Body: Council Type: Agenda Meeting: Regular Date: April 3, 2018 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: South Frontenac

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/south-frontenac/Agendas/Council/2018/Council - 03 Apr 2018 - Agenda.pdf)

Document Text

Page 1 of 126

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA TIME: 7:00 PM, DATE: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 PLACE: Council Chambers. 1.

Presentation to Frontenac Flyers & Frontenac Fury Teams

Call to Order

a)

Resolution

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)

Anne Prichard, Executive Director, Frontenac CFDC, re: Food in Frontenac Study

Approval of Minutes

a)

Minutes of March 20, 2018 Council Meeting

Business Arising from the Minutes

a)

Notice of Motion - Accommodation Review & Strategy for Growth Study

66

b)

Notice of Motion - Committee of Adjustment Training

67

c)

Notice of Motion - Johnston Point Development - Possible Violations

68

Reports Requiring Action

a)

Appointment of Fire Chief (See By-law 2018-20)

b)

Proposed Road Closure and Transfer: Porter/McPhie - Concessions IX and X, Part Lot 20, Storrington

Committee Meeting Minutes

a)

Police Services Board Annual and Regular meetings held November 16, 2017

74 - 76

b)

Heritage Committee meeting held January 30, 2018

77 - 78

3 - 60

61 - 65

69 70 - 73

Page 2 of 126

c)

Public Services Committee meeting held February 15, 2018

79 - 82

By-laws

a)

By-law 2018-20 - Appointment of Fire Chief

Reports for Information

a)

Main Street Revitalization Funding

87 101

b)

Source Water Protection: Risk Management Services

102 103

c)

Accounts Payable and Payroll Listing

104 111

Information Items

a)

Jim Vanden Hoek, re: Frontenac County - Expansion of Fairmount Home

112

b)

March 20, 2018 Presentation from Sarah Harmer, re: Johnston Point

• Benefit Permit

113 115

c)

David Donnelly, Barrister & Solicitor, re: OMB Case PL150246 - Rule 106 OMB Rules Of Practice and Procedure

116 119

d)

Meela Melnik-Proud, Evonne Potts and Matt Rennie, re: Follow up to March 20 Delegation

120 122

e)

Dipika Damerla, Minister of Seniors Affairs, re: 2018 Senior of the Year Award

123

f)

Meela Melnik-Proud, re: Follow up from March 20th Council meeting

124

g)

Frontenac Federation of Agriculture, re: Control of Noxious Weeds

125

Notice of Motions

Announcements/Statements by Councillors

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

Closed Session (if requested)

Confirmatory By-law

a)

By-law 2018-21

Adjournment

83 - 86

126

Page 3 of 126

Food in South Frontenac 2017 The Township of South Frontenac supported the Frontenac Community Futures Development Corporation (CFDC) proposal to work with the township and the County of Frontenac to determine how we can best support food producers and processors in South Frontenac. The rationale for undertaking this work was that staff at the Frontenac CFDC, County of Frontenac and the Kingston Economic Development Corporation (KEDCO) continued to hear from businesses seeking access to local produce, short term commercial kitchen space, freezer/fridge space, distribution, specialized technical support, etc. Results

1. Develop and implement a survey of South Frontenac producers and processors to determine what if any services and infrastructure they require for their businesses. As well, determine their current and projected market. The Frontenac CFDC staff developed a series of three survey documents each tailored to their intended audience – A. community halls/church kitchens, B. food processors C. producers (farmers). CFDC staff received input from Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), KEDCO and Township staff on question development and survey design. Additionally, the Frontenac CFDC was fortunate to have a graduate student from the University of Guelph who also happens to be a resident of Central Frontenac with a farm background ask to participate in the study as part of her thesis. Copies of the three survey forms are noted in the Appendix. A. Commercial Kitchen Space Given that a commercial kitchen was identified in the County of Frontenac’s Local Food Business Retention and Expansion (BR&E) 2011 Study (attached in appendix) as an essential piece of infrastructure needed by food and beverage producers, we initially began by surveying community halls and churches in the County and inventorying what kitchen facilities currently exist. The survey also determined the willingness of the facilities to rent their kitchens to businesses, while also gauging their willingness to upgrade their facilities to meet processor’s needs. A total of 29 surveys were completed; and 15 halls/churches of those surveyed are located in the Township of South Frontenac. Eighty-six percent of those surveyed indicated that they currently rent kitchen facilities in various capacities, with only one church kitchen in the Township of South Frontenac renting their kitchen to a food processing business. The survey also indicates that a majority of the kitchens in the County are under-utilized and that there is a willingness to upgrade their facilities with financial support. B. Food Processors We identified 20 food processors in the County of Frontenac and at the time of writing this report had surveyed 16 of them, including all but one known food processor in South Frontenac. As well, we 1

Page 4 of 126

surveyed a Kingston based business owner knowing that she has been attempting to find rentable commercial kitchen space and would be willing to relocate her business. The goal of the survey was to determine what infrastructure and/or services they require for their specific business and not capture anecdotal information. This distinction is made as it is believed that the County’s BR&E study is based on what respondents “perceived” as being needed and not necessarily their own experience. It should be noted that since the Frontenac CFDC began this study in 2017, we are currently working with 5 new food processors in South Frontenac and assisting one farm business in creating a new value-added food product. Infrastructure Processor Results Infrastructure

Distribution In the BR&E study, trucking and distribution was noted as being the fourth barrier to expansion, following skilled labour, financing, and water/sewage capacity. In the Frontenac CFDC survey, product distribution is noted as being the biggest gap in infrastructure for processors and this supports the CFDC staff’s experience with their clients. Some of the food producers that the CFDC has worked with over the years began by doing their own distribution. While this was a time consuming and costly endeavour, it resulted in these clients being able to build a strong relationship with their customers and afforded them the opportunity to build their sales with those customers and cold call other potential clients. Many of the respondents (both producers and processors) use Lanark based Wendy’s Mobile Market to distribute their products to retailers and restaurants. South Frontenac based Limestone Organic Creamery has an on-farm store and home delivery service. A number of respondents indicated that they sell their product to end consumers through the creamery’s on-site store or home delivery service after trucking the product to the creamery themselves. A majority of respondents commented that in addition to doing some of their own trucking; they use more than one distributor to get their product to market. Some have products that they are able to sell on-line and distribute through Canada Post/ courier. Processing Facilities The survey revealed that processing facilities were identified by processors as the second largest gap in infrastructure, while the 2011 County’s BR&E had revealed that additional local processing facilities 2

Page 5 of 126

and community industrial kitchen were ranked a top priority to increase community participation in local food. Part of the Frontenac CFDC rationale in conducting this study was that they and colleagues at the Kingston Economic Development Corporation were hearing from businesses that they required access to commercial kitchen space to start or grow their businesses. In our survey, four food processing businesses identified a need for commercial kitchen facilities of which three of those businesses are located in South Frontenac. Two of the business owners are working full-time outside their food processing business and only one of those two has indicated a desire to grow the business to full-time. Both of those businesses produce items with a long shelf life and are accessing the services of one of the regional food hubs on an as needed basis and would prefer a facility closer to home. The third business indicated the nominal cost to rent a community hall as being cost prohibitive. Cold Storage Rentable freezer and cold storage was identified by numerous producers and processors as a need for their businesses. However, many stipulated that distance and cost would be factors in determining their actual utilization of this infrastructure. Services Processor Results - Services

The business support service most identified by the survey respondents was access to financing. Connecting to local farmers, other processors, markets and events was the second area in which the respondents are seeking support.

3

Page 6 of 126

Barriers Processor Results - Barriers

Like all entrepreneurs and small business owners, the most frequently cited barrier to starting or expanding their business is lack of time. It should be noted that distribution, legislation, development charges and approval processes were also noted as barriers. The increasing cost of hydro was also cited as a struggle. Eleven of the processors surveyed indicated that they plan on increasing their production within the year and CFDC staff will keep in touch with these individuals to offer assistance. The Frontenac CFDC has witnessed strong evidence of this growth in production with their loan and Eastern Ontario Development Program clients. C. Producers (farmers) To date, seventeen food producers have been surveyed to identify gaps in infrastructure and services. In the County’s BR&E study, Frontenac producers identified lack of exposure, distribution system, cost, consumer disinterest and bylaws as their top barriers and not all of these items were found to be consistent in this study. Infrastructure Producers Results - Infrastructure

4

Page 7 of 126

Abattoirs Abattoirs were identified as a need by a number of the producers surveyed and some of the processors. The need for a local poultry chicken abattoir has long been identified. There are no poultry abattoirs in Frontenac and the long distance to travel to regional poultry abattoirs makes it cost prohibitive unless the farmer is processing a large number of chickens and the travel may result in birds dying on route especially during the hot summer months. Beef and pork abattoirs were also identified as something that is needed. One producer noted that the owner of the abattoir they use is planning to retire in the near future. An owner of another abattoir mused years ago that he would be retiring in the near future. One producer commented that their entire process is certified organic until the meat processing. There is an opportunity for existing abattoirs to change their processes to enable producers to sell organic meat which is sold at a premium cost. Cold Storage Similar to what the processors indicated, lack of rentable cold storage and freezer space was noted as a gap in infrastructure. Again, rental cost and distance to storage are factors in determining the utilization of this infrastructure. Distribution Product distribution is a challenge for producers and most employ a multitude of distribution methods from farm gate sales, selling at farmers’ markets, trucking their own products to retailers and restaurants and employing the services of distribution companies, most notably Wendy’s Mobile Market. Egg Grading Station An egg grading station is another piece of infrastructure that some of the producers would like to see being offered. Distance to travel and the costs associated with the regulatory process are factors in whether it would be used. Services Producers Results – Services

The majority of the producers identified marketing as where they need the most support. Many also noted they seek support to connect to other producers and processors and the need for cooperative marketing. Some require financial and technical support to grow their businesses.

5

Page 8 of 126

Barriers Producers Results - Barriers

Similar to processors, producers overwhelmingly stated that time is their biggest barrier to grow their business. In addition, they too cited legislation as a barrier. Over half of the producers indicated that they plan on increasing production and/or add a value-added product. CFDC staff will follow up with these individuals to offer assistance. Processors and producers who participated in the study were invited to attend a networking luncheon, Food in Frontenac, on February 2, 2018 to hear the findings of the study and to have an opportunity to connect with others in the sector. In addition to hearing the findings, attendees were invited to participate in one of three conversation cafes. One conversation was on creating consumer awareness; a second was on coordination for growth; and the third on infrastructure. Notes from those conversations are in the appendix. 2. Engage the staff of the two regional food hubs (Two Rivers and OAFVC) as key stakeholders to understand their current reach, services gaps and potential regional collaborations to ensure any project implemented in Kingston/Frontenac would not have a negative impact on their organizations. We set out to engage the staff of the two regional food hubs (Two Rivers and Ontario Agri-Food Venture Centre) to understand their current reach, what they perceive as being gaps in service and to discuss potential regional collaborations to ensure any project implement in this area would not have a negative impact on their organizations. Unfortunately, we received little or no input from either organization. CFDC staff had previously visited each of the facilities to see first-hand what they offer. There was limited knowledge of either food hub by the processors and producers surveyed. Three producers noted that they have used the distribution services offered by Two Rivers and one processor noted that they have used the commercial kitchen facilities of the Ontario Agri-Food Venture Centre. Of those who knew about the services, their reason for not using them is the distance to travel. CFDC staff and the University student assisted with the study visited Food Starter, a facility in Toronto that provides a range of services to help entrepreneurs commercialize and sell their food products. In 6

Page 9 of 126

addition to providing access to shared production and packaging facilities, they offer valuable training and mentoring.

3. Explore private/public partnership opportunities to build infrastructure that has been identified. Commercial Kitchen The current demand for a rentable commercial kitchen is very limited and consequently a public/private partnership is not warranted at this time, nor is it financially feasible. Of the four processors who indicated a need for a commercial kitchen facility, three of them are using the services of a regional hub. While the approximately three hour return trip to a hub is not ideal, given that these businesses’ products have a long shelf life, they can do large batch processing and limit the number of trips to the hub. Furthermore, two of these businesses owners are working full-time outside the business and only one of them has indicated that they would like to make their business a full-time venture. A new business venture will open its doors in the spring of 2018 that will offer rentable commercial kitchen space in South Frontenac. In addition, it will enable those who rent kitchen space and other food producers/processors the opportunity to retail their products at that location, including another CFDC client who has a food processing business. This is a private venture that has been supported through the Frontenac CFDC’s Eastern Ontario Development Program (EODP). In addition, the EODP and Starter Company Plus program has enabled another food processor to create their own commercial kitchen facility. KEDCO staff was building a case for a network of themed commercial kitchens across Kingston which they refer to as “Agrihoods” and the lead staff member on this initiative indicated that they are no longer pursuing this. Abattoirs Poultry abattoirs have long been identified as needed and this was confirmed again in the survey. A number of years ago, the County previously undertook a feasibility study for a poultry abattoir. The Frontenac CFDC then brought together individuals to explore creating a co-op abattoir, together with a consultant in co-operatives and there was no interest from the attendees to pursue the creation of a co-op. In May of 2017, a federal panel was convened to look at re-opening the prison farm. The proposal put forward by the prison farm group includes a poultry abattoir in year three of the re-opening. If the proposal is approved, there may be an opportunity for a partnership. In their 2018 budget, the federal government has committed $4 million to reopen two prison farms, both of which are located in Kingston. Farmersville Community Abattoir is a NFP that opened their doors in Athens in the fall of 2016. If the owners of existing beef and poultry abattoirs retire and close their doors, we could learn from the Famersville model to fill the gap created locally.

7

Page 10 of 126

Cold Storage There may be an opportunity for either a private business or a public/private partnership to fill this needed gap in infrastructure. However, businesses require cold storage/freezer space within close proximity to both their production and a convenient location for their distribution network which is challenging given the lack of density and geography of the township. Frontenac CFDC staff has spoken with an existing South Frontenac business that is willing to explore building additional capacity to meet the needs of local businesses. CFDC staff announced this opportunity at the Food in Frontenac event and has asked a number of respondents who said they require cold storage if they would like to be put in touch with the business willing to consider the investment. To-date, no one has asked for the introduction. As well, staff contacted one of the community halls to ask whether there is an partnership opportunity to expanding their cold storage areas and the response was that they are not interested in the liability should the freezer/fridge space lose electricity and the product is damaged. A person involved in distribution commented that rentable cold storage and freezer space is not the answer and that farmers need to have the facilities on site to control the temperature for their specific products and monitor the facilities. Distribution Distribution was the most frequently mentioned gap in infrastructure by the processors and it was also noted as a gap by producers. Three producers noted that they access the distribution services of the Two Rivers Food Hub. The Two Rivers Food Hub announced in February 2018 that they are closing their distribution operations as it was not financial viable for them. This has left a gap in distribution services into the Ottawa market for some South Frontenac producers. Wendy’s Mobile Market has provided distribution services into the Kingston area for Frontenac food businesses. In response to the closure of the Two Rivers Food Hub distribution service, Wendy hosted an initial meeting with some of her clients and CFDC staff to discuss options to distribute into the Ottawa market. As a result of the meeting, CFDC staff identified an opportunity for two South Frontenac producers to get distribution into the Toronto market and is currently working with these producers to further explore this. CFDC staff will continue to work with Wendy’s Mobile Market to offer assistance. Limestone Organic Creamery is a South Frontenac business that plays a vital role in product distribution. They provide an opportunity for businesses to have their products distributed directly to the consumer through their on-farm store and their home delivery service. The Frontenac CFDC continues to work with Limestone Organic Creamery to grow their business which in turn will support other processors and producers. Egg Grading Station An egg grading station is a piece of infrastructure that some of the producers would like to see being offered. This industry is heavily legislated resulting in a barrier to entry. One respondent suggested that an egg grading station should be owned and operated publically. However, CFDC staff are of the opinion that this should be a private sector initiative and should someone take it on, then it is highly likely their efforts will be supported through CFDC programming.

8

Page 11 of 126

4. Kingston Frontenac Lennox and Addington Public Health Unit Staff from the Frontenac CFDC met with a Public Health Inspector from the Kingston Frontenac Lennox and Addington Public Health Unit to better understand the complexities of their requirements. We learned to navigate the health unit’s website to find information on food safety and food premises and will be able to provide this information to clients. The County of Frontenac staff has agreed to provide links from their website to the KFL&A Public Health Unit information. The Frontenac CFDC works closely with staff at the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAFRA). OMAFRA staff organizes workshops entitled “Selling Food in Ontario” which includes information on health unit requirements. These workshops are promoted by the Frontenac CFDC to food related businesses so they can better understand the health unit requirements. OMAFRA also produces a series of “business bundles” including one for value-added food production and a link to this information is made available on the Frontenac CFDC website and is referenced to clients considering this type of venture.

5. Next steps i) Business Counselling - Business Retention and Expansion studies, such as the one produced by the County of Frontenac, tend to capture the overall picture and seek to identify “red flags”. In this report, the CFDC has presented overall survey findings. However, CFDC staff took the opportunity when conducting the surveys to address issues identified by the respondents and provide counselling. In the coming months, staff will contact other respondents to discuss their questions and provide counselling and contacts where appropriate. ii) Financing – Both processors and producers said that they require financial support. Staff at the Frontenac CFDC will continue in their efforts to create awareness of their organization and the loan and grant programs that they offer. It should be noted that the Eastern Ontario Development Program comes to an end December 2018. Staff will also continue to promote other grant programs as they are announced such as the new Canada Agriculture Partnership Program that will launch April 2018. The CFDC has contacts with agricultural reps and other lenders at financial institutions and will continue to refer. iii) Marketing - Both processors and producers are seeking assistance in marketing. One of the strategic focuses of the CFDC is to promote local business and we will continue with these efforts. This includes spotlighting a food and beverage business in our quarterly newsletter and promoting businesses on our social media. As well, during the past 18 months we have offered one-on-one free tech coaching to assist these businesses in self-promotion. The funding for this program comes to an end in February 2018. The Frontenac CFDC is a partner in the Food and Beverage (FAB) Region; an initiative to attract and grow artisanal (small scale) food and beverage businesses in the region. This award winning initiative has attracted three businesses to the County and promoted existing businesses. We will continue with these efforts.

9

Page 12 of 126

The County are working on two projects which will support marketing in the food sector. The #InFrontenac branding initiative is gaining momentum and can be accessed by the food sector to help them promote their own business. As well, they will be launching a “Spend 10” initiative and it too will help producers and processors. Staff at the Frontenac CFDC is in discussions with the County staff to create a food and farm advisory committee. From what we heard at the Food in Frontenac event, one of the key items that they would like an advisory committee to address is co-operative marketing of food and farm products. It was also noted by attendees that if a committee is to be effective it must have staff and financial resources to support it. If the Township of South Frontenac wishes to make a further investment into the food and beverage sector, funding to support a marketing initiative may be something they wish to consider. iv) Connection - Many of the respondents commented their need for getting connected to other farmers, processors and others in the food sector. CFDC staff has provided contacts while conducting surveys and will follow up with other respondents. Providing introductions and contacts is an important part of what the CFDC provides in their consultation services. The County’s Brand Ambassador Program provides two networking activities per year and their first two events have provided excellent opportunities for connecting. The CFDC is planning a Small Business Week Networking event October 2018. The CFDC will continue to promote other networking opportunities such as OMAFRA workshops and the Eastern Ontario Food Conference. v) Product on Shelves – During February 2018, CFDC staff participated in discussions with producers and processors at three separate meetings for the sector. A number of businesses are seeking assistance in getting their food products on shelves. During the study period, the Frontenac CFDC participated in Ontario East Economic Development Commission’s Food Sector Team which afforded some businesses the opportunity to participate in the Restaurant Show and SIAL. The CFDC is exploring opportunities to assist other businesses in being able to participate in similar events during 2018/19. Also, CFDC staff has provided introductions that we anticipate will resulted in product placement both in the County and elsewhere in Ontario. The CFDC and County staff are currently exploring how we may further assist businesses in getting their products on shelves. vi) Planning and Building Process It is recommended that the Township of South Frontenac review how they communicate their planning and building processes, fees and time lines to potential business owners. It is suggested that they keep top of mind that these individuals will probably only go through the process once in a life-time. CFDC clients and survey respondents have expressed frustration over what they perceive to be long delays in the development process and perhaps clearer communication about development timelines is needed. As well, part way through their development CFDC clients and survey respondents encountered unknown additional costs. Again, this may be attributed to lack of

10

Page 13 of 126

clear communication. A pre-consultation process with staff and business owners may assist in addressing the issues for both clients and staff.

Appendix Survey for community hall kitchens Survey for producers (farmers) Survey for processors Conversation Café notes from Food in Frontenac Food in Frontenac Presentation (attached as separate PDF document) County of Frontenac Business Retention and Expansion Local Food 2011-2012 (attached as separate PDF document)

11

Page 14 of 126

Church/Community Hall Kitchen Survey Questions

Church/Community Hall Kitchen Facilities The staff at the Frontenac CFDC and the County of Frontenac receive numerous enquiries from individuals looking to rent commercial kitchen space on a short-term rental or longer term lease for the purpose of producing food and beverage products. The purpose of this survey is to determine what facilities are available in the region for them to rent. The survey is being paid for by the Township of South Frontenac. Section 1 – Contact Information Please note that providing your name and contact information is optional. If you choose to provide this information, it will only be available to the survey sponsors. Any shared or published results will not include any of the identifying information provided. If you would like us to share your contact information with potential renters, please check: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Name of Facility ____________________________________________________________ Name of Contact ___________________________________________________________ Telephone Number for Contact _______________________________________________ Address of Facility __________________________________________________________ Are you interested in or do you currently rent the kitchen facilities for commercial use? a. Yes (Continue to Section 2) b. No (Skip to Section 3)

Section 2 – Current business Information 6. Is your facility currently inspected by the KFL&A Public Health? Yes If yes, when was it last inspected? ________________ (continue with survey) No 7. Rental Pricing (please indicate hourly/ daily rate if applicable)

8. Please indicate the availability of the facility (i.e daily hours, how much notice must be given for reservations)

9. Please indicate equipment the facility currently offers (circle all that apply) a. Industrial Stove propane b. Industrial Stove electric 12

Page 15 of 126

c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l.

Industrial Oven High heat commercial dishwasher Kitchen smallwares (bowls, utensils, pots, frying pans..etc.) Blender / Food Processor Scale Health board approved prep tables Industrial mixer (if yes, indicate quartz size) Rolling racks Dehydrator Other, list

10. Does this facility have freezer rental space? a. Yes b. No (If no, please skip to question 12.)
11. What are the terms of the freezer rental? (timeframe, available space, walk-in space?)

_ 12. Does this facility have refrigeration space? a. Yes b. No (If no, please skip to question 14) 13. What are the terms of the refrigeration rental? (timeframe, available space, walk in space?)

_ 14. Is there on-site locked storage available for rent? a. Yes b. No 15. Is there accessibility for loading and unloading of goods? a. Yes b. No 16. Does the facility currently have commercial users? If yes a. How many users? _________________ b. Is the user a caterer? _______________ c. Is the user a business creating food or beverage products? _______________ 13

Page 16 of 126

Section 3 – Planned Business Information 17. If funding were made available, how likely would you be to add to or upgrade your facilities to accommodate food processing businesses? a. Likely b. Not likely c. Unsure 18. Additional Comments:

Survey conducted by: _____________________________ Date: ___________________

14

Page 17 of 126

Food Producers (Farmers) Survey Questions

Frontenac Producers The purpose of this survey is to determine how staff at the Frontenac CFDC, County of Frontenac and Township of South Frontenac can support farmers who are processing or considering processing to create value-added food and beverage products. The survey is being paid for by the Township of South Frontenac. Section 1 – Contact Information Please note that providing your name and contact information is optional. If you choose to provide this information, it will only be available to the survey sponsors. Any shared or published results will not include any of the identifying information provided. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Name of person being surveyed ____________________ Business Name if applicable _______________________ Telephone __________________________ Email address ________________________ Business Address __________________________ In which of the following age groups do you belong a. <30 years b. 30 – 54 years c. >54 years

Is your farm a. Full-time operation b. Part-time operation with outside income c. hobby farm? (if yes, go to Section 6)

How long have you been operating your business in your current location _____ years

What do you produce on your farm and how many acres do you cultivate per crop? (ie 40 acres maple woodlot, 2 acres carrots)

~ If you currently creating a value-added (food and beverage) product go to Section 2 ~ If you are planning on starting a value-added (food and beverage (product) go to Section 3 15

Page 18 of 126

~ Otherwise go to Section 6

Section 2 – Currently creating value-added products 10. Please list the value-added products you create (i.e. jam, salad dressing, flour, maple syrup, prepared meals, etc)

11. Where do you create the product? a. On-farm b. Other (specify)
12. Please indicate the composition of your customer base: a. Wholesale to restaurants/retailers ____% b. Consumers within 50 km ____% c. Other Consumers ____% Indicate location – Toronto, Ottawa, other specify d. Other ____%
13. What is your distribution method? Circle all that apply a. On-farm store b. Farmer’s market(s) c. Own distribution delivery d. Use distribution service e. Other (specify)
14. Have you considered increasing production and/or adding a new value-added product? a. Yes – increasing production of existing product (Continue to Section 3) b. Yes – adding a new valued added product (Continue to Section 3) c. No (Skip to Section 4) Section 3 – Planned Business Information
15. When are you planning on increasing production and/or adding new value-added product? a. Within the next 3 months b. Within the next year c. More than a year
16. What products are you considering producing?

16

Page 19 of 126

17. For what reason(s) have you decided to create a valued-added product?

~ Continue to Section 4 Section 4 – Infrastructure & Support Needs 18. What business support services does/will your business require? Rate on a scale of 1 to 3 or not applicable (1 = very important, 3 = not very important) 1 2 3 n/a Business planning / cashflow counselling Marketing workshops/counselling Financing Training /retraining of staff Access to specialists/experts (what type?) Technical support (what type?) Co-operative marketing Connecting to other food/beverage producers Connecting to farmer’s markets and local event organizers Other (specify) Other (specify) 19. What infrastructure support does your business require now or in the future? Rate on a scale of 1 to 3 or not applicable (1 = very important, 3 = not very important) 1 2 3 Abattoir - beef Abattoir - pork Abattoir - chicken Abattoir – other (specify) Co-operative freezer storage (indicate sq footage) Co-operative refrigeration storage (indicate sq footage) Processing facilities (indicate what type) Distribution service – within 50 km Distribution service - greater Toronto area Distribution service – other (specify) Cold transport service Labelling Co-packing Other (specify) Other (specify)

n/a

17

Page 20 of 126

20. Which, if any, of the following factors are barriers to starting or expanding your business. Rate on a scale of 1 to 3 or not applicable (1 = very important, 3 = not very important) 1 2 3 n/a Water capacity Septic capacity Hydro capacity Availability of properly zoned land Availability of leasable space Approval processes Development charges Business Insurance Availability of skilled labour Availability of financing Availability of processing facilities (what type?) Distribution of product Legislation Lack of time Unsure of what product to make Insufficient quantifies of produce to meet product demand (list ingredients) Extra produce you would like someone else to process Other (specify)
21. Are there any businesses/organizations that you collaborate with to operate your business? (co-operative marketing, sharing of equipment, etc) If so, please explain.

22. Are you aware of the existing regional food hubs, the Two Rivers Food Hub (Smiths Falls) and the Ontario Agri-Food Venture Centre (Northumberland)? a. Yes (Please indicate which facility you are aware of)

b. No 23. Have you used the services/facilities of these food hubs? a. Yes (Please indicate which hub you have utilized)

b. No skip to question 24 24. What is the frequency in which you use these facilities? __________________________ 18

Page 21 of 126

25. If you have utilized the services of a food hub, what services _______________________ ~ If you are using or interested in using a commercial kitchen space, continue to Section 5. ~ Otherwise skip to Section 6. Section 5 – Commercial Kitchen Space
26. What requirements are important to your business in a commercial kitchen space. Rate on a scale of 1 to 3 or not applicable (1 = very important, 3 = not very important) 1 2 3 n/a Industrial Stove propane Industrial Stove electric Industrial Oven Freeze (indicate sq footage) Refrigeration (indicate sq footage) High heat commercial dishwasher Kitchen smallwares (pots, pans, utensils, etc) Blender/Food Processor Scale Health Unit approved prep tables Industrial mixer (indicate # of quartz) Rolling Racks Dehydrator Vegetable processing equipment (brush line/sorting table Locked Storage on-site (indicate sq footage) Other (specify)
27. If leasing or planning to lease commercial kitchen space is your preference a. Sole occupant full-time lease b. Part-time rental of shared kitchen facility (if so, hours/week) ____________ c. Other (specify) Section 6 – Final Thoughts
28. Do you know of any other producer that is considering developing a value-added product that we can contact? If yes, contact info
29. Do you have any other thoughts about what services and infrastructure you require for your farm and/or value added food/beverage business or for the sector in general?

__ Survey conducted by: _____________________________ Date: ___________________ 19

Page 22 of 126

Local Food Processing Survey Questions

Frontenac Processors The purpose of this survey is to determine how staff at the Frontenac CFDC, the County of Frontenac and Township of South Frontenac can support new and existing food and beverage processors. The survey is being paid for by the Township of South Frontenac. Section 1 – Contact Information Please note that providing your name and contact information is optional. If you choose to provide this information, it will only be available to the survey sponsors. Any shared or published results will not include any of the identifying information provided. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Name of person being surveyed ____________________ Business Name if applicable _______________________ Telephone __________________________ Email address ________________________ Business Address __________________________ In which of the following age groups do you belong a. <30 years b. 30 – 54 years c. >54 years

~ If you currently operate a Food and Beverage processing business go to Section 2 ~ If you are planning on starting a Food and Beverage processing business go to Section 3 ~ Otherwise go to Section 6 Section 2 – Current business Information 7. Do you currently operate your Food and Beverage business a. Full-time b. Part-time year round (if yes, how many hours per week on average)

c. Seasonal (if so, when)

8. How long have you operated your business in its current location ______ years
9. Where is the business located? a. South Frontenac b. Other (please specify) __________________________

20

Page 23 of 126

10. Is the business (circle whichever applies) a. Home-based b. In a rental space c. In a commercial space that you own
11. What product(s) do you currently produce?

12. Please indicate the composition of your customer base: a. Wholesale to restaurants/retailers % b. Consumers within 50 km % c. Other Consumers % (indicate location(s)) d. Other (specify): ___________________________%
13. How do you distribute your product (circle all that apply) a. Your own retail outlet b. Distribute product yourself c. Use distribution service d. On-line sales e. Other (specify)
14. Within the next 5 years, which of the following do you plan for your business? a. Expand b. Remain the same c. Sell d. Close e. Downsize f. Other (specify) ~ Skip to Section 4. Section 3 – Planned Business Information
15. When are you planning on starting a food and beverage processing business? a. Within the next 3 months b. Within the next year c. More than a year
16. What food or beverage product(s) do you plan on selling?

21

Page 24 of 126

~ Continue to Section 4 Section 4 – Infrastructure & Support Needs 17. What business support services does/will your business require? Rate on a scale of 1 to 3 or not applicable (1 = very important, 3 = not very important) 1 2 3 n/a Business planning / cashflow counselling Marketing workshops/counselling Financing Training /retraining of staff Access to specialists/experts (what type?) Technical support (what type?) Co-operative marketing Connecting to other food/beverage producers Connecting to farmer’s markets and local event organizers Other (specify) 18. What infrastructure support does your business require now or in the future? Rate on a scale of 1 to 3 or not applicable (1 = very important, 3 = not very important) 1 2 3 n/a Abattoir - beef Abattoir - pork Abattoir - chicken Abattoir – other (specify) Co-operative freezer storage (indicate sq footage) Co-operative refrigeration storage (indicate sq ft) Processing facilities (indicate what type) Distribution service – within 50 km Distribution service - greater Toronto area Distribution service – other (specify) Cold transport service Labelling Co-packing Other (specify)

22

Page 25 of 126

19. Which, if any, of the following factors are barriers to starting or expanding your business. Rate on a scale of 1 to 3 or not applicable (1 = very important, 3 = not very important) Barrier 1 2 3 n/a Water capacity Septic capacity Hydro capacity Availability of properly zoned land Availability of leasable space Approval processes Development charges Business Insurance Availability of skilled labour Availability of financing Availability of processing facilities (what type?) Distribution of product Legislation Lack of time Unsure of what product to make Insufficient quantities of produce to meet product demand (list ingredients) Extra produce you would like someone else to process Other (specify)
20. Do you collaborate with other food/beverage businesses? (co-operative marketing, sharing of equipment, etc) If yes, describe with whom and what

21. Are you aware of the existing regional food hubs, the Two Rivers Food Hub (Smiths Falls) and the Ontario Agri-Food Venture Centre (Northumberland)? a. Yes (please indicate which facility you are aware of)

b. No 22. Have you used the services/facilities of these food hubs? a. Yes (please indicate which hub you have utilized)

b. No

23

Page 26 of 126

23. What is the frequency in which you do or plan to use these facilities? a. Once a year b. Every six months c. Once every two to five months d. Once a month e. Other (Specify):
24. What services do you/could you utilize at the food hub?

~ If you are using or interested in using a commercial kitchen space, continue to Section 5. ~ Otherwise skip to Section 6. Section 5 – Commercial Kitchen Space 25. What requirements are important to your business in a commercial kitchen space. Rate on a scale of 1 to 3 or not applicable (1 = very important, 3 = not very important) 1 2 3 n/a Industrial Stove propane Industrial Stove electric Industrial Oven Freeze (indicate sq footage) Refrigeration (indicate sq footage) High heat commercial dishwasher Kitchen smallwares (pots, pans, utensils, etc) Blender/Food Processor Scale Health Unit approved prep tables Industrial mixer (indicate # of quartz) Rolling Racks Dehydrator Vegetable processing equipment (brush line/sorting table Locked Storage on-site (indicate sq footage) Other (specify) 26. If leasing commercial kitchen space is your preference a. Sole occupant full-time lease (indicate sq footage required) b. Part-time rental of shared kitchen facility (if so, hours/week)___________ c. Other (specify)

24

Page 27 of 126

Section 6 – Final Thoughts 27. Is there any food or beverage business in the region that you think we should be surveying? If yes, contact info ___________________________________________ 28. Do you have any other thoughts about what services and infrastructure development is needed to assist you with your local food and beverage business or the sector in general.

Survey conducted by: _____________________________ Date: ___________________

25

Page 28 of 126

Food in Frontenac Networking Session Feb 2, 2018 Table 1 Creating Consumer Awareness How can we build consumer awareness of local food? (knowing that there are different definitions of local food) Notes by Richard Allen, County of Frontenac Comments o From a farmers market point of view – still have new people from local perspective who did not know about the market (been around since 2004). o Even though they have advertised in Frontenac news & with the Verona Community Association o Not much communication with township o Population of the county still not attending the market. o It might be an idea to reach the school – opt for activities with children to get parents to market. Has been to farmers market conference of Ontario – through kids is one of the ways to encourage market attendance. o Everybody should be leading this– the municipality, the associations, etc. o Even though they have regular customers – and are visible from 38. o Not a lot of population here which makes it hard to get enough people o Richard brought on to strengthen the Frontenac brand o We should make this a food tourist destination – people from outside have money to spend and bigger bang for our buck. o People are looking for day trip – experiences. Leverage vacation spaces by making good food and good products available here. o Best kept secrets are not helping (like the beach in Frontenac Park!) o Is it not true that the County is doing some of this work o Richard confirmed that we are working on food tourism and brand ambassador program o Education is necessary – people want cheap, don’t know what GMO, organic, grassfed may be o Tourist Information Centers could distribute info o We need to communicate why we should support local – fresh, farmers reinvest in economy, o Everyone should advertise farmers markets more o Municipalities should lead the effort – particularly City of Kingston as they have the people – locals are not supporting markets, particularly and focus efforts on reaching cottagers. o Perhaps local food awareness Tax Bill awareness info for local food / markets / farms o Most customers are regular customers – no cottages really o People from the city go up to their lakes and don’t leave the cottage. o Tourist dollars vs local dollars o Value of keeping food local is tremendous but the ability of locals to pay is difficult to figure out o Working on that education at the market – o I think there is hope o Growing food in Arden – many gardens have started to pop up. o Energy should be in how we feed our community. 26

Page 29 of 126

o Population Density just of South Frontenac is 14/sq km, lessens in other townships o You need to think about that context o Teach habit of buying local as part of supporting rural economies – which could impact for years (decades). o Could teaching at schools how to support rural economies where they live. o Many, many people in Frontenac commute to Kingston. o Important to take moral approach to this – instill the values of shopping local. o We need wage disparity between the city and others o People will get food as cheap as they can o But farmers need the return on investment which is the issue o Sells seconds (imperfects) – o Young Families w small children at the Farmers Markets o Retirees favour the Farmer’s Markets o Representative – social housing developed in rural areas. Cluster of housing is supported. o Rural areas require vehicles which is a challenge. o Why doesn’t policy support keeping people in homes? o Target affluent people with time o Find the people who are going to pay more for groceries o Spend time and effort focusing on growing the niche o Investigate Farm / Market Tours to be marketed to agencies or tour operators. o Suggest local food routes that encompass these. o Kingston to have a card for farmers markets in area will be at Visitor information centre o Tourists have time and dollars to spend o Need regular signage. (note from rich: could there be regular ads on VCA board) o So many things that are not coordinated o FAB experiences, Food and Beverage Region, Great Waterway Food Stuff, Studio Tours o Hit or miss with sources of information o I don’t go because the times are not right for me – o We need to focus on getting more into stores like Wendy’s, Glenburnie Grocery, or Limestone Creamery o Country markets aren’t going to grow o CSA is going be a good idea – where you deliver to your customer o Majority of people are in Kingston – your markets should be there. o Personally, the bigger markets are where vendors should be. o Cattlemen’s association did a bus tour 25-30 years ago, raises awareness o Municipal signage to advertise markets are necessary.

27

Page 30 of 126

o 401 EnRoutes had markets (small) and did well o Survey should take place to determine customer demand & desires.

Table 2 Coordination for Growth

1. Are their initiatives currently underway that could be working in a more coordinated manner? If so, how do we support them?
2. What are the advantages/disadvantages of creating a local food and agricultural advisory committee? If it were to be created, what issues would it address?

Notes by Alison Vandervelde, County of Frontenac Beef Farmers of Ontario (BFO) has programs that are aimed at encouraging young farmers to enter into farming and to get existing farmers to increase their numbers. Beef Farmers of Frontenac is lobbying BFO to implement a perimeter fencing program that would provide financial assistance to build perimeter fences so we can make better use of the vacant land in our region. The things that seems to be working are those initiated by individuals. We should be thinking about building the brand for local food. The hashtag #inFrontenac seems to be working and is building a level of awareness among local food producers. It’s used for other more general things, but it is branding local food in a pictorial way and through stories. It’s easy for people to use if they want to use it. It’s building momentum and it’s recognized, it could have more potential. We have seen great uptake with usage of #inFrontenac, mostly by businesses and producers. We would certainly like to see a wider use by consumers to make it a more powerful tool in creating awareness of local producers and products. The Kingston Fall Fair happens every year in September, and many people go to enjoy the animals. Perhaps more energy could be put into that event focusing on bringing awareness to local food. There’s an opportunity to better educate attendees at the fair about the food that ends up on their plates. The Metcalf Fair is promoted and supported very well in their community. There’s nothing like that in our community. The Carp Fair is another huge community event that centers on food and farming. There are so many public events in our region… it would be great if there was some way to coordinate these organizing groups to offer, support, or promote local food at their events. There were 3,000 people at the night market that was held last summer at the Memorial Centre market. We have two Farmers Markets in Frontenac. The Verona Farmer’s Market is quite well known, so that could provide a platform to create a local food agricultural advisory committee. At that market, there is not a lot of community involvement. That’s a problem for the vendors. It needs more involvement from the local community.

28

Page 31 of 126

Access to available land is an issue. If people buy land and don’t seek someone to actively farm it, that’s a waste. We need a tool to connect people who have land with people who want land to farm it. We need to connect the vendors with the eaters. We decided not to go back to the downtown Kingston Market. We found gradually over time that the market’s a stagnant place for us. We’ve been growing in the wholesale market over the last number of years. It was also a decision about quality of life for us, so we’re not working through the weekend now. The downtown Kingston market is an unpredictable place to vend – dates are missed because of large events or weather. Our customers have been supportive of us moving away from the market. The people who are upset that we’re not going to be there generally aren’t there during the summer anyway. Our products are also available 6 days a week, a block away, at Tara Natural Foods. That brings up a good point – where is your customer shopping to buy local food? It’s like 3% of the population actually go to Farmers’ Markets. If you want to grow local food, you need to grow the customer base in order to increase awareness. And where do those customers shop? In the grocery stores. Maybe the committee advocates on behalf of the food producers to get local products on shelves in our grocery stores, with some consistent branding? Working with grocers is a good idea. Even me, who is connected so closely with all these farms, I don’t always have time to get to farm gates or markets to buy directly from producers. I can imagine the barriers that exist for consumers who don’t feel connected to local producers. If the consumer starts buying and requesting local products, it may make the grocery stores pay attention. They might start to add sections dedicated to local products. That kind of advocacy is very doable, it doesn’t take that much time or cost that much, it just requires coordination. Grocery stores in Vermont have rows upon rows of different local products. It would be great if we could go in that direction too. The Parham Fair and Kingston Fair are both agricultural hubs. This advisory committee could play a role in both of those events too. Alison (Vandervelde) and I have been talking about getting producers together to talk about different methods of marketing. That could be a next step in creating this committee. Given that most people are already involved in other organizations, how willing would you be to get involved in this kind of committee? I think it’s important to find a group of people passionate enough to do it. Just the mention of this committee makes me question… what are the logistics? Would it be under the County’s umbrella? There would need to be staff support and a funding source. To have the capacity to make progress, and a voice that people will notice, you need to have paid staff support and some kind of budget. That would be key. Is the County working on a food tourism component?

29

Page 32 of 126

Alison V – Yes, we’re in the early days of figuring out what that might look like. Talking about a partnership approach with Kingston, given that many of the producers are in Frontenac and the restaurants are in Kingston. There needs to be a business case for any tourism products that are developed. In order to be sustainable, products need to fit into a for-profit model, and providers of those products need to make connections with the local communities. One caution about the inFrontenac brand as it relates to local food… it applies only to just those who are located in Frontenac, but the food catchment area doesn’t follow political boundaries. It could exclude those who are just outside the boundaries, but who naturally fit into our local food ecosystem. I’m not saying that makes it impossible, but it’s something to be aware of. We did only one season at the Frontenac Farmer’s Market in 2014, and now we focus now the Memorial Centre Market. The Memorial Centre Market has been successful at bringing community events to the market, which draws more people in than just those who are there to buy their food. They’re bringing community to where the food is. People are looking for community at their markets. Every month they have a special event, every week they have different musicians. It’s vibrant. Last year was the first night market and it did very well. Sales have increased as the market has become more vibrant. The growth of the memorial centre market has actually been damaging to the downtown market. I agree with that, the Memorial Centre market has great support. Something that is unique about the Memorial Centre Market is that they have a board that combines vendors and community members. There are also two Market Managers, both paid positions. The Verona Farmers market doesn’t have the funding to have a paid position. Markets appeal more to visitors to the area, and not the direct community itself… is that accurate? People have said that residents in Verona don’t have a lot of disposable income to support the market, but the community surrounding the Memorial Centre Market doesn’t have a high income either. They are very supportive of the market. There’s potential for Verona to be very supportive of Frontenac Farmer’s Market too. Interest in committing to an Ag Advisory Committee: Commitment to a quarterly meeting: Dave, Xiaobing, Dianne Provide feedback on draft initiatives: Eric I’m surprised that I haven’t heard more challenges with finding skilled labour. We have been fortunate over the years, but it is difficult finding skilled workers especially for seasonal labour, and because we like to hire locally.

30

Page 33 of 126

Table 3 Infrastructure

1. What steps can be taken to address infrastructure gaps that were identified? (rentable freezer/fridge space; cattle transportation; distribution and equipment) Notes Katie Nolan, OMAFRA Note: CK = commercial kitchen • production sizes are an issue. No CK in South Frontenac large enough for this business. Going to 1000 gallon batches. Equipment in USA is 40-40,000 gallons. Need a CK that’s in between home kitchen and 50000 gallons o Quality control also an interest/gap issue. o Currently use OAFVC , TRFH not large enough o Distance to food hubs is not the issue, it’s size of their production infrastructure, which is too small for some businesses. • for commercial space to do cooking or storage, etc. for someone to take the risk, they need to know what the demand is. Most producers in survey don’t seem to need commercial space right now. Are we at that point of critical mass of processors? • does some processing, have started looking at commercial kitchen, best bet is to use churches, reasonable rate, some businesses get funding to build their own kitchens, might be willing to share. • CKs in this region not designed for mass production, but for small batch processing. • Some businesses are not full time endeavours so owners hesitant to run with it. • For cold smoked salmon will need a kiln, specialized equipment. Not all businesses need the same equipment, is it likely that a CK can be developed that fits the needs of all the businesses? • currently letting other businesses use his freezer space. Local service clubs sometimes have freezer space. Freezer was underutilized so it’s worked out well. Probably could double the freezer space available and have it rented. • What’s the structure? Coop? Regional government owned? How could this moved forward? Have to think about the risk of the investment for the CK business owner. Dave and Allan both looking into doing it themselves. • Challenge of regulation: don’t know what questions to ask regarding regulation, need technical support and expertise. • No clear checklist of what you need to do at the outset. Hard to get this list for a particular business. • Distribution of frozen product to outside markets: Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, have been driving it in themselves • Freshspoke could be a solution to self-distribution, they handle logistics using excess capacity that already exists. Trucks with extra capacity can get booked to take loads. Central dispatch system. Online marketplace where businesses set up their own platform, buyers purchase directly from business, Freshpoke arranges for the pickup and delivery. Also matchmaker for storage. Cross docking also. Own no assets, all user-generated. Like uber – if you have the infrastructure. o Charge for seller subscriptions. Freemium to test it. 31

Page 34 of 126

For a business that would need to serve 20 customers in small batches, would it work? 3 day must deliver by date. Working on building the capacity to do this in this region. o Just getting started in this region. Based in Barrie, Shane in Kingston, tasked with onboarding producers. Circle GTA and build up infrastructure. How do I know the product will be temperature regulated? Working on temperature regulating the trucks, and perhaps tracking on phone. App for driver will temperature track all the trucks. o You indicate whether you need freezer, fridge, etc truck. Maybe the model is getting local producers together to plan a collaboration – working group to explore a coop or shared solution for a business model. Suggestion: partner with other similar businesses to share space. o

• •

Actionable items Collaborative conversation of the businesses interested.

32

Supporting Local Food in Frontenac Page 35 of 126

Outline  Rationale  1- Taking stock of what we have  2- Food Processor Survey  3- Food Producers Survey  4- Thesis Key Informant Interviews  Conversation Café  TOPIC 1: Creating Consumer Awareness  TOPIC 2: Addressing Barriers to Growth Page 36 of 126

 TOPIC 3: Partnerships for Promotion

Rationale 

The 2012 Regional Local Food Business Retention & Expansion study identified some of the opportunities and challenges identified by local food business owners in Frontenac.



This study looked to build on the findings of the 2012 BR+E.

Page 37 of 126

Rationale 

The 2015 Economic Development Charter for the Frontenacs identified local food and beverage as one of the three pillars of building a strong economy in Frontenac County. March 2015

Page 38 of 126

Rationale 

Staff at the Frontenac CFDC, County of Frontenac and Kingston Economic Development have witnessed an increase in requests from businesses seeking access to local food as well as services and infrastructure to support the growth of local food processing and distribution in the County.

Page 39 of 126

1- Taking stock of what we have 



This summer, 29 church and community halls from across Frontenac County were surveyed to determine their capacity and willingness for local food processing. Township

of Facilities Surveyed

North Frontenac

4

Central Frontenac

9

South Frontenac

15

Frontenac Islands

1

It was determined that a large number of community kitchens in the County are underutilized and that they have the potential to be upgraded to commercial kitchen facilities, given enough financial support. Page 40 of 126

Results

Page 41 of 126

2- Food Processor Survey 

Contacted 20 Frontenac local food processors- have surveyed 18 to date.



The survey aimed at determining what services and infrastructure local food processors need to support and grow their businesses.



Given that participants in the 2012 BR+E study identified that a commercial kitchen was a key piece of infrastructure that was needed to grow local food processing in Frontenac County, the survey further investigated this need.



Outside of food processing, the survey also investigated the need for related services and infrastructure, such as cold storage and distribution. Page 42 of 126

Processor Results – The Participants

Page 43 of 126

Processor Results – The Participants

Page 44 of 126

Existing use of the Two Rivers Food Hub & the Ontario Agri-Food Venture Centre 

To determine the level of utilization of the regional food hubs on both sides of Frontenac county, participants were asked about their awareness and use of these existing food hubs.



Bruce Enloe responded to our inquiry and it was found that 4 food processors/ producers in Frontenac use the hub for distribution and retail purposes.



The OAFVC has yet to respond to our inquiry.

“The services of the TRFH and the OAFVC seem beneficial, but they are located too far away and is not worth it financially for smaller producers.”

Page 45 of 126

Processor Results – Services

Page 46 of 126

Processor Results – Infrastructure

Page 47 of 126

Processor Results – Barriers

Page 48 of 126

3- Food Producers Survey 

Contacted 20 local food producers, have surveyed 16 producers to date.



This survey was designed to determine what services and infrastructure local food producers (who are currently producing a value-added product or are thinking of producing a valueadded product) need to support and grow their businesses.



The 2012 BR+E study highlighted the most prevalent barriers that Frontenac producers identified. This survey further investigated barriers as well as services and infrastructure required to support food producers in the County. 2012 BR+ E Page 49 of 126

Producer Results – The Participants

Page 50 of 126

Producer Results – The Participants

Page 51 of 126

Producer Results – The Participants

Page 52 of 126

Existing use of the Two Rivers Food Hub & the Ontario Agri-Food Venture Centre

Page 53 of 126

Producer Results – Services

Page 54 of 126

Producer Results – Infrastructure

Page 55 of 126

Producer Results – Barriers

Page 56 of 126

4- Thesis Key Informant Interviews 

To date, 28 Local Food Key Stakeholders in Frontenac County/ Kingston have been interviewed.

General Thoughts on the Frontenac Local Food Economy: “We need more activity within the farming community…So we can work together to market ourselves.”

“Location is a challenge for shipping our product.” – Frontenac Processor

“Without increased consumer education and awareness, a food hub located in Frontenac would fail.” -Frontenac Producer

-Frontenac Producer

“Our topography will limit how much food we can produce in this region.”

• Frontenac Producer

Page 57 of 126

“When it comes to local food in Frontenac County- we are walking before we are running.” -Frontenac Producer

“I think it’s definitely growing. My relationship seems to be with younger food entrepreneurs interested in niche markets.”

• Frontenac Restauranteur

4- Thesis Key Informant Interviews 

Key Question: What needs to be done to support and further develop the local food economy of Frontenac? “If local food is going to grow, you need access to markets.”

• Frontenac Producer

“We don’t need a food hub. We need commercial rental spaces for food producers.”

• Frontenac Processor

-Frontenac Restauranteur

“We need more city people to come out to the country. A large percentage are likely unaware of what’s available.”

• Frontenac Producer

-Frontenac Restauranteur

“You need to stay on top of it. You need to continually promote local food” –Frontenac Retailer

Page 58 of 126

“FAB region branding was a really smart move…the more that we can involve ourselves in the food industry, the more people will recognize it and come to the area. It actually draws business.”

“I feel like everyone is working individually. I wish there was a collective that discussed food issues amongst themselves.. which could create opportunities for distribution and awareness through campaigns.”

Local Food Conversation Café  TABLE 1: CREATING CONSUMER AWARENESS  TABLE 2: COORDINATION FOR GROWTH  TABLE 3: INFRASTRUCTURE

Page 59 of 126

Thank you! Katherine Howes, khowes@uoguelph.ca Anne Prichard, anne@frontenaccfdc.com

1-888-372-9962 ext. 204 Page 60 of 126

Page 61 of 126 Minutes of Council March, 20, 2018 Time: 7:00 PM Location: Council Chambers

Meeting # 8 Present: Mayor Ron Vandewal, Pat Barr, Brad Barbeau, John McDougall, Alan Revill, Norm Roberts, Mark Schjerning, Ron Sleeth, Ross Sutherland Staff: Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, Lindsay Mills, Planner, Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, Angela Maddocks, Deputy Clerk. 1.

Call to Order

a)

Resolution Resolution No. 2018-8-01 Moved by Councillor Schjerning Seconded by Councillor McDougall THAT the Council meeting of March 20, 2018 be called to order at 7:00 p.m. Carried

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof

a)

There were no declarations.

Approval of Agenda

a)

Resolution Resolution No. 2018-8-02 Moved by Councillor McDougall Seconded by Councillor Schjerning THAT Council approves the March 20, 2018 agenda as presented. Carried

Scheduled Closed Session - n/a

Recess - n/a

Public Meeting - n/a

Delegations

a)

Catherine Warren and Andy Baxter, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, re: Benefit Permits Due to illness, Andy Baxter was unable to attend. This delegation will be rescheduled.

b)

Scott Gordon, re: South Frontenac Rides Scott Gordon reviewed the past events and upcoming workshops that educate the public on the benefits of cycling as part of a health active lifestyle. South Frontenac Rides partnered with Sydenham High School manufacturing students to construct bike racks for various locations. Mr. Gordon, on behalf of South Frontenac Rides, thanked Council for their funding support, providing meeting space, mapping and the assistance of the Public Works team for their

Page 62 of 126 Minutes of Council March, 20, 2018 assistance. c)

Meela Melnik-Proud, Matt Rennie and Sarah Harmer, re: Benefit Permits Matt Rennie reviewed the presentation included in the agenda that indicated shoreline clearing and linked with videos captured in March, 2018. He felt that despite the OMB decision there has been extra tree cutting going on in this area. Sarah Harmer who has lived off Spooner Road for the last 20 years and regards this areas as a very special place voiced her concerns on the shoreline clearing activity. She noted that South Frontenac can address the OMB regarding the decision as she alleged the developer has failed to protect. She urged Council to seek an order to stop the benefit permit issued to Magenta Development. Ms. Harmer felt the expert submission was not appropriately addressed and she has concerns regarding the species at risk noting that independent studies show serious oversights. She referenced the video clips of the last two weeks that show the proponent continues to operate in bad faith. She questioned the overall benefit and that solid peer reviewed evidence has been submitted. Ms. Harmer called on Council to make a resolution - leave the sight as is, there are species at risk and the proponent has failed to follow guidelines. Councillor Sutherland voiced his concerns about the possible violations by the developer. He thanked the presenters for bringing this forward, noting that this development was lead by the County at the OMB and it would be their role to further address.

Approval of Minutes

a)

March 6, 2018 Council Meeting Resolution No. 2018-8-03 Moved by Councillor Schjerning Seconded by Councillor McDougall THAT Council approves the minutes of the March 6, 2018 Council meeting and the March 13, 2018 Committee of the Whole meeting. Carried

b)

March 13, 2018 Committee of the Whole Meeting

Business Arising from the Minutes

a)

Zoning for Secondary Suite - Concession VII, Part of Lot 36, Storrington See By-law 2018-17

b)

Zoning for Commercial Development - Concession V, Part of Lot 6, Portland See By-law 2018-18

Reports Requiring Action

a)

Shared Services Agreement - Planning Services Council members sought clarification on some of the items in the agreement. Resolution No. 2018-8-04 Moved by Deputy Mayor Barr Seconded by Councillor Roberts

Page 2 of 5

Page 63 of 126 Minutes of Council March, 20, 2018 THAT Council authorize the Mayor and CAO to execute the Shared Services Agreement for Planning Services. Carried b)

Contract Extension of RFP-P01-2015 - Household Hazardous Waste Depot Operations Resolution No. 2018-8-05 Moved by Deputy Mayor Barr Seconded by Councillor Roberts THAT Council approve a further one year contract extension with Brendar Environmental for the operations of the Household Hazardous Waste Facility to March 31, 2019, as per the terms and conditions as specified in RFP-PW-P012015. Carried

c)

Implications of Ontario Municipal Board Ruling on Legal Non-Complying Structures The report and fact sheet were reviewed. It was clarified that this document is intended for staff use to assist with clarifying the OMB ruling going forward. Suggestions were made to the wording that are more reflective of the terminology in the ruling.

Committee Meeting Minutes

a)

Portland District Recreation meeting held October 23, 2017

b)

Portland District Recreation meeting held November 27, 2017

c)

Portland District Recreation meeting held February 26, 2018 Resolution No. 2018-8-06 Moved by Councillor Roberts Seconded by Deputy Mayor Barr THAT Council receives for information the minutes of the following committee meetings: • Portland District Recreation meeting held October 23, 2017 • Portland District Recreation meeting held November 27, 2017 • Portland District Recreation meeting held February 26, 2018 Carried

By-laws

a)

By-law 2018-17 - Rezone Con VII, Part of Lot 36, Storrington - Holland Resolution No. 2018-8-07 Moved by Councillor Sleeth Seconded by Councillor Barbeau THAT the following by-laws be given first and second reading: • By-law 2018-17 • By-law 2018-18 Carried Resolution No. 2018-8-08 Moved by Councillor Sleeth Seconded by Councillor Barbeau THAT By-law 2018-17, being a by-law to amend By-law 2003-75, as amended, to rezone land from Rural (RU) to Special Rural (RU-52) in Part of Lot 36, Concession VII, District of Storrington, be given third reading, signed and sealed.

Page 3 of 5

Page 64 of 126 Minutes of Council March, 20, 2018 Carried b)

By-law 2018-18 - Rezone Concession V, Part of Lot 6, Portland - Kerr Resolution No. 2018-8-09 Moved by Councillor Sleeth Seconded by Councillor Barbeau THAT By-law 2018-18, being a by-law to amend By-law 2003-75, as amended, to rezone lands from Rural (RU) Zone to Special Urban Commercial (UC-29-H), Part Lot 6, Concession V, District of Portland, be given third reading, signed and sealed. Carried

Reports for Information

a)

Tender #PW-2018-02 - 2018 Micro-Surfacing Program

b)

Tender #PW-2018-05 - 2018 Crack Sealing Program

c)

Building Department - New Inspector hired

d)

Accounts Payable and Payroll Listing

e)

New South Frontenac Official Plan - Timelines Councillor Sutherland expressed his concern about the Official Plan, it needs to be revisited appropriately as this has not been done in 20 years. Mayor Vandewal noted that the South Frontenac Official Plan is not far off of the approval stage at the County. While there is a two year moratorium, there can be amendments made by Council resolution.

Information Items

a)

South Frontenac Tourist Profiles (from Richard Allen’s presentation on March 6) Councillor McDougall noted that South Frontenac has been remiss in providing clarity to the County on what we want and suggested establishing a short term committee to provide direction on economic development initiatives.

b)

South Frontenac’s Comments on Fire Regulations - 18-CSCS002 and 18CSCS004

c)

Beth Puddicome, Vice President, Community Investments Ontario Trillium Foundation - Fermoy Hall

Notice of Motions

a)

Councillor McDougall served a notice of motion regarding the County of Frontenac MDB Insight Study and the creation of a South Frontenac Committee to consider recommendations and opportunities outlined in the study.

b)

Councillor Sutherland served two notices of motion. The first request was that the videos and letter from David Donnelly as presented by delegations be forwarded to the County to note the possible violations of the benefit permit. Secondly, he requested that Committee of Adjustment Training be offered to the new incoming Council before March 2019.

Page 4 of 5

Page 65 of 126 Minutes of Council March, 20, 2018 16.

Announcements/Statements by Councillors

a)

Mayor Vandewal reported that the new Post Office in Inverary is open and functioning.

Question of Clarity (from the public on outcome of agenda items) - n/a

Closed Session - n/a

Confirmatory By-law

a)

By-law 2018-19 Resolution No. 2018-8-10 Moved by Councillor Revill Seconded by Councillor Sutherland THAT By-law 2018-19, being a by-law to confirm generally previous actions of the Council of the Township of South Frontenac, be given first and second reading this 20 day of March, 2018. Carried Resolution No. 2018-8-11 Moved by Councillor Sutherland Seconded by Councillor Revill THAT By-law 2018-19, being a by-law to confirm generally previous actions of the Council of the Township of South Frontenac, be given third reading, signed and sealed this 20 day of March 2018. Carried

Adjournment

a)

Resolution Resolution No. 2018-8-12 Moved by Councillor Revill Seconded by Councillor Sutherland THAT the Council meeting of March 20, 2018 be adjourned at 8:11 p.m. Carried

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer

Page 5 of 5

Page 66 of 126

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERKS DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE: April 3, 2018 SUBJECT: Notice of Motion–Accommodation Review & Strategy for Growth RECOMMENDATION That a Township of South Frontenac Economic Strategy Committee of Councillors and Staff be established to consider the three year recommendations and opportunities outlined in the 2017 County of Frontenac MDB Insight Study with a goal of reporting back to Council by May 1, 2018 with their recommended priority actions and activities.

BACKGROUND Council’s Procedural By-law 2017-76 establishes the process for Notice of Motion. At the Council Meeting of March 20, 2018, Councillor McDougall served a notice of motion to provide direction to County staff on South Frontenac initiatives surrounding economic development activity through a “South Frontenac Economic Strategy Committee” comprised of staff and Council members. A notice of motion requires a seconder at the next regular Council meeting. If seconded, the motion is debated and voted on.

ATTACHMENTS n/a

Submitted/approved by: Angela Maddocks Deputy Clerk

Our strength is our community.

Page 67 of 126

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERKS DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE: April 3, 2018 SUBJECT: Notice of Motion – Committee of Adjustment Training - 2019 RECOMMENDATION That Council support the notice of motion and direct staff to provide the next Committee of Adjustment training on their role and the role of Committee of Adjustments from the Ontario Association of Committee of Adjustments or a similar course before March 2019.

BACKGROUND Council’s Procedural By-law 2017-76 establishes the process for Notice of Motion. At the Council Meeting of March 20, 2018, Councillor Sutherland served a notice of motion that the next Committee of Adjustment be given training on their role and the role of Committee of Adjustments from the Ontario Association of Committee of Adjustments or a similar course before March 2019. A notice of motion requires a seconder at the next regular Council meeting. If seconded, the motion is debated and voted on.

ATTACHMENTS n/a

Submitted/approved by: Angela Maddocks Deputy Clerk

Our strength is our community.

Page 68 of 126

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERKS DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE: April 3, 2018 SUBJECT: Notice of Motion– Johnston Point Development Possible Violations RECOMMENDATION That Council support the notice of motion and direct staff that the videos from the deputation of Sarah Harmer, Matt Rennie and Meela Melnik Proud and the March 20, 2018 legal opinion from Donnelly Law on Rule 106 Ontario Municipal Board Rules of Procedure be forwarded to the County of Frontenac for investigation of a possible violation of the Conditions of Approval of the Johnson’s Point Condominium development, And further that the County of Frontenac be asked to report back to the Township of South Frontenac on actions taken.

BACKGROUND Council’s Procedural By-law 2017-76 establishes the process for Notice of Motion. At the Council Meeting of March 20, 2018, Councillor Sutherland served a notice of motion that the videos and presentations made from the deputations of Sarah Harmer, Matt Rennie and Meela Melnik Proud and the legal opinion from Donnelly Law on Rule 106 Ontario Municipal Board Rules of Procedure be forwarded to the County for investigation. A notice of motion requires a seconder at the next regular Council meeting. If seconded, the motion is debated and voted on.

ATTACHMENTS n/a

Submitted/approved by: Angela Maddocks Deputy Clerk

Our strength is our community.

Page 69 of 126

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERK’S DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE:

April 3, 2018

SUBJECT:

Appointment of Fire Chief

RECOMMENDATION: That Council pass Bylaw 2018–20 to appoint a Fire Chief. BACKGROUND: Following the retirement of Chief Chesebrough early this year and the contracting and appointment of an Acting Fire Chief, staff began the recruitment process for a new Chief. A strong selection of applicants was received and five candidates where selected for initial interviews. Second interviews were conducted with two candidates. Subsequently references were conducted. The interview panels of both sets of interviews concurred on the selection of Mr. Darcy Knott as the best qualified candidate for the role. Mr Knott has accepted the offer of employment to commence May 1, 2018, subject to the procedural step of Council passing the required Appointment Bylaw. Mr Knott most recently served as Training Coordinator for Kingston Fire and Rescue and has served as Acting District Fire Chief on multiple occasions. Darcy brings with him extensive training in the fire service from both the Ontario Fire College and Dalhousie University, emergency management and occupational health and safety. His current full time role has been with St. Lawrence College as Health and Safety Manager, prior to this he was an electrician. FINANCIAL/STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: N/A

ATTACHMENTS: •

Bylaw 2018-20

Submitted/approved by:

Prepared by:

Wayne Orr

Wayne Orr

Our strength is our community.

Page 70 of 126

REPORT TO COUNCIL PLANNING DEPARTMENT AGENDA DATE: April 3, 2018 REPORT DATE: March 28, 2018 SUBJECT: Proposed Road Closure and Transfer: Porter/McPhie

RECOMMENDATION: The recommendation is that the Committee receive the Planning Report dated March 28, 2018 and consider the closing and transferring ownership of a portion of unopened road allowance between Concessions IX and X, Part Lot 20, in the District of Storrington. BACKGROUND: A lawyer representing property-owners Porter and McPhie, is requesting to know whether Council would agree to the closure and sale of a portion of unopened road allowance that runs through the northern tip of their property at Dog Lake in the District of Storrington. Her letter is attached hereto as Attachment #1 and Attachment #2 is a map showing the location of the subject property. Attachment #3 is a 13R Plan showing the portion of unopened road allowance requested to be closed that being Part 1 on the plan. ANALYSIS: As indicated on the attachments, the road allowance is aligned east to west forming the boundary between Concessions IX and X and it extends through the northern tip of the subject property within Lot 20. The property is accessed via a right-of-way from Christel Lane. It is approximately 1.3 acres in size and contains a small cottage near the water’s edge. It is otherwise made up of mostly mature tree growth and understorey plants. The portion of road allowance to be closed and sold is a triangle of land as seen on the attachments, and is 147 metres2 (0.03 ac.) in size to be added to the 1.3 acre property. The road allowance itself travels east and west (as noted) on a peninsula of land and appears to have extended from shore to shore in the past. However, the portions at the water’s edge have previously been stopped up, closed and transferred so that the road allowance is now a land-locked portion of land seemingly serving no purposed for the Township. Staff is seeking direction as to whether Council would agree to this closure and sale. The subject portion of road allowance is located within 91 metres of Dog Lake and, thus, would be priced at $2.41 per square foot according to Council policy related to the sale of closed Township roads. This would result in a total price of $3,812.00. It is also noteworthy that the normal process to stop up, close and sell Township land is to advertise the sale so that other abutting land owners can comment and be given the opportunity to also purchase part of the land. However, in the case of the subject proposal, Council may wish to waive this notification requirement in consideration that there are no other abutting owners and it appears that the land would only benefit the subject property-owners. FINANCIAL and STAFFING CONSIDERATIONS The Township would receive approximately $3,812.00 from the transfer and sale. ATTACHMENTS Attachment #1 – is a letter requesting the road closure and transfer. Attachment #2 - is a map showing the subject property location. Attachment #3 - is an R-Plan showing the road allowance. Submitted/Approved by: Lindsay Mills PorterMcPhieRoadClosureReport

Prepared by: Lindsay Mills

Page 71 of 126

ATTACHMENT #1 JANE MONAGHAN, B.A., IlKl.:B. Etwd4h & Sd? 11 WATER 8TREET

TELEPHONE

p.o. BOX 190

(bia)ssg-sios

ELGIN, ONTARIO

FAX

KOG IEO

(613)359-6105

February 15, 2018 TRANSMITTED BYE-MA/L

/mj//s@southfrontenac. net Township of South Frontenac 4432 George Street P.0. Box 100

Sydenham, ON KOH 2T0 Attention: Mr. Lindsay Mil!s Dear Sir: Re: Porter/McPhie

Part of Road Allowance between Concession 9 and 10, Storrington PART 1, Plan 13R21647

l am writing to you on behalf of the Porier/McPhie family who own the property shown as PART 2 on Reference PIan 1 3R21647, a copy of which is faxed herewith. The description in their Deed also includes PART 1, being part of the Road Allowance, but there is no registered By-law closing up that portion of the Road Allowance. The surveyor, Ron Clancy, advises that PART 1 is 147 square meters, or 1,582.35 square feet, and that the distance from the lake to the westerly side of PART 1 is 15 meters, more or less, or 49.21 feet. PART 2 is 1.2 acres in area.

l therefore request your Council’s consideration of commencing the procedure to stop up and close that portion of the Road Allowance designated as PART 1 and to convey ownership thereof to the owners of PART 2. Yours very truly,

):-" =F ‘?e Monaghan JM:dm Encl.

Page 72 of 126

ATTACHMENT#2 -m z

J,

m

2

0,

e/

/

i-i

J

‘%,o’

)

! bJ

lk

A A

J j

J

j

J

“’?

‘%i

N

)

/‘S,

J

l

‘i

/

j

J r’

j

1

?

1

1

L

)

1

SUBJECT PROPERTY

ji

&

kk

?

k l

k

r

f

j

Ii

&]

J

F

?

Dog Lake

i

[

[

j

t. k

?

!

j

Lj

N

s

Page 73 of 126 i l;

:f-ii:,i;i:i -:‘o;:=,-: =.)a ‘,%!::11:i::i,?:’

,’lj

nle j’), l @

15 21 z :’

l#

J CL l!l-I

affi

;}

A9

()’

6u

:,

+<

Nl

41

i! m

?l

tusw (}

x. g 3 au 5g’i

ffil

;85

9:

!51-i.

d m

11

+-

u

l

P,

i

I

o

l

Zr’. ‘js

%,

( < ‘, 3,1

l’y

o==

0 (N

J”

%

2

%

J :’: " IhD

(.eo’ i tlJaia’ (

k

. JO

lk

0

gl

1%

CI)

/

-J

/

%

/

2

9/

. ,J’l’/ 4

@, /. 1 [

%

6%

u l-.

A

t

/

l

/S

/

M

l..

Cl* % %t%fl ‘ffs’@

v

/Q,

,A t

/

aJl

l

tu

e

k

2

C)

Cj

,l

‘a

,+

j

(N

l

t<

N

cc

ti

%

U’)

<A??

2: 0

S,,?-’;’-,-,=-: {’

i

l; I I

1

l r

k 3)4V1

1

1 ? aao5- .’ a

r-

I

I

i

?#"?

r I

i’:

I

l

2

k

O

Iq -t

ii,i

/

:A

(14

i;

‘%,;!? ?

l l%=l

l

*0 l,R,

la4

N %.

r

(/’)

s

<

i

l I

0

-J

s- ‘.

h

ml

1

l

2

0

I’

l

k

z

t*

Q

0

0

l

la–

(/')

l

l

r1s’X

1%.

lk %

l

s

k

(L

o

k

N

R

5=’,0

l l

x

Z

.11

%I

4?-

0, - 6{ 101 1l= U')

,S:,

v

ire

-i

%

/

‘S

cl

c

/

S,i

,=’;’

01

O

7 -

/

+%

?

.!E,)

0 <

Y=–.

e)'

/A t*i .61 ) 1-,{

l

11

0t

/.-/

7A

/-

o

CN

,i/

:: /..Y , , l" J’w i .-’ ii- ‘!’! i

W!

l-

i <i-’ l

–

il %

0

soa

,N

Page 74 of 126

South Frontenac Police Services Board - Annual Meeting Date:

November 16, 2017

Time: Location:

7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, Sydenham

Board Members Present:

Ron Vandewal Stephen Bach

Staff:

Staff Sergeant Sharron Brown Constable Brent Pellow

Secretary:

Wayne Orr

1. Opening of Meeting Ron Vandewal called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. Welcome – Chairman Ron Vandewal welcomed those in attendance. No member of the public attended.
3. Statistical Report The 2017 quarterly and year to date stats were discussed at the regular meeting immediately following this meeting.
4. Adjournment There being no further business the Public meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m.

Chair Ron Vandewal

Secretary Wayne Orr

1

Page 75 of 126

South Frontenac Police Services Board Meeting Date:

November 16, 2017

Time: Location:

7:10 p.m. Council Chambers, Sydenham

Board Members Present:

Ron Vandewal Stephen Bach

Staff:

Staff Sergeant Sharron Brown Constable Brent Pellow

Secretary:

Wayne Orr

1. Call to Order Ron Vandewal called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
2. Attendance – Ron Vandewal Stephen Bach, Staff Sergeant Sharron Brown, Constable Brent Pellow, Wayne Orr

Declaration of Pecuniary Interest – n/a

Approval of Agenda Moved by Stephen Bach That the agenda be approved.

Seconded by Ron Vandewal Carried.

Approval of Minutes Moved by Stephen Bach Seconded by Ron Vandewal That the minutes of the October 16, 2017 meeting be approved. Carried.

Presentations/Delegations – n/a

Correspondence • Wayne Orr will be attending the OAPSB Zone 2 Fall Meeting on December 1, 2017

Financial The 2018 budget includes the request for a new generator as well as contract increases and the ride program.

Detachment Commanders Report Staff Sergeant Brown reviewed the quarterly statistics. Highlights included: • Frauds are down but this is generally underreported • thefts over $5000 are up but a person of interest has been identified and the Detachment will be able to clear a number of occurances • Reports for drug crimes should now begin to increase as the role is now fully staffed. These stats are linked to property crimes • The OPP continues to wait for all the regulations and will respond to the new changes to the criminal code as it relates to marijuana. This will 1

Page 76 of 126

South Frontenac Police Services Board Meeting require increased training and an investment in technology for road side assessment. South Frontenac traffic results: · 81 charges under the highway traffic act, 11 criminal charges · 52 speeding charges, 1 seat belt, 11 impaired and no distracted charges 10. Committee Reports No news has been received from the province regarding the Provincial Appointee. This will be raised at the OAPSB meeting on December 1. 11. Other Business – n/a 12. Public Discussion – n/a 13. Date & Time of Next Meeting – The Deputy Clerk will be asked to circulate dates for 2018 meetings. The public meeting can be scheduled during the daytime in conjunction with the fourth meeting. 14. In-Camera – n/a 15. Adjournment – The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.

Chair Ron Vandewal

Secretary Wayne Orr

2

Page 77 of 126

Township of South Frontenac Heritage Committee January 30, 2018 at 7:00 pm Council Chambers – 4432 George St Present: Pat Barr, Brad Barbeau, Linda Caird, Michael Gemmell, David Jefferies, Wilma Kenny, Mark Millar Staff: Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, Angela Maddocks, Deputy Clerk Others: Darryl Silver

1. Introductions Wayne Orr welcomed the committee members. Each member of the committee introduced themselves and provided a brief overview of their background and why they are interested in the Heritage Committee.
2. Election of Chair Wayne Orr, CAO invited nominations for the role of Chair, noting that the Terms of Reference require a non-Council member. Moved by Pat Barr That Wilma Kenny is appointed as Chair.

Seconded by Mark Millar Carried

Wilma Kenny accepted the nomination. Michael Gemmell indicated he was interested in the Vice Chair position. 3) Approval of Agenda The committee approved the agenda items but reviewed the resource material, specifically the “Terms of Reference” before being updated on Fermoy Hall. 4) New Business a) Fermoy Hall – Historical/Heritage assessment The history behind a community request for upgrades to Fermoy Hall was discussed. The Township undertook renovations in 2009 which included new windows, siding and a ramp. The interior has not been renovated however a “building condition” survey conducted by the township indicates traces of asbestos so the project is at a standstill. Is there any historical significance still associated with this structure? The Committee members will be coordinating a site visit to the Fermoy Hall on Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 10:00 am. 5) Information Items/Reference Material: a) Terms of Reference Wayne Orr noted that Council’s intent for the committee is to advise and assist Council on matters relating to heritage designation, provide advice on research, education and training programs as outlined in the “purpose” section. The committee reviewed the terms of reference with specific concerns about Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Page 78 of 126 There was discussion about the perception of designating a property as being restrictive and how to promote the committee and the positive role it will have while adhering to the guidelines set out in the Heritage Act. Wilma Kenny, Chair, encouraged the committee to review the document and note any changes or questions they have for the next meeting. b) Ontario Heritage Act Copies were distributed to members as an ongoing resource. Michael Gemmell will provide a brochure that simplifies the Act and the designating process. c) Heritage Tool Kit Copies were distributed to members as an ongoing resource. 6) Other Business Moved by Brad Barbeau Seconded by Michael Gemmell That the Heritage Committee recommends to Council that Darryl Silver is appointed to the committee. Carried. The committee discussed other resources for historical information. Staff will compile a list of known groups as a starting point as well as a listing of the properties already designated under the former Township of Portland LACAC committee prior to amalgamation. The committee will work towards compiling a list of properties with historical significance or heritage nature. Pat Barr noted the open house for the Bedford Historical Society on February 24 at Glendower. 7) Next Meeting The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, March 26, 2018 at 6:30 p.m. 8) Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m.

Page 79 of 126 Minutes of Public Services Committee February, 15, 2018 Time: 8:30 AM Location: Council Chambers Present: Ron Sleeth, Chairman, Mayor Ron Vandewal, John McDougall, Mark Schjerning Staff: Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, Brian Kirk, Area Supervisor, Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, Angela Maddocks, Deputy Clerk. 1.

Call to Order

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof

a)

There were no declarations of pecuniary interest.

Approval of Minutes

a)

Minutes of December 14, 2017 meeting Resolution No. PSC-2018-02/15-01 Moved by Councillor McDougall Seconded by Mayor Vandewal THAT the minutes of the December 14, 2017 Public Services Committee meeting be approved. Carried

Business Arising from the Minutes

a)

Fire Hall Update Mark Segsworth provided an update on the remaining contingencies, the fire separation dealt with $16,500 not budgeted for. The Fire Hall will be substantially completed by the end of March with the anticipated total completion by June 5. A sample of the building signage was distributed to the committee. The lettering will be cast aluminum letters and there will be additional ground signage. The training room will be well utilized by all departments.

b)

Solid Waste There will not be anything submitted to the Minister’s office as anticipated for February 15. It is expected that there will not be any action taken before the upcoming provincial election. Mark Segsworth will provide a formal report when more information is available. Bale wrap used to be shipped to China however as of January 1, they have imposed restrictions and only accept loads that have only .4 % of contamination. Mark has been contacted by Leeds and Thousand Island Township who currently ship to a facility in Clinton, Ontario. The biggest challenge for any township is the shipping and transportation costs to dispose of bale wrap and plastic bags.

c)

Committee Initiatives The regular “Committee Initiative” report was not circulated with the agenda. Councillor Sleeth inquired about the steps at Glendower Hall. Mark Segsworth reported that the tender is out with a closing date of February 28.

Page 80 of 126 Minutes of Council February, 15, 2018 Councillor Schjerning asked for an update on signage inspection. He indicated that Lennox and Addington have a complete package available and reiterated his concerns about signage and meeting legislative requirements. Mark Segsworth indicated that Central Frontenac is putting together a tender package and work is in progress for this project. Mayor Vandewal asked for an update on the parking areas on North Shore and Old Boy Roads. This is identified on the “Committee Initiatives” for 2018 with work to be done in 2019. 5.

New Business

a)

China’s decision to not accept recycling from North American - Affect on rural Ontario As noted earlier, China has implemented restrictions on what they accept from North America. All North American plastics were shipped to China to reuse. There are only a few North American facilities still accepting plastic bags and this continues to be a serious issue that needs consideration. Mark Segsworth feels that all recyclables should be directed to Kingston, noting that the intent behind changes is for a circular economy where the materials are to be managed by the producer. Mayor Vandewal questioned the amount of contamination in recyclables that we are being penalized for. Mark Segsworth indicated that South Frontenac has not been penalized to date for contamination.

b)

Area Supervisor Responsibilities The Committee reviewed the report that provided clarity on “who does what” in the Public Works Department.

c)

Rutledge Road Speed Limit Change The committee discussed the challenges with speed limits and requests for decreases overall in the township; would it be better to have a 60 kilometre limit imposed township wide? There would need to be significant education to let drivers know if a 60 km limit were to be imposed through thee township. Another challenge is the actual enforcement aspect of speed limits. Mayor Vandewal felt there should be statistical information to support changing. There should be data from the OPP that provide the justification to reduce speed in any given area. Councillor McDougall felt it was a waste of time to deal with one section at at time and suggested a policy be developed. Councillor Schjerning spoke to the request for speed reduction past the intersection of Ashwood Drive and Rutledge Road given the entrance for the new medical centre. Resolution No. PSC-2018-02/15-02 Moved by Councillor McDougall Seconded by Councillor Schjerning THAT the Public Services Committee recommend to Council that the speed limit be reduced to 60 kilometres per hour from 400 metres west of Sydenham William St to 100 metres west of the Loughborough/Portland Boundary Road. Carried

Page 81 of 126 Minutes of Council February, 15, 2018 d)

Wilmer Park Infield Councillor Schjerning brought forward a concern from Loughborough Recreation about work they had anticipated being done at Wilmer Park. Mark Segsworth reported that the budget did not allow for all the repairs/improvements that the community would like. There was screening and fencing installed. He was aware of an individual complaint about infield work and he had clarified the budget restrictions. Councillor Sleeth asked about the volume of use for Wilmer. It was agreed that these types of concerns should go through South Frontenac Recreation first.

e)

Sydenham Water An updated by-law will be coming to Council in 2018 to reflect the updated costs and a requirement for Utilities Kingston to install water meters. Staff are looking at a water dispensing station instead of a water hauling station. The water tower requires ongoing maintenance and upkeep which is estimated at around $35,000 with there only being $20,000 carried over from 2017. Lettering for the tower is not included in this amount and an additional quote on this cost will have to be obtained. Utilities Kingston is working on a potential prototype for the water dispensing station however there is not any funding set aside for this and no cost determined at this time. Mark Segsworth will be bringing a report back to the committee on the cost for lettering as well as a request to reallocate funds.

f)

Winter Control Plan The draft Winter Control Plan was reviewed. Road classifications were discussed. It was noted that South Frontenac does not have any Class 1 roads, Road 38 is a Class 2 road. Mark Segsworth noted that the hours of service for drivers needs to be factored in and that Public Works is looking at implementing a night shift for next winter. Brian Kirk indicated that the goal is to have one pass done on every road before school buses are out. Generally the Committee did not support a night shift without a detailed report that would address cost analysis and benefits. While this is a living document within the Public Works Department, the identification of employees and cell phone numbers should not be included in the public document. Concerns should continue to be submitted directed to the Public Works office.

g)

Minimum Wage Impact The impact of the minimum wage increase was discussed, specifically how existing contracts and contractors are affected. Staff were directed to discuss this matter with other townships to determine how they are managing long term contracts that do not have the minimum wage component built in.

Page 82 of 126 Minutes of Council February, 15, 2018 h)

Adopt a Road - Sydenham Lions Club The Sydenham Lions Club have expressed an interest in the “Adopt A Road” program. The Committee expressed concerns about the legalities and liabilities and what is involved in formalizing the program.

i)

Future Use of the Stagecoach Garage The CAO has been approached by an individual interested in using the garage for business purposes. The garage is being used for storage of South Frontenac equipment and it is expected that there will be no rush to change the existing use.

j)

Emergency Management Mark Schjerning provided updates on Emergency Management changes. As it is written, the Emergency Plan for South Frontenac is not currently compliant. A report on where South Frontenac is in this process was requested by the Committee.

Other Business:

a)

Mayor Vandewal questioned whether there will be sufficient parking at the new location of the Post Office in Inverary.

b)

Councillor Schjerning expressed concern about people still using the “gulley road” that is the extension of Freeman Road at the west end when it is not being maintained. A suggestion to install gates or cement barriers was discussed, noting that proper signage is clearly posted to identify that it is not a winter maintained road.

c)

Councillor Sleeth asked that a directional sign be posted in Sunbury for the St Barnaby’s Catholic Church at the end of Highway 15.

d)

Councillor Schjerning noted a recent email from a resident about signage for North Shore Crescent and North Shore Road.

Next Meeting: March 23, 2018

a)

Scheduling of future meetings While the March meeting does not follow the regular scheduling, it was agreed that the meetings will return to the second Thursday of each month in April.

Adjournment:

a)

The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 am.

Page 83 of 126

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW 2018-20 A BY-LAW TO APPOINT A FIRE CHIEF FOR THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC WHEREAS the Council of the Township of South Frontenac deems it desirable and expedient to appoint a Township Fire Chief; and WHEREAS Section 6 of the Fire Prevention and Protection Act, 1997 authorizes a municipality to appoint a Fire Chief who is responsible to Council for the delivery of Fire Services. NOW THEREFORE THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC, BY ITS COUNCIL, HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1.

That Council appoint Mr. Darcy Knott a s F i r e C h i e f a n d C o m m u n i t y E m e r g e n c y M a n a g e m e n t C o o r d i n a t o r for the Township of South Frontenac.

That Mr. Knott’s duties shall be as set down in Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto and forming part of this by-law.

The salary range for the position of Fire Chief is as established by Council as part of it’s management salary grid.

Any and all by-laws or parts thereof conflicting with this by-law hereby repealed.

This By-law shall be in force and effect on May 1, 2018.

Dated at the Township of South Frontenac this 3rd day of April, 2018 Read a first and second time this 3rd day of April, 2018. Read a third time and finally passed this 3rd day of April, 2018. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer

Page 84 of 126

SCHEDULE “A” ROLE DESCRIPTION -TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC FIRE CHIEF GENERAL PURPOSE Carries out the statutory duties of the Fire Chief. Responsible for overall operation of the Department, including firefighting, training, fire prevention public education, auto extrication, rescue, all life and property saving functions for which the Department is responsible. Responsible for planning and coordination and for operating the Department in an effective and efficient manner. SUPERVISION RECEIVED Works under the general supervision of the Chief Administrative Officer and has a reporting relationship to Council on an as required basis SUPERVISION EXERCISED Provides direct supervision to Volunteer Deputy Chief(s) and Captain(s) and indirect supervision to approximately 120 Volunteer Firefighters ROLE EXPECTATIONS • Exercises the powers and duties imposed on the Chief Fire Official under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act. • Responsible for the operations, budgeting and strategic planning of the Suppression, Fire Prevention and Training Divisions. • Respond to emergency scenes and assume Command only as required. • Ensures compliance of the Occupational Health & Safety Act and Ministry of Labour Section 21 Guidance Notes. • Responsible for ensuring that incidents are reported to the appropriate authorities as required by the Fire Protection and Prevention Act. • Responsible for the compliance of the Municipality under the Emergency Management & Civil Protection Act. • Fulfil the duties of the Community Emergency Management Coordinator under the Emergency Management & Civil Protection Act. • Responsible for the duties of the Chief Fire Official under the Ontario Fire Code. • Remain current in all aspects of the Fire Service and applicable legislation. • Prepares, recommends and implements such Standard Operating Procedures and departmental rules as may be necessary for the care and protection of the property of the department, for the conduct of the volunteers and generally for the efficient and effective operation of the department. • Regularly reviews and revises the policies and procedures of the department to ensure that they are appropriate under the circumstances. • Ensures that volunteer firefighters are adequately trained for their responsibilities as firefighters including administration and firefighting within budgets approved by Council. • Secures professional assistance to counsel firefighters when dealing with injury and/or death of people they know. • Ensures the buildings and equipment of the department are maintained in order to ensure the fastest possible response time during emergency conditions. • Assists the Chief Building Official/Zoning Administrator, the Planner/Deputy Clerk, the CAO/Clerk and others involved in plans examination and inspection of development or proposed development in the Fire Area.

Page 85 of 126

Prepares operating and capital budgets for the fire department and submits annual reports Attends Council and management meetings, fire meetings and training, chief’s meetings, mutual aid meetings as required Ensures tendering and purchase policies are followed and approves purchase orders and invoices relating to the fire department in accordance with the budget(s) approved by Council Consults with volunteer firefighter representatives and makes recommendations regarding the hiring, promotion discipline or discharge of individuals under the fire chief s supervision Maintains accurate records and assumes responsibility for the clerical duties and filing of all correspondence and records concerning the fire department Performs any other related duties assigned by his/her supervisor. Works with other Supervisors and departments in the Municipality to ensure decisions are made that are the best for the entire organization

• • •

•

•

• •

KEY RESPONSIBILITIES AND RESULTS EXPECTED •

•

•

Be knowledgeable and keep current on fire protection and prevention standard, changes in methods for fire suppression, recent changes to Emergency Management procedures and related matters. Establish and maintain an effective working relationship with the O n t a r i o Fire Marshall’s Office & Emergency Management, other related provincial ministries and Fire Chiefs of similar sized municipalities in the area and make the CAO/Clerk and Council aware of any steps that can be taken to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Township’s Fire Department. Must be prepared to be “on call” and available to work to handle emergencies or meet deadlines.

SKILLS/COMPETENCIES/EXPERIENCE DESIRED • •

•

•

• •

• • •

• • •

Minimum of ten years of experience in fire and rescue services including five years of progressively responsible leadership experience; Ontario Fire College certification and knowledge in all areas of fire services, including fire prevention, public education, investigations, code enforcement, communications, mechanical, fire suppression and emergency response; Knowledge of fire prevention methods and of the Fire Prevention and Protection Act and Part 3 of the Ontario Building Code required. Certification as a Fire Prevention Officer will be considered an asset; Degree/diploma in business, public administration or related field would be an asset (acceptable equivalent combination of education and experience may be considered); Demonstrated ability to direct, guide, and evaluate the delivery of fire protection services; Working knowledge of the existing legislative framework related to municipal operations; administers and enforces acts such as the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, Ontario Fire Code, Occupational Health and Safety Act, Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act; Proven Leadership qualities with the aptitude to coach and mentor a volunteer workforce; Experience in Team Building and Strategic Planning; Strong understanding of Training and a background in Adult Education or Fire Service training programs. NFPA Certification as a Senior Officer or equivalent will be considerate an asset; Demonstrated strong administrative skills, development and management of capital and operating budgets, departmental reporting, supervisory experience; Excellent communication skills, both written and oral; Demonstrated advanced computer skills with Microsoft Applications;

Page 86 of 126

•

Valid MTO Class DZ Ontario Driver’s License, clean driving abstract and a satisfactory Police check.

OTHER FACTORS TO CONSIDER •

•

• • • •

Work is diversified and complex and involves developing solutions to problems for major functions. Carries out tasks requiring a significant concentration on a variety of activities, some of which involve the assessment of a considerable number of options. Incorrect or inappropriate decisions can have a serious impact on the municipality’s reputation; financial status or administrative efficiency and decisions can affect an important segment of the Township s operations. Develops and has responsibility for administration of a departmental budget. Gives general supervision and manages and directs the work of a major unit of the organization and duties are varied and intricate. Regularly formulates or participates in the formulation of programs/policies affecting an important segment of municipal operations Work involves frequent contact with the public, elected officials, other levels of government and a wide variety of staff relating to a service that is important to the operation of the municipality.

COMPENSATION • • •

Based on a 40-hour workweek and in accordance with the Salary Schedule adopted by Council and amended from time to time. Benefits in accordance with Township policies Probationary period - 1 year of active employment

Page 87 of 126

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERK’S DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE:

April 3, 2018

SUBJECT:

Main Street Revitalization Funding

RECOMMENDATION: For information only. BACKGROUND: On March 15, the Township was notified that the Province was proceeding with releasing $26 million in Main Street Revitalization Funding. These funds are being distributed through AMO in a manner similar to the gas tax. Allocations were released which indicate that South Frontenac is eligible for $54,140.77 to be spent by March 31, 2020. The funding guide indicates that the funds are to be used for: •

Implementation of priority financial incentives in existing Community Improvement Plans

•

Funding for Strategic municipal infrastructure such as: a) Signage – wayfinding/directional and gateway; b) Streetscaping and landscape improvements – lighting, banners, murals, street furniture, interpretive elements, public art, urban forestation, accessibility, telecommunications/broadband equipment, parking, active transportation infrastructure (e.g. bike racks/storage, cycling lanes and paths) and pedestrian walkways/trails; and c) Marketing plan implementation – business attraction and promotion activities, special events.

Staff have reached out to the Frontenac CFDC to see what opportunities exist to leverage these funds in terms of economic development resources. The Public Services Committee was briefed on the availability of these funds on March 23. Initial thoughts included: a focus on the streetscaping needed for Harrowsmith, signage for business areas, disbursing funds across various business areas. Staff are still awaiting formal paperwork for signature. Council will be asked to pass a bylaw to authorize entering in to the funding agreement. At the same time Council deals with the by-law, AMO is asking for details on the type of project to be funded in 2018. AMO is specifically looking for the following information: Project Title Project Description Eligible Project Category (CIP/ Municipal Physical Infrastructure) Total Project Cost Estimate of Funds (Main Street) To Be Spent FINANCIAL/STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: No new net costs for South Frontenac.

Our strength is our community.

Page 88 of 126

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERK’S DEPARTMENT

ATTACHMENTS: •

Guide to the municipal funding agreement

Submitted/approved by:

Prepared by:

Wayne Orr

Wayne Orr

Our strength is our community.

Page 89 of 126

ONTARIO’S

MAIN STREET

REVITALIZATION INITIATIVE

GUIDE TO THE MUNICIPAL FUNDING AGREEMENT CONTACT: mainstreets@amo.on.ca 200 University Avenue, Suite 801 Toronto, ON., M5H 3C6 P: 416.971.9856

MARCH 2018

MUNICIPAL CHECKLIST

03_Municipal Checklist 04_Introduction 04_FAQ 10_ Appendices

Immediate Action

Where is More Info

When

Pass Municipal By-Law Authorizing MFA

See Appendix A for a sample

As soon as possible

E-sign MFA and electronically submit to AMO E-mail (mainstreets@amo.on.ca) the Authorizing By-law to AMO

See page 8 for more information

As soon as possible

2018 Project notification for communications purposes to AMO

See page 9 for details on what is required

As soon as possible

Longer Term Action

Where is More Info

When

Annual and Results Report

See page 7 for details on what is required

By May 15th of every year (until funds are spent)

Guide to the Municipal Funding Agreement / march 2018

Guide to the Municipal Funding Agreement / march 2018

2

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 90 of 126

Page 91 of 126

Guide to the Municipal Funding Agreement / march 2018

4

INTRODUCTION The Main Street Revitalization Initiative is a $26 million fund to help municipal governments undertake main street revitalization activities that support and benefit small businesses. AMO has agreed to administer the funding on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA). AMO signed the Agreement with OMAFRA on March 12, 2018. The Agreement’s effective date is April 1, 2018. All lower and single tier municipal governments are eligible for the allocation based funding. The formula for the funding was established by OMAFRA without the need for an application or matching funding. It empowers municipalities to make investment decisions within the program’s parameters.

What is eligible? As of April 1, 2018, municipal governments can invest in revitalization activities that will support small businesses through activities undertaken to revitalize main streets. The work can be identified as priority through an existing Community Improvement Plan or municipal physical infrastructure priorities identified through other municipal land use planning document for the municipality’s main street that involves the construction, renewal, renovation or redevelopment, or material enhancement in each of the following categories: Implementation of priority financial incentives in existing Community Improvement Plans such as: a. Commercial building façade improvements; b. Preservation and adaptive reuse of heritage and industrial buildings; c. Provision of affordable housing; d. Space conversion for residential and commercial uses; e. Structural improvements to buildings (e.g. Building Code upgrades); f. Improvement of community energy efficiency; and g. Accessibility enhancements. Funding of strategic municipal physical infrastructure such as: a. Signage – wayfinding/directional, and gateway; b. Streetscaping and landscape improvements – lighting, banners, murals, street furniture, interpretive elements, public art, urban forestation, accessibility, telecommunications/broadband equipment, parking, active transportation infrastructure (e.g. bike racks/storage, cycling lanes and paths) and pedestrian walkways/trails; and c. Marketing plan implementation – business attraction and promotion activities, special events. Municipalities can identify projects in one or both categories.

Page 92 of 126

Guide to the Municipal Funding Agreement / march 2018

5

What types of costs are eligible? Eligible Costs • Costs directly and reasonably incurred on or after April 1, 2018 up to and including March 31, 2020 for construction, renewal, or material enhancement activities funded under existing Community Improvement Plan financial incentive programs; and/or, • Costs directly and reasonably incurred on or after April 1, 2018 up to and including March 31, 2020 for construction, renewal or material enhancement activities funded under the Municipal Physical Infrastructure category, including projects in downtown or main street areas, as defined through an existing Community Improvement Plan or other municipal land use planning policy that will support the success of small businesses in main street areas. Ineligible Costs • Costs incurred prior to April 1, 2018 or after March 31, 2020; • Any costs associated with providing any Reports to AMO; • Any costs associated with lobbying Ontario, including other Ministries, agencies and organizations of the Government of Ontario; • Costs for infrastructure works in the following categories: highways, short-sea shipping, short-line rail, regional or local airports, and brownfield redevelopment; • Costs of infrastructure works that does not improve energy efficiency, accessibility, aesthetics of marketability of small business within a main street area; • Costs of infrastructure works outside of main street areas, as defined through an existing Community Improvement Plan or other municipal land use planning policy; • The cost of leasing of equipment, any overhead costs, including salaries and other employment benefits of any employees, its direct or indirect operating or administrative costs, and more specifically its costs related to planning, engineering, architecture, supervision, management and other activities normally carried out by its staff, except in accordance with eligible costs above; • Taxes, to which the municipality is eligible for a tax rebate; • Purchase of land or any interest therein, and related costs; and, • Routine repair and maintenance costs.

Would the development of a Community Improvement Plan be eligible? No. The program is focused on implementation of existing Community Improvement Plans or priorities through other existing municipal land use planning policies. Municipalities that do not have a Community Improvement Plan can implement eligible priority projects through the official plan, economic development strategy, downtown revitalization plan or another related plan in support of the municipal main street.

Page 93 of 126

Guide to the Municipal Funding Agreement / march 2018

6

When does the money have to be spent? Municipalities have to March 31, 2020 to spend the funds on an eligible project. During this time, municipalities must earn interest on the Funds so that they have more for the project later.

What about the municipal share of a project that will receive funding from another revenue source or program? Municipalities can fund 100% of total project costs with Main Street dollars. If another program has restrictions on the use of funds, they must be adhered to. If you are using multiple sources of funding, the project also has to be eligible under the terms and conditions of these multiple programs.

What if our municipality wants to partner on a project? The Main Street Agreement encourages collaboration, building of partnerships and strategic alliances when working on eligible projects. If a municipality is transferring funds to another municipality, it must be done via by-law. The municipality transferring funds is responsible for reporting on the transfer in annual reporting. The municipality receiving Main Street Funds is responsible for reporting that the Funds were received and is responsible for all other reporting requirements, including project details and spending. If a municipality is transferring funds to a non-municipal entity, such as a for-profit company, council will have to endorse the project through a grant agreement. Under this situation, municipalities are still responsible for meeting all the requirements of the Agreement related to the use of the transferred Main Street Funds, including all reporting.

Page 94 of 126

Municipal Allocation

=

Base Funding

Small Community Adjustment

Per Capita Allocation

}

Guide to the Municipal Funding Agreement / march 2018

7

What is the allocation formula?

Base Funding is the amount distributed equally among all eligible municipalities

Small Community Adjustment is the amount distributed equally among municipalities with a population less than 25,000

Per Capita Allocation is a per capita amount based on 2016 population, as outlined in the 2016 Census of Population

Total funding, less administrative costs, is allocated as follows across the three components: Base Funding: Small Community Adjustment: Per Capita Component:

50% of total funding; 11.5% of total funding; 38.5% of total funding.

Once a municipal government has fully executed an Agreement with AMO and provide the appropriate information for the transfer of the funds, the one time allocation will be paid out.

How much of the funding is AMO using for administration? AMO will need just 6% of the $26 million to deliver this program to all eligible municipalities and report in aggregate to OMAFRA as required by the Agreement.

What reporting is required of municipalities? Building on the success of the risk management framework established under the federal Gas Tax Agreement, municipalities only need to report initial upfront anticipated projects for 2018 and then once annually on projects until all the funds are spent.

Page 95 of 126

Guide to the Municipal Funding Agreement / march 2018

8

Remind me how the audit framework works? Municipalities will not have to complete audits. Instead the program will use a risk based approach that recognizes municipalities as a mature and accountable order of government. In this approach, the municipal contact for the Main Street Municipal Funding Agreement will be the Treasurer, no exceptions. In addition, AMO will audit approximately 10% of municipalities annually to provide assurance to Ontario on municipal compliance.

Is there an agreement municipalities have to sign? Yes. AMO is using the a digital platform provided by its partner, Solutions Notarius Inc., to sign the Municipal Funding Agreement (MFA). A municipality must electronically sign (e-sign) the MFA with AMO to receive funding. Please have the appropriate signing officers e-sign the MFA. The municipal by-law authorizing the municipality to enter into the agreement can be emailed to AMO at mainstreets@amo.on.ca. See Appendix A for a sample by-law. Appendix B includes a cross-reference between the MFA with the OMAFRA-AMO Agreement.

What is e-signing? An e-signature is a signature that can be applied in a document by a signer electronically. AMO uses Notarius’ Consigno Cloud software to sign documents electronically. The municipal signing officer will receive a signature request to the MFA by email from AMO. They will be asked to open a link to a signing session in that email. The Consigno Cloud software certifies a signer’s identity with two-factor authentication. The signing officer will be asked to provide a second authentication credential (e.g. an answer to a security question, like an online money transfer) before they can access the document. Once they are able to access the document, they will be asked to fill-in specific fields prior to finally signing off on the MFA. AMO will then be notified that the document has been signed and staff will review to ensure the document is complete before AMO e-signs the MFA. A final, signed copy of the MFA will then be provided to the municipality and to AMO electronically for record keeping. Signing officers to the MFA are not required to subscribe or install any software on their computer to sign the document. Documents can be signed on a mobile device or on a desktop computer. For further details on the e-signing requirement, please refer to the process document.

Page 96 of 126

What else is required of municipalities?

Guide to the Municipal Funding Agreement / march 2018

9

There are a number of requirements both now and over the life of the Agreement. As soon as possible, notification to AMO of the types of projects council wishes to undertake in 2018 is required. As well there is annual reporting and results reporting similar to what municipalities already do under the federal Gas Tax Agreement through AMO’s website. These reports will be due to AMO by May 15, 2019 and every year thereafter until the funds are spent.

What is results reporting? The results report will demonstrate how the funding has been invested in a community to support revitalization within main street areas: Community Improvement Plan Eligible Projects • Number of small businesses supported; • Total value of physical improvements; • Total Main Street Funds provided; • Total Municipal investment; and, • Total private investment. Municipal Physical Infrastructure Eligible Projects • Total value of physical improvements; • Total Main Street Funds provided; and • Total municipal investment. More details are in Schedule D of the MFA.

Are there communication requirements? Yes. Municipal governments will be expected to acknowledge funding of projects by the Province by inviting the Province to participate in media events or announcements related to projects funded under the Main Street Revitalization Initiative. More details are in Section 3 of the MFA.

Page 97 of 126

Guide to the Municipal Funding Agreement / march 2018

10

Can we sell the asset? Assets purchased or constructed using Main Street funds must be for public use and benefit. If a municipality wishes to dispose of assets prior to March 31, 2021 and it is valued at more than $50,000 at the time of disposal the written consent of the province is required.

APPENDIX A Guide to the Municipal Funding Agreement / march 2018

11

Sample Municipal By-Law WHEREAS the Municipality wishes to enter into an Agreement in order to participate in Ontario’s Main Streets Revitalization Initiative;

AND WHEREAS the Municipality acknowledges that Funds received through the Agreement must be invested in an interest bearing reserve account until the earliest of expenditure or March 31, 2020;

Now THEREFORE, the Council of the [MUNICIPAL NAME], a municipal corporation pursuant to the Municipal Act, 2001;

ENACTS AS FOLLOWS

That the Mayor/Reeve/Regional Chair/Warden and [SIGNING AUTHORITY, i.e. Clerk] are hereby authorized to execute this Municipal Funding Agreement for the transfer of Main Streets Revitalization Initiatives funds between the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and [MUNICIPAL NAME] as in Schedule A attached hereto.

Schedule A shall form part of this by-law.

Page 98 of 126

Page 99 of 126

APPENDIX B Guide to the Municipal Funding Agreement / march 2018

12

Cross-Reference Table Between MFA and OMAFRA-AMO Agreement

Municipal Funding Agreement (MFA) Provision

OMAFRA-AMO Agreement Provision

Section 1 – Definitions and Interpretation

Schedule A Article 1

Section 1.1 Definitions

Schedule A Article A1.2

Section 1.2 Interpretation

Schedule A Article A1.1

Section 2 – Term of Agreement

Schedule A Article A3

Section 2.1 Term

Schedule A Article A3.1

Section 2.2 Amendment

Section 3.1

Section 2.3 Notice

Schedule A Article A12

Section 3 – Recipient Requirements

Schedule A Article A5, A8

Section 3.1 Communications

Schedule B Article B1.7

Section 3.2 Contracts

Schedule A Article A5.2

Section 4 – Eligible Projects

Schedule D Article D2.1

Section 4.1 Eligible Projects

Schedule D Article D2.1 5 and 6

Section 4.2 Recipient Fully Responsible

Schedule A Article A4.4

Section 5 – Eligible Costs

Schedule D Article D3.1

Section 5.1 Eligible Costs

Schedule D Article D3.1

Section 5.2 Discretion of Ontario

Schedule D Article D2.1

Section 5.3 Unspent Funds

Schedule A Article A15

Section 5.4 Reasonable Access

Schedule A Article A7

Section 5.5 Retention Receipts

Schedule A Article A7

Section 6 – Funds

Schedule C Activity 1

Section 6.1 Allocation of Funds

Schedule C Activity 1

Section 6.2 Transfer of Funds to a Municipality

AMO Provision

Section 6.3 Transfer of Funds to a non-municipal entity

AMO Provision

Section 6.4 Use of Funds

Schedule D Article D2.1

Section 6.5 Payout of Funds

AMO Provision

Section 6.6 Use of Funds

Schedule A Article A4.6

Section 6.7 Funds Advanced

Schedule A Article A17

Section 6.8 Expenditure of Funds

Schedule B Article B1.2

Section 6.9 GST & HST

Schedule A Article A4.10

Section 6.10 Limit of Ontario’s Financial Commitments

Schedule A Article A4.2

Section 6.11 Stacking

AMO Provision

Section 6.12 Insufficient funds provided by Ontario

AMO Provision

Section 7 – Reporting Requirements

Schedule F

Guide to the Municipal Funding Agreement / march 2018

13

Page 100 of 126 Section 7.1 Communication Report

Schedule F

Section 7.2 Annual Report

Schedule F

Section 7.3 Results Report

Schedule F

Section 8 – Records and Audit

Schedule A Article A7

Section 8.1 Accounting Principles

Schedule A Article A1.1, A7.2

Section 8.2 Separate Records

Schedule A Article A7.2

Section 8.3 External Auditor

Schedule A Article A7.3

Section 9 – Insurance and Indemnity

Schedule A Article A11

Section 9.1 Insurance

Schedule A Article A11

Section 9.2 Certificates of Insurance

Schedule A Article A11.2

Section 9.3 AMO not liable

AMO Provision

Section 9.4 Recipient to Compensate Ontario

Schedule A Article A11

Section 9.5 Recipient to Indemnify AMO

AMO Provision

Section 10 – Disposal

Schedule A Article A5.3

Section 10.1 Disposal

Schedule A Article A5.3 and Schedule B Article B1.5

Section 11 – Default and Termination

Schedule A Article A14

Section 11.1 Event of Default

Schedule A Article A14.1

Section 11.2 Waiver

AMO Provision

Section 11.3 Remedies of Default

Schedule A Article A14.3

Section 11.4 Repayment of Funds

Schedule A Article A14.2

Section 12 – Conflict of Interest

Schedule A Article A6

Section 12.1 No conflict of interest

Schedule A Article A6.2

Section 13 – Notice

Standard Provision

Section 13.1 Notice

Standard Provision

Section 13.2 Representatives

Standard Provision

Section 13.3 Addresses for Notice

Standard Provision

Section 14 - Miscellaneous

Various sections listed in detail below

Section 14.1 Counterpart Signature

Section 2.1

Section 14.2 Severability

Schedule A Article A20

Section 14.3 Waiver

Schedule A Article A21

Section 14.4 Governing Law

Schedule A Article A24

Section 14.5 Survival

Schedule A Article A30

Section 14.6 AMO, Ontario and Recipient independent

Schedule A Article A22

Section 14.7 No Authority to Represent

AMO Provision

Section 14.8 Debts Due to AMO

Schedule A Article A15, A17.2

Section 14.9 Priority

Schedule A Article A1.3

Section 15 – Schedules

Standard Provision

Section 16 – Signatures

Standard Provision

Schedule A – Municipal Allocation

Schedule C Activity 1

Schedule B – Eligible Projects

Schedule D Article D2.1 5 and 6

Schedule C – Eligible and Ineligible Costs

Schedule D Article D3.1

Schedule D – Reporting

Schedule F

Page 101 of 126

Main Streets Revitalization Initiative is funded by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

Page 102 of 126

REPORT TO COUNCIL PLANNING DEPARTMENT AGENDA DATE: April 3, 2018 REPORT DATE: March 27, 2018 SUBJECT: Source Water Protection: Risk Management Services

RECOMMENDATION: The recommendation is that Council receives for information the Planning Report dated March 27, 2018 regarding the selection of the firm ‘Cambium Inc.’ to undertake risk management services for the Township for the years 2018, 2019 and 2020. BACKGROUND: As Council knows, under the requirements of the Clean Water Act, a Source Water Protection Plan was developed in 2014 to protect vulnerable aquifers and groundwater recharge areas in the Province of Ontario. In development of the Plan, twelve municipal drinking water systems were identified in the area termed “The Cataraqui Source Protection Area” which includes the Village of Sydenham. Three Intake Protection Zones (IPZ’s) were created in the village based on proximity to the Sydenham water treatment plant

• a vulnerable drinking water source. The land uses in these IPZ’s have been categorized as being commercial uses, municipal buildings and parks/ recreation land serviced by the municipal water system and other areas around Sydenham Lake which include residential properties, a number of commercial properties and two schools. Vacant rural land comprises much of the area further from the municipal water intake. Part IV of the Source Water Protection Plan contains specific policies to measure and manage risks to drinking water sources posed by activities in proximity to municipal water intakes such as Sydenham’s. Within this area, the municipality is responsible to manage significant drinking water threat activities that may impact the water source. Since the Source Water Protection Plan came into effect in 2014 the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority assumed the responsibility for providing risk management services to South Frontenac and a number of other adjacent municipalities under a three year contract. The CRCA will no longer be providing these services and, accordingly, requests for proposals were prepared and distributed collectively inviting submissions from qualified firms to undertake the project for the next three year cycle. Following a review process, the firm “Cambium Inc.” was selected to now provide the risk management services. ANALYSIS: Cambium will be providing the service to four municipalities including South Frontenac. The service was previously provided to these municipalities by the CRCA at a cost of $1,196.85 per year for South Frontenac and it should be noted that the cost of the service from Cambium for South Frontenac for 2018 will be $3,408.00. Attachment #1 is a work plan and a breakdown of tasks and costs submitted by Cambium. FINANCIAL/STAFFING IMPLICATIONS The Township will pay $3,408.00 per year for three years. ATTACHMENTS Attachment #1 – is a work plan/ cost breakdown from Cambium. Approved by: Lindsay Mills

Prepared/Submitted by: Lindsay Mills

Page 103 of 126

Page 104 of 126

Payment Listing For the period of March 21, 2018 to April 3, 2018

Accounts Payable Payment Listing: For the period of March 21, 2018 to April 3, 2018

527,264.98

Pay date March 28, 2018

78,870.73

Payroll Payment Listing: Pay Period #7

For the period of March 11, 2018 to March 24, 2018 Council Honorarium

Pay date March 29, 2018

11,882.92

For the period of March 1, 2018 to March 31, 2018 $ Total Payments

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that Council receive for information the listing of the Accounts Payable and Payroll for the period ending April 3, 2018 in the amount of

$

618,018.63

Submitted/approved by: Stephanie Kuca - Deputy Treasurer

618,018.63

System:

2018-03-29

User ID:

skuca

Ranges: Cheque Date:

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

12:16:24 PM

From: 2018-03-21

To: 2018-04-03

Page:

1

Page 105 of 126

Distribution Types Included: PURCH, MISC

10 GG 0000 Gen Cheque EFT000000009032

Date

Inv #

2018-04-03 66399

Vendor

Description

THE FRONTENAC NEWS Ad-18/03/15

Total EFT000000009032

Total Gen

Amount $661.44 $661.44

$661.44

1000 Cheque 069314

Date

Inv #

2018-04-03 139818

Total 069314 EFT000000009027

2018-04-03

Vendor

Description

ATKINSON HOME BUILDING CENTRE Softener Salt

Amount $25.31 $25.31

CULLIGAN 89547TH 997032

Total EFT000000009027 EFT000000009037 2018-04-03

Water Water

$34.52 $105.17 $139.69

Inspect+Upload+Arm System Reset Keypad+ Assigned Zones

$122.11 $122.11 $244.22

LONDRY ALARMS 191383 191408

Total EFT000000009037 EFT000000009049 2018-04-03 4980 4979 5057 5073 5060

SIMMONS PLUMBING & PUMP SERV. Install Trench Drain Laundry Sink Leaky toilet+ Clean UV sensor No water UV Alarm Sounding

16313

UNITY SOD FARM LTD. Snow Plowing

Total EFT000000009049 EFT000000009056 2018-04-03 Total EFT000000009056

Total

$3,848.05 $771.34 $170.45 $249.31 $106.85 $5,146.00 $1,175.33 $1,175.33

$6,730.55

1250 Clk Cheque 069319

Date

Inv #

2018-04-03

Vendor

Amount

OMHRA 11358

Total 069319 EFT000000009054

Description

2018-04-03 5879

2018 Primary Member TROUSDALE’S FOODLAND Milk+Cream

Total EFT000000009054

$337.84 $337.84 $9.67 $9.67

Total Clk

$347.51

Total GG

$7,739.50

20 PP&P 2100 Fire Cheque EFT000000009016

Date

Inv #

2018-04-03

Vendor

Description

26742 26744

BOULTON SEPTIC/LARMON’S Snow Plowing Snow Plowing

18/02/20-04

LEONARD, ELIZABETH Cleaning

Total EFT000000009016 EFT000000009035 2018-04-03 Total EFT000000009035 EFT000000009048 2018-04-03

Amount $305.28 $559.68 $864.96 $60.00 $60.00

SIGNS PLUS 3027

Civic #

5018

SIMMONS PLUMBING & PUMP SERV. Repair frozen water line

16311

UNITY SOD FARM LTD. Snow Plowing

Total EFT000000009048 EFT000000009049 2018-04-03 Total EFT000000009049 EFT000000009056 2018-04-03 Total EFT000000009056

Total Fire

$9.16 $9.16 $860.79 $860.79 $518.98 $518.98

$2,313.89

2400 Police Cheque 069318

Date

Inv #

2018-04-03

Vendor

Description

MINISTER OF FINANCE-POLICE SERVICES 18/03 Policing Services

Amount

Total 069318

$253,900.00 $253,900.00

Total Police

$253,900.00

14090318275

2605 Build Cheque EFT000000009038

Date

Inv #

2018-04-03 K77122

Vendor

Description

MAGNACHARGE BATTERY CORP 12 volt Battery

Amount $91.01

System:

2018-03-29

User ID:

skuca

12:16:24 PM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

Total EFT000000009038

Page:

2

Page 106 of 126 $91.01

Total Build

$91.01

2620 Anml Ctl Cheque EFT000000009014

Date 2018-03-29

Inv #

Vendor

Description

FRONTENAC MUNICIPAL LAW SF-AC-2018-MARCH ANIMAL CONTROL 18/03

Total EFT000000009014

Total Anml Ctl

Amount $3,256.19 $3,256.19

$3,256.19

2640 Bylaw enf Cheque EFT000000009014

Date 2018-03-29

Inv #

Vendor

Description

FRONTENAC MUNICIPAL LAW SF-P-2018-MARCH PARKING BYLAW 18/03 SF-P-2018-MARCH PARKING BYLAW 18/03

Total EFT000000009014

Total Bylaw enf

Amount $457.92 $634.98 $1,092.90

$1,092.90

2900 Fire2 Cheque 069317

Date

Inv #

2018-04-03 36125500

Vendor

Description

LEE HECHT HARRISON KNIGHTSBRIDGE CORP Professional- 3 Month Program

Amount

Total 069317

$4,579.20 $4,579.20

Total Fire2

$4,579.20

Total PP&P

$265,233.19

30 Trans 3000 PW OH Cheque EFT000000009019

Date

Inv #

2018-04-03 C14258-0318

Vendor

Description

ALLIANCE WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS Answering Service

Total EFT000000009019

Total PW OH

Amount $276.28 $276.28

$276.28

3005 RdAdmOH Cheque 069316 Total 069316 EFT000000009026

Date 2018-04-03

Inv #

Vendor

Description

DISTRICT 8 ROAD SUPERVISORS 2018 MEMBERSHIP 9X Memberships

2018-04-03 217472

COLLINS SAFETY INC. B.K. Safety Boots

Total EFT000000009026

Total RdAdmOH

Amount $495.00 $495.00 $190.19 $190.19

$685.19

3010 Cheque 069314

Total 069314 069315 Total 069315 EFT000000009018

Date

Inv #

2018-04-03

Vendor

Description

140566 139552

ATKINSON HOME BUILDING CENTRE Extension Cord Pipe+Screws

W208

CROSSIRON TRUCK & EQUIPMENT Fuel Injector+EGR Valve

38286179

AECOM CANADA LTD Harrowsmith Design

16097259 91639921

BENSON TRUCK & TRAILER Replace leaf pack Poly V-Belts

280218 160318

BOWES CARPENTRY Replace Steel on building Walls+Ceilings in kitch+office

S2018095

BRICAZA CORPORATION Grease for Equipment

217472

COLLINS SAFETY INC. Lens Cleaning Tissues

8362

D.MARTIN WELDING & FABRICATING Weld new bar on Whipple Tree

2018-04-03

2018-04-03

Total EFT000000009018 EFT000000009021 2018-04-03

Total EFT000000009021 EFT000000009023 2018-04-03

Total EFT000000009023 EFT000000009025 2018-04-03 Total EFT000000009025 EFT000000009026 2018-04-03 Total EFT000000009026 EFT000000009029 2018-04-03 Total EFT000000009029 EFT000000009030 2018-04-03

Amount $32.55 $49.15 $81.70 $3,706.17 $3,706.17 $3,269.04 $3,269.04 $821.80 $134.07 $955.87 $2,746.17 $3,789.54 $6,535.71 $830.66 $830.66 $18.29 $18.29 $264.58 $264.58

FISH, DOROTHY 5972

Total EFT000000009030 EFT000000009035 2018-04-03

Cleaning

18/02/23-03

LEONARD, ELIZABETH Cleaning

58043388

LINDE CANADA LIMITED 15687 Oxygen+ Acetylene

Total EFT000000009035 EFT000000009036 2018-04-03

$312.00 $312.00 $300.00 $300.00 $343.81

System:

2018-03-29

User ID:

skuca

12:16:24 PM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 58043678 58043631 58034646 58145290

Total EFT000000009036 EFT000000009039 2018-04-03

Gases Acetylene Acetylene+ Oxygen Leases Gases

DA0006457060

MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA CANADA INC 1 tire

23152

MORVEN CONSTRUCTION LTD Harrowsmith Intersection

Total EFT000000009039 EFT000000009040 2018-04-03 Total EFT000000009040 EFT000000009043 2018-04-03

Page:

3

Page 107 of 126 $264.41 $216.74 $506.96 $337.28 $1,669.20 $623.01 $623.01 $64,823.53 $64,823.53

PETRIE FORD 248938 248976 248721 249478 249343 249189 249184 249126 249126 246176

Total EFT000000009043 EFT000000009044 2018-04-03

Oil+Clamps+Pigtails Pedal Throttle Air Horn Air Tank Mounting Strap Coolant Fan + Motor Shaft Coolant Coolant Alarm+Blade

$126.65 $161.09 $160.48 $94.25 $87.31 $211.03 $366.21 $43.65 $43.65 $107.94 $1,402.26

PUROLATOR INC. 436980156

Total EFT000000009044 EFT000000009047 2018-04-03

Shipment to Nortrax

11071

R. THURSTON TECHNOLOGIES Service Call- Install Radio

5064

SIMMONS PLUMBING & PUMP SERV. Heat line+Thaw Frozen pipes

967

SPECIALIZED ONSITE SERVICES Soil Analysis

341026T 341026T 340988T 340963T 435907 435956 341220T 341250T 341191T

TALLMAN TRUCK CENTRE LIMITED 2X Dust Shield 2X Dust Shield Brake Drum+ KT Shoe Bracket+Adjuster+Chamber P Break, Wiper Arm, Air Comp Safety Inspection KT Cap Kit Head Mirror Remanalt

PS040655077 WO040649762

TOROMONT INDUSTRIES LTD. Hose Install Hydraulic Hoses

6083-481825 6083-480525

TOWN AND COUNTRY AUTO SUPPLY Rig Oil+ Filter

TROUSDALE’S FOODLAND Coffee+Cream

79297

TROUSDALE’S HOME HARDWARE 2X4+Screws for Sign Stands

173-184482 173-184961 896-858076 173-183535 173-183535

UNIVERSAL SUPPLY GROUP Splice Butt Tin Plate Assorted parts Brake Pads 7 Way Adapter 7 Way Blade Adapter

734776

UCF/MCKEOWN & WOOD FUELS 1634.7L Oil @.9320

23001479

WURTH CANADA LIMITED Connectors+Clamps+Start Fluid

Total EFT000000009047 EFT000000009049 2018-04-03 Total EFT000000009049 EFT000000009050 2018-04-03 Total EFT000000009050 EFT000000009051 2018-04-03

Total EFT000000009051 EFT000000009052 2018-04-03

Total EFT000000009052 EFT000000009053 2018-04-03

Total EFT000000009053 EFT000000009054 2018-04-03 Total EFT000000009054 EFT000000009055 2018-04-03 Total EFT000000009055 EFT000000009057 2018-04-03

Total EFT000000009057 EFT000000009058 2018-04-03 Total EFT000000009058 EFT000000009061 2018-04-03 Total EFT000000009061

Total

$28.25 $28.25 $219.17 $219.17 $1,287.26 $1,287.26 $1,119.36 $1,119.36 $147.78 $147.78 $158.19 $371.95 $2,091.53 $943.32 $79.99 $473.03 $266.40 $4,679.97 $126.00 $2,708.94 $2,834.94 $13.30 $80.80 $94.10 $26.70 $26.70 $124.14 $124.14 $19.64 $299.85 $130.23 $38.65 $23.12 $511.49 $1,550.35 $1,550.35 $118.66 $118.66

$97,386.41

3310 Hardtop Patching Cheque 069320

Date

Inv #

2018-04-03

Vendor

2018-04-03

Total EFT000000009041

Patching Patching

$1,068.48 $610.56 $1,679.04

Cold Patch Cold Patch

$5,139.69 $2,925.60 $8,065.29

O. BETTSCHEN 40436 40416

Total Hardtop Patching

Amount

SNIDER, PERCY 18/02/23-50 18/02/26-03

Total 069320 EFT000000009041

Description

$9,744.33

System:

2018-03-29

User ID:

skuca

12:16:24 PM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

Page:

4

Page 108 of 126

3320 should maint Cheque EFT000000009020

Date

Inv #

2018-04-03

Vendor

Description

BATTLEFIELD EQUIPMENT RENTALS Spark Plug+Chain Oil

Amount

Total EFT000000009020

$335.29 $335.29

Total should maint

$335.29

24214854

3405 Washout Cheque EFT000000009041

Date

Inv #

2018-04-03

Vendor

Description

Amount

O. BETTSCHEN 40442

Gravel

Total EFT000000009041

Total Washout

$153.39 $153.39

$153.39

3505 Snw Plwng Cheque 069320

Date

Inv #

2018-04-03

Vendor

Amount

SNIDER, PERCY 18/03/09-15 18/03/09-14 18/03/09-13 18/03/03-08 18/03/03-07 18/03/03-06 18/03/08-12 18/03/08-11 18/03/08-09 18/03/09-50 18/03/09-02 18/03/03-01 18/03/03-03 18/03/13-19 18/03/13-20 18/03/13-21 18/03/14-24 18/03/14-23 18/03/14-22 18/03/15-25 18/03/15-26 18/03/15-27 18/03/15-16 18/03/15-18 18/03/14-17-2

Total 069320 EFT000000009062

Description

2018-04-03 B03262

Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing PAT ROGERS TOWING SERVICE Plow in Ditch

Total EFT000000009062

Total Snw Plwng

$195.38 $146.53 $318.51 $195.38 $146.53 $318.51 $195.38 $146.53 $318.51 $905.66 $184.19 $184.19 $162.82 $318.51 $146.53 $195.38 $195.38 $146.53 $318.51 $318.51 $146.53 $195.38 $184.19 $905.66 $905.66 $7,394.89 $814.08 $814.08

$8,208.97

3506 Snow Clearing Sidewalks Cheque 069320

Date

Inv #

2018-04-03

Vendor

Description

Amount

SNIDER, PERCY 18/03/09-16 18/03/09-16 18/03/09-15-2 18/03/09-15-2 18/03/09-14-2 18/03/09-14-2 18/03/08-13 18/03/08-13 18/03/08-12-2 18/03/08-12-2 18/03/08-11-2 18/03/08-11-2 18/03/03-10 18/03/03-10 18/03/03-09 18/03/03-09 18/03/03-08-2 18/03/03-08-2 18/03/14-17 18/03/14-17 18/03/14-18 18/03/14-18 18/03/14-19 18/03/14-19

Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing Snow Plowing

Total 069320

Total Snow Clearing Sidewalks

$101.76 $69.20 $101.76 $93.62 $142.46 $101.76 $101.76 $69.20 $101.76 $93.62 $142.46 $101.76 $101.76 $69.20 $101.76 $93.62 $142.46 $101.76 $142.46 $101.76 $101.76 $93.62 $101.76 $69.20 $2,442.24

$2,442.24

3515 Stock Snd&Slt Cheque EFT000000009034

Date

Inv #

2018-04-03

Vendor

Description

K+S WINDSOR SALT LTD Winter Salt

Amount

Total EFT000000009034

$3,358.48 $3,358.48

Total Stock Snd&Slt

$3,358.48

5300370094

System:

2018-03-29

User ID:

skuca

12:16:24 PM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

Page:

5

Page 109 of 126

3525 Snw Remvl Cheque 069320

Date

Inv #

2018-04-03

Vendor

Description

Amount

SNIDER, PERCY 18/02/13-04 18/02/15-05

Flagging Flagging

Total 069320

Total Snw Remvl

$100.74 $289.64 $390.38

$390.38

3601 Barricds & Sfty Matls Cheque EFT000000009026

Date

Inv #

2018-04-03 217472

Vendor

Description

COLLINS SAFETY INC. Safety Glasses+Fabric Bandages

Total EFT000000009026

Total Barricds & Sfty Matls

Amount $25.37 $25.37

$25.37

3615 Street signs Cheque EFT000000009022

Date

Inv #

2018-04-03 357628

Total EFT000000009022 EFT000000009048 2018-04-03

Vendor

Description

BMR MANUFACTURING INC. Signs

Amount $158.15 $158.15

SIGNS PLUS

Total EFT000000009048

$215.48 $37.59 $253.07

Total Street signs

$411.22

3026 3027

Street signs+Civic #s street signs

3620 Reg signs Cheque EFT000000009022

Date

Inv #

2018-04-03 357627 357629 357628

Vendor

Description

BMR MANUFACTURING INC. Signs Signs Signs

Total EFT000000009022

Total Reg signs

Amount $1,276.23 $2,002.64 $149.06 $3,427.93

$3,427.93

3800 Crssng Guards Cheque EFT000000009015

Date

Inv #

2018-03-29 18/03 18/03

Vendor

Description

WILSON, CHRISTINA CROSSING GUARD 18/03 CROSSING GUARD 18/03

Amount

Total EFT000000009015

$480.00 $13.82 $493.82

Total Crssng Guards

$493.82

Total Trans

$127,339.30

40 Env 5005 SW & Fac OH Cheque EFT000000009053

Date

Inv #

2018-04-03 6083-480525

Vendor

Description

TOWN AND COUNTRY AUTO SUPPLY Oil+ Filter

Amount

Total EFT000000009053

$44.65 $44.65

Total SW & Fac OH

$44.65

5105 Garb coll Cheque 069313

Total 069313 EFT000000009013

Date 2018-03-29

2018-03-29

Inv #

Vendor

SNIDER, PERCY 18/03 DISPOSAL 18/03 DISPOSAL DISPOSAL 18/03-FUEL DISPOSAL 18/03-FUEL

Description 18/03 DISPOSAL 18/03 DISPOSAL DISPOSAL 18/03 Fuel Adj DISPOSAL 18/03 Fuel Adj

BOULTON SEPTIC/LARMON’S COLLECTION 18/03 COLLECTION 18/03 COLLECTION18/03-FUEL COLLECTION 18/03- Fuel Adj.

Total EFT000000009013 EFT000000009043 2018-04-03

Amount $11,649.51 $9,616.14 $131.70 $108.71 $21,506.06 $11,900.29 $134.54 $12,034.83

PETRIE FORD 248799 249542 249378

Kit- Jet Cap Asy-Fuel Tank Switch

Total EFT000000009043

Total Garb coll

$26.47 $25.62 $191.64 $243.73

$33,784.62

5110 Gab disp Cheque EFT000000009011

Date 2018-03-29

Inv #

Description

WHALEY, GEORGE 18/03 DISPOSAL 18/03 DISPOSAL

Total EFT000000009011 EFT000000009017 2018-04-03 A0963357 Total EFT000000009017

Vendor

ABELL PEST CONTROL INC. 18/03 Pest Control

Amount $1,935.80 $1,935.80 $101.83 $101.83

System:

2018-03-29

User ID:

skuca

EFT000000009033

12:16:24 PM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

2018-04-03 11173 11173 11173

JODY CAMPBELL’S SEPTIC SERVICE Portable Toilet Rental Portable Toilet Rental Portable Toilet Rental

213801

TROUSDALE’S HOME HARDWARE Galv. Gate

Total EFT000000009033 EFT000000009055 2018-04-03 Total EFT000000009055 EFT000000009059 2018-04-03

WASTE CONNECTIONS OF CANADA 647-0000023955 70.02MT ICI Waste 647-0000023982 10.15MT ICI+Construction Waste 7150-0000233703 Dump+Exchange

Total EFT000000009059 EFT000000009060 2018-04-03 18/02/28-12 18/02/28-11

WHALEY, GEORGE 18/02 Landfill Maintenance 18/02-2 Landfill Maintenance

Total EFT000000009060

Total Gab disp

Page:

6

Page 110 of 126 $117.02 $117.02 $117.02 $351.06 $366.32 $366.32 $6,890.61 $964.79 $498.93 $8,354.33 $1,704.48 $3,134.21 $4,838.69

$15,948.03

5205 Recyc Coll Cheque 069313

Total 069313 EFT000000009013

Date 2018-03-29

2018-03-29

Inv #

Vendor

SNIDER, PERCY 18/03 DISPOSAL 18/03 DISPOSAL 18/03 DISPOSAL DISPOSAL 18/03-FUEL DISPOSAL 18/03-FUEL DISPOSAL 18/03-FUEL

Description 18/03 DISPOSAL 18/03 DISPOSAL 18/03 DISPOSAL DISPOSAL 18/03 Fuel Adj DISPOSAL 18/03 Fuel Adj DISPOSAL 18/03 Fuel Adj

BOULTON SEPTIC/LARMON’S COLLECTION 18/03 COLLECTION 18/03 COLLECTION18/03-FUEL COLLECTION 18/03- Fuel Adj.

Total EFT000000009013

Total Recyc Coll

Amount $12,566.92 $10,958.23 $11,697.08 $142.08 $123.88 $132.23 $35,620.42 $10,236.80 $115.72 $10,352.52

$45,972.94

5305 HHW Cheque EFT000000009024

Date

Inv #

2018-04-03 20180049

Vendor

Description

BRENDAR ENVIRONMENTAL INC. HHW Services

Total EFT000000009024

Amount $929.68 $929.68

Total HHW

$929.68

Total Env

$96,679.92

70 Cem 7000 Health Cheque EFT000000009012

Date 2018-03-29

Inv #

Vendor

Description

D G YOUNGE CONCRETE BURIAL VAULTS SERVICES 18/03 SERVICES 18/03

Total EFT000000009012

Amount $875.14 $875.14

Total Health

$875.14

Total Cem

$875.14

80 Rec 8000 Rec Cheque EFT000000009010

Date

Inv #

2018-03-29

Vendor

Description

18/03

LEONARD, ELIZABETH 18/03 MAINTENANCE

26742

BOULTON SEPTIC/LARMON’S Snow Plowing

1803017

FORT GLASS INCORPORATED Handicap door won’t close

16314

UNITY SOD FARM LTD. Snow Plowing

Total EFT000000009010 EFT000000009016 2018-04-03 Total EFT000000009016 EFT000000009031 2018-04-03 Total EFT000000009031 EFT000000009056 2018-04-03 Total EFT000000009056

Amount $142.50 $142.50 $305.28 $305.28 $518.98 $518.98 $691.97 $691.97

Total Rec

$1,658.73

Total Rec

$1,658.73

99 9999 Cheque 069321 Total 069321 EFT000000009045

Date 2018-04-03

Inv #

Vendor

Description

K.D. JAM HOLDING INC. 06007012600 2018 REF 06007012600 2018 REF

2018-04-03

Amount $744.19 $744.19

REALTAX INC 65263 65264 65265

Final Notices Final Notices Final Notices

$463.30 $576.30 $395.50

System:

2018-03-29

User ID:

skuca

12:16:24 PM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 65269 65272 65275 65276 65277 65324 65325 65327 65328 65329 65330 65332 65333 65335 65336 65337 65340 65342 65343 65344 65345 65346 65347 65348 65349 65350 65351 65352 65353 65354 65355 65356 65358 65357 65359 65360 65361 65362 65363 65364

Total EFT000000009045 EFT000000009046 2018-04-03 620597 620596 620600 620598 Total EFT000000009046

1- Final Notices Final Notices 5-Final Notices Final Notices Final Notices Set up File Set up File Set up file Set up file Set up file Set up file 1-Set up file Set up file Set up file Set up file Set up file Set up file Set up file Set up file 2-Set up file Set up file Set up file Set up file Set up file Set up file Set up file Set up file Set up file Set up file Set up file Set up file Set up file Set up file Set up file 6-Set up file Set up file Set up file Set up File Set up File Set up File ROSEN ENERGY GROUP F 2697.9L CLR @1.0140 F 1446.8L GAS @1.0050 B 633.1L CLR @ 1.0140 F 590.3L MKD @.8810

Page:

7

Page 111 of 126 $463.30 $576.30 $372.90 $395.50 $395.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $565.00 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $565.00 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $21,549.10 $2,783.83 $1,479.62 $653.25 $529.21 $5,445.91

Total

$27,739.20

Total

$27,739.20

Total

$527,264.98

Page 112 of 126 f A*-. ,

‘1<"

Mar20, 2018 \

ToMayorofNorthFrontenac andMembers ofCouncil^ MayorofCentral Frontenac andMembers ofCouncil MayorofSouthFrontenacaadMembers ofCouncil MayorofFrontenac IslandsandMembers ofcouncil

SOWti FRONTENAC

Subject:FrontenacCountyCAOFenderrequesttoCounciltoffleanexpressionof mterest to file anexpression ofinterest expandFairmount home. Mayor and Members ofCouncil,

ReadingwifhinteresttheFrontenacNewsI learnedthatthedebentureissuedtorebuild Famnomt Homewill bepaidoffina fewyears. GreatNews!!!. Havingbeena rookie

County’counciTor allthoseyearsagoI dorecallthetermsofthedebentureandtheimpact it hadonthetaxpayers ofthe Frontenac Townships.

I wassurprisedthatCAOFenderencouragedCountyCouncUtofileanexpressionfor another expansion.

FairmounthomeislocatedinfheCity ofKingston, a greatdistancefrommuchofthe ^

Countyandwhileitis(“thehome”)a strategicassettoFrontenacCountyadmmistrationit hasless relevanceto most ofthepeople inthe Frontenac’s.

Withtheroominthebudgetbeingcreatedbythedebenturerepaymentwoulditnotbe

prudenttoconsideranmvestment opportunities morerelevanttothepeoplethatlivein theCounty?Anequivalent investment of10or20milliondollarsintheCountycould havesignificantimpactontherangeandscaleofserviceprovidedwiththeaddedbenefit ofcapacity building. This appears to be a significant opportunity.

Beinga proudresident ofFrontenac County I encourage youto consideraninvestment in the County asanalternative to the expansion ofFainnount Home. BestRegards

^-

Jijn Vanden Hoek WolfeIsland ec Cheryl Robson CAO Cafhy Mac Munn CAO Wayne Orr CAO DarienePlumley CAO

Page 113 of 126

March 20 2018 Dear Mayor and Councillors. My name is Sarah Harmer. Thank you for the opportunity to speak briefly with you this evening. I have lived on the edge of South Frontenac Township off Spooner Road for over 20 years, and I’ve been swimming in beautiful Loughborough Lake for decades. For the past year or so I have been learning about the Johnston Point case alongside other concerned citizens. Thank you for inviting MNRF representatives to clarify and provide information about the proposed permit for Johnston Point. It is disappointing that the Ministry’s presentation has been postponed, but I’m sure we all look forward to the visit from Catherine Warren and Andy Baxter at another date in the near future. I would like to use this short time to convey to this council what I believe are critical issues regarding Johnston Point on Loughborough Lake. Firstly, that a condition of the Ontario Municipal Board Draft Plan approval was contravened by the proponent. Secondly, that South Frontenac municipality has the authority to address the OMB (the Board) regarding Draft Plan conditions, Thirdly, a request that South Frontenac township express a clear preference that species at risk habitat on Johnston’s point be left as is, and Fourthly that South Frontenac bring a Motion to address the Board regarding a failure to fulfil certain Conditions as a result of alleged destruction of environmental features on the Subject Property that were to be protected per the Board’s Decision of June 28, 2016. Furthermore, the Township should immediately seek an Order to protect and restore the Subject Property until such time as the Motion can be heard. This past November, the announcement of Magenta’s proposed benefit permit application to “kill, harm or harass” Blanding’s Turtles and Grey Ratsnakes, brought a strong and diverse call to the MNRF to deny this Plan of Condominium. The expert submissions that were forwarded to the Township only heighten our concerns over issues that remain unresolved. The OMB ruling (page 12) was explicit that the Conditions of Draft Plan Approval “will ensure that matters of Provincial Interest as well as the public interest is appropriately addressed and duly safeguarded.” The OMB’s conditional approval was subject to meeting Draft Plan Conditions and premised on the unchallenged testimony from the proponent’s planner.

Page 114 of 126

It is now certain that the Conditions of Draft Plan have not served to protect the Species at Risk on Johnston Point and the planner’s opinion was based on an early, deficient set of scientific understanding of the peninsula. The McIntosh-Perry review of the proponent’s Environmental Impact Statement in July 2015, the MNRF’s own assessment of the proposal in August 2016, and independent Species at Risk (SAR) surveys by John Urquhart, Cambium and Toby Thorne all provide expert evidence that there were serious oversights and omissions in the environmental assessment done by the proponent’s consultant. It is clear from the extent of unauthorized site alteration and heavy machinery work that the species at risk and their unique natural heritage environment have already been negatively impacted, and due process has been contravened. As Matt Rennie documented so well, there is now photographic and video evidence taken in the last few weeks, of extensive shoreline clearing in the designate ‘environmental protection areas.’ This is without authorization and a clear violation of the Conditions of Draft Plan Approval. Conditions 5A clearly states, quote, “the vacant land condominium agreement applying to all the waterfront units shall set out the municipalities protection policies requiring that the area within 30 metres of the highwater mark of the waterbody or wetland shall be maintained in a natural state for soil and vegetation. This 30 metre environmental protection area is identified in Attachment ‘B’” This destructive site waterfront alteration comes after already unauthorized roadwork. The proponent has again shown non-compliance, which, as we know, does not lead to good faith. Magenta has taken blatant actions that demonstrate a lack or respect for process and species, and set the stage for further future actions.

Gord Miller was Ontario’s Environmental Commissioner for 15 years, until 2015. His statement on Magenta’s permit application was submitted to the Township and MNRF in December, and it provides expert opinion on the proposed benefit permit from the perspective of an ecologist and biologist with extensive expertise in environmental and species at risk legislation. In fact there is likely no one in the province more qualified than Mr Miller to give expert opinion on this type of matter. Mr Miller stated, and I quote, “Johnston Point can be considered a peninsula with a substantial range of species at risk. Putting a condominium development along nearly its entire length is an extreme case of conflicting values – between species at risk conservation and residential development. The MNRF is obligated to look at the development impacts collectively before deciding upon the Permit. In the material provided, I have not seen a comprehensive evaluation of cumulative impacts… On Johnston Point, the species and habitat loss will be absolute… there is no viable argument presented of overall benefit in this case, a Permit under section 17(C) of the ESA should be denied. “

Page 115 of 126

Concerned lake residents also obtained a legal opinion on the matter from David Donnelly at Donnelly Law, which was also forwarded to the Township and MNRF in December 2017, stating that multiple experts have provide solid, peer reviewed information that points to comprehensive and cumulative impact assessment of the landscape and evidence that “clearly indicates this Permit should not be issued, and the property should remain zoned as it is.”

I understand that MNRF district planner Catherine Warren wrote to this council in Oct 2016 that prompted a Notice of Motion, resolving that the Township express to the MNRF their preference not to allow for mitigation. I also understand that immediately prior to voting on that Motion, the Motion was amended to remove the mitigation clause on the advice of the Township’s lawyer that it could have been interpreted as an illegal attempt to change the conditions of draft approval. Towards this end, tonight we submit to Council a second legal opinion from Donnelly Law, clearly stating that: “a municipality has the authority under Rule 106 of the Ontario Municipal Board’s Rules to address the Board regarding Draft Plan Conditions. This includes changes to Conditions, or seeking an Order from the Board denying approval. In addition, municipalities can require restoration of degraded environmental features, prior to an Applicant obtaining approval.” As the OMB ruling on Johnston Point states in line number [56]: “In the event there are difficulties implementing any of the conditions of draft plan approval, or if any changes to the draft plan are required, the Board may be spoken to further.” Based on this I believe that the Township has both legitimate grounds and a responsibility to do so. We respectfully and strongly call on Council to make this resolution that clearly expresses to MNRF a “preference for species at risk habitat on Johnston’s point be left as is.” As I mentioned earlier, we also call on council to consider the second legal opinion we submit this evening, and bring a Motion to address the Board regarding a failure by the proponent to fulfil certain Conditions as a result of alleged destruction of environmental features on the Subject Property, that were to be protected per the Board’s Decision of June 28, 2016. Furthermore, the Township should immediately seek an Order to protect and restore the Subject Property until such time as the Motion can be heard. Thank you very much. I’m happy to take questions if you have any.

Page 116 of 126

David R. Donnelly, MES LLB david@donnellylaw.ca

March 20, 2018 Sent via e-mail to: evonne.potts@gmail.com and meelamelnik@hotmail.com Evonne Potts 229-829 Norwest Road Kingston, ON K7P 2N3 Meela Melnik-Proud 1076 Cliffside Drive Sydenham, ON K0H 2T0

Re: OMB Case No. PL150246 – Rule 106 Ontario Municipal Board Rules of Practice and Procedure - Authority to Address the Board Dear Client, You have asked us to provide an opinion regarding: A) The authority of a municipality to obtain a denial of a Planning Act application under Rule 106 of the Board Rules of Practice and Procedure for failure to comply with Board Conditions; and B) The mechanism to seek a Board Prohibition Order to preserve significant natural heritage features on the Subject Property. It is our opinion the Township of South Frontenac should bring a Motion to address the Board regarding a failure to fulfill certain Conditions as a result of alleged destruction of environmental features on the Subject Property that were to be protected per the Board’s Decision of June 28, 2016. Furthermore, the Township should immediately seek an Order to protect and restore the Subject Property until such time as the Motion can be heard. For context we represent you, Ms Evonne Potts and Ms Meela Melnik-Proud (the “Respondents”) regarding the proposed Magenta Waterfront Development Corp. (“MWDC”) Permit for activities with conditions to achieve overall benefit to the species – Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) s. 17(2)(c) (the “Permit”). Our firm provided a previous opinion on December 11, 2017 regarding your response to the

t. 416 572 0464 ⋅ 276 Carlaw Ave ⋅ Suite 203 ⋅ Toronto ⋅ Ontario ⋅ M4M 3L1 ⋅ Canada

Page 117 of 126

proposed Permit, EBR Registry No.013-1130 (Loughborough Lake, Frontenac County). Condition #5 in the Ontario Municipal Board (“OMB”) decision states: A. That the vacant land condominium agreement contains wording applying to all of the proposed units setting out the municipality’s limited service policies to recognize that there is no commitment or requirement by the municipality to assume responsibility for ownership or maintenance of the private lane within the plan. In addition, the vacant land condominium agreement applying to all the waterfront units shall set out the municipality’s environmental protection policies requiring that the area within 30 meters of the highwater mark of a waterbody or wetland shall be maintained in a natural state for soil and vegetation. This 30 meter environmental protection area is identified as Attachment “B”. [emphasis added] B. That the wetland area within the boundary of proposed Unit 14 be surveyed by the Owner prior to construction of any driveway within the Unit. The driveway shall be surveyed prior to construction to ensure that the driveway is constructed a minimum of 30m from the boundary of the surveyed wetland. The driveway shall be constructed by the Owner as a condition of sale of the Unit. This condition shall be included in the condominium agreement with the Township and the agreement of purchase and sale for Unit 14. C. That all conditions outlined in the letter dated November 12, 2014 from the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority to the County of Frontenac, be included in the vacant land condominium Agreement with the Township, including that all driveways be placed a minimum of 30 meters away from any waterbody and that all recommendations of the stormwater management plan be implemented. D. The owner shall confirm that MNRF have been consulted on all species at risk issues and that the Declaration and the Vacant Land Condominium Agreement shall incorporate all recommendations from the MNRF included in any Benefit Permit, if issued, related to Gray Rat Snakes and Blanding Turtles or any other species at risk identified. [emphasis added] E. That the Owner shall complete Whip Poor Will surveys to determine if they are present at the site and submit this information to the MNRF. A municipality has the authority under Rule 106 of the Ontario Municipal Board’s Rules to address the Board regarding Draft Plan Conditions. This includes changes to Conditions, or seeking an Order from the Board denying approval. 2 Donnelly Law ⋅ t. 416 572 0464 ⋅ f. 416 572 0465 ⋅ 276 Carlaw Ave ⋅ Suite 203 ⋅ Toronto ⋅ Ontario ⋅ M4M 3L1

Page 118 of 126

It is submitted by Ms Potts and Ms Melnik-Proud that the Township is aware that considerable damage to the Subject Property has occurred, and therefore the Conditions have not and cannot be cleared. As a result, the approval should not be granted. In DiMarco v. Hamilton (City), in order to address the Board, the Township should invoke Rule 106 of the Ontario Municipal Board Rules of Practice and Procedure: On March 20, 2017, the City made a written request to the Board pursuant to Rule 106 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure for an appearance to address its concern that the Appellant had failed to comply with condition 3.1 Ontario Municipal Board Rules of Practice and Procedure Rule 106 states: A Condition Imposed in a Board Decision shall be satisfied by the date set by the Board. If the date is not set by the Board, a condition shall be satisfied within a reasonable time. If the condition is not so satisfied, the Board may reopen the hearing event from which the decision issued. In addition, municipalities can require restoration of degraded environmental features, prior to an Applicant obtaining approval. For example, in the City of Vaughan, Vaughan Official Plan Policy 3.2.3.9 states: That unauthorized removal or alteration of natural features or functions within areas identified as Core Features is prohibited, and will result in the features and functions being restored to their previous state at no expense to the City of Vaughan and other public agencies. In the case of a development application, the application will not proceed until restoration works have been undertaken to the satisfaction of the City and TRCA and/or York Region as needed. [emphasis added] Furthermore, in Spellman v. Essex (Town), the Crown sought an order from the Ontario Municipal Board prohibiting Material Handling Problem Solvers (“MHPS”) from negatively impacting the significant wetland, woodland, and wildlife habitat by cutting trees, clearing land and installing drainage works in order to continue to develop a golf course until such time as the Board decided on the application.2 Section 89 of the Ontario Municipal Board Act provides the Board authority to issue interim relief: The Board may, if the special circumstances of any case, in its opinion, so require, make an interim order without notice authorizing, requiring or forbidding anything to be done that the Board would be empowered on 1

DiMarco v. Hamilton (City), 2017 CanLII 53021 (ON OMB), para. 4

2 Spellman v. Essex (Town), 2002 CarswellOnt 6702, para. 1

3 Donnelly Law ⋅ t. 416 572 0464 ⋅ f. 416 572 0465 ⋅ 276 Carlaw Ave ⋅ Suite 203 ⋅ Toronto ⋅ Ontario ⋅ M4M 3L1

Page 119 of 126

application, notice and hearing to authorize, require or forbid, but no such order shall be made for any longer time than the Board may consider necessary to enable the matter to be heard and determined.3 The Board further held in Spellman that in granting the Prohibition Order, it struck “a balance of prejudice between the possible effects of further site activity and alteration on the integrity of the planning process and the adjudicative process, and the presumed need or desire for the proponent parties to gain whatever benefit they can from the four weeks of preparatory activity on the sites”. 4 [emphasis added] The Township having had regard to all the circumstances should act as authorized to preserve the site, order restoration, and deny development. The only question remaining is whether the Township will act in the public interest to do so. Failure to act will also send a clear, and opposite, message to residents. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 416-572-0464, or by email to david@donnellylaw.ca, cc’ing sara@donnellylaw.ca, and alexandra@donnellylaw.ca should you have any questions or concerns. Yours truly,

David R. Donnelly

3

Ontario Municipal Board Act, RSO 1990, s.89

4 Supra note 2, para. 18

4 Donnelly Law ⋅ t. 416 572 0464 ⋅ f. 416 572 0465 ⋅ 276 Carlaw Ave ⋅ Suite 203 ⋅ Toronto ⋅ Ontario ⋅ M4M 3L1

Page 120 of 126

March 26, 2018 Dear Mayor and Councillors, Thank you again for inviting MNRF representatives to last week’s council meeting. While we were disappointed that Catherine Warren and Andy Baxter had to reschedule, we were thankful for the opportunity to present Matt’s evidence of further unauthorized activity, and to have Sarah speak on behalf of concerned citizens of the implications in terms of the approval conditions and the proposed benefit permit. We are following up, in regards to Councillor Sutherland’s comments in response to the shoreline clearing and his Notice of Motion. He mentioned that the developer and the Township negotiated the additional unit - Lot #15 – in exchange for the environmental protection area and for limiting docks and access points. This comment raised new concerns and questions that we are hoping the Township can provide clarity on for us:

1. Was there further impact study conducted when the revisions to the 2014 Draft Plan were being negotiated, given the location of Lot #15 relative to the area of ANSI/PSW overlap? The 2014 EIA had missed the ANSI designation altogether, but Lot #15 was negotiated after the McIntosh-Perry peer review had identified that this area “is a candidate ANSI, however it reflects the area that is generally the most important or sensitive … and therefore should receive more consideration for potential impacts to the ecosystem.” With the additional lot, there are now five lots proposed in this direct area of ANSI/PSW overlap - lots #6, #7, #12, #13 and #15. A full 1/3 of the units are in the most sensitive area on the property.
2. Was the Township also aware of the fact the developer’s own 2012 EIA designated the area in the vicinity of Lot #15 be protected for the purposes of erosion control? Page 3 of the 2012 EIA states that “in order to minimize sediment and erosion impacts, it is recommended that no development take place within any steep slope located above the provincially significant wetland. The steepest slopes are mainly associated with the swamp at the very end of Long Bay.” The figure on the left is from p. 57 of the 2012 EIA, which identifies these steep slopes in red. By comparison with the 15 unit Plan of Condominium on the right, there are now five lots proposed in the immediate area of these erosional buffers area.

Page 121 of 126 3. Was the CRCA brought into the negotiations over the addition of Lot #15, given that under the Conservation Authority Act, no development in this area would be permitted ?

According to Sections 2(1d) and 3(1) of Ontario Regulation 148/06, Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority: Regulation of Development, Interference With Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses: 2. (1) Subject to section 3, no person shall undertake development or permit another person to undertake development in or on the areas within the jurisdiction of the Authority that are, (d) wetlands; 3. (1) The Authority may grant permission for development in or on the areas described in subsection 2 (1) if, in its opinion, the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches, pollution or the conservation of land will not be affected by the development. O. Reg. 148/06, s. 3 (1). The developer’s own environmental consultants specifically recommended the area at the end of Long Bay be protected in order to control erosion. We understand ‘conservation of land’ to include long-term protection and enhancement of this natural heritage system and its ecological functions - as is the requirement under the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). The McIntosh-Perry review had clearly outlined the potential for development to have serious negative impact in general on the Natural Heritage features as per Section 2.1 of the PPS, and specifically in areas with ANSI and PSW designation. The Notice of Motion We would like to thank Councillor Sutherland for the Notice of Motion. We respectfully ask Council for a second Motion, or an amendment to the existing Notice of Motion. In addition to forwarding our deputation and our second legal opinion from Donnelly Law to the County to ask for a report, we respectfully ask council to re-consider the October 2016 Motion that would have had the Township communicate a mitigation preference. In requesting last week’s delegation, we had re-submitted both the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario’s statement on the proposed benefit permit and legal opinion from Donnelly Law from December 11, 2017. We hold that Gordon Miller’s statement provides the gold-standard opinion on the matter of Johnston Point, given his perspective as Ontario’s ECO for three consecutive five year terms and as an ecologist and biologist with expertise in environmental and species at risk policy and legislation. It is that “Johnston Point can be considered a peninsula with a substantial range of species at risk. Putting a condominium development along nearly its entire length is an extreme case of conflicting values – between species at risk conservation and residential development. The MNRF is obligated to look at the development impacts collectively before deciding upon the Permit. In the material provided, I have not seen a comprehensive evaluation of cumulative impacts… On Johnston Point, the species and habitat loss will be absolute… there is no viable argument presented of overall benefit in this case, a Permit under section 17(C) of the ESA should be denied.” In December, we submitted Mr. Miller’s statement to the Township with our first legal opinion from Donnelly Law which is that evidence points “towards a comprehensive and cumulative impact assessment of the landscape. In other words, the Board in Magenta established a principle that does not support the MWDC rezoning without confirmation from MNRF that the ecological features and functions of the site are being protected, specifically with respect to species at risk habitat.” We trust that given the extraordinary effort by the Respondents and

Page 122 of 126 others around the lake to retain multiple experts to provide you with solid, peer reviewed information, this will assist you in reaching a conclusion about whether an overall benefit permit should be issued. We respectfully submit the evidence clearly indicates this Permit should not be issued, and the property should remain zoned as it is.”

The addition of Lot #15, evaluating development impacts, negotiating the Conditions of Draft Plan approval, rezoning considerations – these are all detailed planning decisions that have been directly overseen by the Township, acting on behalf of the County. It is why we believe clear communication and collaboration between the Township, the MNRF and the CRCA is an imperative, and what we hoped would come out of Tuesday’s face-to-face meeting with Catherine Warren and Andy Baxter. In March 2015, the proponent appealed Johnston Point to the OMB on the Township’s failure to make a decision on the development proposal within 180/120 days under subsections 51(34) and 34(11) of the Planning Act. In closed council sessions on November 17, 2015, Township staff were directed to bring forward the Conditions of Draft Plan Approval for “Council’s adoption” prior to the OMB hearing. On December 1st 2015 the Township defeated the settlement proposal. October 18, 2016, following Catherine Warren’s letter to the Township giving notice that the MNRF had received an application for a benefit permit, council came to that Tuesday session expecting to vote on a Motion that resolved “that the Township write the MNRF to express our preference for species at risk habitat on Johnson’s point be left as is, rather destroyed in a trade off … Further that Council be updated by the MNRF on negotiations with the Developer on the progress of the species at risk benefit agreement.” With the further evidence provided by Gord Miller and two legal opinions on Johnston Point from Donnelly Law, we see nothing holding the Township back from clearly communicating a preference that the benefit permit be denied as per the original un-amended October 2016 Motion. It is the second legal opinion of Donnelly Law that the “Township of South Frontenac should bring a Motion to address the Board regarding a failure to fulfill certain Conditions as a result of alleged destruction of environmental features on the Subject Property that were to be protected per the Board’s Decision of June 28, 2016. Furthermore, the Township should immediately seek an Order to protect and restore the Subject Property until such time as the Motion can be heard.” “The Township having had regard to all the circumstances should act as authorized to preserve the site, order restoration, and deny development. The only question remaining is whether the Township will act in the public interest to do so. Failure to act will also send a clear, and opposite, message to residents.” Respectfully, Meela Melnik-Proud, Evonne Potts and Matt Rennie

Page 123 of 126

Page 124 of 126 From: Meela Melnik-Proud [mailto:meelamelnik@hotmail.com] Sent: March-29-18 9:32 AM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net; Ron Vandewal rvandewal@southfrontenac.net; councillornroberts@gmail.com; councillorrevill@gmail.com; john.mcdougall@xplornet.ca; patbarr1@aol.com; markschjerning@outlook.com; 7846elbe@gmail.com; sfcron.sleeth@gmail.com; brad.barbeau@bell.net Cc: Matthew Rennie mattrennie27@hotmail.com; Evonne Potts evonne.potts@gmail.com Subject: Re: March 26, 2018 letter in follow up of last Tuesday’s delegation Good Morning Mayor and Councillors, I thought you might be interested in last night’s CKWS clip on Johnston Point. I am passing on this link, in the event you did not see it on television. https://globalnews.ca/kingston/videos I am also wondering if Councillor Sutherland’s Notice of Motion and the information from our March 20 deputation has been forwarded to the MNRF, and if not, why it wasn’t? It was my understanding that the intent of the October 2016 Motion was to open clearer and more direct channels of communication between the Township and the MNRF. Our concern is that important decisions are being made by the MNRF on the benefit permit, and that they would want to know about this new information now. Otherwise, with the bi-weekly Township Council and monthly County council meetings, we can expect long delays in information and outcomes being relayed to the MNRF. Respectfully, Meela From: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Sent: March 26, 2018 7:35 PM To: Meela Melnik-Proud Subject: RE: March 26, 2018 letter in follow up of last Tuesday’s delegation Hello Your letter will be included as part of the April 3 Agenda. Thank you. Wayne Orr Chief Administrative Officer Township of South Frontenac Box 100, Sydenham ON K0H 2T0 613-376-3027 Ext 2225 613-376-6657 (Fax) From: Meela Melnik-Proud [mailto:meelamelnik@hotmail.com] Sent: March-26-18 2:57 PM To: Ron Vandewal rvandewal@southfrontenac.net; councillornroberts@gmail.com; councillorrevill@gmail.com; john.mcdougall@xplornet.ca; patbarr1@aol.com; markschjerning@outlook.com; 7846elbe@gmail.com; sfcron.sleeth@gmail.com; Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net; brad.barbeau@bell.net Cc: Matthew Rennie mattrennie27@hotmail.com; Evonne Potts evonne.potts@gmail.com Subject: March 26, 2018 letter in follow up of last Tuesday’s delegation Thank you once again for the opportunity provided for us by last week’s delegation. Please find attached our letter in response. We look forward to your response. Respectfully, Meela, Evonne and Matt

Page 125 of 126

March 22, 2018

»,. - yt. ^

CtiV’^J

Frontenac Federation of Agriculture c/o Dudley Shannon Secretary

.. ‘: l»w nv’j. ^ lip OF i J-RONTEN'1’

RR#2 Inverary , On. KOH 1X0 To : Township Of South Frontenac C/0 Wayne Orr

The Frontenac Federation of Agriculture requests your help and actions on matter which affects every farm and every person in yourjurisdiction. It is the control of noxious weeds . As we know every land owner has a responsibility to control and do ones best to eradicate these weeds . The Weed Act of Ontario deals with this responsibility and

Weedinspectorsare or must be in placeto ensurethatweedsare properly dealtwith on private aswell as public lands which specifically includes roadsides and railway rights of Way . Noxious Weeds are a monetary determent to all farms. They reduce yields and quality of crops produced . Some can be poisonous to farm animals aswell. Weeds like “Wild Parsnip” are poisonous to humans. Their sap causes burns to skin that can cause extreme irritation for long periods of time .

It isour requestthat all municipalitiesin FrontenacCountyandthe Cityof Kingstontogether ensure that problem weeds be identified and eradicated using what ever means is necessary including chemical spraying when required . We understand that some people do not understand the effectiveness of chemical control and the safety protocols which chemicals must be applied under. Only trained and safety conscious applicators are allowed to carry out such duties. We trust that you will take this request seriously and make our area a more productive farming area and a safer place to live for the general public .

Dudley Shannon /See

Page 126 of 126

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW 2018-21 A BY-LAW TO CONFIRM GENERALLY PREVIOUS ACTIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC. THEREFORE THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC, BY ITS COUNCIL, HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1.

The actions of the Council of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac at its Council Meeting of April 3, 2018 be confirmed.

Execution by the Mayor and the Clerk-Administrator of all Deeds, Instruments and other Documents necessary to give effect to any such Resolution, Motion or other action and the affixing of the Corporate Seal to any such Deed, Instruments or other Documents is hereby authorized and confirmed.

This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the date of its passage.

Dated at the Township of South Frontenac this 3rd day of April, 2018. Read a first and second time this 3rd day of April, 2018. Read a third time and finally passed this 3rd day of April, 2018.

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer

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.