Published October 25, 2016
Word Count 9569 words
Reading Time 45 min read

Body: Committee of the Whole Type: Agenda Meeting: Committee of the Whole Date: October 25, 2016 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: South Frontenac

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/south-frontenac/Agendas/Committee of the Whole/2016/Committee of the Whole - 25 Oct 2016 - Agenda.pdf)

Document Text

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING AGENDA

TIME: DATE: PLACE:

7:00 PM, Tuesday, October 25, 2016 Council Chambers.

Call to Order

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof

Scheduled Closed Session - n/a

***Recess *** - n/a

Delegations - n/a

Reports Requiring Action

(a)

Lindsay Mills, Planner, re: Request to reduce the cost for closing a portion of unopened road allowance

3-7

(b)

Lindsay Mills, Planner, re: Proposed Revisions to the Tariff of Fees for Planning Related Applications

8 - 10

(c)

Lindsay Mills, Planner, re: Line Fences Review

11 - 15

(d)

Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, re: 2017 Public Works Capital Budget

16 - 28

(e)

Louise Fragnito, Treasurer, re: 2017 Capital Budget

29 - 31

(f)

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer re: Organization Review Next Steps

32 - 33

Reports for Information - n/a

Rise & Report

(a)

Rideau Valley Conservation Authority

(b)

Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority

(c)

Quinte Region Conservation Authority

(d)

Portland Heritage

Information Items

(a)

Brian Ward, Vice President, Battersea Loughborough Lake Assoc re: Johnston Point MNRF Evaluation

(b)

Battersea Loughborough Lake Association, re: Letter of Endorsement - Notice of Motion

34 - 35

36

Page 2 of 48

(c)

Robert Charest, Trail Committee Member Report - October 2016

37

(d)

Richard Allen,Countryside District Councillor, City of Kingston, re: Invitation to Rural Economy Tour

38

(e)

Invitation to Rideau Valley Conservation Authority 50th Anniversary

39

(f)

Marek Stutz, Structural Engineer, AUE Structural, re: RFP P-03-2016 Bridge Engineering

40 - 43

(g)

Raliegh J. Robertson, re: Concerns about Skycroft Campground Expansion

44 - 45

(h)

Liz and John Palmer, re: Concerns about Skycroft Campground Expansion

46

(i)

Letter to Catherine Warren, MNRF, re: Council Resolution Johnston Point and Species at Risk

47

(j)

Letter to Premier Wynne, re: Council Resolution on Greenhouse Gas Reduction

48

Notice of Motions

Announcements

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

Closed Session (if requested)

Adjournment

Page 3 of 48

STAFF REPORT Township of South Frontenac Prepared for Committee of the Whole

Planning Department

Agenda Date: October 25, 2016 Date of Report: October 19, 2016

File: RC-16/01

Subject: Request to Reduce the Cost for Closing of a Portion of Unopened Road Allowance : Part Lot 18, Concession VIII, Storrington District, Township of South Frontenac: Ron Campbell

Summary of Recommendation: The recommendation is that Council receive the Planning Report dated October 19, 2016 and consider a request from a property owner to reduce the costs for the sale to him of an unopened road allowance in the District of Storrington.

Purpose of Report: The purpose of this report is to bring to Council a request to reduce the fees for the sale of Township land to an abutting land-owner.

Background: On February 9, 2016, the owner of property at 4378 Atkins Lane received approval in principle from the Committee of the Whole for the closure and sale to him of a portion of an unopened road allowance that abuts his waterfront property. However, the Committee specified that the ‘orphaned piece’ of road allowance that would result from the closure should also be dealt with. Attachment #1 shows the road allowance abutting the subject property and the ‘orphaned piece’ in bold. Subsequently, the applicant agreed to add this orphaned piece of road allowance to his land as well. Attachment #2 illustrates, in bold outline, what was to be his final proposed lot configuration. However, Mr. Campbell later made arrangements with the neighbour abutting on the west side (Mr. David Day), so that he would receive the ‘orphaned piece’ so that the lot configuration would be as shown on Attachment #3. Council may recall, at its meeting on March 22, 2016, the Committee of the Whole agreed to sell the ‘orphaned piece’ to the applicant at a reduced rate of $1.03 per square foot instead of the normal fee of $2.41 per square foot. Thus, the fee for this portion of the land was reduced from $41,000.00 to $8,425.00. Consequently, the total cost for the road allowance closure (ie., both portions) would be $32,425.00. Ultimately, Council agreed that each portion would be stopped up and sold separately to each abutting land owner ie., the original portion is to be sold to Ron Campbell and the orphaned portion is to be sold to David Day. Thus, Mr. Campbell would pay $24,000.00 and Mr. Day would pay $8,425.00. Now, Mr. Campbell is asking that the cost for his portion of the road allowance also be reduced because the same rationale for the reduction applies to his

Page 4 of 48

portion as was applied to the orphaned portion. This would reduce the cost from $24,000.00 to $14,140.00.

Discussion: The fee reduction for the ‘orphaned piece’ was based the argument from the applicant that the charge of $2,41 per square foot was not meant to apply to any ‘back land’ such as the ‘orphaned piece’, but only to road allowances that lead directly to or from water. Council agreed with this. Mr. Campbell is now bringing this same argument to reduce the fee on the original portion of road allowance to reduce the cost to $14,140.00. It is noted that, similar to the alignment of the ‘orphaned piece, the ‘original piece’ does not lead to the water but only parallels the shoreline at an average distance of approximately 28 metres.

Recommendation The recommendation is that Council receive the Planning Report dated October 19, 2016 and consider a request from property-owner Ron Campbell to reduce the costs for the sale of an unopened road allowance in Part Lot 18, Concession VIII, Storrington District, from $24,000.00 to $14,140.00.

Submitted/approved by: Lindsay Mills

attachments RoadClosureReportCampbell5

Prepared by: Lindsay Mills

Page 5 of 48

Vv

Surveyed Road Allowance

‘ Q/

Subject Property

».

5

Orphehed Piece

V

\

.

U -7 5? 1 (I I‘ :

Me|ers D

15

30

G0

90

120

‘

Page 6 of 48

ATTACHMENT#2

____J

//

V

Page 7 of 48

ATTACHMENT#3 FINALLOT CONFIGURATIONS »

Page 8 of 48

STAFF REPORT Township of South Frontenac

Planning Department

Prepared for Committee of the Whole Agenda Date: October 25, 2016 Report Date: October 20, 2016 Subject: Proposed Revisions to the Tariff of Fees for PlanningRelated Applications Summary of the Recommendation: The recommendation is that the Committee receive for information the report dated October 20, 2016 from the Planning Department regarding new and revised fees for Planning applications.

Purpose of the Report: The purpose of this report is to bring back to the Committee for further review of the present fee structure for applications to the Planning Department and to propose a new fee structure.

Background: On September 13, 2016, the Committee of the Whole considered a Planning Report dated September 8, 2016 regarding revised fees for processing planningrelated applications. The Committee agreed in principle to the following revisions to the rates: NEW PLANNING FEE STRUCTURE (new fee in bold type) APPLICATION

EXISTING FEE

NEW FEE

DEPOSIT

$1,000.00

$1,500.00

$1000.00

$,1000.00

$1,500.00

$2000.00

$682.00

$800.00

$732.00

$732.00 (no change)

1

$200.00 Residential $300.00 2 Commercial/Industrial/Institutional up to 4000 ft. $1,000.00 2 Commercial/Industrial/Institutional over 4000 ft. $1,800.00

$0.00

$2,000.00

$0.00

$150.00

$0.00

$200.00

$2,000.00

Discussion The revisions should also have included a new fee for the carrying out Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) calculations that the Planning Department undertakes when processing consent applications to create a new residential lot

Page 9 of 48 in proximity to a farm facility. These calculations are also required whenever a new farm facility (a barn, stable etc.) is to be located near a residence. The requirement to conduct MDS calculations comes from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. The calculation is performed to determine the minimum distance that a new lot must be from an existing barn (for example). The calculation is a based on an assessment that considers the capacity of the barn (its size), the amount of tillable acreage of the farmland, the types of animals being housed etc. To be done properly, the farmer should be consulted to determine all of these specific elements for the calculation. The above involves staff time and therefore a fee should be applied to cover staff’s work. It is proposed that a fee of $250.00 be applied for MDS calculations. Also, to account for inflation, it is proposed that a two percent inflation rate be applied to all rates in effect. Accordingly, in considering this continually increasing rate, the proposed increase in fees for Zoning by-law amendments and Official Plan amendments should be scaled back to only $1,300.00 for each instead of $1500.00. Thus, the new fee structure should read as outlined below:

NEW PLANNING FEE STRUCTURE (new fee in bold type) APPLICATION

FEE

New Fee

DEPOSIT

$1,000.00

$1,300.00

$1000.00

$,1000.00

$1,300.00

$2000.00

$682.00

$800.00

$732.00

$732.00 (no change)

1

$200.00

Residential $300.00 2 Commercial/Industrial/Institutional up to 4000 ft. $1,000.00 2 Commercial/Industrial/Institutional over 4000 ft. $1,800.00

$0.00

$2,000.00

$0.00

$150.00

$0.00

$200.00

$0.00

$250.00

$2,000.00

As of January 1, 2018 and every year thereafter, unless this schedule is amended or revoked, a two percent inflation rate will be applied to all rates in effect - rounded up to the next dollar.

The Committee may also wish to consider charging a special fee for processing Minor Variance applications that have been submitted to seek ‘forgiveness’. This follows from a number of applications brought to the Committee of Adjustment in recent years which result from a property-owner who is caught building within a required setback (in the zoning by-law) without any permits or approvals from the Township (or any approval agency). In these cases, the owner is required to legalize the structure either by removing it or by obtaining zoning relief. When these applications are brought forward extra staff time needs to be devoted to their processing and, in particular, if the decision on the application

Page 10 of 48 requires that all or a portion of the illegal structure is to be removed then followups are required involving much staff time. Thus, it is proposed that a special fee of $1,000.00 be applied to these types of applications.

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Committee receive the Planning Report dated October 20, 2016 for consideration relating to revised Planning application fees. attachment PlanningFeesReporttoCofW20162

Page 11 of 48

STAFF REPORT Township of South Frontenac

Planning Department

Prepared for Committee of the Whole Agenda Date: October 25, 2016 Report Date: October 18, 2016 Subject: Proposed Revisions to the Tariff of Fees and Appointees for Fence-Viewers Summary of the Recommendation: The recommendation is that the Committee receive for information and consideration the report dated October 18, 2016 from the Planning Department regarding new and revised fees for fence-viewers and to appoint additional fence-viewers.

Purpose of the Report: The purpose of this report is to bring to the Committee a review of fence-viewing problems experienced by the Planning Department and to propose a method for resolution

Background: On June 16, 1998 Council for the Township passed By-law #1998-33 under the provisions of the Line Fences Act R.S.O. 1990. The By-law appointed fenceviewers and established remuneration rates and an administration fee. Attachment #1 is a copy of the by-law. More recently, in 2015, the fence viewer appointees were changed but the remuneration rate and the administration fee has remained the same to this time. Planning staff have recently been formally requested to carry out a fence-viewing in the District of Storrington. However, staff have experienced a great deal of difficulty in getting commitments from the appointed fence-viewers to attend the subject site. One fence viewer has now stated that she is available but the Act requires that a minimum of three fence viewers be present at a viewing and make a determination of who should pay for the fence etc. Planning staff have not been able to get a commitment from any other fence-viewers . All appointed fence-viewers from South Frontenac, Central Frontenac and North Frontenac have been contacted and, except for the appointee from South Frontenac as noted above, none of the appointees have been willing to attend the subject site.

Discussion: It may be that appointees are reluctant to attend the viewing because the compensation is too low ie., $75.00. It is proposed that this remuneration be increased to $200.00. Furthermore, to address the non-availability of fence-viewers, it is proposed that both members of the Planning Department staff be appointed as fence-viewers. This would help ensure that viewers are available when required. It should be noted that the remuneration would not apply to these staff.

Page 12 of 48 For the Committee’s perusal Attachment #2 is an excerpt from a publication from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing outlining relevant information on the Line Fences Act. Note the provisions highlighted in yellow.

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Committee receive the Planning Report dated October 18, 2016 for consideration relating to revised fence-viewer provisions under the Line Fences Act. attachments LineFencesReview

4thicl?a fsl i

Page 13 of 48

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW1998-33

BEING A BY-LAW TO DEAL WITH LINE FENCES WITHIN THE

WHEREAS Section 2 0fThe Line Fences Act R.S.0. Iggo, Cmpter L17, directs Council of every local municipality by By-law appoint Fence Viewers as me required to carry out the provisions of tis Act mid the By-law shall fix the remuneration to be paid to the Fence Viewers, and the remuneration may be fixed on an hourly or daily rate or a rate for each attendance or re-attendance by the Fence Viewers,

l

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

?l

l.‘i

11 11

l

?l

NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the Line Fences Act R. s.o. 1980, Chapter 242 and the Municipal Act R.S .o. 1980, Chapter 302, the Counml of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac anacts as follows:

il

That the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac shall appoint the following Fence Viewers - Ggy Bul?ock, Ken Gilpin, Frank Jeremy and Leo

i

That the Fence Viewers appointed hereunder shall receive as remuneration the sum of $75.00 per call out.

i

Myers.

lili

That the Fence Viewers shall carry out the duties imposed upon them pursuant to

i’

the Line Fenoes Act R.S.0. 1990, Chapter L. 17.

Tht the Clerk/Administrator and Treasurer shall carry out the duties imposed

upon them pursuant to the Line Fences Act R. s.o. 1990 Chapter L. 17, Section 11 i

That the Administration Fee be estabJished at $250,00,

s.

l? l:

  1. That tms By-Law comes into foroe on the date of passing thereof.

il:l ji l'

l'

READ A FIRST AND SECOND nMIE AND SK;NED THIS

d

l

/

l(, ……..DAY OF………… uwi

.. … ……………. ………… ..1998

i

@@%alk*%l

l

i

?q,j§, -". . .’:!!::.’….. .- . … ……………………. .1 9%

i. i'

i

DAY OF.

:l

l

h@holill@l

l

/

s

‘—-k&-i

hWh*aai l

l.(,-.

ii

i READ A THIRD TIME AND SIGNED THIS

, 6AaffAm (?’l t?3

10/20/201 ?

A Guide to the Li ne Fences Act - 2014 update

Pagea14 of 48 The ar6itratr6n proceduT?e is not applicable if one owner, on his or her own initiative, has constructed new line fence or has reconstructed or repaired an entire existing line fence, and then wants to use the arbitration procedure to force the adjoining owner to pay part of the cost of the completed work. It is also important to note that the arbitration procedure deals only with disputes about fences and does not provide a means of determining the location of the boundary Iine between adjoining properties. Such disputes must be resolved by the owners themselves as municipalities and their fence-viewers have no jurisdiction to deal with boundary issues. As many municipal staff members and fence-viewers are aware, property owners involved in a boundary dispute often approach the municipality in the hope that the matter can be resolved without the need for them to obtain legal advice and a survey (this issue is discussed in more detail in Parts Two and Three).

Informal Resolution of Disputes Although many property owners approach their Iocal municipality about line fence matters, they are usually able to reach agreement with their neighbour without the need for a formal viewing. An informal discussion between a municipal staff member or the adjoining owners can often help to resolve a dispute, especially where the owners are not on good terms. In addition, owners normally become more willing to resolve their dispute themselves once they are made aware that they will be required to pay for a viewing and its related costs.

Purpose of the Guide

This Guide deals only with the arbitration of fencing disputes in those parts of Ontario organized for municipal purposes, where the arbitration of fencing disputes is a responsibility of Iocal municipalities. Owners of adjoining properties who are unable to reach agreement about a line fence may apply to their Iocal municipality to have the dispute arbitrated by three fence-viewers who are appointed by the municipal council.

In most municipalities, fence-viewers do not conduct viewings frequently. As a result, both they, and the municipal staff members involved in the arbitration process, are often uncertain about the procedures that must be followed under the Act. It is impossible to catalogue every possible situation in a document of this type. Nonetheless, it is hoped that the information provided here will prove helpful. References to the Municipal Clerk The term “clerk” has, in most cases, been used throughout this Guide when referring to the administration of the arbitration procedure. This has been done because the Act itself assigns this responsibility to the “clerk of the Iocal municipality”. It is recognized, however, that this responsibility can be delegated and that in many municipalities, it is someone other than the clerk who administers the procedure. As a result, all references to the “clerk” in this Guide should be interpreted broadly to include every municipal staff member who has been assigned responsibility for part or all of the administration of the arbitration procedure.

Part Two: Five Basic Questions Part Two is intended primarily for the municipal clerk and other municipal staff members who are involved in the administration of the arbitration procedure. It provides answers to five key questions.

Question 1: What is Council’s Role? Members of local councils should be aware that fence-viewers are performing a type of judicial function and that the council has no authority to provide instructions to fence-viewers or to review their decisions. The Act provides an appeal procedure and councils have no role in this. Local councils do, however, have a number of important roles and responsibilities under the Act, which are described below. (Councils of upper-tier municipalities have no role under the Act.)

Appointing Fence-Viewers (Section 2 of the Act) Unless a municipality has passed a by-Iaw providing that the Line Fences Act does not apply to the municipality (see below), a council is required to appoint fence-viewers. It cannot tell an owner that the municipality has no fence-viewers or no way for a fencing dispute to be arbitrated. Setting the Remuneration of Fence-Viewers (Section 2 of the Act) A council is required to establish the remuneration to be paid to its fence-viewers, which may be an hourly or daily rate, or a rate for each time that they are called upon. Prohibiting Proceedings during the Winter (Subsection s (2) of the Act)

A council may ban proceedings requiring the attendance of the fence-viewers for all or part of the period between November 1st of one year and March 31st of the next year.

Establishing Administrative Fees (Section 17 of the Act)

http://www. m ah .gov.on.ca/Page 1 3730.as px#l ntro

2/20

1 0/20/2C?16

A Guide to the Li ne Fences Act - 20al4 update

of 48 A council may establish reasonable administrative fees by by-Iaw to be paid to the municipality Page by the15 two owners involved in arbitration. The fees can reflect the municipality’s actual costs in arranging a viewing, or

they can be in the form of a flat fee. Delegating the Clerk’s Responsibilities (Subsection 4 (2) et al of the Act) Although the Act makes the clerk responsible for the administration of the arbitration procedure, it permits a council to designate another person for the purpose of giving certain notices. Subsection 228 (4) of the Municipal Act, 2001 and subsection 178 (5) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 authorizes the clerk to delegate, in writing, any of his or her powers and duties under any Act to any person, other than a member of council. This provision permits another staff member, such as the chief building official, to be made responsible for the administration of the entire arbitration procedure.

Non-Application of the Act (Section 26 of the Act) Sections 11 and 98 of the Municipal Act, 2001 and sections 8, 11 and 109 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006

permit a council to exempt part or all of the municipality from the Line Fences Act and, instead, to pass a bylaw apportioning the costs of line fences between adjoining owners. If this occurs, the Line Fences Act, other than section 20, does not apply to the area that is subject to the by-Iaw. A council cannot exempt itself from section 20 of the Act, which sets out the fencing responsibilities of owners of former rail Iines in Iocations where a farming business is carried out on the adjoining land.

Question 2: Who Shoiild be Appointed As Fence-Viewers? who to Appoint

Rural municipalities tend to appoint individuals with a farm background and urban municipalities tend to appoint those with a background in construction. As society evolves, however, it becomes increasingly important that councils appoint fence-viewers who are broadly representative of the groups who Iive in that community. Number of Fence-Viewers

The Act requires three fence-viewers to be present at a viewing. It is, however, advisable for a council to appoint more than three fence-viewers so that the clerk can exercise discretion in assigning fence-viewers to each viewing without being accused of bias in favour of any owner. For example, a fence-viewer who is a relative or friend of one of the owners should not be involved in arbitrating that dispute. If a municipality includes both rural and urban areas, it is also advisable that the roster of fence-viewers reflect this fact to

permit the clerk to assign the appropriate fence-viewers to each viewing. Timing of the Appointments

“The question of who to appoint is up to the council.” Many municipalities appoint their fence-viewers, along with their other appointees, at the beginning of each year, whereas others appoint them at the start of each term of office. If a municipality has not had an application for a viewing for many years, its council may decide to wait until an application is received before appointing fence- viewers. The difficulty with this approach is that a viewing has to be held no Iater than 30 days from the date of receipt of an application, which does not Ieave much time for a council to make the appointments.

Eligibility to Serve as Fence-Viewers The Act does not specify who can serve as a fence-viewer. There is no requirement that a fence-viewer be a resident or elector of the municipality or even a Canadian citizen. It is up to each council.

The question as to whether council members can be appointed to serve as fence-viewers often arises. Council members may be appointed, but it is probably not advisable, given the many other demands on their time.

Some councils have appointed a roster of fence-viewers cor4posed partly or even entirely of municipal staff members. The one situation in which it would be inappropriate for a municipal staff member to be involved in a viewing is where the municipality itself is one of the adjoining owners. Municipalities that rarely receive an application for a viewing might consider appointing the fence-viewers of a neighbouring municipality to also serve their municipality, should it be required. “The clerk determines if the Act applies to both properties.”

Question 3: When Ss the Act Applicable? An example to illustrate this issue is as follows: The owners (not the tenants) of two adjoining properties have been unable to reach agreement on the sharing of the costs of a line fence or on the type of line fence to construct. One owner has applied for a viewing by submitting a completed Form 1, Request for FenceViewers, to the clerk. The clerk must then assess a number of issues before agreeing to proceed with a viewing. http://www. m ah .gov. on.ca/Page 1 3730.as px#l ntro

3/20

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2017 CAPITAL BUDGET Page 16 of 48

FACILITIES

Page 17 of 48

2017 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT NEW PROJECTS 

VERONA MEDICAL CENTRE – LIGHTING/FLOORING UPGRADE

$ 5,000



WINDOWS/INSULATION – STATION 5

$ 25,000

CARRIED FORWARD FROM 2013 

TOWNSHIP FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

$ 33,000 $ 32,500

CARRIED FORWARD FROM 2014 

OPP BUILDING – GARAGE FLOOR DRAINS

$ 20,000



NEW HALL – PERTH RD – STATION 6 (LAND/ARCHITECT)

$ 118,212



BRADSHAW – STATION 1 PAVING – PER STUDY

$ 8,000



WASH CURTAINS (STN 5&8)

$ 12,000



VERONA – STATION 3 REPAIRS AS PER STUDY

$ 5,000 Page 18 of 48

2017 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT CARRIED FORWARD FROM 2015 

FACILITY SIGNAGE

$ 18,800



NEW HALL – PERTH RD – STATION 6

$ 1,000,000

CARRIED FORWARD FROM 2016 

$ 10,000

PAVING – STATION 7 TOTAL

$ 1,287,512

Page 19 of 48

TRANSPORTATION

Page 20 of 48

2017 TRANSPORTATION NEW PROJECTS 

BEDFORD PATROL YARD – FIRE SEPARATION

$ 20,000



STORRINGTON PATROL YARD – SITE PAVING

$ 300,000



PORTLAND YARD – NEW OVERHEAD DOORS & OPERATORS

$ 15,000



KEELEY ROAD OFFICE – FINISH OFFICE RENOVATIONS

$ 35,000



KEELEY ROAD PATROL YARD

$ 30,000 $ 15,000 $ 35,000

INVERARY INTERSECTION – TRAFFIC SIGNALS

$ 12,000



TRANSPORTATION NEW PROJECTS TOTAL

$ 462,000

Page 21 of 48

2017 TRANSPORTATION CARRIED FORWARD FROM 2015 

HARTINGTON PATROL YARD – SAND DOME/DOOR

$ 50,000



BEDFORD PATROL YARD – SAND DOME/DOOR

$ 50,000



KEELEY ROAD GARAGE – PAINT BOOTH CONVERSION

$ 10,000

CARRIED FORWARD FROM 2016 

RADIO COMMUNICATION (FIRE AND PW)

$ 300,000



STREET LIGHTS – NEW LED ISTALLATION

$ 28,000



PICADILLY PATROL YARD - DECOMMISSIONING

$ 10,000



KEELEY ROAD PATROL YARD – GENERATOR REPLACEMENT

$ 60,000

CARRIED OVER TOTAL NEW PROJECTS TOTAL

TRANSPORTATION TOTAL

$ 508,000 $ 462,000

$ 970,000 Page 22 of 48

EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT

Page 23 of 48

2017 EQUIPMENT HALF TON TRUCK  REPLACE FT-51

$35,000

THREE QUARTER TON TRUCK  REPLACE FT-02

$ 60,000

BULLDOZERS  REPLACE FT-92, BT-92

$ 120,000

WOOD CHIPPER  REPLACE FT-85

$ 60,000

GARBAGE TRUCK

$ 250,000

TRUCK SCANNER

$ 7,500

BOX PAVER FOR TANDEM

$ 6,000 SUB-TOTAL

$538,500

Page 24 of 48

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Page 25 of 48

2017 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

NEW PROJECTS 



PORTLAND WASTE DISPOSAL SITE

$ 20,000 $ 25,000

WATER FILLING STATION

$ 100,000 SUB-TOTAL

$ 145,000

Page 26 of 48

ROADS AND BRIDGES

Page 27 of 48

2017 ROADS AND BRIDGES NEW PROJECTS              

SUNBURY ROAD HARROWSMITH PHASE 2 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT DEVIL LAKE CULVERT #9 GREEN BAY BRIDGE #28 MORELAND DIXON CULVERT #2 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT STUDY/DESIGN HARD SURFACE PRESERVATION BEDFORD ROAD BUCK BAY ROAD RANDY CLARK ROAD YORK ROAD BRADSHAW ROAD DEER CREEK SUBDIVISION

TRANSPORTATION NEW PROJECTS TOTAL

$ 4,500,000 $ 700,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 50,000 $ 600,000 $ 150,000 $ 50,000 $ 800,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 300,000 $ 350,000 $ 100,000 $ 250,000 $ 150,000

$ 10,000,000

Page 28 of 48

Page 29 of 48

STAFF REPORT TREASURY DEPARTMENT Prepared for Council:

October 20, 2016

Agenda Date:

October 25, 2016

SUBJECT: 2017 Capital Budget RECOMMENDATION: Open ANALYSIS: Attached is draft capital budget document. An initial version was presented at the October 11th Committee of the Whole meeting which only provided totals for Public Works, Solid Waste and Facilities. The version presented now provides the details for these areas and collapses the sections previously discussed. The draft overall total is $14,668,512. This figure includes $4,500,000 for Sunbury Road, funded through borrowing which is part of today’s discussion. Removing this component, the adjusted capital budget total is $10,168,512. Based on the 10 year long range financial plan, the target capital budget, to work towards maintaining the $15 million reserve balance as well as a 2.2% tax payer impact is approximately $9,500,000. This makes the overall draft capital budget over by $668,512. From the initial version presented on October 11th, and further to the fire hall tour, the main change is with the Perth Road fire hall value which has been amended from 1,750,000 to 1,000,000. The draft capital budget represents the initial listing received from all department heads as well as from the recreation committee Further some items are driven from replacement schedules which have defined reserves funding them. These include the Fire, Building and Public Works equipment reserves. The related lines are highlighted in blue. Council is asked to provide direction at this time on whether any of the detailed capital items should be removed or adjusted at this stage.

Submitted/approved by: Louise Fragnito, Treasurer

Prepared by: Louise Fragnito, Treasurer

Page 30 of 48

2017 CAPITAL BUDGET - Draft

BUDGETED EXPENDITURE

General Government (discussed Oct 11/16)

40,000

Protective Services (discussed Oct 11/16)

567,000

TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Carried Forward from 2015 Sand Dome - Doors - Hartington Sand Dome - Doors - Bedford Keeley- Paint Booth Conversion to service bay Carried Forward from 2016

Radio Communication (Fire and PW)

Street Lights - New LED Installation Picadilly Patrol Yard Decommissioning Keeley Patrol yard - Generator replacement New Projects Bedford Patrol yard - Fire Seperation Keeley Patrol yard - Pave Plow Storage Area Keeley Patrol yard - Garage Door replacements

50,000 50,000 10,000 300,000 28,000 10,000 60,000 20,000 15,000 30,000

Keeley Patrol yard - Front power gate

35,000

Keeley Admin - Finalize renovations Portland Yard - New Overhead doors & operators Storrington Patrol Yard - Site Paving Half ton - 4 X 4 - Replace FT-51 3/4 ton 4 X 4 with Plow/Sander-replace FT-02 Bulldozer - replace FT-92 and BT-92 Wood Chipper - replace FT-85

35,000 15,000 300,000 35,000 60,000 120,000 60,000

Garbage Truck - replace 2010 and transfer to recreation

250,000

Truck Scanner Box Paver for Tandem Inverary Intersection - Traffic Signals - Back up solar

7,500 6,000 12,000

Linear Asset Construction-Villages/Local Roads/Arterial Roads Total SYDENHAM WATER Water Filling Station Total ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Sanitation-Disposal Attendant Building Establish Transfer Station Sub-total Total TOWNSHIP FACILITIES MANAGEMENT Carried Forward from 2013 Asbestos Assessment Energy Audit Carried Forward from 2014 OPP Building -Garage Floor Drains New Hall-Perth Rd- Station 6 (Land/ Architect) Bradshaw- Station 1 paving - per study Wash Curtains (Stn 5 & 8) Verona-Station 3 repairs as per study Carried Forward from 2015 Facilty Signage New Hall - Perth Road-Station 6 Carried Forward from 2016 Paving - Station 7

10,000,000 11,508,500 100,000 100,000

20,000 25,000 45,000 145,000

33,000 32,500 20,000 118,212 8,000 12,000 5,000 18,800 1,000,000 10,000

Page 31 of 48

2017 CAPITAL BUDGET - Draft

BUDGETED EXPENDITURE

New Projects Verona Medical - Lighting and Flooring upgrade Windows/insulation - Station 5

5,000 25,000 1,287,512

Recreation (discussed Oct 11/16)

1,015,500

Total

Planning

5,000

TOTALS

14,668,512 4,500,000 10,168,512 9,500,000 668,512

Loan - under PW Roads Construction Adjusted Total Target

2016 Project on hold pending follow up report to, and approval from Council

Page 32 of 48

STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT PREPARED FOR COUNCIL:

October 18, 2016

AGENDA DATE:

October 26, 2016

SUBJECT: Organizational review next steps RECOMMENDATION: OPEN BACKGROUND: On August 2, 2016 Council adopted the recommendations of the Corporate Services Committee as it pertained to the Organizational review. Specifically this included the following: • • • • •

• •

•

To hire a Manager of Development Services To reassign the Planner/Deputy Clerk and the CBO to report to the new Manager of Development Services once hired To reassign the Arena/Recreation Supervisor to report to the Public Works Manager effectively immediately To reassign the HR/Legislative Compliance Coordinator to report to the Treasurer effectively immediately To establish a Senior Management team comprised of the CAO, Public Works Manager, Treasurer and Development Services Manager assisted by the Executive Assistant to develop an implementation plan for the strategic plan as well as required policy and long term needs. To relocate the Fire Chief to the Sunbury Hall until the Perth Road Station is built, in order to accommodate the new positon That any costs associated with these changes in 2016 be allocated from working funds as necessary and that full costs be incorporated into the 2017 budget And that the 2017 and 2018 recommendations be brought forward for decision in advance of the corresponding budget debate.

The last bullet of Council’s decision directs staff to bring forward the 2017 and 2018 recommendations before Council in advance of the 2017 and 2018 budget. In a report to Council dated June 7 an initial plan was laid out for 2016, 2017 and 2018. From the 2016 plan, the only substantive recommendation not included in the August 2 approval (see above) was the relocation of the Public Works Manager. The 2017 and 2018 recommendations now before Council for consideration and direction are outlined below: 2017 Plan:

  1. Separate the CAO/Clerk role into two and hire a Clerk to support Council and Committees, carryout statutory responsibilities and fulfill communications role. Located in Mayor’s office. CAO to be named as additional Deputy Clerk.
  2. Adjust Council / Committee Structure, reflecting focus on the Strategic Plan. Establish the creation of a Development Services Committee. Council and all three committees to be supported by the Clerk

Page 33 of 48

STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT 3. Create a community driven Economic Development Committee to assist with formulating an economic development strategy and allocate budget dollars for initiatives 4. With an improved structure focused on implementing Council’s objectives time will be available to consider operational processes and needs. 2018 Plan:

  1. Establish and hire a full time Fire Prevention/Education Officer. Allowing for enhanced policy and administration services as well as emergency preparedness services by the Fire Chief. To be located at Perth Road station with Fire Chief
  2. Allocate additional budget dollars to support Economic Development initiatives FINANCIAL / STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: If directed, staff will incorporate the costs for the 2017 recommendations into the 2017 Draft budget for Council’s consideration.

Submitted/approved by: Wayne Orr, CAO

Page 34 of 48

From: Brian Ward [mailto:brian.ward1@sympatico.ca] Sent: October-11-16 7:59 AM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Cc: Ross Sutherland 7846elbe@gmail.com Subject: Fwd: Johnson’s point MNRF evaluation

Hello Wayne Attached is an email that I sent to Ross Sutherland from the Battersea Loughborough Lake Association yesterday regarding Johnston Point. Would you please place it on the Council agenda documents list. Thank you. Brian Begin forwarded message: From: Brian Ward brian.ward1@sympatico.ca Subject: Re: Johnson’s point MNRF evaluation Date: October 10, 2016 at 7:08:18 PM EDT To: Ross Sutherland 7846elbe@gmail.com, Ron Sleeth eilevale@kingston.net Cc: anne’s private email annefisher@sympatico.ca, Cynthia Fiber cfiber@earthlink.net, Ed Koen edkoen7@gmail.com, Evonne Potts evonne.potts@gmail.com, Gord Rodgers gordrodgers@xplornet.com, Helen Bartsch helenbartsch@gmail.com, Justin Potts justin@lymanpottsconstruction.ca, Michael Koen mkoen@cppib.com, Matthew Rennie mattrennie27@hotmail.com, Meela Melnik-Proud meelamelnik@hotmail.com, meredith mackenzie mackenzie613@gmail.com, Nona Mariotti nona@mariotti.ca, Sherry Corneil scorneil1@cogeco.ca Hello Ross As you know the Battersea Loughborough Lake Association has been actively involved in the review and comment phase of this development along with the many concerned residents. Thank you for seeking our input on the MNRF letter and your continued efforts to protect the environment. I have serious concerns with what is happening now with Johnston Point development. To our knowledge the Township has done nothing to ensure that the conditions of the OMB approval are being met. My specific concerns are listed below.

  1. Why is this coming up now when there were so many environmental field surveys and design work were done during the planning and approval phases. The developer’s environmental consultant concluded that there would be no impact to threatened or endangered species and that the property does not contain habitat for species of conservation concern. This was the basis that the developer’s lawyer presented the case to the OMB. The final development scale and design was based on negotiations between the Township and the developer. The Township fully endorsed the plan at the OMB hearing. It was only because of concerns raised by councillors like yourself, the BLLA and concerned residents that the conditions of the OMB approval required MNRF to review the SAR concerns. I have attached a copy of their Environmental Impact Statement. Interesting that when the Township consultant Macintosh Perry visited the site and when MNRF visited the site they found areas of concern. Obviously the developer’s consultant did not do a thorough assessment or they would not be requesting a permit to impact SAR. So my view is that they should be required to follow their own original assessment and avoid areas of concern for SAR.
  2. How can we respond in a fulsome manner when we do not know the extent and location of the impacted area and the size and type of habitat replacement. We do not believe that impacts to a

Page 35 of 48

natural SAR area can be mitigated adequately but we should be consulted by MNRF and the Township on what is being considered. 3. Again these kinds of actions (destruction and replacement of habitat) need careful compliance monitoring. We still have not seen any efforts to ensure compliance by the Township or others. Our letter to the Township in mid June from the President of the BLLA regarding the need for compliance monitoring by the Township still has not been responded to. When will the Township put in place staff and procedures to ensure the compliance for all developments in the Township is done thoroughly as is done across Ontario? Considering this area is an area for SAR, in a PSW, is an area of ANSI and is an important part of the Internationally recognized Frontenac Arch destruction of SAR habitat should not be permitted in this very sensitive environment. Brian Ward Vice President Battersea Loughborough Lake Association

Page 36 of 48

From: Meela Melnik-Proud [mailto:meelamelnik@hotmail.com] Sent: October-18-16 2:24 PM To: Ron Vandewal rvandewal@southfrontenac.net; councillornroberts@gmail.com; councillorrevill@gmail.com; robinsonw@bell.net; john.mcdougall@xplornet.ca; patbarr1@aol.com; markschjerning@outlook.com; 7846elbe@gmail.com; sfcron.sleeth@gmail.com; Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Cc: roel@cs.queensu.ca; Evonne Potts evonne.potts@gmail.com; Matthew Rennie mattrennie27@hotmail.com Subject: Letter of Endorsement, Notice of Motion- MNRF and Johnston Point

Township of South Frontenac 4432 George St., Box 100, Sydenham, ON K0H 2T0 Dear Mayor and Councillors. As concerned residents of South Frontenac township, we are writing you to thank you for the motion to preserve the endangered species on Johnson Point. It demonstrates a commitment to community partnership to clearly understand the impacts of development in and adjacent to this Provincially Significant Wetland and preserving more generally the natural heritage and ecological functions of Loughborough Lake in perpetuity. With respect, Meela Melnik-Proud, Matt Rennie, Roel Vertegaal, and Evonne Potts. Endorsed by the Battersea Loughborough Lake Association Board of Directors: Barbara Canton

Brian Ward

Susan Sutherland

Joe Pater

Nada Beamish

Philippa Fulger

Joanne McDonnell

Roel Vertegaal

Evonne Potts

Kathleen O’Hara

Ron Turney

Ed Koen

Helen Bartsch

Anne Fisher

George Proud

Keith Somerville

Betty Somerville

Tasha Proud

Mike Koen

Diane Koen

Jeff Peters

Sue Peters

Rachael Melnik-Proud

Marta Maksymec

Roy Chan

Stella Hiemstra

Marc Hiemstra

Mirjam Netten

Sharon Dunn

Jeff Kleinlagel

Jeffy Parsons-Sheldrake

Michele Rutland

Justin Potts

Clay Potts

Erin Rennie

Ray Rennie

Janice Wicklam

Karl Hammer

Michelle Fraser

Trevor Irwin

Anthony Cameron

Pennsy Waltman

Jan Wood

Margaret Noble

Gerald Noble

Individual Endorsements:

Page 37 of 48

16 October 2016 CAO - TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC TRAIL COMMITTEE MEMBER REPORT – OCTOBER 2016 This is my seventh quarterly report covering the period of July to September 2016 with the Cataraqui Trail Management Board. There were two meetings: 11 Aug and 22 Sep 16 which I attended. Events. Our annual Bike & Hike on 20 August 2016 was attended by a limited number of the public and mostly by current supporters/members of the trail committee. The Harrowsmith-Boundary Rd section is quite rough and difficult for bicycles to use, which did not help but this section will be upgraded in the coming year. Our fundraising dinner at the Opinion Resort in Chaffey’s Locks, scheduled for 30 Sep 16, was cancelled due to ongoing construction. We look forward to hosting this again next year. Committee Size. The Board agreed to reduce the size of the committee to 18 members. I personally favour a smaller number like 12-14 because the average attendance hovers around this number, which makes it is easier to conduct business. A final decision will be made later this year. County trails board. The K&P, the Cataraqui and the Rideau trails are very well used in South Frontenac and I personally have met many people on these trails. The Rideau Trail mainly attracts people from Kingston around Frontenac Park. I feel we should erect one large sign in Sydenham showing these trail systems rather than the current individual signage. Trans-Canada Trail System. In August, I met Edmund Aunger, a Trans-Canada Trail enthusiast, who has been advocating an off-road and non-motorized trail system across Canada. He has been cycling the entire trail across Canada and has set up a web site (http://www.ridethetrail.ca/) all to honour his deceased wife who was killed while cycling the trail. I cycled with him and his nephews for the last part of this year journey from Carleton Place to Ottawa, where we gathered at Parliament Hill for a brief presentation. They mentioned that unlike other parts of the trail, this part of the Cataraqui Trail is truly dedicated to non-motorized vehicles and the section from Sydenham to Chaffey’s Locks was one of the most scenic they have seen. This is encouraging and we need to promote this more in the future. Robert Charest SF Trail Committee Member 613-353-3083

Page 38 of 48

Sent: October-16-16 5:32 PM To: frances.smith@frontenaccounty.ca; Ron Vandewal rvandewal@southfrontenac.net; sfcron.sleeth@gmail.com; councillornroberts@gmail.com; councillorrevill@gmail.com; markschjerning@outlook.com; patbarr1@aol.com; elbe@web.ca; john.mcdougall@xplornet.ca; robinsonw@bell.net Cc: kpender@frontenaccounty.ca; Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Subject: Invitation to Rural Economy Tour Fall 2016 Dear Colleagues in South Frontenac and County Warden Frances Smith, Greetings! Drawing on the success of the previous two Rural Tours exploring successful family run businesses that are part of Kingston’s rural economy, I have organized a third tour for Saturday November 5, 2015. Often these tours attract staff and politicians from our neighbouring municipalities, as well as other levels of Government, providing a great opportunity to network and discuss collaborative opportunities to develop our regional economy. Thank you all for your support on the last two tours, which highlighted some of our great family businesses that contribute to rural economic success. The focus of this edition of the Tour will be innovative uses of farmland in our region. As with previous tours, participants will have an opportunity to tour local farms and engage with farmers who have incorporated innovation and diversification into their production methods. We will be visiting farms that use renewable energy to support their energy uses, and looking at the idea of local food hubs through the area’s current distribution business. The previous two tours featured businesses in or near South Frontenac Township. While we do not travel to South Frontenac on this round, these three businesses are located just across the Rideau in Kingston East and Leeds Thousand Islands Township. Your participate remains valuable in this tour as we continue to discuss regional growth in the rural and agricultural economy. We all benefit if we all are working from the same book. This tour will run from 8:30am - 1:30pm on Saturday, November 5 and will leave from the Park and Ride located at HWY 15 and Innovation Drive. There also has been discussion of a second pickup location at St. Barnaby’s Church in Brewer’s Mills. Please let me know if that would make sense for you. Confirm your attendance by emailing or calling me directly, or by use this link to RSVP. https://www.eventbrite.com/e/rural-economy-tour-fall-2016-tickets-28568372772 Please feel free to forward this to Councillors, Township staff or County staff that may be interested in participating. It is not required to ride the bus to participate. All the best, Richard Allen Councillor, Countryside District City of Kingston facebook.com/richardallenhttp://facebook.com/richardallen twitter.com/rchrdallnhttp://twitter.com/rchrdalln www.richardallen.cahttp://www.richardallen.ca/ rallen@cityofkingston.camailto:rallen@cityofkingston.ca 613-876-7253tel:613-876-7253 Stay in touch with Richard’s email newsletter! Click here to sign uphttp://eepurl.com/UJfqT. [https://apps.cityofkingston.ca/winlogo.jpg]http://www.cityofkingston.ca/cityhall/kingston-winners/

Wednesday, November 30, 2016 Rideau Valley Conservation Centre 3889 Rideau Valley Drive, Manotick

RSVP

by Nov 22 to Michelle michelle.paton@rvca.ca

613-692-3571 ext. 1177 Page 39 of 48

Wine & Cheese From 5 to 8 pm ~ Official Ceremony AT 6:30 Pm

Page 40 of 48

—–Original Message—-From: Marek St�tz [mailto:marek.stutz@auestructural.ca] Sent: October-18-16 9:43 AM To: Mark Segsworth Cc: David Holliday Subject: RFP P03-2016 Recommendation to Council To whom it may concern, Upon review of the Council’s Agenda for the October 18, 2016 meeting, we noted that Public Works intends to recommend the award of RFP P03-2016, Bridge Engineering and Design of Green Bay Road Bridge and Moreland Dixon Culvert, to Keystone Bridge Management. This message is intended to express our disappointment with the proposed recommendation and to convey our ability to complete the work required in the RFP. As noted on page 95 of the agenda, AUE Structural scored a combined total of 172 points, the highest among the 9 consultants who bid the job. The score includes a perfect 10 on the proposed methodology for the work at each structure (compared to a score of 5 for Keystone). The result of the proposal assessments completed by South Frontenac clearly indicate AUE Structural’s experience, qualification and ability to complete the work as per the RFP requirements. The scores provided on the scoring categories reinforce our suitability for the project. Additionally, we currently have ongoing assignments with major clients such as the Halton Region, Grey County and the City of Peterborough, all of which have completed their due diligence prior to their award of the work. Our team members have previously completed design work for culvert rehabilitations, culvert replacements, bridge rehabilitations and bridge superstructure replacement throughout our careers with great satisfaction to our public sector clients. While the work was completed under previous employment, we have led projects that are on a same or a greater scale to this one. Attached to this message are contact information and sample projects completed for a number of clients. We strongly encourage you to contact these clients and ask all the necessary questions to reassure yourself that we are capable of performing all work required for this assignment. We thank you for taking the time to consider this message and look forward to meeting you at the council meeting on October 18, 2016. Regards, Marek Stütz, M.Eng.,P.Eng. Principal, Structural Engineer Tel: 613-265-8918

Page 41 of 48 Completed Projects of team members under previous employment (HP Engineering)

United Counties of Prescott Russell Client Contact: Jérémie Bouchard, Public Works Engineer 1‐800‐667‐6307 ext.3501 (613) 675‐4661 ext.3501 JBouchard@prescott‐russell.on.ca OSIM Inspections  2011 OSIM Bridge Inspections, 126 structures (Mohamed El‐Sarji)  2013 OSIM Bridge Inspections, 142 structures (Mohamed El‐Sarji, Marek Stütz, Tova Govia)  2015 OSIM Bridge Inspections, 142 structures (Mohamed El‐Sarji, Tova Govia) Deck Condition Surveys and Rehabilitation Studies  7th Concession Bridge, (2014, Mohamed El‐Sarji, Marek Stütz, Tova Govia)  Cobb Lake Bridge, (2014, Mohamed El‐Sarji, Marek Stütz, Tova Govia)  St. Anne Bridge, (2014, Mohamed El‐Sarji, Marek Stütz, Tova Govia)  Treadwell Bridge (2014, Mohamed El‐Sarji, Marek Stütz, Tova Govia) Bridge Rehabilitation Design  7th Concession Bridge, (2014, Mohamed El‐Sarji, Marek Stütz)  Cobb Lake Bridge, (2014, Mohamed El‐Sarji, Marek Stütz)  Treadwell Bridge, (2014, Mohamed El‐Sarji, Marek Stütz) Bridge Rehabilitation Services During Construction  St. Jacques Bridge, (2012, Township of Russell, Mohamed El‐Sarji, Marek Stütz)

Township of North Stormont Client Contact: Blake Henderson, Public Works Superintendent Office: (613) 984‐2821 Mobile: (613) 551‐0498 bhenderson@northstormont.ca OSIM Inspections  2011 OSIM Bridge Inspections, 33 structures (Mohamed El‐Sarji)  2013 OSIM Bridge Inspections, 35 structures (Marek Stütz , Mohamed El‐Sarji)  2015 OSIM Bridge Inspections, 38 structures (Mohamed El‐Sarji, Tova Govia) Preliminary Structure Replacement Design (includes Hydraulic Analysis)  NS Bridge #28, (2012, Mohamed El‐Sarji)  McKillican Bridge, (2013, Mohamed El‐Sarji)  Five (5) Structures, (2014, Mohamed El‐Sarji)

Page 42 of 48 Projects In‐Progress (AUE Structural)

Halton Region Client Contact: Gianvito Monaco, Transportation Asset Management Coordinator Road Operations, Public Works 905‐825‐6000, ext. 7220 | 1‐866‐442‐5866 OSIM Inspections  2016 Retaining Wall OSIM Inspections, 70 structures (Mohamed El‐Sarji, Marek Stütz, Tova Govia) Project Progress: Field work in progress, 53 structure inspections completed

Municipality of North Grenville Client Contact: Eric Sly, Engineering Coordinator Municipality of North Grenville T: 613‐258‐9569 ext. 279 F: 613‐258‐9620 esly@northgrenville.on.ca www.northgrenville.ca OSIM Inspections  2016 Bridge Assessment Study, 12 structures (Mohamed El‐Sarji, Marek Stütz, Tova Govia) Project Progress: Field work completed, Draft reports submitted and currently under review by the client

Page 43 of 48

Page 44 of 48

10 October 2016

OCT 1 7 ^6

South Frontenac Township Council

P.O.Box100

-n~i\MNS’r

0^

DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY

^irrri FRONTENAC

Qyeen’s University Kingston/ Ontario/ Canada K/L 3N& Tel 613 533-6160 Fax 613533-6617

Sydenham,Ontario KOH2TO Dear Members of Council:

I am writingto express my concerns aboutthe proposed expansionofthe Skycroft Campground. I write as both a resident on Lake Opinicon at Crystal Spring Farm,

and asthe former longtime (1972 - 2005) Directorofthe Queen’sUniversity BiologicalStation. I attendedthe publicmeeting on 4 October,but did not speakat that time. I write now to ensure that my concerns are on record. I would also

requestthat I be kept informed ofanydecisionsor further hearingsregardingthis proposed expansion. As a nearby resident on Lake Opinicon, 1 share the many concerns that were voiced

atthe meetingbyboth council and other residents. Potentialproblems for the Lake Opinicon ecosystem include air quality (smoke), water quality (runoff, and pollution

from excessivepressure from boating), over-flshlng [excessivepressure on an alreadyheavilyfishedlake), noise [both directfrom campers, and from extensive boat activity that would arise from such a large campground), boating safety [larger numbers of boats on a small lake will inevitably lead to greater risk of accident],

increasedtraffic, and security [large numbers ofpeople with no attachmentor identityin the area). Indeed,the OfficialPlanwiselylimits waterfrontcampgrounds to 50 sites specificallyto avoid suchproblems. Skycroftalreadyhas over 80 campsitesthatrely on a single smallbeach,andan apparently ever-expanding marina, so it seems completely unreasonable that they should be allowed to expand

beyondthis number and apply even greater pressures on a delicate ecosystemthat would result from greater numbers ofpeople. Asyou will know,and aswas emphasizedatthe publicmeeting, LakeOpiniconlies within the Frontenac Arch Biosphere Reserve, a UNESCO designation. It is also part

ofthe RldeauWaterway,and hencean integral part ofboth a NationalHistoricSite ofCanadaas well as a UNESCOWorld Heritage Site. Thesefacts make it even more compelling for South Frontenac Township to apply whatever measures are at its

disposalto protectthe important natural features ofthis area. I am reassuredby knowingthatthe SouthFrontenacTownshipOiBcialPlanincludeslimits, suchasthe SOcamp-site maximum, thatwill help prevent overuse andthe degradationofthose natural features that are so important to this area. I was Director of the Queen’s University Biological Station (QUBSJ in 1984 when

Ellen andAlien Bonwill initiated discussionsabouttransferringto Queen’s University about 1,000 acres of natural habitat, then part ofSkycroft, the

campgroundthattheyhadbeen operatingseasonallysince the early 1950’s. They wanted to ensure that this land was preserved, and accessible for outdoor education

I’KEPARING

LEADERS

AND

CITIZENS

FOR

GT.

O B A L

S 0 C I

T -V

Page 45 of 48

and research, for the very long-term future. As part ofthe agreement, Skycroft campers were to have access to the trails on what is now the Bonwill Tract of QUBS.

The transfer ofthis properly to Queen’s was finalized in 1986. At that time, Skycroft was a relatively small operation, with perhaps 30 sites ofmainly tent camping. From then to the present, the access to this tract by Skycroft campers has worked smoothly. Indeed, it has been a mutually beneficial arrangement with Skycroft. and the Rideau Trail Association maintaining trails, and QUBSresearchers and students having the use of trails to access various habitats. However, I’m concerned that if

Skycroftwere to expand significantly, as in the application before Township, there could develop excessive pressure on the trail system ofthe Bonwill Tract. That would especially be the case if the proposed additional campsites were to be denied access to Lake Opinicon, meaning more focus on the adjacent habitats. Since the Bonwill Tract is home to breeding populations ofthe Cerulean Warbler (listed as Threatened" in Ontario, and as ‘Vulnerable" on the IUCN Red List), and the Black Ratsnake [listed as “Threatened” in the Frontenac Axis, “Endangered” elsewhere in Ontario), as well as numerous other species ofwildlife and plants, it is imperative thatthese lands do notcomeunder pressure ofexcessiveuse. .

Finally, I was reassured by both council’s and the public’s recognition that the proposed expansion, supposedly on a non-waterfront parcel, would indeed be operated as a single waterfront campground which would far exceed the Official Plan’s limit It is very clear from the application that the expansion of Skycroft would result in significantly increased use and hence pressure on the existing lakefront, lake, and surrounding lands. I encourage Council to turn down the proposed expansion.

Sincerelyyours,

Raleigh J. Robertson’ Professor Emeritus

DepartmentofBiology Queen’s University

Kingston,Ontario K7L3N6 -and

80A Crystal SpringFarm Lane Elgin, Ontario KOG 1EO (Please feel free to communicate with me by email: robertsr@queensu. caj

Page 46 of 48

RECE^ OCT 1 7 tyii> -°L

SOUTH ‘W6NTENAC

41 - 121 Buell St Ottawa ON

K1Z7E7 10 October 2016

The Council, Frontenac South Opinicon Lake

We understand from our neighbours that Skycroft are proposing a major

extension. As cottage owners onthe lake we are very concerned. The lake is already under stress due to nutrient loading, heavy use and climate change causing an

increasing amount ofalgae and weed. Like many other cottages we filter lake water for drinking.

Please keep us informed of any developments

W^^J Liz and John Pakner

^

(lizniohnoO.vahoo. com tel 613 722 0890)

Page 47 of 48

TOWNSHIPOF SOUTH FRONTENAC P. O. Box 100

Telephone 376-3027 /1-800-559-5862

4432 George Street Sydenham, Ontario, KOH 2TO

FAX (613) 376-6657 E-mail: worr@southfrontenac. net

October 19, 2016 Catherine Warren District Planner

Peterborough District

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry 300 Water Street, 1st Floor South Peterborough, ON K9J 8M5 Dear Ms: Warren:

At their meeting held October 18, 2016, the Council ofthe Township of South Frontenac approved the following resolution:

Whereas there are significant community concerns about ongoing development

on Johnson’s Point, and

Whereas the both MNRF survey and the Township review by Macintosh Perry

found species at risk not identified bythe developer, and

Whereas the Township is a party to the development agreement on Johnson’s Point, and

Whereasthe health ofourlakesandenvironment is a priorityfortheTownship, Therefore be it resolved that the MNRF discuss any trade-off with the BatterseaLoughborough Lake Association and Council before it is finalized, and

FurtherthatCouncil be updated bythe MNRFon negotiations withthe Developer

on the progress of the species at risk benefit agreement, and

FurtherthattheTownship be keepabreastoffuturedevelopments as partyto all

correspondence between the developer and the MNRF.

Carried."

We respeqtft(lly request to be notified ofany action taken in this matter. Yours truli

ay"9?

Chie^Ajdministrative Officer I

W0:am

ec

Battersea Loughborough Lake Association.

Page 48 of 48

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC P. O. Box 100 4432 George Street Sydenham, Ontario, KOH 2TO

Telephone 376-3027 /1-800-559-5862

FAX(613) 376-6657 E-mail: worr@southfrontenac. net

October 19, 2016 Honourable Kathleen Wynne Premier of Ontario Room 281

111 Wellesley Street West Toronto, Ontario

M7A 1A1 Dear Premier:

At their meeting held October 18, 2016, the Council of the Township of South Frontenac approved the following resolution:

“Whereas South Frontenac residents and government could pay up to 3. 5 million

dollars into the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Account under Ontario’s cap and trade program,

And whereas this money will be used to provide a 2 billion dollar fund to help fund transformation to a low carbon economy,

And whereas, the Cap and Trade program and a carbon reduction plan in general will have broaderacceptance and be better spent if residents can see youTt is being spent in their community and as much as possible undertheircontrol,

Be it resolved that South Frontenac Council, askthe provincial government for an accounting of how that money is spent in each municipality, and Further be it resolved that a portion of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Account

money be allocated to each Municipal Council, based on their population, to be spent on newjcarbon reduction initiatives that are determined by the Township, similar to the Gas tax fund and

Further be it resolved that this resolution be forwarded to the Association of Municipalities of Ontariofortheir consideration. Carried” We respectfully request to be notified of any action taken in this matter. Yours tn

Administrative Officer

W0:am

ec

Honourable Bob Chiarelli, Minister of IESO Association of Municipalities of Ontario

Patrick Brown, Leader ofthe Ontario PC Party Andrea Horwath, Leader of the Ontario NDP

Randy Hillier, MPP, Lanark-Frontenac-Kingston

Help support independent journalism
If NFNM’s reporting matters to you, Buy Me a Coffee is a simple way to help keep local watchdog coverage going.
Buy Me a Coffee