reports for Information - n/a
Rise & Report from Committees of Council
(a)
County Council
(b)
Arena Board
(c)
Police Services Board
(d)
Portland Heritage
Information Items - n/a
Notice of Motions
Announcements/Statements by Councillors
Question of Clarity (from the public on outcome of agenda items)
Page 2 of 60
Closed Session (if requested)
Adjournment
Township of South Frontenac 2019 D.C. May 14, 2019
Page 3 of 60
Council Meeting
1
Agenda • Update on Bill 73 • Services in D.C. Calculation • Growth Forecast Summary
• Capital Summary • Level of Service Ceiling Summary • Proposed Rates • Survey of D.C. Rates • Proposed Exemptions and Policy • Bill 108 • Next Steps Page 4 of 60
2
Study Process & Timelines June 19, 2019
May 14, 2019
Meetings with Staff, Growth Forecast Development & Policy Review
January to March 2019
Council Meeting
Release Background Study & Draft By-law
May 31, 2019
D.C. Open House
August 6, 2019
Public Meeting
July 2, 2019
Council Consideration of By-law
Existing By-law Expiry
September 3, 2019
Page 5 of 60
3
Development Charges Purpose: •
To recover the capital costs associated with residential and non-residential growth within a municipality
•
The capital costs are in addition to what costs would normally be constructed as part of a subdivision (i.e. internal roads, roads, sidewalks, streetlights, as well as any servicing such as septic and wells)
•
Municipalities are empowered to impose these charges via the Development Charges Act (D.C.A.)
Page 6 of 60
4
Update on Bill 73 •
New Definitions & Ineligible Services
•
Area-Specific DCs
•
Waste Diversion
•
Asset Management
•
Transit
•
No Additional Levies
•
Public Process Extended
•
Annual Report of the Treasurer
Page 7 of 60
5
Methodology 1.
Identify amount, type and location of growth
Identify servicing needs to accommodate growth
Identify capital costs to provide services to meet the needs
Deduct: i.
Grants, subsidies and other contributions
ii.
Benefit to existing development
iii.
Statutory 10% deduction (soft services)
iv.
Amounts in excess of 10 year historical service calculation
v.
D.C. Reserve funds (where applicable)
Net costs then allocated between residential and non-residential benefit
Net costs divided by growth to calculate the D.C.
Page 8 of 60
6
Services Included in D.C. Calculation • Services Related to a Highway; • Fire Protection Services;
• Police and Other Facilities; • Parks and Recreation; • Library Services; • Recreation & Culture – Studies; and • Engineering Services – Studies.
Page 9 of 60
7
Growth Forecast Summary
Measure
10 Year 2019-2028
15 Year 2019-2033
(Net) Population Increase
1,926
2,767
Residential Unit Increase
928
1,311
169,800
222,200
Non-Residential Gross Floor Area Increase (ft²) Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Forecast 2019
Page 10 of 60
8
Annual Housing Forecast
120 110
97
100
101
110
110
96
80
80
82
86
110
95
91
88
Housing Units
110
101
83
95
95
95
95 83
81
83
83
73
60
40
20
0
Years Historical
Low Density
Medium Density
High Density
Seasonal
Historical Average
Source: Historical housing activity from Township of South Frontenac building permit data, 2009-2018, by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2019.
- Growth forecast represents calendar year.
Page 11 of 60
9
Capital Summary All Services
Less:
No.
Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Services Related to a Highway - Roads Depots and Domes Roads and Related Vehicles Fire Services Police and Other Facilities* Parks and Recreation Library Facilities Engineering Services - Studies Recreation & Culture - Studies
Less:
Grants, Subsidies Benefit to and Other Existing Contribution Development s Attributable to New Development
Forecast Period
Gross Capital Cost Estimate (2019$)
Post Period Benefit
2019-2033 2019-2033 2019-2033 2019-2033 2019-2028 2019-2028 2019-2028 2019-2028 2019-2028
12,000,000 925,000 900,000 1,705,000 325,000 1,475,000 160,000 160,000 330,000
12,000,000 925,000 900,000 1,705,000 325,000 1,475,000 160,000 160,000 330,000
1,934,664 489,830 5,400 146,067 216,287 64,332 51,902 45,000
10,065,336 435,170 900,000 1,699,600 178,933 1,258,713 95,668 108,098 285,000
17,980,000
17,980,000
2,953,482
15,026,518
Total
Other Deductions
Net Capital Cost
Subtotal
Potential D.C. Recoverable Cost
Total
Residential Share
NonResidential Share
16,250 147,500 16,000 9,500 28,500
10,065,336 435,170 900,000 1,699,600 162,683 1,111,213 79,668 98,598 256,500
9,159,455 396,005 819,000 1,546,636 148,042 1,055,653 75,684 89,724 233,415
905,880 39,165 81,000 152,964 14,641 55,561 3,983 8,874 23,085
217,750
14,808,768
13,523,614
1,285,154
Other (e.g. 10% Statutory Deduction)
*Statutory deduction related to facilities other than Police
Page 12 of 60
10
Level of Service Ceiling Summary Summary of Service Standards
Service Category
Services Related to a Highway
Sub-Component
Remaining
10,065,336
26,635,046
1,169,279
435,170
734,109
Roads and Related Vehicles
935,882
900,000
35,882
Fire Facilities
576,587
Fire Vehicles
993,962
1,699,600
1,468
Fire Small Equipment and Gear
130,519
Police and Other Facilities
165,212
162,683
2,529
Parks and Recreation
401,532
Parkland Amenities
402,053 1,258,713
871
Indoor Recreation Facilities
448,277
95,668
2,211
Roads
33,697,910
Bridges, Culverts & Structures
2,775,301
Traffic Signals & Streetlights
227,171
Police and Other Facilities
Parks & Recreation
Library
Recreation Vehicles and Equipment
7,723
Library Facilities
97,879
Page 13 of 60
Utilized
Depots and Domes
Fire
Maximum Ceiling LOS
11
Proposed Rates
RESIDENTIAL
NON-RESIDENTIAL
Single and SemiDetached Dwelling
Other Multiples
Apartments - 2 Bedrooms +
Apartments Bachelor and 1 Bedroom
Services Related to a Highway
6,856
5,495
4,481
3,132
2,747
4.62
Fire Protection Services
1,022
819
668
467
410
0.69
Police and Other Facilities
98
79
64
45
39
0.07
Engineering Services - Studies
84
67
55
38
34
0.05
Total Municipal Wide “Hard” Services
8,060
6,460
5,268
3,682
3,230
5.43
Parks and Recreation
991
794
648
453
397
0.33
Library Services
71
57
46
32
28
0.02
Service
Special Care/Special Dwelling Units
(per sq.ft. of Gross Floor Area)
Municipal Wide “Hard” Services:
Municipal Wide “Soft” Services:
Recreation & Culture - Studies
219
176
143
100
88
0.14
Total Municipal Wide “Soft” Services
1,281
1,027
837
585
513
0.49
Total Municipal Wide Services
9,341
7,487
6,105
4,267
3,743
5.92
Page 14 of 60
12
Rate Comparison – Residential (Single Detached Dwelling)
Residential (Single Detached) Comparison
Service Municipal Wide “Hard” Services: Services Related to a Highway Fire Protection Services Police and Other Facilities Engineering Services - Studies* Total Municipal Wide “Hard” Services Municipal Wide “Soft” Services: Parks and Recreation Library Services Recreation & Culture - Studies* Total Municipal Wide “Soft” Services Total Municipal Wide Services
Current
Current (as indexed)
5,543 548 374
6,356 628 429
6,465
7,413
94 53 146
108 61 167
293 6,758
336 7,749
Calculated
Current vs. Calculated
Current (as indexed) vs. Calculated
6,856 1,022 98 84 8,060
24% 86% -74%
8% 63% -77%
25%
9%
991 71 219 1,281 9,341
954% 34% 108%
819% 17% 81%
337% 38%
281% 21%
*Studies were previously combined into one category. Percentage change in “current vs. calculated” column for “soft” services accounts for both categories.
Page 15 of 60
13
Rate Comparison – Non-Residential (per sq.ft.)
Non-Residential (per sq.ft.) Comparison
Service Municipal Wide Services: Services Related to a Highway Fire Protection Services Police and Other Facilities Engineering Services - Studies* Total Municipal Wide Services Municipal Wide Services: Parks and Recreation Library Services Recreation & Culture - Studies* Total Municipal Wide Services Total Municipal Wide Services
Current
Current (as indexed) Current (as Current vs. vs. indexed) Calculated Calculated Calculated
4.36 0.46 0.28
5.00 0.53 0.32
5.10
5.85
0.12
0.14
0.12 5.22
0.14 5.99
4.62 0.69 0.07 0.05 5.43
6% 50% -75%
-8% 31% -78%
6%
-7%
0.33 0.02 0.14 0.49 5.92
58%
38%
308% 13%
256% -1%
Page 16 of 60
*Studies were previously combined into one category. Percentage change in “current vs. calculated” column for “soft” services accounts for both categories.
14
D.C. Survey - Residential Development Charge Rates for South Frontenac and Comparator Municipalities Residential Per Single Detached Unit (As of May 7, 2019) 25,000
Charge Per Single Detached Unit ($)
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
*By-law to expire on September 29, 2019 **By-law to expire on September 9, 2019
Lower Tier
Education
Page 17 of 60
Upper Tier
15
D.C. Survey – Non-Residential (Commercial) Development Charge Rates for South Frontenac and Comparator Municipalities Commercial Per Square Foot of GFA (As of May 7, 2019) 20.00 18.00
Charge Per Sq.Ft. of GFA ($)
16.00 14.00 12.00
10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00
2.00
**By-law to expire on September 9, 2019
Lower Tier
Education
Page 18 of 60
Upper Tier *By-law to expire on September 29, 2019
16
D.C. Survey – Non-Residential (Industrial) Development Charge Rates for South Frontenac and Comparator Municipalities Industrial Per Square Foot of GFA (As of May 7, 2019) 10.00 9.00
Charge Per Sq.Ft. of GFA ($)
8.00 7.00 6.00
5.00 4.00 3.00
2.00 1.00 0.00
*By-law to expire on September 29, 2019 **By-law to expire on September 9, 2019
Lower Tier
Education
Page 19 of 60
Upper Tier
17
Proposed Exemptions and Policy
Non-Statutory Exemptions: • Place of Worship (exempted in current by-law); • Not for profit – Affordable Housing; • Bonafide Agricultural Use/Farm Building (excludes growing/processing of cannabis); and • Secondary residential units within the primary dwelling as well as in separate detached accessory structures.
Policy: • 5-year sunset clause on redevelopment credits. Page 20 of 60
18
Bill 108: “More Homes, More Choice: Ontario’s Housing Supply Action Plan” The following provides a brief overview of the proposed changes to the Development Charges Act: •
Changes to eligible services •
•
Soft Services will be removed from the DCA and will be considered as part of a new Community Benefits Charge imposed under the Planning Act (i.e. parking, outdoor recreation, indoor recreation, library services, etc.)
Payment in Installments over six years •
•
Rental and non-profit housing, as well as non-residential developments will pay their DC in six equal annual installments
When DC Amount is Determined
19
Currently DCs are calculated at the building permit stage. The proposed change would have DCs calculated on the date of the 19 application for Site Plan or zoning amendment
Page 21 of 60
•
Bill 108: “More Homes, More Choice: Ontario’s Housing Supply Action Plan” Community Benefit Charge (for soft services – outdoor recreation, indoor recreation, library and soft service admin studies )
•
Municipality may, by by-law, impose community benefits charges against land to pay for the capital costs of facilities, services and matters required because of development or redevelopment in the area to which the by-law applies
•
These services may not include services authorized by the DCA
•
The amount of a community benefits charge payable shall not exceed an amount equal to the prescribed percentage of the value of the land as of the valuation date
•
The valuation date is the day before building permit issuance
•
All money received by the municipality under a community benefits charge by-law shall be paid into a special account
•
Transitional provisions are set out regarding the DC reserve funds and DC credits 20
Page 22 of 60
20
•
Next Steps
• May 31, 2019 – Release Background Study & Draft By-law to public • June 19, 2019 – Development Charges Open House • July 2, 2019 – Public Meeting • August 6, 2019 – Council Consideration of By-law
Page 23 of 60
21
Questions?
Page 24 of 60
22
Cowboy Mounted Shooting
Page 25 of 60
Presentation to South Frontenac Township Council May 14, 2019
What is Cowboy Mounted Shooting?
• Cowboy mounted shooting is one of the fastest growing equestrian sports. • It combines the sport of target shooting with horseback riding. • Started in the mid 1990’s as an organized sport there are two main associations (Cowboy Mounted Shooting Association, CMSA, and The Mounted Shooters of America) with affiliates across North America • Cowboy mounted shooting was brought to Ontario in 2017 with the creation of the Ontario Cowboy Mounted Shooting Association a member of CMSA.
Page 26 of 60
What is Cowboy Mounted Shooting?
• It is a timed competition, similar to barrel racing. • If you miss a balloon you get a 5 second penalty • The person with the lowest time wins • You use fire arms to pop the balloons. • The fire arms includes Colt 45 replicas, shot guns, and rifles • All ammunition is black powder blanks • Maximum distance of each round is 20 feet • There are 100’s of course patterns that include 10 balloons.
Page 27 of 60
What is Cowboy Mounted Shooting?
Page 28 of 60
Video by IowaPublic Television – Iowa State Fair 2013
Why are we talking to you about Cowboy Mounted Shooting? • This is our hobby and we want to be able to practice at home • The current closest approved Mounted Shooting Range is in Orangeville, ON • You can only target practice with fire arms at approved ranges • To apply for a range we need to obtain a letter from the township indicating we are not violating any township by‐laws or regulations • We are asking that the Township provide us the required letter indicating no violation of any regulations or by‐laws.
Page 29 of 60
Why are we talking to you about Cowboy Mounted Shooting?
NORTH
90 x 190
ARENA Property Line of Phillip & Jaime Page 30 of 60
Proposed Mounted Shooting Ring & Range
Steps We Have Taken So Far • On February 20, 2019 we attended a Frontenac Community Arena Board meeting where we made a presentation and asked for a letter of support. (Attached) • Frontenac Community Arena neighbours our property to the West.
Page 31 of 60
Steps We Have Taken So Far • We hand delivered a letter to 15 of our neighbours explaining what we were attempting to do. • The letter also invited them to a meeting we hosted at the Piccadilly Hall on April 13, 2019 from 3:00 – 5:00 pm • 5 households attended. • There was concern we wanted to host a rodeo • Noise was a concern • Dust from our sand ring was a concern • To date we have not received any email or phone call inquiries.
Page 32 of 60
Our Request
• We are asking that the Township provide us the required letter indicating no violation of any regulations or by‐laws as requested by the Chief Fire Arms Office. • As a recap: • Our intention is to obtain this permit for our sole use for practicing Cowboy Mounted Shooting • There is no live rounds used, black powder blanks only • We have notified our neighbours of our interest and explained what Cowboy Mounted Shooting is
Page 33 of 60
Questions?
Page 34 of 60
Page 35 of 60
To: Wayne Orr, CAO Township of South Frontenac From: Frontenac Community Arena Subject: Cowboy Mounted Shooting Range At the February 20th Frontenac Community Arena Board meeting, we heard from Phillip Smith & Jaime Lloyd in regards to plans and application to obtain licensing for a range at their property located adjacent to the FCA at 7651 Road 38. This range would be used for the purpose of practicing the sport of Cowboy Mounted Shooting with self-cocking firearms using blank ammunition. As part of their process in obtaining a letter from the Township of South Frontenac in order to meet the requirements of the Chief Fire Arms office, Mr. Smith and Mrs. Lloyd have been meeting with the neighbouring properties to present the plan and ask for support. Based on the presentation and understanding of the strict requirements of this highly regulated sport, the Arena Board does not have any concerns with this activity occurring at a range that is approximately 150 meters from the Arena property line. Given that the activity will be occurring during the Arena’s non-ice season there was also little concern about any potential disruption to our patrons. We are however mindful that this activity may occur during times that there could be Public using the Arena soccer fields or Arena for Ball Hockey. With this in mind and if the licensing of the range was to move forward, we would inform our patrons that at times, they may hear some activity coming from this property. In conclusion the Arena Board was supporting of a potential application. If you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely,
Tim Laprade, Arena Manager, Frontenac Community Arena Frontenac Community Arena 4299 Arena Boundary Rd, Godfrey Ontario, K0H 1T0 Tel 613-374-2177
Page 36 of 60 Dear Neighbour,
We hope this letter finds you well. We are writing to you to provide you with information pertaining to upcoming plans we have for our property located at 7651 Road 38 in Piccadilly.
In the past couple of years, we have been participating in a new equine sport to Ontario called Cowboy Mounted Shooting. This sport combined horses, pistols, and timed courses. Most of our competitions take place in Western Ontario with the closest to us being Orangeville. We are looking to practice this sport at our home with our horses. For us to be able to do this we first need to obtain permission by obtaining a gun range license that would allow the use of pistols. This authority is granted by the Chief Firearms Office. For us the first step in this process is obtaining a letter from the Township that no by-laws or planning policies are being violated.
We want our neighbours to be well informed of what we are doing as when people mention guns, there can be fear associated with that. We want you to understand that the sport uses only black powder blanks cartridges with no projectile.
PHILLIP SMTIH & JAIME LLOYD 7651 Road 38, Verona, ON
CONTACT PHONE: 613-539-7670 (Phillip) 613-483-8757 (Jaime)
We know that you may have lots of questions which is why we are hosting a meeting on Saturday, April 13, from 3:00 to 5:00 pm at the Piccadilly Hall. We want to explain the sport in full detail, along with the safety rules that are followed, and to answer any questions you may have.
If you are unable to attend this meeting, please feel free to reach out to either of us. Our contact information can be found on the left of this page.
Sincerely, EMAIL: phillip@bell.net jaime1031@sympatico.ca
Phillip Smith & Jaime Lloyd Enclosure (MAP OF PROPERTY)
Page 37 of 60
90 X 190 Ring
Page 38 of 60
Report to Council OFFICE OF C.A.O.
AGENDA DATE:
May 14, 2019
SUBJECT:
Strategic Plan – On line Survey
RECOMMENDATION: That Council provides final direction on the focus of the on line survey BACKGROUND: On May 7, Council confirmed the four Strategic Planning Public Input Sessions and provided some initial feedback for the online survey. The Mission, Vision and Guiding Principles from the 2015 – 2018 Strategic plan are provided in the attached document. Building on the existing Mission and Vision, and the feedback provided so far the survey may read as: STRATEGIC PLAN SURVEY The Township is seeking your input in developing a Strategic Plan which will establish the focus of their activities over the next three years. Please answer the questions below and provide your input. Thank you. Your anonymous responses will be collated and presented to Council at an upcoming Council meeting. Your input along with the input received from the Strategic Planning District Open Houses will be considered by Council as they draft the plan. The public will be invited to provide formal comment on the draft plan at an upcoming public meeting.
- On a scale of 1-5 with 1 meaning strongly disagree and five meaning strongly agree: The overall goal of the Township is: To sustain and enhance the quality of life for residents of South Frontenac. 1
2
3
4
5
SKIP
COMMENTS
- On a scale of 1-5 with 1 meaning strongly disagree and five meaning strongly agree: The best way for the Township to reach its goal is to: be a proactive, wellmanaged and accountable while engaging residents, collaborating with partners and championing the community’s unique lifestyle. 1
2
3
4
5
COMMENTS
Our strength is our community.
SKIP
Page 39 of 60
Report to Council OFFICE OF C.A.O.
Generally speaking, the Township is faced with competing demands to: enhance services for residents, manage costs and protect the environment. The intent of the strategic plan will be to prioritize these competing demands. 3) On a scale of 1-5 with 1 meaning strongly disagree and five meaning strongly agree: Is South Frontenac currently heading in the right direction? 1
2
3
4
5
SKIP
COMMENTS
What services would you like to see more of? COMMENTS
What services would you like to see less of? COMMENTS
What changes would you like to see in the way we deliver our existing services? COMMENTS
On a scale of 1-5 with 1 meaning strongly disagree and five meaning strongly agree: Do you feel you receive good value for your Township property tax dollar? 1
2
3
4
5
SKIP
COMMENTS
To help us better deliver services and understand your input, please answer the following questions. Thank you A. How would you describe your resident status in the Township? Select one Year round resident
Seasonal Resident
Non-resident: landowner
Other
Our strength is our community.
Page 40 of 60
Report to Council OFFICE OF C.A.O.
B. Do you live in a hamlet / village? Yes or No C. Do you have waterfront property? Yes or No D. Which District are you from?
Bedford Loughborough Portland Storrington Don’t know
Should you have any questions or wish to provide further input, please feel free to contact us at: admin@southforntenac.net. Thanks you
FINANCIAL / STAFFING IMPLICATIONS To be determined.
Submitted/approved by:
Prepared by:
Wayne Orr, CAO
Wayne Orr, CAO
Our strength is our community.
Page 41 of 60
Report to Council OFFICE OF C.A.O.
Taken from the 2015-2019 Strategic Plan, adopted by Council May 2015.
MISSION: To sustain and enhance the quality of life for residents of South Frontenac. This will be achieved by: providing essential and important municipal services and infrastructure in an efficient, well-planned and cost-effective manner; being an advocate for responsible growth, with a sensitivity to the environment; supporting South Frontenac’s unique identity, rural / small-urban lifestyle, culture, history, agricultural diversity, natural assets and economic vitality.
VISION: The Township of South Frontenac will be a proactive, well-managed and accountable municipality that engages residents, collaborates with partners and champions the community’s unique lifestyle. This will be achieved by: following a balanced approach to costs and benefits, needs and circumstances, ambition and financial capacity; setting high standards for its municipal services and infrastructure, and maintaining them at levels the community can be proud of; managing finances in ways that are a model of fiscal responsibility; making decisions from a long-term perspective, considering the implications, trends and risks; informing and engaging citizens and collaborative partners in the process of helping South Frontenac to advance.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES: South Frontenac is committed to:
acting in the interests of and for the benefit of the entire municipality; conducting business and treating individuals in a fair, respectful, professional, supportive and consistent manner; pursuing excellence and best practices in customer service and use of communications technology; taking a long-term perspective to pro-actively plan for future infrastructure and services; upholding the community’s unique identity and lifestyle; helping address climate change by improving energy efficiency and supporting renewable energy production considering decisions in light of the desire to be an (any) Age-Friendly community; advancing transparency and collaborative processes by actively informing, educating and engaging the public.
Our strength is our community.
Page 42 of 60
REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE CLERKS DEPARTMENT
AGENDA DATE: May 14, 2019 SUBJECT: Impact of Bill 107 – Getting Ontario Moving Act and Bill 108 – More Homes, More Choices Act
RECOMMENDATION Open
BACKGROUND Further to the request from Council at the May 7, 2019 Council meeting regarding the impact of Bill 107, the Getting Ontario Moving Act, 2019 and Bill 108, the More Homes, More Choices Act, 2019, we have attached correspondence from Watson & Associates and their comments on the proposed changes to the Development Charges Act, and the AMO Initial Review on both Bills for review and discussion.
ATTACHMENTS Gary Scandlan, Director, Watson & Associates Economists Ltd, re: Proposed changes to the Development Charges Act AMO – Initial Review of Bill 107 and Bill 108 Submitted/approved by: Angela Maddocks Clerk
Our strength is our community.
Page 43 of 60
/
Watson &Associates
ECONOMISTS LTD.
May 6, 2019
To Our Development Charge Clients Re:
Prooosed Chanoes to the Development Gharqes Act
The letter is to advise that on May 2,2019, the Province introduced Bill 108 which proposes changes to the Development Charges Act, 1997 (D.C.A.). The Bill has been introduced as part of the Province’s “More Homes, More Choice: Ontario’s Housing Supply Action Plan.” The Bill has been given first reading and is expected to be debated over the coming months. The Act proposes that any development charge (D C ) by-laws passed after May 2, 2019 will be affected by these proposed changes. Any by-laws that were passed prior to this date will remain in effect until the by-law either is repealed or expires. A summary of the proposed changes to the D.C.A. is provided below.
Ghanges to Eligible Services - The Bill will remove “soft services” from the D.C.A. These services will be considered as part of a new Community Benefit Charge (discussed below) imposed under the Planning Acfl Eligible services that will remain under the D.C.A. are as follows: Water supply seryices, including distribution and treatment services; Wastewater services, including sewers and treatment services; Stormwater drainage and control services; Services related to a highway as defined in subsection 1 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 or subsection 3 (1) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, as the case may be; Electrical power services, Policing services; Fire protection services; Toronto-York subway extension, as defined in subsection 5.1 (1); Transit services other than the Toronto-York subway extension; Waste diversion services; and Other services as prescribed. Waste Diversion - The Bill will remove the mandatory 10% deduction for this service. Payment in Installments Over Six Years - The Bill proposes that rental housing, nonprofit housing and commercial/industrial/institutional developments pay their D.C.s in six equal annual payments commencing the date of issuance of an occupancy permit or occupancy of the building, whichever is earlier. The municipality may elect to charge interest (at a prescribed rate) for each payment, commencing the date of the first Plaza Three 101-2000 Argentia Rd Mississauga, Ontario
LsN 1V9
Office: 905-272-3600
Fax: 905-272-3602
@0
Hr\DCA-GEN\Bill 108\Bill 108 Letter docx
Page 44 of 60
/ payment. lf payments are not made, interest may continue to be charged and may be added to the property and collected as taxes. When D.C. Amount is Determined - The Bill proposes that the D.C. amount for all developments proceeding by site plan or requiring a zoning amendment shall be determined based on the D.C. charge in effect on the day of the application for site plan or zoning amendment. lf the development is not proceeding via these planning approvals, then the amount is determined at the earlier of the date of issuance of a building permit or occupancy.
Soft Services to be lncluded in a New Gommunity Benefit Charge Under the Planning Act - lt is proposed that a municipality may, by by-law, impose community benefits charges against land to pay for the capital costs of facilities, services and matters required because of development or redevelopment in the area to which the bylaw applies. These services may not include services authorized by the D.C.A. Various provisions are provided as follows:
. Before passing a community benefits charge by-law, the municipality shall . o o . o . .
prepare a community benefits charge strategy that (a) identifies the facilities, services and matters that will be funded with community benefits charges; and (b) complies with any prescribed requirements. The amount of a community benefits charge payable shall not exceed an amount equal to the prescribed percentage of the value of the land as of the valuation date. The valuation date is the day before building permit issuance. Valuations will be based on appraised value of land. Various requirements are set out in this regard. All money received by the municipality under a community benefits charge bylaw shall be paid into a special account. ln each calendar year, a municipality shall spend or allocate at least 60 percent of the monies that are in the special account at the beginning of the year. Requirements for annual reporting shall be prescribed. Transitional provisions are set out regarding the D.C. reserve funds and D.C. credits.
Remarks The proposed legislative changes noted above will require a more detailed review to consider the impact to the D.C. and Planning Acf matters including methodology, collection policies and transition policies. As we have done in the past, our firm will be engaging with legal advisors to further consider the full implications of the Bill and potential Regulations. We will be providing a submission on the Bill to the Province on behalf of our D.C. clients. A few direct comments are made at this time for consideration of the reader, as follows:
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd Bill 1 08 Letter docx
PAGE 2
Page 45 of 60
/ Pavment in lnstallments Over Six Years a
o
a
The delay in receiving the D.C. revenue will impact the D.C. cashflow. As most of these “hard seryices” must be provided in advance of development occurring, it will require increased debt borrowing. Added debt interest will have upward pressure on the D.C. quantum. As the proposed changes to the Act are to facilitate the Province’s housing agenda, it is unclear why these installment payments are to be provided to commercial, industrial and institutional developments. The requirement to manage multiple-year collections for each building permit issued for each rental housing, non-profit housing and commercial/industrial/ institutional development building permit will cause a tremendous administrative burden on municipalities. This will add to staffing requirements and be reflected in higher planning and building permit fees.
When D.C. Amount is Determined a
a
Locking in the D.C. rates well in advance of the building permit issuance would produce a shortfall in D.C. revenue, as the chargeable rates will not reflect the current rate as of the time the development proceeds to be built. There should be a time limit on how long the development takes to move from site plan approval, or zoning change, to the issuance of a building permit. There is no financial incentive for the development to move quickly to building permit. This may induce speculation to change the land use and then market the lands. (Note: There is an opportunity for a time limit to be prescribed by regulation; however, there are a number of references currently in the D.C.A. that “the Minister may prescribe” which have not been acted upon.)
to be lncluded in a New Com
Benefit
t
Act a
a
a
More information is needed, as there are several key items to be included as part of the regulations. That is, what items are to be included in the community benefits charge strategy and what percentage of the “value of land” is to be eligible for collection? Depending on what is to be included in the community benefits charge strategy, this may be undertaken at a similar time as the D.C. background study. As noted, however, it is unclear as to the prescribed items to be included along with the process required to adopt the strategy and the by-law. Concern is raised regarding what prescribed percentage of the land value will be allocated for the charge. lf the same percentage is provided for all Ontario, then a single-family lot in Toronto valued at $2 million will yield 20 times the revenue of a $100,000 lot in eastern Ontario. Given that building costs for the same
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd Bill 1 08 Letter.docx
PAGE 3
Page 46 of 60
/
o
a
facilities may only vary by, say, 15%, the community benefits charge could yield nominal funds to pay for required services for municipalities outside the G.T.A. It is unclear how the community benefits charge will be implemented in a two-tier municipal system. Given that both the upper and lower tiers will have needs, there is no guidance on how the percentage of the land value will be allocated, or how the process for allocating this would occur. Obviously, land values will vary significantly in urban vs. semi-urban communities (e.9. in York Region, land value in Markham is significantly higher than in Georgina), so the upper-tier needs may only take, say, 30% of the allotted value in the urban areas but75%90% of the allotted semi-urban or rural values. Given the need for appraisals and the ability of the applicant to challenge the appraisal, a charging system based on land values will be extremely cumbersome and expensive. lt is unclear how appraisal costs are recovered, and the appraisals may become a significant cost on each individual property.
We trust that the above information is helpful. For those clients who are in the midst of a background study process, we would be pleased to further discuss this with you and Council shortly. For our other clients, we would be pleased to arrange a time to discuss this further. As noted above, we will be providing further feedback to the Province during this legislative process. Yours very truly,
WATSON &
SOCIATES ECONOMISTS LTD
Gary Scandlan, BA, PLE Director
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd Bill 108 Letter.docx
Andrew Grunda, MBA, CPA, CMA Principal
PAGE 4
Page 47 of 60
May 7, 2019
AMO’s Initial Review of Bill 107, the Getting Ontario Moving Act, 2019 and Bill 108, the More Homes, More Choices Act, 2019 On May 2nd, 2019, two Bills of key interest to municipal governments were introduced. Bill 108, the More Homes, More Choices Act, 2019 addresses the shortage of affordable housing across the province by finding faster ways of getting a greater mix of housing supply on the ground. Bill 107, the Getting Ontario Moving Act, 2019 updates numerous road safety rules and allows the province to assume ownership over Toronto’s subway infrastructure. This update will focus on schedules of primary importance to municipal governments. We will continue to analyze the legislation and keep you updated as further information becomes available. A number of changes will require regulations. Bill 108, The More Homes, More Choices Act, 2019 The Bill contains numerous amendments to many pieces of legislation. Considering the pressure on the Ontario government, Bill 108 contains some positives for municipal governments. Other aspects of the Bill may result in financial and service impacts that need to be determined. We have put the Schedules in order of primary importance. Schedule 3 – Amendments to the Development Charges Act The Housing Supply Action Plan reflects the long-standing idea that growth should pay for growth but brings some changes that will alter Development Charges (DCs). These include:
The separation of DCs and a new Community Benefits Charge (CBC) regime to pay for as yet unspecified municipal services. Greater clarity is needed and will be provided through anticipated regulations. CBCs are discussed under Schedule 12. Municipal governments may now charge the full capital costs of waste diversion services in the calculation of development charges (not including landfill sites, landfill services, or incineration). This is a positive development. Proposed changes also affect rules on when development charge are payable if the development is rental housing, institutional, commercial, industrial or nonprofit housing. In these cases, development charge payments to the municipality will now be made as six annual instalments commencing upon occupancy. Municipal governments may charge interest from the time of building permit issue and the interest rate will be determined by regulation. Notably, front-ending payment agreements reached prior to the Act coming into force will be preserved. Against municipal advice, second dwellings or dwelling units will be exempt from development charges. Public library material (for reference or circulation) will also be excluded from development charge calculations.
A deeper analysis of Schedule 3 and its potential impacts is underway. Once completed, we will provide members with this information.
Page 48 of 60
Schedule 9 – Amendments to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act The LPAT remains but will no longer evaluate appeals based on compliance with official plans and consistency with provincial plans and policy. Instead, it will return to a “best planning outcome” approach. This means a return to de novo hearings. This is very disappointing for municipal governments as it will again take final planning decisions out of elected councils’ hands. Historically, the use of a de novo approach to appeals has drawn out hearings. It is unclear how this reversal will speed up housing development. On the positive side, the Bill proposes limits to third party appeals of subdivisions and promotes increased mediation to resolve appeals. There will also be new limits on the extent of testimony. As well, the province has committed to hiring additional staff to help deal with the existing LPAT case backlog that arose from the OMB process and transition. It may be that current land use applications at Council tables are withdrawn to come in after Bill 108 rules take effect. AMO will consult with the Ministry as transition rules and accompanying regulations are considered. Schedule 12 – Amendments to the Planning Act The proposed Bill touches on numerous land use planning policies. Overall, these changes may have the desired effect of increasing the mix of housing and speeding up the process. To facilitate housing mix, the Bill would allow the creation of second units in ancillary buildings. It also reduces timelines for making decisions related to official plans from 210 to 120 days and from 150 to 90 days for zoning by-law amendments. It also proposes to shelter plans of subdivision from third party appeals. The schedule also proposes to change the conditions under which municipal governments can establish inclusionary zoning by-laws and policies to facilitate affordable housing development. Inclusionary zoning would be limited to areas around protected major transit stations or areas with a development permit system in place. The Bill would also allow the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to exercise authority to order an area to be subject to inclusionary zoning. These proposed changes will continue to allow municipal governments the ability to enact inclusionary zoning but will restrict the application of this affordable housing tool. Another change is that either the municipality or the Minister can initiate the use of a Community Planning Permit System (CPPS) in areas strategic for housing growth. The proposed legislation also introduces a new Community Benefits Charge (CBC) regime to address the costs of providing services to new residents as a result of growth. This is a change to Section 37 allowing a municipality, through a by-law defining an area, to impose community benefits charges against land to pay for capital costs of facilities, services and matters required because of development or redevelopment in the area. Notably, costs of growth eligible for development charges are excluded from the new Community Benefits framework. The CBC by-law will be based on a strategy produced by the municipality which identifies the costs of growth not covered by development charges. As well, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing will be preparing a list of eligible items for the charge, methodology for calculating the charge and any caps they may deem necessary. AMO has discussed with the province the need for a transparent transition to this new means of recuperating the cost of growth. It should be noted that the CBC will be held in a special account and these funds must be spent in keeping with the Act and regulations. Specifically, each year a municipality will have to spend or allocate at least 60 per cent of the monies that are in the special account at the beginning of the year. Certain lands (i.e. hospitals) will be exempted
Page 49 of 60
from the new Community Benefits regime. These exemptions will be listed in a future regulation. Another proposed change relates to parkland. Parkland costs can be included in the Community Benefits Charge or they can be charged under subsection 42 (1). However, there will be changes to the methodology. AMO will continue to monitor additional details as they become available. If Bill 108 becomes law, many regulations would be required for implementation. Schedule 2 – Amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act Schedule 2 introduces a new concept of Conservation Authority (CA) ‘core services.’‘ Core services’ includes programs and services related to natural hazard risks, land management and conservation of lands owned or controlled by the authority, source water protection under the Clear Water Act, 2006, and other CA responsibilities under legislation as prescribed in regulations. As well, the Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority has specific responsibilities related to the Lake Simcoe Act. Expectations on the standards and expectations for these core services will be set out in regulations. The draft amendments will also require CAs to enter into memoranda of understanding with municipal governments on service delivery to avoid duplication, especially where planning and development are concerned. Knowing what CAs are required to do, what is discretionary and how this impacts the levy as part of a municipal agreement is welcomed. This schedule also includes governance and oversight-related provisions such as CA board member training and Minister oversight. Assurances that Conservation Authority Board members have training about their responsibilities is good governance. AMO will participate in discussions with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry and the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks on the implementation of these changes, including draft regulations, in the months ahead. Schedule 6 – Amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act The province is proposing to increase the exemptions for low risk activities within the municipal class EA. These could include speed bumps, de-icing, and streetscaping. As well, the province has exempted itself from a number of EA requirements related to transit, mines, parks and real estate. A consultation paper has been released and AMO will be providing comment. While greater information around Duty to Consult, the sale of provincial brownfields and the bump up process is being sought by AMO, these proposed changes reflect long term requests from the municipal sector. Schedule 5 – Amendments to the Endangered Species Act The suite of changes contained in this schedule is intended to streamline development while protecting endangered species. The proposals remain science-based and seek to balance both species-at-risk protections and human endeavours in a new way. The proposed changes would require that species at risk be considered in the broader geographic context (both inside and outside Ontario) when determining species’ status. The role of the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) will remain the same. However, to increase predictability, their reports will now be due each year in January. Bill 108 also creates more realistic timelines, enables the phasing in of protection implementation and gives the Minister discretion to consider social and economic realities when determining a government response to species at risk.
Page 50 of 60
A key change is that the Minister will be able to enter into ‘landscape agreements.’ A landscape agreement authorizes activities that would otherwise be prohibited with respect to one or more listed species. Agreements will include requirements to execute specified beneficial actions that will assist in the protection or recovery of species. Bill 108 also establishes a Species at Risk Conservation Fund and an agency to manage and administer the Fund. The purpose of the Fund is to provide funding for activities that are reasonably likely to protect or recover species at risk. Where a municipal work or a development damages a habitat, a charge in lieu of meeting certain imposed conditions would be possible with a permit. The municipality or developer would still have to minimize impacts and seek alternatives. This creates an alternative path for development where protection of onsite habitat is problematic. AMO continues to work with the Ministry as they formulate policy, draft regulations and programming to implement these proposed changes. Schedule 11 – Amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act The Bill proposes changes that would improve heritage register maintenance and transparency. The legislative amendments would require a municipal council to notify the property owner if the property is not formally designated but has been included in the register due to cultural heritage value or interest. The proposed legislation also includes new timelines for a number of notices and decisions that are currently open-ended under the existing regime. The amendments also provide additional clarity to the meaning of ‘alteration’ and ‘demolition.’ All of these changes should add more certainty to the process and make it more transparent and efficient. Schedule 1- Amendments to the Cannabis Control Act Schedule 1 clarifies provisions for interim closure orders for illegal dispensaries and creates exemptions allowing police and other emergency responders to enter the premises for ‘exigent circumstances.’ The schedule also repeals a provision that exempted residences from interim closure orders. This is to deal with the tactic of putting a residency within an illegal dispensary. Bill 107, The Getting Ontario Moving Act, 2019 Bill 107 focuses on making roads safer for Ontario residents. The draft legislation also creates authorities for the provincial government to upload subway infrastructure. Schedule 1 – Amendments to the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) Bill 107 would amend the HTA to align sections related to driving under the influence to correspond with updates to the Criminal Code of Canada. This is necessary to ensure charges are consistent and defensible in court. Another proposed change of key interest to municipal governments is the creation of an Administrative Monetary Penalty (AMP) regime for municipal governments to charge drivers that pass an extended school bus stop arm outfitted with a camera. The province will be putting forward regulations to allow the evidence from these cameras to be used in court. Municipal governments are keen to introduce school bus stop arm enforcement cameras to help keep children safe. Along with the anticipated deployment of Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) technology in School and Community Safety Zones, these measures should provide the ability for local governments to more efficiently enforce road safety in communities. A concern for municipal governments relates to fine collection. Section 21.1 (13) of
Page 51 of 60
the Bill provides that an AMP that is not paid in accordance with the terms of the order is a debt to the Crown. AMO recommends that the legislation be amended to consider it a debt to the Crown or a municipal government, depending on its nature, as provided through a new regulation. Bill 107, if passed, would also amend the rules to automatically allow off-road vehicles on municipal roads in all areas of the province. This amendment reverses the onus as these vehicles are currently prohibited unless a municipal government passes a bylaw to allow them. Another change is the anticipated alignment of Ontario’s rules for commercial vehicles with other jurisdictions. This includes allowing the use of wide-based single tires for trucks and aligning the rules with other jurisdictions for charter bus operations in the province. Penalty increases are also proposed for drivers that endanger workers such as construction personnel or tow truck drivers on highways and for drivers that drive too slowly in the left-hand lane. Bill 107, if passed, will also introduce new penalties for impaired driving instructors, for removing or defacing traffic signs and prohibiting vehicles from entering bicycle lanes and bus terminals. The province will also review the rules of the road for bicycles, e-scooters and e-bikes as well as consult on raising highway speed limits. Schedule 3 – Amendments to the Metrolinx Act The legislation creates the mechanism for the Ontario government to prescribe rapid transit project design, development or construction as the sole responsibility of Metrolinx through regulation and to prohibit further action on that project by the City of Toronto. The proposed amendments would allow the Minister to issue directives to the City of Toronto and its agencies. The changes in this legislation are limited to the City of Toronto and its agencies as defined under the City of Toronto Act, specifically the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC). However section 47 (1) of the legislation allows the province to assume assets “with or without” compensation or recourse to the City. The Act further stipulates that this transfer would not constitute a breach of by-laws, rights or contracts nor is it an expropriation. Section 51 (3) limits proceedings for remedies or restitution. AMO notes that these proposed provisions could set precedents for changes beyond the TTC subway where the provincial government assumes municipal assets without fair compensation. AMO will review this further given its potential application in other municipal-provincial contexts. Schedule 5 – Amendments to the Public Transportation and Highways Improvement Act (PTHIA) Bill 107 proposes to update the PTHIA to recognize activities such as grading of land and broadens the definition of infrastructure to include “structures” in addition to bridge and underpass construction in the Ministry permit zone. Schedule 6 – Amendments to the Shortline Railways Act The Bill updates the Act to define a railway as a rail service to encompass its operations, to allow the registrar to more easily add, amend or revoke conditions on licenses and to provide processes for doing so, including by electronic means. Railways are required to provide operational information on a regular basis and to notify the registrar of changes to corporate officers or to the services provided. The Bill also proposes to abolish the current requirement for a shortline rail service that will discontinue operations to offer to sell to the Government of Ontario at salvage value.
Page 52 of 60
Contacts: Development Charges: Matthew Wilson, Senior Advisor, mwilson@amo.on.ca, 416-971-9856 ext. 323 Bill 108: Cathie Brown, Senior Advisor, cathiebrown@amo.on.ca, 416-971-9856 ext. 342 Bill 107: Craig Reid, Senior Advisor, creid@amo.on.ca, 416-971-9856 ext. 334
*Disclaimer: The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) is unable to provide any warranty regarding the accuracy or completeness of third-party submissions. Distribution of these items does not imply an endorsement of the views, information or services mentioned.
Page 53 of 60
Report to Council OFFICE OF C.A.O.
AGENDA DATE:
May 14, 2019
SUBJECT:
Fermoy Hall Next Steps
RECOMMENDATION: OPEN BACKGROUND: In May 2018 Council passed the following motion: THAT Council adopt the recommendation of The Heritage Committee that Fermoy Hall be considered for future listing as a place of cultural significance to the United Townships of Bedford and Palmerston dating back to 1866 and that any interior work be done in such a manner as to be sympathetic to the interior design and construction materials. AND THAT funding be allocated to have a restoration expert prepare a report for Council consideration. In October 2018 a report was received from Andre Scheinman, Heritage Preservation Consultant (see attached) which articulates the construction methods employed over the years and the condition of the existing plaster as fair to poor. In summary his report indicates that “The existing skim coat finish is not of heritage value (unlike the original lime plaster below) and any attempted repair now, and in the future will create conditions inimical to public safety requiring, by law, costly special removal and disposal procedures.” He goes on to recommend the complete removal of the plaster and replacing it with something that closely matches the original treatment. In March 2019, The Mayor was in conversation with Donna Garland, a community representative for the remediation of the Fermoy Hall (see attached email). She advocates for the gutting of the hall and the re-finishing of the hall on cost sharing basis i.e. a dollar for dollar matching program from fundraising and usage fees. The Project account still has $76,537 set aside awaiting direction from Council. The original estimate from Pinchin Ltd., was for the removal and disposal of all the plaster, and in order to complete this work in the most efficient manner it would extend to the removal of the electrical conduits and wainscoting. This was originally estimated to cost $27,000. Council has received a delegation on the potential uses for a renovated facility, from a community group. As of December this group remains committed to bring the facility back to life. Councillor Revill has previously offered comments on this matter (see attached). He has outlined several options and matters for consideration. Space and rental capacity likely existing within Glendower Hall. The use of the $76,537 to continue to refurbish space at an existing hall should be considered rather than expanding the number of halls that are operated and open for community use. Fermoy Hall if secured would likely be no worse off at a future date than it is in is present state should grants or desire exist to fully restore and preserve the cultural significance of the interior of the hall.
Our strength is our community.
Page 54 of 60
Report to Council OFFICE OF C.A.O.
ATTACHMENTS:
Andre Scheinman, Heritage Preservation Consultant Email from Donna Garland Briefing from Al Revill
FINANCIAL / STAFFING IMPLICATIONS To be determined.
Submitted/approved by:
Prepared by:
Wayne Orr, CAO
Wayne Orr, CAO
Our strength is our community.
Page 55 of 60
g_;……_ Ii Andléscheintnanlmmprmuvmmmnnlnm
October ‘-PI‘ 19, 2018. Jamie Brash Township of South Fmntenac Sydenham, Ontario (sent —‘I-by email)
Dear Jamie: Re: Fernmg Hall - Wall and Ceiling Plaster On j October 15, 2018 the site was visited to meet with you —*—and examine the situation with regard to the wall and ceiling plaster in the building. The Hall appears to be a wood ?ame ' structure on a granite ?eldstone foundation constructed in the mid 19”’century. It has an
E::—’ =n’
_–2
interestingva11lted(segmentallyarched ceiling) ?nished in plaster that extends down to the chair rail of a tall beaded, tongue and groove (t&g) boarded wainscot.
.:.-_='
:–"-
The original plaster appears to be a two-coat (brown/scratch and ?nish) lime plaster -.I.’.-:;:1_ 2-; application keyed into sawn wood laths. The nature of the wall section is not immediately clear though it is likely that the laths are secured to furring strips set on to interior wood =-.’=.’.’….*.. “’;:–P’sheathing(or possibly on to some horizontalnailers set between posts). Unfortunately at some point within the last 50 years the interior appears to have been E-’:’..’-L-I:--.-F:- skim coated with a plaster containing asbestos. This was not unusual as asbestos,with its insulating and ?re suppressing properties, was considered an ideal material for that …—..’.:.:-|;.’_ purpose. Unfortunately subsequent research has shown that inhalationof ?ne asbestos
?bres poses a signi?cant health risk for several cancers of the respiratory system including mesathelioma.Plaster sample testing commissionedby SZS Environmental Incorporated on behalf of the Township showed that the skim coat contains 3% chrysotile asbestos.While chrysotile is not consideredto be as virulent as the amphibole type it still must be considered as posing a signi?cant health risk should the ?bres be released from the plaster matrix and become airborne as from such typical construction repair procedures as cutting and sanding. (It appears, from some holes at the northeast corner of the building,that in this area at least, strips of plywood were set in place as a replacement lath —u to take the asbestos plaster indicating that the plaster was missing and/or seriously Z“— damaged the skim coat was applied.) ’T’——Iin that area at the time —II-I21
.E–j’:—-—………”.::.’-…—._-’.: _
_:
I=.’..-.3"
–"–=–
The condition of the existing plaster varies ?‘om fair to poor. Prior """ to the roof replacement there was extensive leakage and much of the ceiling is water stained. There is a large area at the ceiling arch where all layers of plaster and lath are missing likely due jT.:-
%T '
n.
Page 56 of 60
Page 57 of 60
Page 58 of 60
Page 59 of 60
relevant, but I think the wost Clearly budget considerations for both capital and operational cost case scenario is to decide to gut the building and not be prepared to bring the building back to a usable state, whatever level that may be. my view options for Council to consider include: -—:Iu1Iu—Iu: Do Nothing—While this minimizes the costs and risk to the municipality, it does nothing to allow -T-u-jjlux by the community nor in the long term preserve the asset. If seriously use —I—I- it 2would -I-I: under consideration, make saving. jjulu sense to disconnect the hydro as a cost -—’
The building could be sold or demolished. This would not satisfy people in the community, would be contrary to any municipal commitment to Heritage in our Municipality. The land could be retained by the Municipality for future use. The building could be completely stripped out by removal of all of the electriacl infrastructure including the distribution panel, removal of all plaster and wainscotting and have it cleaned up to get a clean bill of health regarding the asbestos. Only start any restoration when grant money becomes available or some other form of partnership develops to fund costs. Strip out the building as noted above in scenario 2, but develop a long term budget commitment 4. to restore the building. “Restoration” should include whatever electrical upgrades are reasonable, new wall and ceiling finishes, whether drywall or plaster, painting, re?nishing the ?oor and stage wainscoting and could include new foundation, insulation, whatever roughin might be required for in wall plumbing
venting or heating, septic system and potable well water. Obtain some additional professional opinions regarding repair and retention of the existing plaster 5. ?nishes. If reasonable, proceed to repair and move on to restore the building to the level that Council had previously considered ie repair plaster, repaint walls & ceilings, re?nish the floors and improve interior lighting. 6.
If Council chooses to pursue options 3, 4 or 5, there are further considerations that are relevant. a)
The Hallcould be used by a variety of community groups on a seasonal basis with modest investment as other halls are used. Defecits covered by tax dollars.
b)
Renovate the hall to a level that would support year round use as above with full
plumbing and septic. Defecits covered by tax dollars. c)
Renevate the Hallfor seasonal or year round use and consider a partnership with a
community group to take over all operation of the hall including self ?nancing of all operations. An example of this model is the Mera School House in Lanark County. A community group operates the building, raises funds from rentals and user groups and
cover costs for the building. Further review needed if this option were to be
considered.
Page 60 of 60
