Council - 04 May 2021 - Agenda — North Frontenac News Media

Published May 4, 2021

Word Count 42028 words

Reading Time 198 min read

Body: Council Type: Agenda Meeting: Regular Date: May 4, 2021 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: South Frontenac

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/south-frontenac/Agendas/Council/2021/Council - 04 May 2021 - Agenda.pdf)

Document Text

Page 1 of 171

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA

Audio Broadcast to the Township’s Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/SouthFrontenacTwp TIME: DATE: PLACE:

7:00 PM, Tuesday, May 4, 2021 Electronic Participation.

Call to Order and Roll Call

Resolution

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof

Approval of Agenda

Resolution

Scheduled Closed Session (at end of meeting)

Delegations

Alec Knowles, WSP Consulting - Communal Services Governance Model • Joined by Salah Koleilat, WSP Consulting and Michael Wildman, Municipal Government Wayfinders

Public Meeting - not applicable

Approval of Minutes

April 6, 2021 Council meeting

28 - 34

April 13, 2021 Committee of the Whole meeting

35 - 37

Business Arising from the Minutes - not applicable

Reports Requiring Action

OPP Detachment Board Composition and Deadlines

38 - 56

2021 Kinsmen Dream Home Funding Request

57 - 60

Closed Meeting Investigations

61 - 62

Deputy Mayor Appointments

Committee Meeting Minutes

3 - 27

Page 2 of 171

Police Services Board Meeting - Annual and Regular Meetings held November 26, 2020

64 - 66

Heritage Committee Meeting held February 18, 2021

67 - 69

Lake Ecosystem Advisory Committee Meetings held February 17, 2021 and March 24, 2021

70 - 75

Reports for Information

Draft Financial Report - 2020

Information Items

Frontenac Regional Roads Network - KPMG Final Report

86 168

Honourable Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing, re: Code of Conduct Consultations.

169 170

Notice of Motions

Announcements/Statements by Councillors

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

Closed Session

Resolution to move into Closed Session in accordance with the Municipal Act, Section 239.2 (c) a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board; Sale of Surplus Land

Sale of Surplus Land - Craig Road - Portland District

Move out of Closed Session (Resolution)

Arise and Report from Closed Session:

By-law 2021-24 - Sale of surplus land - Concession 14, Part Lot 8 Portland District

Confirmatory By-law

By-law 2021-25

Adjournment

Resolution Natural, Vibrant and Growing - A Progressive Rural Leader

76 - 85

171

Com m u n al Services Govern an ce M od el St u d y Su m m a ry of Fin d in gs

4 M ay 20 21 Page 3 of 171

Com m un al Se rvic e s Go ve rn a n c e Mo d e l

Agen d a — St ud y Con t ext & Ob ject ive — St ud y Process Sum m ary

— Govern an ce M od el Recom m en d at ion — M SC St ruct ure Descrip t ion — M SC Cost s, Tim elin es, & Tow n sh ip Con t rib ut ion s Page 4 of 171

— Im p lem en t at ion Next St ep s

Com m un al Se rvic e s Go ve rn a n c e Mo d e l

St u d y Con t ext – Back grou n d

Page 5 of 171

Com m un al Se rvic e s Go ve rn a n c e Mo d e l

St u d y Con t ext – Back grou n d — Issu e/Op p ort u n it y: Ad d re ss issu e s o f m o d e st g ro w t h b y in c re a sin g t h e d e n sit y & sc a le o f d e ve lo p m e n t in t h e re g io n

— Prop osed Focu s: Co m m u n a l w a t e r a n d w a st e w a t e r se rvic e s — Sup p ort s m ore la nd -efficient d evelop m ent t h a n p riva t e servicing — At a low er cost t h a n cent ra lized m unicip a l services

— Com m it t ee Oversigh t : Co u n t y e st a b lish e d Co m m u n a l Se rvic e s Go ve rn a n c e Co m m it t e e Page 6 of 171

— Oversee governa nce st ud y a nd d ow nst rea m d ecision-m a king — Includ es rep resent a t ion from a ll const it uent m unicip a lit ies

Com m un al Se rvic e s Go ve rn a n c e Mo d e l

St u d y Con t ext – St u d y Ob ject ives

— W SP St u d y Ob ject ive: Id e n t ify a p re fe rre d m o d e l fo r g o ve rn a n c e a n d m a n a g e m e n t o f c o m m u n a l w a t e r a n d w a st e w a t e r se rvic e s in Fro n t e n a c Co u n t y 5

— W SP Key St u d y Com p on en t s: — Governa nce a nd M a na gem ent — Fina ncia l Fea sib ilit y — Ph a sing & Risk

Page 7 of 171

Com m un al Se rvic e s Go ve rn a n c e Mo d e l

St u d y Con t ext – St u d y Ob ject ives

— Th e recom m en d ed m od el sh ou l d : — Fa cilit a t e a collect ive w a t er/w a st ew a t er service p rogra m — Account for t h e fisca l req uirem ent s of Tow nsh ip s & Count y 6

— Be flexib le in m a na ging risk — Ga in a ccep t a nce a nd sup p ort — Provid e a consist ent a p p roa ch a cross m unicip a l jurisd ict ions — Incent ivize p riva t e-sect or d evelop m ent s und er a coord ina t ed ,

region-w id e p la n/a p p roa ch Page 8 of 171

Co m m u n a l Se rvic e s Go ve rn a n c e Mo d e l

St u d y Process Su m m ary Governa nce st ruct ure b est -p ra ct ice a nd Ont a rio p eer st ruct ure review Develop m ent of init ia l set of governa nce a nd m a na gem ent op t ions for a ssessm ent a nd sh ort -list ing

Assessm ent of b enefit s, risks, a nd a p p lica b ilit y of sh ort -list ed op t ions:

M unicip a l Services Corp ora t ion
Joint M unicip a l Service Boa rd
Count y-Level Governa nce Recom m en d a t ion of M SC a s t h e p ref erred m od el Page 9 of 171

Id en t if ica t ion of M SC im p lem en t a t ion , con t rib u t ion , a n d vot e a lloca t ion req u irem en t s a n d op t ion s

Co m m u n a l Se rvic e s Go ve rn a n c e Mo d e l

St u d y Process Su m m ary (Con t ’d )

En d orsem en t of Com m it t ee Recom m en d at ion s:

Du rin g a jo in t m e e t in g o n Ap ril 1st , To w n sh ip CAOs /Tre a su re rs e n d o rse d t h e re c o m m e n d a t io n s o f t h e Co m m u n a l Se rvic e Go ve rn a n c e /Op e ra t io n s Co m m it t e e t o c re a t e a Mu n ic ip a l Se rvic e Co rp o ra t io n (MSC) t o m a n a g e c o m m u n a l se rvic e d e ve lo p m e n t a c ro ss Fro n t e n a c , a n d t h a t e a c h To w n sh ip in ve st in t h e MSC u sin g a w e ig h t e d a sse ssm e n t m o d e l. Page 10 of 171

Com m un al Se rvic e s Go ve rn a n c e Mo d e l

Govern an ce M od el Recom m en d at ion

— Th e M u n icip al Services Corp orat ion m od el p re se n t s b e n e fit s t h a t a re b e t t e r a lig n e d w it h g ro w t h a n d lo n g t e rm o b je c t ive s t h a n o t h e r a sse sse d m o d e ls 9

— In it ia l m o d e ls e xc lu d e d : — Priva t e Ut ilit y m od el: Incom p a t ib le w it h essent ia l services — M u n icip a l Bu yer-Seller m od el: p ot ent ia l for int er-m unicip a l

p olit ica l d iscont ent em erging & a t yp ica l a rra ngem ent for d ecent ra lized infra consensus & b eing a n a t yp ica l m od el

Page 11 of 171

— In d ep en d en t M u n icip a l Services m od el: lim it s b uild ing regiona l

Com m un al Se rvic e s Go ve rn a n c e Mo d e l

Govern an ce M od el Recom m en d at ion (con t ’d )

— Join t M u n icip al Services Board m o d e l e xc lu d e d : — Fina ncia l d ecisions reflect ed on m unicip a l “b ooks” — Pot ent ia l t o b e h ind ered b y p olit ica l d isa greem ent 10

— Guid ed b y m unicip a l a greem ent (ca n t a ke t im e t o rea ch fulsom e

a greem ent )

— Cou n t y-Level Govern an ce m o d e l: — Fina ncia l d ecisions reflect ed on m unicip a l “b ooks”

— Tra nsferring p ow er eit h er w a y is b urd ened w it h rules a nd

p rocesses

Page 12 of 171

— Req uires t h e t ra nsfer of p ow er from Low er-Tier t o Up p er-Tier

Com m un al Se rvic e s Go ve rn a n c e Mo d e l

M SC St ru ct u re Descrip t ion - St ru ct u re Ben ef it s — Lim it s Pol it ical In f l u en ce: Fa c ilit a t e s t h e se p a ra t io n o f p o lit ic s fro m se rvic e p ro visio n & fa c ilit a t e s t e c h n ic a l b o a rd — Bu sin ess Orien t ed : Bu sin e ss/fin a n c ia l via b ilit y-o rie n t e d (b u sin e ss c a se re q u ire d ) & a llo w s fle xib le risk m a n a g e m e n t — A l l ow s Prof it : On ly m o d e l fro m t h e a sse sse d t h a t a llo w s p ro fit a n d p ro fit sh a rin g if d e sire d — Sep arat e Fin an ces: — Ca n fina nce out sid e m unicip a l b ud get s a nd const ra int s (i.e., m a y

b orrow a nd secure ind ep end ent ly) — Lim it s cross-sub sid iza t ion a nd frees m unicip a l b orrow ca p a cit y

Page 13 of 171

— Con sist en t A p p roach : Allo w s c o n sist e n t im p le m e n t a t io n a n d a p p ro a c h a c ro ss t o w n sh ip s & o p e ra t e s a s a se p a ra t e e n t it y

Com m un al Se rvic e s Go ve rn a n c e Mo d e l

M SC St ru ct u re Descrip t ion - Im p lem en t at ion Ben ef it s — Ow n ersh ip : Se rvic e s a n d t h e c o rp o ra t io n s re m a in 10 0 % p u b lic ly o w n e d b y p a rt ic ip a t in g m u n ic ip a lit ie s — Tran sit ion al Im p act : Op p o rt u n it y fo r sm o o t h la u n c h sin c e n o e xist in g syst e m in p la c e — Corp orat ion Con t rol & Fl ex ib il it y: Sh a re h o ld e r De c la ra t io n s c a n b e u se d t o lim it MSC’s a u t h o rit y a n d o u t lin e re sp o n sib ilit ie s & o p e ra t in g p h ilo so p h y — M an agem en t : Ma n a g e m e n t c o u ld b e in -h o u se , t h ird p a rt y, o r m u n ic ip a lly c o n t ra c t e d Page 14 of 171

Com m un al Se rvic e s Go ve rn a n c e Mo d e l

M SC St ru ct u re Descrip t ion - Risk s

— Lim it s Cou n t y In vol vem en t : Co u ld lim it t h e Co u n t y’s in vo lve m e n t in d e c isio n -m a kin g d u e t o w a t e r p o w e r ju risd ic t io n s — M u n icip al Bu y-In Im p act s: De g re e o f su c c e ss w ill b e re la t e d t o t h e e xt e n t o f To w n sh ip b u y-in a n d c o n t rib u t io n s — Prof it Gu aran t ees: Eve n if a d o p t in g a re t u rn -b a se d o p e ra t in g p o lic y, Co rp o ra t io n m a y n o t b e a b le t o g u a ra n t e e p ro fit g a in a n d c o u ld re su lt in sh a re d lia b ilit y

Page 15 of 171

Co m m u n a l Se rvic e s Go ve rn a n c e Mo d e l

M SC St ru ct u re Descrip t ion – Govern an ce & M an agem en t Layou t Ma yo rs & Co u n c ils

Lo w e r-Tie r Mu n ic ip a lit ie s

Page 16 of 171

Co m m u n a l Se rvic e s Go ve rn a n c e Mo d e l

M SC St ru ct u re Descrip t ion – Govern an ce & M an agem en t Layou t Ma yo rs & Co u n c ils

Lo w e r-Tie r Mu n ic ip a lit ie s

Mu n ic ip a lit ie s In c o rp o ra t e MSC(s)

Ho ld in g Co . MSC Page 17 of 171

Op e ra t in g MSC

Co m m u n a l Se rvic e s Go ve rn a n c e Mo d e l

M SC St ru ct u re Descrip t ion – Govern an ce & M an agem en t Layou t 2 Ma yo rs & Co u n c ils

Lo w e r-Tie r Mu n ic ip a lit ie s

Mu n ic ip a lit ie s In c o rp o ra t e MSC(s)

Co u n c ils Ap p o in t Bo a rd (Ca n b e sa m e b o a rd fo r b o t h MSC)

Bo a rd o f Dire c t o rs

Ho ld in g Co . MSC Page 18 of 171

Op e ra t in g MSC

Co m m u n a l Se rvic e s Go ve rn a n c e Mo d e l

M SC St ru ct u re Descrip t ion – Govern an ce & M an agem en t Layou t 2 Ma yo rs & Co u n c ils

3 Mu n ic ip a lit ie s & MSC Exe c u t e Ag re e m e n t s

Lo w e r-Tie r Mu n ic ip a lit ie s

Mu n ic ip a lit ie s In c o rp o ra t e MSC(s)

Co u n c ils Ap p o in t Bo a rd (Ca n b e sa m e b o a rd fo r b o t h MSC)

Bo a rd o f Dire c t o rs

Ho ld in g Co . MSC Page 19 of 171

Op e ra t in g MSC

Com m un al Se rvic e s Go ve rn a n c e Mo d e l

M SC Cost s, Tim elin es, & Con t rib u t ion s – Set u p Tim elin e TA SKS

TIM ELINE ESTIM A TE H IGH

AVG.

De ve lo p /Re fin e Bu sin e ss Ca se

2 Mo n t h s

6 Mo n t h s

3-4 Mo n t h s

Ho ld P u b lic Co n su lt a t io n s Ba se d o n Ou t c o m e s

1 Mo n t h s

2 Mo n t h s

1-1.5 Mo n t h s

Co u n c il Ad o p t io n o f Bu sin e ss P la n

1 Mo n t h s

2 Mo n t h s

1-1.5 Mo n t h s

P re p a re Re q u ire d Do c u m e n t a t io n : Art ic le s o f In c o rp o ra t io n , Ag re e m e n t s, e t c .

2 Mo n t h s

5 Mo n t h s

3-3.5 Mo n t h s

Asse t Tra n sfe r & Op e ra t io n a l Se t u p

2 Mo n t h s

5 Mo n t h s

3-3.5 Mo n t h s

Tot al Op erat ion al M SC Tim el in e

8 M on t h s

20 M on t h s

11-14 M on t h s

Page 20 of 171

LOW

Com m un al Se rvic e s Go ve rn a n c e Mo d e l

M SC Cost s, Tim elin es, & Con t rib u t ion s - Cost s

YEA R

COSTS

$ 18 2,0 0 0

DESCRIPTION

YEA R

COSTS

DESCRIPTION

MSC Se t u p Ye a r

$ 248 ,6 0 0

Est a b lish e d Se rvic e

$ 171,6 0 0

In it ia l Se rvic e

$ 248 ,6 0 0

Est a b lish e d Se rvic e

$ 171,6 0 0

In it ia l Se rvic e

$ 248 ,6 0 0

Est a b lish e d Se rvic e

$ 171,6 0 0

In it ia l Se rvic e

$ 248 ,6 0 0

Est a b lish e d Se rvic e

$ 248 ,6 0 0

Est a b lish e d Se rvic e

$ 248 ,6 0 0

Est a b lish e d Se rvic e

Cu m u l at ive 10 -Year Cost :

$2,188,40 0 Page 21 of 171

Co m m u n a l Se rvic e s Go ve rn a n c e Mo d e l

M SC Cost s, Tim elin es, & Con t rib u t ion s - Ow n ersh ip — Tw o t yp es of sh ares: — Ow nersh ip Sh a res — Vot ing Sh a res

— In it ia l c o n t rib u t io n (In it ia l se t u p c o st + First 3 ye a rs o f o p e ra t io n ): $697,0 0 0 20

$300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $-

2022

MSC Start-Up Cost

2023

2024

2025

2026

MSC Annual Costs - Initial Contracted

2027

2028

2029

2030

MSC Annual Costs - Established

Page 22 of 171

2021

Co m m u n a l Se rvic e s Go ve rn a n c e Mo d e l

M SC Cost s, Tim elin es, & Con t rib u t ion s - Ow n ersh ip — Assum es all Tow n sh ip s p art icip at e — Hyb rid Op t ion 4 is a m ix of w eigh t ed assessm en t + m in im um b uy-in — Govern an ce Com m it t ee vot ed in favor of Op t ion 1 – W eigh t ed Assessm en t

NF CF Percen t SF Ow n ersh ip Sh are FI A l l ocat ion Co F Su m Tot al

OPTION 2 – EQUA L A LLOCA TION 20 % 20 % 20 % 20 % 20 % 10 0 %

$ 9 7,29 4 $ 119 ,0 6 7 $ 29 9 ,5 8 0 $ 41,49 9 $ 139 ,36 0 $ 696,80 0

$ 139 ,36 0 $ 139 ,36 0 $ 139 ,36 0 $ 139 ,36 0 $ 139 ,36 0 $ 696,80 0

$ 39 ,6 6 0 $ 9 1,378 $ 38 9 ,6 25 $ 36 ,777 $ 139 ,36 0 $ 696,80 0

OPTION 4 – HYBRID A LLOCA TION 17% 19 % 31% 13% 20 % 10 0 % $ 118 ,327 $ 129 ,213 $ 219 ,470 $ 9 0 ,430 $ 139 ,36 0 $ 696,80 0

Page 23 of 171

In it ial Fin an cial Con t rib u t ion Eq u ival en t

NF CF SF FI Co F Su m Tot al

OPTION 1 – W EIGHTED A SSESSM ENT 14% 17% 43% 6% 20 % 10 0 %

OPTION 3 – W EIGHTED POPULA TION A LLOCA TION 6% 13% 56% 5% 20 % 10 0 %

Co m m u n a l Se rvic e s Go ve rn a n c e Mo d e l

M SC Cost s, Tim elin es, & Con t rib u t ion s - Vot in g — Vot in g allocat ion assum ed t o b e a fun ct ion of ow n ersh ip sh ares + n um b er of com m un al un it s + CoF sh are d ist rib ut ion — *M ajorit y vot e req uired t o p ass an y vot e, b ut at least t w o m un icip alit ies m ust vot e in favour, even if on e m un icip alit y ow n s 50 %+ of sh ares — **Coun t y of Fron t en ac n ot a vot in g m em b er un d er an y op t ion b ecause Coun t y d oes n ot h ave jurisd ict ion over d rin kin g w at er, an d Coun t y is m ad e up of low er-t ier rep resen t at ives an d w ould t h us d oub le-coun t vot es

OPTION 2 – EQUA L A LLOCA TION 25 % 25 % 25 % 25 % 0% 10 0 %

OPTION 4 – HYBRID A LLOCA TION 21% 23% 39 % 16 % 0% 10 0 %

Page 24 of 171

Percen t Vot in g Sh are A l l ocat ion

NF CF SF FI Co F** Su m Tot al

OPTION 1 – W EIGHTED A SSESSM ENT* 17% 21% 5 4% 7% 0% 10 0 %

OPTION 3 – W EIGHTED POPULA TION A LLOCA TION* 7% 16 % 70 % 7% 0% 10 0 %

Co m m u n a l Se rvic e s Go ve rn a n c e Mo d e l

Im p lem en t at ion Next St ep s 1

To w n sh ip s Vo t e In /Ou t & Fo rm a lly Co n firm MSC Se le c t io n

Un d e rt a ke a Bu sin e ss Ca se St u d y

Ho ld P u b lic (a n d De ve lo p e r/In d u st ry, if d e sire d ) Co n su lt a t io n s

Co u n c il Ad o p t io n o f Bu sin e ss Ca se

Dra ft , Ap p ro ve , a n d P a ss Ag re e m e n t & Do c u m e n t s

De ve lo p & Ad o p t Asse t Tra n sfe r P o lic y

Ap p o in t MSC Bo a rd s, Offic e rs/Dire c t o rs, a n d Tra n sfe r Asse t s

Page 25 of 171

Co m m u n a l Se rvic e s Go ve rn a n c e Mo d e l

Im m ed iat e Next St ep s 1

To w n sh ip s Vo t e In /Ou t & Fo rm a lly Co n firm MSC Se le c t io n

— Is t h e Tow n sh ip p rep ared t o m ove forw ard s w it h a b usin ess case for com m un al services un d er an M SC govern an ce M od el?

I.e., is t h e t ow n sh ip “in ” or “out ”? 24

— Does t h e Tow n sh ip sup p ort t h e w eigh t ed assessm en t ap p roach ? — Key issues t o b e con sid ered in t h e b usin ess p lan ? Un d e rt a ke a Bu sin e ss Ca se St u d y

Page 26 of 171

Co m m u n a l Se rvic e s Go ve rn a n c e Mo d e l

Th an k You 25

Qu est ion s?

Page 27 of 171

Page 28 of 171 Minutes of Council April, 6, 2021 Time: 7:00 PM Location: Electronic Participation/Council Chambers

Meeting #14 Present in Council Chambers: Mayor Ron Vandewal, Pat Barr, Ray Leonard, Doug Morey, Alan Revill, Norm Roberts, Randy Ruttan, Ron Sleeth, Ross Sutherland Staff Present in Council Chambers: Neil Carbone - Chief Administrative Officer, Angela Maddocks - Clerk, Christine Woods - Planner, Darcy Knott - Director of Fire and Emergency Services, Claire Dodds - Director of Development Services

Call to Order and Roll Call

Resolution On behalf of Council, Mayor Vandewal welcomed Councillor Barr back to the Council Chambers and presented her with a bouquet of flowers. The Clerk conducted the roll call as outlined in the attendance noted above. Resolution No. 2021-14-01 Moved by Councillor Ruttan Seconded by Councillor Revill That the Council meeting of April 6, 2021 be called to order at 7:00 p.m. Carried

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof

There were no declarations.

Approval of Agenda

Resolution Resolution No. 2021-14-02 Moved by Councillor Ruttan Seconded by Councillor Revill That the agenda for the April 6, 2021 Council meeting be amended to include an additional item in Closed Session related to Section 239.2 9 (c) of the Municipal Act to discuss a proposed or pending acquisition of disposition of land by the municipality or local board with regard to the Bellrock Mill property. Carried

Scheduled Closed Session ( at the end of agenda)

Delegations - not applicable

Public Meeting

Resolution & Public Meeting Statement Resolution No. 2021-14-03 Moved by Councillor Barr Seconded by Councillor Sutherland

Page 29 of 171 Minutes of Council April, 6, 2021 That a public meeting be held to allow for input on Zoning By-law Amendment application Z-21-04, 984 Leland Road. Carried b)

Zoning By-law Amendment Z-21-04 - 984 Leland Road (Clifford Green) Christine Woods, Planner reviewed the agenda for the public meeting and the background on this application. The subject property is 40.4 hectares (100 acres) in area and it has approximately 385 metres of combined frontage on Leland Road and Dean Smith Road. The lands consist of forest and farmland. The property contains a primary dwelling and a residential garden suite. The primary dwelling is located on the west side of the property and is accessed from Leland Road. The proposal is to rezone the property from Rural (RU) to Rural - Special Provision (RU-XX) to permit a secondary dwelling and garden suite on the property. The existing dwelling and the secondary dwelling unit would share a driveway, well and sewage system. The Owner acknowledges that a new sewage system would be required to service both the existing dwelling and the secondary dwelling unit. The existing primary dwelling is one storey with a partially raised basement, and 81 square metres (880 square feet) in area. The Owner proposes to enlarge the existing primary dwelling by 33 square metres (360 square feet) to add an accessible bathroom and bedroom. The proposed addition for the secondary dwelling unit is two storeys in height with no basement. It is proposed to have a similar roofline to the existing dwelling. The secondary dwelling unit would have a gross floor area of 167.2 square metres (1800 square feet). The gross floor area (total floor area of all storeys) of the primary dwelling is proposed to increase from 81 square metres (880 square feet) to 281.2 square metres (3027 square feet) to accommodate the changes to the primary dwelling unit and to add the secondary dwelling unit. The Owner may also add a 53.5 square metre (576 square foot) attached garage to the dwelling. The Building Department was advised of this application, and has no objections to the application as presented and will review the detailed building plans through the Building Permit process, should the application be approved. The application is consistent with this direction of the Provincial Policy Statement and the amendments to the Planning Act and consistent with the intent of the direction of the County Official Plan. With resect to the Township’s zoning by-law, the existing garden suite was permitted by the Committee of Adjustment of the former Loughborough Township in 1985. The garden suite has been occupied as a dwelling since that time. It is serviced by its own driveway on a maintained public road, a well and a sewage system. The garden suite meets the setbacks required in the Rural zone. It is the opinion of staff that it would be appropriate to legally recognize the use of the garden suite on the property as part of the zoning by-law amendment as it is a use contemplated by the Planning Act. The draft by-law refers to the garden suite as an additional dwelling unit in an ancillary building. The proposed zoning by-law amendment would help the Township to achieve its goal to encourage residential development which is affordable, of high quality and capable of meeting the changing and diverse needs of the rural community. It is also consistent with the Planning Act and the direction provided from the PPS. There were no comments from Council or members of the public.

Resolution - Close Public Meeting

Page 2 of 7

Page 30 of 171 Minutes of Council April, 6, 2021 Resolution No. 2021-14-04 Moved by Councillor Roberts Seconded by Deputy Mayor Leonard That having provided an opportunity for input, the public meeting be closed. Carried 7.

Approval of Minutes

March 2, 2021 Special Committee of the Whole Resolution No. 2021-14-05 Moved by Councillor Sleeth Seconded by Councillor Ruttan That the minutes of the Special Committee of the Whole meeting held March 2, 2021 be approved. Carried

March 16, 2021 Council Resolution No. 2021-14-06 Moved by Councillor Roberts Seconded by Deputy Mayor Leonard That the minutes of the March 16, 2021 Council meeting be approved. Carried

Business Arising from the Minutes

Noise By-law Exemption for Desert Lake Resort - Date Change Resolution No. 2021-14-07 Moved by Councillor Sutherland Seconded by Councillor Barr That Council has no objection to the Noise By-law exemption request from the Desert Lake Resort owners to change the previously approved date from July 3 to July 2 between the hours of 7:30 pm and 10:30 pm, for the purpose of amplified musical events, and that the same coordination with Public Health be required as approved on March 16, 2021. Carried

Z-20-12 and SP-09-20-L - 1012 Hill Lane (Loughborough) - Rob Blasko See By-laws 2021-10 and 2021-11

Reports Requiring Action

Hartington Station - 2500IG Tanker Purchase Resolution No. 2021-14-08 Moved by Councillor Ruttan Seconded by Councillor Revill That Council approve additional funds of $7,476.87 from the Fire Fleet Capital Reserve to offset the additional cost of a 2,500 (Imperial Gallon) Tanker for the Hartington Fire Station; and That Council approve awarding of the tender for a 2,500IG Tanker to 1200 Degrees – Darch Fire (E-One) in the amount of $424,822.35 + HST. Carried

Deem Lot 20 on Plan 1316 not to be in a plan of subdivision for the purpose of applying 50(3) of the Planning Act

Page 3 of 7

Page 31 of 171 Minutes of Council April, 6, 2021 See By-law 2021-14 c)

Amendment to By-law - Dedicating a portion of First Lake Road See By-law 2021-15

Access over an unopened road allowance to allow a lane extension to facilitate a Consent Application See By-law 2021-16

Road Allowance Closure between Concessions 2 & 3, Lot 17, (Bedford), 52 Sneddon Lane - Lisa & Greg Beam See By-law 2021-17

Committee Meeting Minutes

Heritage Committee meeting held January 28, 2021 Resolution No. 2021-14-09 Moved by Councillor Barr Seconded by Councillor Sutherland That Council receives for information the minutes of the Heritage Committee meeting held January 28, 2021. Carried

By-laws

By-law 2021-10 - Rezone Lot 8 on Plan 1540, Part of Lot 10, Concession VIII (Storrington) Resolution No. 2021-14-10 Moved by Councillor Revill Seconded by Councillor Morey That the following by-laws be given first and second reading: • By-law 2021-10 • By-law 2021-11 • By-law 2021-14 • By-law 2021-15 • By-law 2021-16 • By-law 2021-17 Carried Resolution No. 2021-14-11 Moved by Councillor Ruttan Seconded by Councillor Sutherland That By-law 2021-10, being a bylaw to amend By-law 2003-75, as amended, to rezone land from Waterfront Residential (RW) to Limited Service Residential Waterfront - Special Provision (RLSW-127), Lot 8 on Plan 1540, Part of Lot 10, Concession VIII, Storrington District, be given third reading, signed and sealed. Carried

By-law 2021-11 - Site Plan Agreement with Robert Blasko Resolution No. 2021-14-12 Moved by Councillor Sutherland Seconded by Councillor Barr

Page 4 of 7

Page 32 of 171 Minutes of Council April, 6, 2021 That By-law 2021-11, being a by-law to authorize the Mayor and the Clerk to execute a site plan agreement between the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac and Robert Blasko, be given third reading, signed and sealed. Carried c)

By-law 2021-14 - Deem Part of a Plan of Subdivision not to be a Registered Plan of Subdivision, Lot 20, Plan 1316 Resolution No. 2021-14-13 Moved by Councillor Sleeth Seconded by Councillor Roberts That By-law 2021-14, being a by-law to deem the property described as Lot 20, Plan 1316, District of Storrington, Little Cranberry Lake not to be a lot in a plan of subdivision, be given third reading, signed and sealed Carried

By-law 2021-15 - Correct the original By-law 2006-0072 relating to the Reference Plan identified Resolution No. 2021-14-14 Moved by Councillor Morey Seconded by Deputy Mayor Leonard That By-law 2021-15, being a by-law to correct the original by-law, being By-law 2006-72, pertaining to the lands being part of Lot 19, Concession 11, being Parts 2, 3 and 4 on Reference Plan 13R-18192, First Lake Road, be given third reading, signed and sealed. Carried

By-law 2021-16 - Licence Agreement with Danielle (Clair) Walsh for access over an unopened road allowance Resolution No. 2021-14-15 Moved by Deputy Mayor Leonard Seconded by Councillor Morey That By-law 2021-16, being a by-law to authorize the Mayor and the Clerk to execute a licence agreement between the Corporation of the Township of south Frontenac and Daniel (Clair) Walsh, granting access over the unopened Township road allowance, be given third reading signed and sealed. Carried

By-law 2021-17 - Stop up, close and sell a portion of an unopened road allowance between Concession 2 & 3, Lot 17 (Beam) Resolution No. 2021-14-16 Moved by Councillor Barr Seconded by Councillor Revill That By-law 2021-17, being a by-law to stop up, close and sell a portion of an unopened road allowance being Parts 1, 2 3, and 4 on Plan 13R-22369, part of the road allowance between Concession 2 & 3, Lot 17, Bedford District, be given third reading, signed and sealed. Carried

Reports for Information - not applicable

Information Items

COVID Questions from the Public

Notice of Motions

Page 5 of 7

Page 33 of 171 Minutes of Council April, 6, 2021 15.

Announcements/Statements by Councillors

Councillor Sleeth noted the follow up conversations and support he received as a result of Council’s resolution regarding Randy Hillier’s behaviour and the continued disregard for COVID regulations and restrictions. Mayor Vandewal noted the comments Mr. Hillier has recently made regarding the holocaust.

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

There were no questions of clarity from those connected virtually.

Closed Session

As permitted by the Municipal Act, Section 239.2 Council will move into Closed Session to discuss item(b) personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees; and to approve minutes of previous closed meetings. Resolution No. 2021-14-17 Moved by Councillor Morey Seconded by Councillor Sleeth That Council move into Closed Session as permitted by the Municipal Act, Section 239.2 to discuss item (b) personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees; and item (c) a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board regarding the Bellrock Mill property and to approve minutes of previous closed meetings. Carried

Personal Matters about an Identifiable individual - Verbal Update on Staff Recruitment

Bellrock Mill Property

Minutes of previous Closed Session meetings - September 2020 - March 2021 (Resolution)

Move out of Closed Session Resolution No. 2021-14-19 Moved by Councillor Morey Seconded by Councillor Sleeth That Council move out of closed session. Carried

Confirmatory By-law

By-law 2021-18 Resolution No. 2021-14-20 Moved by Councillor Sleeth Seconded by Councillor Morey That By-law 2021-18, being a by-law to confirm generally the previous actions of the Council of the Township of South Frontenac be given first and second reading this 6 day of April 2021. Carried Resolution No. 2021-14-21

Page 6 of 7

Page 34 of 171 Minutes of Council April, 6, 2021 Moved by Councillor Ruttan Seconded by Councillor Revill That By-law 2021-18, being the confirmatory by-law, be given third reading, signed and sealed this 6 day of April 2021. Carried 19.

Adjournment

Resolution Resolution No. 2021-14-22 Moved by Deputy Mayor Leonard Seconded by Councillor Roberts That the Council meeting of April 6, 2021 be adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Carried

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Angela Maddocks, Clerk

Page 7 of 7

Page 35 of 171

Minutes of Committee of the Whole April 13, 2021

Time: 7:00 pm Location: Council Chambers and Electronic Participation Meeting # 15 Council Present in Council Chambers: Mayor Ron Vandewal, Ray Leonard, Doug Morey, Alan Revill, Norm Roberts, Randy Ruttan, Ron Sleeth, Ross Sutherland Council Present via Electronic Participation: Pat Barr (left the meeting at 8:16 pm) Staff Present in Council Chambers: Neil Carbone - Chief Administrative Officer, Angela Maddocks - Clerk, Jamie Brash - Facilities and Solid Waste Supervisor

Call to Order and Roll Call

Motion Moved by Councillor Sleeth Seconded by Councillor Morey That the April 13, 2021 Committee of the Whole meeting be called to order at 7:00 p.m. Carried

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof

There were no declarations reported.

Approval of Agenda

Motion to approve Moved by Councillor Ruttan Seconded by Councillor Revill That the agenda for the April 13, 2021 Committee of the Whole meeting be approved as presented. Carried

Scheduled Closed Session - not applicable

Public Meeting - not applicable

Delegations

Stephanie Reeder - Cambium Inc - 2020 Annual Update on Waste Disposal Sites Stephanie Reeder, Senior Project Manager from Cambium Inc joined the meeting virtually to present the annual update on the township waste disposal sites. The presentation included annual monitoring results, site inspections, recommendations for changes to monitoring and operations. The transfer

Page 36 of 171 Committee of the Whole April 13, 2021 stations and closed sites were well maintained, however extra littler clean up time in 2021 was recommended with a focus on the active waste sites in the tree line and watercourse areas. There were no complaints or incidents There are a couple of minor reports to be completed in 2021 including new locks and capping for the monitoring wells. The remaining combined site life capacity for the entire township is 25 years, this is a decrease of two years since the 2019 report. Councillor Sutherland questioned the methane gas production in closed sites and if this was being monitored in the active sites. Stephanie Reeder confirmed that there is methane gas released at all waste disposal sites but the primary concern would be that the level is above a concentration that could ignite. At closed sites, she noted that within 5 years of closure, methane gas concentrations will peak. and it reduces from there. Methane gas is monitored at some of the landfills but not all of them. There has not been any indication of high levels. Council thanked Ms. Reeder for her presentation. 7.

Reports Requiring Direction

Brand Positioning and Concept Generally Council was supportive of the refreshed brand concept, however concerns were expressed about the “brand values” as it was felt it could be interpreted that South Frontenac is a retirement community and perhaps too wholesome. Moved by Councillor Ruttan Seconded by Councillor Sleeth That Committee of the Whole support the Brand Steering Group’s recommendations for updated branding for South Frontenac. Carried

By-law Enforcement Contract Moved by Councillor Morey Seconded by Councillor Sutherland That Committee of the Whole support an extension to the contract with Frontenac Municipal Law Enforcement until the end of 2022. Carried

Reports for Information

Household Hazardous Waste Facility - 2020 Annual Report

Rise & Report from Committees of Council

Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority Councillor Revill reported that the offices remain closed and staff are all working from home. Work continues with Conservation Ontario, Conservation Authority members and the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks on regulations and this appears to be productive.

Quinte Conservation Authority Councillor Roberts reported that the next meeting is scheduled for next week with all their staff working from home as well.

Page 2 of 3

Page 37 of 171 Committee of the Whole April 13, 2021

Rideau Valley Conservation Authority Due to internet connectivity, Councillor Barr was not able to provide an update.

Information Items - none

Notice of Motions - none

Announcements/Statements by Councillors

Councillor Sleeth noted a potential site line issue with a fence built in the village of Battersea.

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

Wilma Kenny indicated that it had been very difficult to hear Council members this evening as a virtual attendee. The sound was echoing and blurry. The presenters voices were loud and clear.

Closed Session - not applicable

Adjournment

Motion to Adjourn Moved by Councillor Roberts Seconded by Councillor Sutherland That the April 13, 2021 Committee of the Whole meeting be adjourned at 8:53 p.m. Carried

Page 3 of 3

Page 38 of 171

REPORT TO COUNCIL OFFICE OF THE CAO

AGENDA DATE:

May 4, 2021

SUBJECT:

OPP Detachment Board Composition and Deadlines

RECOMMENDATION: That South Frontenac Council supports the recommendation of the Chief Administrative Officers of the “Frontenac” townships as outlined in the report dated May 4, 2021 from Neil Carbone, Chief Administrative Officer and that the “eight voting-member board and staff support” model be the supported composition for the OPP Detachment Board. BACKGROUND: On March 26, 2019, the Government of Ontario passed the Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act, 2019 (Bill 68) and the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 (CSPA). Once in-force, the CSPA, 2019 will replace the Police Services Act (1990). The Ministry is working to bring the CSPA into force by early 2022. To bring the CSPA into force, the Ministry is required to develop several regulations, including those regarding OPP Detachment Boards which are to be established to replace current Section 5 or Section 10 (Police Services Boards) governance models across the province. The Township of South Frontenac currently operates under a Section 10 contract with the OPP which mandates its own Police Services Board (PSB). The OPP Detachment Board Framework under the CSPA is intended to provide municipalities and First Nation communities receiving OPP policing services with greater civilian governance – particularly those receiving police services under Section 5 of the current Act which means they do not have a PSB. The recently released framework for Detachment Boards involves the following: • • •

• •

Each municipality and First Nation community receiving OPP services has the ability to sit on an OPP detachment board. Requires the municipalities and First Nations within the jurisdictional area of a detachment to submit one proposal indicating the composition of their board and, if requested, their rationale for multiple boards, by June 7, 2021 Includes a set of composition requirements set by the ministry that detachment board proposals must meet. o The ministry will follow up with detachment areas that fail to submit a proposal or where proposals do not meet the composition requirements. Establishes a ministerial working group to review each proposal Composition requirements for Detachment Boards are as follows:

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: Aside from the new composition and larger detachment jurisdiction, Detachment Boards will have similar roles and responsibilities as the previous PSBs, however, the extent to which they can become involved in day to day policing, and the way in which local policy is established has been clarified, as outlined below:

Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader

Page 39 of 171

REPORT TO COUNCIL OFFICE OF THE CAO

Police Services Act (1990)

Community Safety and Policing Act, (2019)

• 3 or 5 member boards

• Minimum of 5 members

• Participate in selection of the detachment commander

• Consult with the Commissioner regarding the selection of a detachment commander and otherwise participate, in accordance with the regulations, in the selection of the detachment commander

• Duties of section 10 boards include determining policing objectives and priorities, and establishing local policies, after consulting the detachment commander or designate

• Boards are empowered to determine local objectives, priorities and policies subject to specifications outlined in the statute, including: • Must consult with Detachment Commander • It must not be inconsistent with, the strategic plan prepared by the Solicitor General for the OPP; • Must not relate to specific investigations, the conduct of specific operations or other prescribed matters; • Must not require a member of the OPP to provide any policing that is not required as a component of adequate and effective policing.

The CAOs from Central, North and South Frontenac discussed the potential structure for the Frontenac Detachment Board at a recent meeting. With the deadline for submission in June, Councils for each Township will need to endorse a structure by the end of May. Location of the detachment offices, population, calls for service, Board member training and other costs, and the need for an appropriately-sized and manageable Board were identified as considerations in determining its structure and representation, in addition to the requirements set out in the framework.

Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader

Page 40 of 171

REPORT TO COUNCIL OFFICE OF THE CAO

From this discussion, a tentative recommendation from the CAOs was developed for discussion by each Township, as follows: •

Eight (8) voting-member Board + staff support o Four (4) Municipal Representatives  SF x Two (2)  CF x One (1)  NF x One (1) o 2 Community Representatives  SF x One (1)  CF/NF x One (1) o 2 Provincial Appointees  SF x One (1)  CF/NF x One (1)

This composition keeps the board size manageable, achieves the minimum requirements in the new regulations, and apportions the number of seats based loosely on population and calls for service, with SF retaining the 50% of the total. It should be noted that the Provincial appointees are not guaranteed to be representatives from the municipalities identified above, but the Solicitor General’s office has indicated that the appointment process will be improved and that weight will be given to the recommendation for Provincial appointments put forward by Municipalities. At its April 22 meeting, the South Frontenac PSB had no additional feedback regarding the proposed detachment board structure. Staff is now seeking input from Council on the proposed structure prior to bringing a final recommendation to each of the three Council prior to the June 7th deadline for submission. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Under the CPSA, members of Detachment Boards will be required to obtain training at the expense of the Board and its member municipalities. While training requirements and their costs are unknown at this time, the number of seats on the Board would likely result in a negligible cost for such training which would be shared equitably between the Townships. ATTACHMENTS: • •

OPP Detachment Boards Information Session Slide Deck AMO Discussion Paper on Detachment Boards (May 2020)

Submitted/approved by: Neil Carbone Chief Administrative Officer

Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader

Page 41 of 171

New Ontario Provincial Police Detachment Boards: Building a Framework for Better Policing Governance Discussion Paper May 1, 2020

Page 42 of 171

Introduction Police service boards are the vital link between the police and democratic governance. This is just as true for municipalities who contract with the Ontario Provincial Police for public safety services. The government has launched a consultation with municipalities on re-constituting OPP Detachment Boards. With all governments now seized with COVID-19 emergency response, all consultations on new policing regulations have now ceased. The immediate public health crisis is the first priority of the provincial and municipal governments. Consideration of the issues raised in this paper must not distract from that priority. However, policing regulation discussions will resume at some point in the months ahead. It remains valuable for municipalities to consider what the future of police governance should look like once that conversation restarts. At present, OPP boards are aligned within existing municipal boundaries. In the future, the government is aiming to create regional or detachment-based boundaries for boards (with some exceptions). However, the details of these new boards have not been determined. This is an opportunity for municipalities to provide input to the government on board boundaries, the size and composition of those boards, and whether provincial appointees continue to be made. The government has not made any decisions on these issues. If any municipal council or a group of councils has suggestions on how these boards should be established, this is an opportunity to put those ideas forward. This paper is not an exhaustive list of issues presented by the establishment of new OPP detachment boards. Rather it is intended to help guide municipal input to the Ministry and lay the groundwork for a successful transition to new boards. It asserts a number of key principles to inform the discussion and attempts to lay the framework for the future of successful OPP governance at a local or regional level. Background Policing is a vital local service. Out of fiscal necessity, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) has put forward comprehensive recommendations during the provincial government’s lengthy review of policing legislation in recent years. The need to modernize the delivery of this service is well-documented in the many submissions AMO has made to the government on behalf of our municipal members. Here are three examples: In 2014, AMO’s OPP Billing Steering Committee put forward a report which researched options to equitably allocate policing costs for municipalities which use the Ontario Provincial Police. The Committee conducted a review of the government’s proposed billing model and examined other model options so implications could be understood. It also underscored the need for efficiency and effectiveness improvements for policing in general. In 2015, AMO’s Policing Modernization Task Force issued its report which included 34 recommendations on how to modernize policing for the future. The task force interviewed experts, reviewed the best academic research available, sent representatives to the 2015 Summit on the Economics of Policing and Community Safety in Ottawa, and had thorough and lengthy discussions

Page 43 of 171

on specific issues about the future of policing. These recommendations were divided into four key themes: Partnership, Productivity, Performance, and Personnel. In 2016, AMO issued a Municipal Guide to Police Services Act Consultations. The guide highlighted municipal issues associated with community safety and well-being planning; modernizing what police do; the education and training of officers; and accountability to the public and governance. In particular, the Policing Modernization Report prioritized three key recommendations above all else: 1.

Make changes to the interest arbitration system.

Improve the quality of the existing governance and civilian oversight system.

Make legislative changes to permit the greater transfer of specific functions to civilians or other security providers where appropriate.

In 2019, the Ontario Legislature passed Bill 68 the Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act, 2019. While the Act did not address interest arbitration, it did make some significant changes to the second two priorities – improving governance and providing some allowance for the role that civilians play in delivering public safety and security. With the legislation passed, the focus of this paper is on the regulations needed to support priority recommendation #2 as it pertains to OPP detachment boards. Guiding Principles Key principles and objectives which guide AMO on the issue of establishing new OPP local governance boards include the following: 1.

Policing governance is a valuable means of ensuring community expectations are reflected in how a community is policed.

Good governance of policing matters to municipalities of all sizes, contract or not.

Municipalities should be provided every opportunity to develop and propose locally developed board composition ideas to the province.

Successful governance includes provincial support and funding for training new board members in alignment with the municipal electoral cycle.

All municipalities should have the opportunity to select a representative on an OPP detachment board.

Community or municipal staff representatives (i.e. municipally selected, non-elected officials) should serve on OPP detachment boards wherever possible.

To achieve municipal representation, detachment-based boards (or portions of a detachment) will need to be larger than they have been in the past.

If municipalities are to be adequately represented on consolidated OPP detachment boards, the province should relinquish responsibility for provincial appointments to OPP detachment boards.

Detachment boundaries should change in cases where it would support good governance and municipal representation.

Page 44 of 171

Explore the potential use of DSSABs as OPP detachment boards in the north through discussions with FONOM, NOMA, DSSABs, and northern municipalities on a case by case basis. This could be a potential opportunity to align social services with policing in ways that have been provincially mandated through municipal community safety and well-being planning and which minimize administrative duplication. (See below for specific considerations and exemptions.)
OPP detachment board operation costs should, 1) be provincially supported through training and grants and 2) equitably distributed between municipalities.
Memoranda of Understanding with the Ministry of the Attorney General or transfer agreements between municipalities which govern Provincial Offences Act administration and fine revenue distribution may need to be updated depending on local circumstance. Government Consultations to date - Regional Roundtables – OPP Detachment Boards The government recently held seven discussion meetings across the province in February 2020 focusing on OPP detachment boards and the new policing legislation. The province did not lead discussions that provided specific details on how boards would be reconstituted. No plans have been announced. Key municipal considerations included: Structure of Boards and Local Say •

There shall be one OPP detachment board per detachment (with flexibility for unique circumstances/geography). A board’s composition, terms of office, and remuneration will be provided for in regulations and has yet to be determined.

•

In effect, these changes extend police governance to about 200 municipalities (which do not have a board, i.e. Section 5.1) but will consolidate multiple existing boards within a detachment.

Activity of Boards •

Boards shall determine local objectives, priorities, and policies in consultation with the Detachment Commander, consistent with the Solicitor General’s strategic plan for the OPP.

•

The Commissioner of the OPP shall consult with a Board regarding the selection of the Detachment Commander.

•

The Detachment Commander shall prepare and adopt a local action plan in consultation with the board.

•

Training for board members will become mandatory (Ministry support and funding is needed).

Financial Considerations •

There will be no distinction between contract and non-contract in the future. Effectively all policing will become contract.

•

The focus of the billing-related regulations will be to address transition matters and to account for service differences between municipalities as well as existing contracts expiring at the end of 2020.

Page 45 of 171

•

It should be noted, billing model changes will not lower the overall cost of policing for the municipal sector.

AMO has impressed upon the Ministry of the need for: •

Open and transparent discussions;

•

A recognition that policing is fundamentally local (i.e. it is important to maintain the close proximity of a community to its board and the police);

•

Locally workable governance arrangements; and

•

The representation of every municipal council.

Considerations for municipalities without existing detachment boards Boards are an opportunity to expand the democratic oversight and governance of policing. In the words of Sir Robert Peel, the father of modern policing, “the police are the public and the public are the police.” A detachment board helps to align policing objectives, priorities, and policies with community expectations. If your municipality is unaccustomed to having a board, the establishment of a board is an opportunity for a municipality of any size to have a greater say and establish a relationship with your Detachment Commander and the officers who police your community. It is also an opportunity to align municipal public safety expectations with those of neighbouring communities and clearly express those views in a coordinated manner with the Detachment Commander. There is also the simple fact that policing is all the better for it. Good governance includes police officers who know their work matters to people who care. Good governance includes Chiefs and Detachment Commanders who are supported. Boards legitimize the work of the police. Municipal elected officials ask the public to pay for all of it and therefore municipalities need a say in policing on behalf of the community, through a board. It should not be viewed as an imposition but rather a democratic opportunity. Financially and administratively, transfer agreements between municipalities regarding Provincial Offenses Act fine revenue may need to be updated. This might include the need to review the Memoranda of Understanding with the Ministry of the Attorney General depending on local circumstance. For communities with existing OPP boards The legislation aims to consolidate existing municipal board boundaries with OPP detachment board boundaries (thus potentially including multiple neighbouring municipalities in the same detachment). However, the legislation provides for flexibility to address unique geographic circumstances. If you feel your area’s needs are unique, help the Ministry understand that uniqueness in a province-wide context. In addition, attendees to roundtable meetings were told the Ministry is open to considering board composition suggestions from municipalities within regions or detachments. This is an opportunity to potentially shape the composition of a board in your area and develop a local solution. While legislation dictates the size and composition of municipal police service boards (non-OPP), no such restriction exists for OPP detachment boards at present. Also undetermined at this point is

Page 46 of 171

which bodies (provincial or municipal or both) will appoint board members. Municipal police service boards (non-OPP) have municipally and provincially appointed representatives. Future OPP detachment boards could be composed entirely of municipal appointees. Please see below for more information regarding provincial appointees. Provincial Appointees AMO values the importance of all police service/OPP detachment board members regardless of which authority has made the appointment. AMO’s commentary on provincial appointees is not intended to detract from the contributions these individuals have made to good governance. However, one of the issues which has historically plagued policing governance are delays associated with the provincial government making its appointments in a timely way. Unfilled provincial appointees make good governance more difficult. AMO sought legislative change to improve the provincial appointment process for all boards (OPP and municipal) but that change did not occur in legislation. The need remains and it can still be addressed in regulations for OPP policed municipalities. Unfilled or delayed provincial appointments are an impediment to diversity, representativeness and good governance practice. According to the Ontario Association of Police Service Boards, in March 2017 over 90 of 250 provincial board positions were unfilled and vacant. Challenges with timely provincial appointments are a long-standing historical issue which is not confined to 2017. To be clear, the province already has a significant role to play with the OPP. The provincial government hires the Commissioner and negotiates the collective agreement with the Ontario Provincial Police Association. Municipalities pay the contracts for the services of the OPP to deliver local public safety. Communities need local representatives who can be diligently selected and, on the job, without the delays and extended vacancies associated with the provincial OPP detachment board appointment process. Diligent selection of appointees is now enshrined in law. Now is the time to let municipalities meet those legal expectations without the red tape of appointments from Queen’s Park. Given the above issues, and if municipalities are to be adequately represented on consolidated boards, it is the time to dispense with provincial appointees to OPP detachment boards. There is plenty of Canadian precedence for fully municipally appointed police service boards: In Alberta, police boards (called policed commissions or committees) are composed entirely of municipal council appointees which include municipal staff and community representatives. Similarly in Quebec, Surete du Quebec (SQ) policed municipalities have public security committees composed of 4-7 members of a municipal council. In Saskatchewan, police commissions are composed of all municipally appointed representatives, including the mayor, councillors, and community representatives (members at large). Manitoba permits the appointment of municipal employees to boards. Therefore, while some municipalities might like to keep existing boards as they are, there is also an opportunity for fully municipally appointed boards, subject to provincial regulation. This would be a step in the right direction.

Page 47 of 171

Other Appointees There is precedence in Canada for municipal staff members to be appointed to police service boards (i.e. Manitoba and Alberta). Municipal staff representation on OPP detachment boards in Ontario could help to better support, for example, the policy drafting functions of a board. Community representatives (as selected by a municipal council, but not elected officials) have also played an important role in reflecting community expectations and policing governance. That should continue in the future provided all municipalities are represented. Northern District Social Services Administration Boards (DSSAB) Existing board structures between multiple municipalities currently exist in Northern Ontario through District Social Services Administration Boards. These existing structures and board representation frameworks could be used to function as an OPP detachment board. Thus, a DSSAB could fulfill a dual role – existing social service responsibilities and a new mandate of policing. Individual municipal governments would continue to be billed separately for OPP services. Therefore, existing rules regarding DSSAB apportionment of costs would NOT apply. Given the provincial desire for a greater alignment of community safety and well-being objectives with policing, DSSABs could be an effective vehicle for such alignment. This is especially the case when considering the new municipal mandate of required community safety and well-being plan development. Of course, there would need to be some specific carve outs for a DSSAB functioning as an OPP detachment board. First, northern cities with their own police services would need to be excluded from OPP detachment board composition. Second, representation from unincorporated areas on boards would need to be restricted given that municipal property taxes are not paid in these areas. Third, the expense of an OPP detachment board would need to be divided only among those using the OPP. The appropriateness of DSSABs fulfilling this added function is best assessed on a case by case basis. Some DSSABs have multiple OPP detachments within them. What works in one catchment area (or district) might not work in another. This idea is subject to the review, consideration, and input of FONOM, NOMA, DSSABs, and northern municipalities. AMO emphasizes municipal self-determination and cooperation in re-establishing OPP Boards. The idea is best assessed at a local level. OPP Advisory Council The establishment of this Council is to provide advice to the Solicitor General with respect to the use of the Solicitor General’s powers related to the OPP. More generally, this change will enhance civilian governance of the OPP. The AMO Board has recently adopted a position regarding the Council’s composition. With over 300 municipalities using the services of the OPP, AMO seeks the authority to recommend municipal appointees to the Council. AMO’s position is that half of Council’s composition should be designated municipal appointees.

Page 48 of 171

In addition, given the purpose of the Council, no member should be a former or current member of an Ontario police service or police association. This emphasizes the distinction between employee and employer and the civilian role in the function of advising the Solicitor General. Conclusion and Next Steps This paper aimed to summarise some key issues and assert principles to guide the new OPP detachment board framework. AMO encourages municipalities to share their thoughts, questions and board proposals. Together, and with provincial leadership, we can build a successful local governance framework for policing in over 300 municipalities. The twelve principles are designed to establish a framework for successful governance which emphasizes municipal self-determination and cooperation in re-establishing OPP boards. While the government’s regulatory development is on hold, this is an opportunity to discuss with neighbouring municipalities, locally workable options regarding board representation to present to the Ministry.

For additional questions, please contact: Matthew Wilson, Senior Advisor, mwilson@amo.on.ca or 416-971-9856 extension 323.

Ministry of the Solicitor General

Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019: Ontario Provincial Police Detachment Board Framework and Proposal Submission Process Virtual Information Session April 20, 2021 Page 49 of 171

Purpose •

Provide an overview of: •

•

Feedback from engagement;

•

The OPP detachment board framework under the CSPA including:

•

Composition requirements

•

Proposal process

Next Steps

Ministry of the Solicitor General

Page 50 of 171

The legislative changes under the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 (CSPA) related to OPP detachment boards;

Context •

•

The Ministry is working to bring the CSPA into force by early 2022. To bring the CSPA into force, the Ministry is required to develop several matters for regulation, including regulations related to the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) such as: • OPP Detachment Boards; • OPP Governance Advisory Council; and • OPP Billing. To do this work, the ministry has engaged several key stakeholders and partners through: • OPP Regional Roundtables (February 2020); • CSPA Engagement Tables (Community & Social Services, Policing and First Nations Policing); • The Ministry/Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) MOU Table; and • Conferences (AMO, Rural Ontario Municipalities Association and Ontario Association of Police Service Boards). Ministry of the Solicitor General

Page 51 of 171

On March 26, 2019, Ontario passed the Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act, 2019 (Bill 68) and established the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 (CSPA). Once in-force, the CSPA, 2019 will replace the Police Services Act (1990).

PSA vs. CSPA: OPP Detachment Boards Current State

New Legislative Requirements

• Municipalities must have a police service board to enter into an agreement with the OPP under section 10 of the Police Services Act 1990 (PSA).

• Section 67 of the CSPA requires there be an OPP detachment board, or more than one OPP detachment board, for each detachment of the OPP that provides policing in a municipality or in a First Nation community.

• All other municipalities policed by the OPP (i.e., section 5.1) may establish a Community Policing Advisory Committee (CPAC) but are not required to do so. • Currently, many municipalities and First Nation communities receiving OPP policing services are unable to provide effective civilian governance due to:

• Each municipality and First Nation community receiving OPP services will have an opportunity to participate on an OPP detachment board. • An OPP detachment board will be required to, among other things:

• Variances in geography, population size, and service demands;

• Advise the detachment commander with respect to policing provided by the detachment and on the development of the local action plan;

• Lack of flexibility, adequate funding and communication;

• Consult with the Commissioner on the selection and monitor the performance of the detachment commander; and

• Failure to adequately represent the needs of all communities receiving OPP services within a detachment; and

• Provide an annual report to municipalities and band councils.

• High rates of vacancies on boards, specifically related to provincial appointments.

• In addition to the training required for all board members under the Act, detachment board members are required to successfully complete training on the role of boards and responsibilities as members prior to exercising their powers.

Ministry of the Solicitor General

Page 52 of 171

• Members must abide by a Code of Conduct that will be in regulation.

OPP Detachment Board Framework The OPP Detachment Board Framework under the CSPA will provide municipalities and First Nation communities receiving OPP policing services with greater civilian governance by: •

Ensuring each municipality and First Nation community receiving policing services from the OPP has an opportunity to represent their local perspectives, needs, and priorities;

•

Providing opportunities for municipalities and First Nations to collaborate on efforts to enhance community safety; and

•

Enhancing the transparent, coordinated and efficient delivery of OPP services.

The OPP Detachment Board Framework: •

•

Requires the municipalities and First Nations within the jurisdictional area of a detachment to submit one proposal indicating the composition of their board and, if requested, their rationale for multiple boards. Includes a set of composition requirements set by the ministry that completed proposals must meet. • The ministry will follow up with detachment areas that fail to submit a proposal or where proposals do not meet the composition requirements. Establishes a ministerial working group to review each proposal submitted to the ministry.

Ministry of the Solicitor General

Page 53 of 171

•

Provides each municipality and First Nation community receiving OPP services with the ability to sit on an OPP detachment board.

OPP Detachment Board Composition Overview • • • •

Composition

Minimum Requirements

Minimum Size

Minimum of 5 members

Maximum Size

No maximum

Community Representatives

20% community representation (minimum)

Provincial Appointments

20% provincial appointees

Ministry of the Solicitor General

Page 54 of 171

Municipalities and First Nations within a detachment will be required to submit a proposal that meets the composition requirements (below), indicating the proposed composition of your board. All municipalities and First Nations within the detachment area must agree on the proposal. One municipality/First Nation must be designated to submit the proposal. The proposal must include a rationale for more than one detachment board (if needed/ desired).

First Nation OPP Boards • First Nations may request that the Solicitor General constitute a First Nation OPP board to oversee the policing provided by the OPP Commissioner pursuant to an agreement in a First Nation reserve or other specified area. • First Nation(s) making the request to the Solicitor General propose their own: • Area in respect of which the board will operate; • Composition of the proposed board; • Method of appointing members of the proposed board; • Name of the proposed board; and, • Term of office of members of the proposed board. • There are limitations in the CSPA on the ability to amend or revoke a regulation that constitutes a First Nation OPP board to help to ensure long-term sustainability of First Nation OPP boards.

Ministry of the Solicitor General

Page 55 of 171

For more information relating to: • First Nations Policing in Ontario please contact Alana Jones at Alana.Jones@Ontario.ca • First Nation OPP Boards please contact Elsbeth Schokking at Elsbeth.Schokking@Ontario.ca

Next Steps •

OPP detachment board proposal process • Launched: March 18, 2021 • Deadline for submissions: June 7, 2021 • Ministry review and approval of proposals (Summer 2021)

•

Development and filing of OPP-related matters for regulation (Spring – Fall 2021)

•

Formal establishment of OPP detachment boards – early 2022 (TBC)

Ministry of the Solicitor General

Page 56 of 171

Page 57 of 171

REPORT TO COUNCIL Office of the Chief Administrative Officer

AGENDA DATE:

May 4, 2021

SUBJECT:

2021 Kinsmen Dream Home Funding Request

RECOMMENDATION Option 1 That Council fund the cost of building permit/septic fees and development charges in the amount of $19,761.96 for Home Valley Builders’ for the construction of the 2021 Kinsmen Lottery Dream Home, subject to a donation by the Kinsmen of a comparable amount to Southern Frontenac Community Services Corporation. OR Option 2 That Council deny the Kingston Kinsmen’s request for funding to offset development fees for the construction of their 2021 Kinsmen Dream Home.

BACKGROUND In 2018 and 2019, the Kingston Kinsmen requested that Council fund their development fees for the construction of a Home in the Applewood Condominium as part of their annual Kinsmen Dream Home Lottery. Council approved both requests, subject to the Kinsmen providing a comparable donation to local charities or not-for-profits so that the community was directly benefitting from the arrangement. In early January of 2021, The Township was again contacted by the Kingston Kinsmen Dream Home Lottery organizers about the prospect of building their 2021 Dream Home in South Frontenac. According to their representative, their past two Dream Home Lotteries had been very successful in part because of the attractiveness of South Frontenac and the location of the home within the Applewood Condominium. The 2019 lottery resulted in donations made to over 12 local charities. As part of the agreement, $26,000 was donated to Southern Frontenac Community Services.

ANALYSIS As was noted by staff in previous years, Township Bylaws do not provide for the waiving of Building Permit or Development Charge fees. If Council is supportive of contributing to this project again, then funding would need to be drawn from another source in order to make the development fee payment on behalf of the builder. Staff inquired in 2018 with the City of Kingston and Loyalist Township and neither had waived fees in the past for similar projects. Further, Council should be aware that local charities are typically required to pay all applicable fees when applying for building permits (Churches etc.). Last year’s recipient of the Kinsmen’s donation, Southern Frontenac Community Services Corporation (SFCSC), expressed satisfaction with the donation and communications with the Kinsmen, indicating that the eventual donation of $26,000 exceeded the value of the development fees ($23,140). They also stated that the flexible timing of the donation and SFCSC’s ability to utilize it for varied purposes greatly

Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader

Page 58 of 171

REPORT TO COUNCIL Office of the Chief Administrative Officer assisted them in meeting year end fundraising requirements and offsetting specific program needs. While Council has approved this request in the past, and the Kinsmen ultimately donated in excess of the development fee costs to a local not for profit, Council should be mindful of the potential to set a precedent for receiving/approving funding requests to offset development fees. Should Council approve the Kinsmen’s request, staff recommends that Council take into account the donations made by the Kinsmen to local organizations when considering further applications for Grants to Organizations/Individuals.

FINANCIAL and STAFFING CONSIDERATIONS The construction value of this year’s home is estimated to be $522,000, which will result in a total permit and development charge fee of $19,761.96, which represents the following: • • •

Building Permit fees of $9,157.00 Development Charge fees of $9,626.96, and Septic Permit fees of $978.00

Sufficient funds are available in Council’s 2021 budget for Grants to Organizations/Individuals to cover the request to fund the 2021 permit and development fees. Each year Council has carried a contingency within that budget to allow for requests that are received following the budget process but which Council still wishes to approve. Should Council approve the request, the comparable donation to a local charity or notfor-profit would be made from the proceeds of the lottery and not prior to receipt of those proceeds by the Kinsmen Organization.

ATTACHMENTS •

Development Services Permit Fee Calculation Sheet

Prepared by: Emily Caird Executive Assistant Submitted/approved by: Neil Carbone Chief Administrative Officer

Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader

Page 59 of 171

Page 60 of 171

Page 61 of 171

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERKS DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE: May 4, 2021 SUBJECT:

Closed Meeting Investigations

RECOMMENDATION That the Township of South Frontenac default to the Ontario Ombudsman for Closed Meeting Investigation requests effective June 1, 2021.

BACKGROUND Under the Municipal Act, 2001, Section 239, any person is able to request that an investigation be undertaken with respect to whether a municipality has complied with closed meeting rules. Municipalities may appoint its own closed meeting investigator or in the absence of an appointee the Ontario Ombudsman will assume the role. In December 2019 staff provided an update to Council as the township was advised that LAS was in the process of obtaining a new service provider for Closed Meeting Investigator Services beginning January 1, 2020. Once they had the opportunity to evaluate RFP proposals, LAS announced that the new service provider for Closed Meeting Investigations was to be Aird & Berlis LLP. It was noted that the investigation fee charged by Aird & Berlis would vary between $325 to $725 (excluding expenses) however there was no way of determining how to budget for this expense as requests for closed meeting investigations are unpredictable. In August 2020, a request for a Closed Meeting investigation was received that involved closed meeting discussions about Johnston Point. Aird & Berlis were very professional and efficient in reviewing the request and provided a detailed report on their findings quite promptly. They did not find the township negligent in their review of the processes. The cost for this investigation was much more than what was anticipated although there was no way of anticipating the volume of work involved in any closed meeting investigation.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: The Ombudsman’s office oversees and investigates more than 1000 provincial government and broader public sector bodies including provincial ministries, Crown corporations, tribunals, agencies, boards and commissions, and municipalities, universities and school boards. According to the Ombudsman website they provide Closed Meeting Investigation services to roughly 227 municipalities, whereas LAS provides this service to roughly 129 municipalities. The remaining municipalities have appointed independent investigators. At the time staff recommended LAS provide this service, there was concern about the length of time the Ombudsman’s office would take to process such requests and a desire to have any requested investigations conducted quickly; however, based on the significant cost incurred for the last investigation, staff recommends defaulting back to the Ontario Ombudsman for this service. To do so the township would only be required to advise LAS that we wish to withdraw from the program and the effective date of that withdrawal.

Our strength is our community.

Page 62 of 171

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERKS DEPARTMENT

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There is no cost associated with defaulting to the Ontario Ombudsman and there is no hourly rate associated with closed meeting investigations. There would still be staff time associated with compiling files related to any investigation. The “retainer fee” of $226.00 for 2021 has already been paid to LAS. There would be no refund of this fee to the township. ATTACHMENTS - n/a

Submitted/approved by: Angela Maddocks Clerk Approved by: Neil Carbone Chief Administrative Officer

Our strength is our community.

Page 63 of 171

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERKS DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE:

May 4, 2021

SUBJECT:

Deputy Mayor Appointments

RECOMMENDATION: That Councillor Barr be appointed as the Deputy Mayor for the term of June 1, 2021 to May 31, 2022; and That Councillor Leonard be appointed Deputy Mayor from June 1, 2022 to the end of the current Council term. BACKGROUND: At the November 17, 2020 Council meeting the follow resolution was approved: Resolution No. 2020-29-06 Moved by Councillor Sleeth Seconded by Councillor Revill That for the purpose of appointing the next Deputy Mayor, that Council supports the appointment of Ray Leonard as the Deputy Mayor for the Term of December 1, 2020 to May 31, 2021 and That Council will review the appointment schedule in early May of 2021. (Carried) ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION: Councillor Barr has indicated that she is prepared to assume the duties of Deputy Mayor effective June 1, 2021. The Clerk has discussed the existing expiry date for the Deputy Mayor role with both Councillors and they have advised the Clerk that they are in agreement that Councillor Leonard be appointed as Deputy Mayor for the term identified in the recommendation. If approved, the “Declaration of Office” will be conducted at the June 1, 2021 Council meeting.

FINANCIAL/STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: Not at this time. ATTACHMENTS: not applicable

Submitted/approved by:

Approved by:

Angela Maddocks, Clerk

Neil Carbone Chief Administrative Officer

Natural, Vibrant and Growing – A Progressive Rural Leader

Page 64 of 171 Minutes of Police Services Board November, 26, 2020 Time: 7:00 PM Location: Council Chambers/Electronic Participation

Present in Council Chambers: Ron Sleeth - Chair, David Herrington (arrived at 7:07 pm), Ron Vandewal Present Via Electronic Participation: Mike Nolan Frontenac OPP Staff: Sharron Brown, Staff Sergeant (attended via electronic participation) Staff Present in Council Chambers: Neil Carbone - Chief Administrative Officer, Angela Maddocks - Clerk

Opening of Meeting

Due to COVID-19 restrictions, the attendance of the public ‘in person" was not permitted. There was no registered attendee’s for this meeting through the Zoom webinar process. Chairman Sleeth called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.

Welcome from Chairman Ron Sleeth

Chairman Sleeth welcomed the Committee members and introduced staff.

Statistic Information for 2020

The statistical reports were attached to the Detachment Commanders report in the regular meeting agenda and discussed in that meeting.

Comments from the Public (Registered Attendees)

The Clerk reported that no one had registered to “virtually” attend the meeting.

Other Business - none

Adjournment

The annual public meeting was adjourned at 7:03 pm.

Ron Sleeth, Chair

Neil Carbone, Secretary

Page 65 of 171 Minutes of Police Services Board November, 26, 2020 Time: 7:15 PM Location: Council Chambers/Electronic Participation

Present in Council Chambers: Ron Sleeth, David Herrington, Ron Vandewal Present via Electronic Participation: Sharron Brown, Staff Sergeant Frontenac OPP, Mike Nolan Staff Present in Council Chambers: Neil Carbone - Chief Administrative Officer, Angela Maddocks - Clerk

Call to Order

The Chair, Ron Sleeth, called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm

Attendance

The Clerk conducted the roll call as reflected in the attendance noted above.

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof

There were no declarations.

Approval of Agenda

Motion Resolution No. 2020-PSB-11/26-01 Moved by Ron Vandewal Seconded by Mike Nolan That the agenda be adopted as presented. Carried

Presentations/Delegations - not applicable

Correspondence - none

Approval of Minutes

October 22, 2020 Resolution No. 2020-PSB-11/26-02 Moved by Mike Nolan Seconded by Ron Vandewal That the minutes of the October 22, 2020 Police Services Board meeting be approved. Carried

Financial - not applicable

Detachment Commanders Report

Staff Sergeant Brown reviewed the data compiled within her reports. 911 calls, 911 hang-ups and 911 pocket dials continue to decrease. She noted that 25%

Page 66 of 171 Minutes of Police Services Board November, 26, 2020 of the accidents are due to animals and suggested promoting this as a safety tip, particularly with respect to deer during the hunting season. Requests for Vulnerable Sector Screening Checks and Criminal Record Checks are down significantly and this is due to pandemic related cuts in programs requiring volunteers. 10.

Committee Reports

Community Safety and Well Being Committee David Herrington reported that the Advisory Committee is scheduled to meet in December to review all the feedback and firmly identify and prioritize risks. In January or February they will be working towards identifying the gaps in service and will start to develop strategies and working towards a March 31 deadline for the draft report.

Other Business

Joint Facility Opportunities Neil Carbone indicated that there are other areas where a joint facility for fire and police services work well for communities. He suggested that the Board and the township keep this in mind for long term planning since the current detachment office requires costly improvements and there are plans for fire halls in the township’s long range capital planning. If the needs for a police service facility can be accommodated and included with the construction of a new fire hall, there maybe opportunities for savings. He noted that this is a very high level discussion with no concrete plans or discussions with CMRE.

Provincial Appointee Update David Herrington has not received any confirmation from the province regarding appointments or re-appointments despite keeping in contact with the Police Services Advisor division with the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

Public Discussion

Date & Time of Next Meeting: to be determined in 2021

Township staff will poll the board members in the first quarter to set up dates for 2021. Typically these have been held in March, June, September and November.

In Camera- not applicable

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 pm.

Ron Sleeth, Chair

Neil Carbone, Secretary

Page 2 of 2

Page 67 of 171 Minutes of Heritage Committee February, 18, 2021 Time: 6:30 PM Location: Council Chambers Heritage Committee

Present: Wilma Kenny, Chair, Brad Barbeau, Michael Gemmell, Stephanie SotoGordon, John McDougall, Travis Rivard, Councillor Pat Barr. Absent: Mark Millar. Staff: Anna Gealdi, Planner. 1.

Call to Order

a) The meeting was called to order at 6:33pm. 2.

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof

a) There were no declarations of pecuniary interest. 3.

Approval of Minutes

The Chair asked that they move ahead to selecting a new Committee Chair prior to approval of the minutes. Following election of the new Chair, the Committee noted that Mr. Downey’s name was misspelt on page two. Anna Geladi noted the change. Resolution No. 2021-Heritage-02/18-01 Moved by John McDougall Seconded by Brad Barbeau THAT the minutes of the January 28th, 2021 meeting be adopted as amended. Carried

Business Arising from the Minutes

Update on Heritage Designation Process (Brad and Michael) The new Chair noted that Brad Barbeau and himself have been unable to meet as of yet. He explained that he has collected a few templates for forms associated with the designation process. Brad Barbeau noted that he obtained a draft bylaw and submitted it to Anna Geladi. Anna Geladi explained that once the applicable forms are created and filled out, she will prepare a notice of intent to be included in the newspaper for at least 4 consecutive weeks. The Chair explained that he would prefer to have official designation forms created in advance of advertising Brad Barbeau’s property. Anna Geladi noted that the Committee could move forward with the designation, as long as Brad Barbeau provides a letter with the required information. She explained that the creation and adoption of forms would need to go through senior staff and Council, so it may take a while.

Page 68 of 171 Minutes of Heritage Committee February, 18, 2021 Anna Geladi explained that she is attending the March 9, 2021 Committee of the Whole meeting to update Council on the Heritage Committee’s activities and future plans. She noted that it would be ideal to bring forward Brad Barbeau’s application following that presentation, possibly in April. The Chair and Brad Barbeau determined that they would meet with Anna Geladi separately to discuss the application and letter of intent. After meeting, the group will share their accumulated draft application with the other Committee members for review. John McDougall recommended providing Council with an overview of Brad Barbeau’s draft application as an example that is “coming soon.” b)

Update on templates, application and designation forms Discussed during the previous item.

New Business

Review Terms of Reference • The committee selects a Chair and Vice Chair • Forward any recommended changes onto Council Wilma Kenny noted that she would be stepping down as the Chair of the Committee. She looked to Vice Chair, Michael Gemmell, to fill the role of Chair. Michael Gemmell accepted the position of Committee Chair. Wilma Kenny then looked for volunteers for the position of Vice Chair. Brad Barbeau offered his name for Vice Chair. Resolution No. 2021-Heritage-02/18-02 Moved by Wilma Kenny Seconded by John McDougall THAT Michael Gemmell fill the role of Committee Chair, and THAT Brad Barbeau fill the role of Committee Vice Chair. Carried

Heritage Property Research Opportunity Anna Geladi explained that she has been receiving calls in regards to property designation. She noted that some of these callers have inquired about how owners go about researching their property, and if the Heritage Committee could be of assistance in this area. Anna Geladi noted that one resident is looking for assistance in researching and preserving a barn on his property. Wilma Kenny offered to call the resident and offer assistance, and then report back to the Committee. The Chair and Travis Rivard agreed to assist and attend any site visits as well. The Chair noted that this highlights the need for a general information package about property designation that is available to residents who inquire about the process. Anna Geladi agreed, and noted that it should be a Committee priority following the creation of designation application and permit forms. Travis Rivard noted that like himself, other new residents may need assistance with researching the historical significance of their property. He explained that the Committee should have a process in place for this type of request as well, with additional contacts for local heritage societies, archives, and the South Frontenac Museum.

Heritage Designation for New Building

Page 2 of 3

Page 69 of 171 Minutes of Heritage Committee February, 18, 2021 Anna Geladi explained that she received a call from a gentleman looking to designate him home. She noted that he was quite knowledgeable and was building his own application. Anna Geladi explained that once she received his information, she will forward it onto the Committee for review. She also noted that she extended an invite to any future Heritage Committee meetings he is available to attend. Councilor Barr noted that she was aware of this particular property and explained that the inside had been renovated to be a home, but that the exterior has remained the same and is a former cheese factory in Burridge. d)

Committee Members give an update on what they would like to work on or are working on The Committee discussed Committee priorities and went around the table noting topics of interest/ what they are working on: •

• • • •

John McDougall expressed interest in contributing to the creation of the information package for residents. He also noted that he can review museum records to see what is available in relation to cheese factories, school houses, and churches. Brad Barbeau stated that he would be working on the application/designation process and moving the designation of his property ahead. Wilma Kenny noted that she would also like to contribute to creating an information package, and then marketing it with a Frontenac News article. Stephanie Soto-Gordon noted that she will continue doing local research in relation to properties of historical interest, specifically school houses and cheese factories. Travis Rivard noted that he is reviewing the Heritage Act more thoroughly on his own, and would like to work on developing a research guide for residents. He noted that he would also like to start working on a media campaign to attract other property owners interested in designating or listing their property.

The Chair noted that the Committee should advertise its meetings in the paper, and ensure that residents know the public is permitted to attend virtually. 6.

Next Meeting:

a) The next meeting was scheduled for April 1, 2021. 7.

Adjournment:

a) The meeting was adjourned at 7:48 pm. Resolution No. 2021-Heritage-02/18-03 Moved by Stephanie Soto-Gordon Seconded by Councillor Barr THAT the meeting be adjourned at 7:47 pm. Carried 8.

Zoom Meeting Link

Participation for this meeting can be virtual. Should you prefer to tune in electronically, please follow this link: https://zoom.us/s/92936652015?pwd=bU9oQXdiV3ZoSnNHcGUxZFViY01QZz09

Page 3 of 3

Page 70 of 171 Minutes of Lake Ecosystem Advisory Committee February, 17, 2021 Time: 7:00 PM Location: Council Chambers Lake Ecosystem Advisory Committee

Present: Ellie Prepas, Gerrit Buitenhuis, Gillian Lash, Janet Brown, Jeff Peck, Michael Payne, John Sherbino, Holly Evans, Councillor Randy Ruttan, Councillor Alan Revill, Mayor Ron Vandewal. Absent: Janet Brown, Kevin Strank. Staff: Christine Woods, Senior Planner, Claire Dodds, Director of Development Services. 1.

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm.

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof

There were no declarations of pecuniary interest.

Approval of Minutes

Meeting Minutes - January 13, 2021 The minutes of the January 13, 2021 meeting were adopted as presented. Resolution No. No. 2021-LEAC-02/17-01 Moved by John Sherbino Seconded by Jeff Peck THAT the minutes of the January 13, 2021 meeting be adopted as presented. Carried

Business Arising from the Minutes

Lake Study Grant Program Discussion • Focus Area • Criteria • Evaluation The Chair thanked the Committee for contributing their thoughts on grant program framework. She explained that a program framework is anticipated to be submitted to Council for review in June 2021, with implementation of the program in September 2021. The Chair presented a number of high level focus areas that were submitted by Committee Members since the last meeting. She opened the floor to other topic suggestions. The Committee discussed including reducing shoreline

Page 71 of 171 Minutes of Lake Ecosystem Advisory Committee February, 17, 2021 disturbances, and general public engagement & outreach under the prevention stream Christine Woods provided the Committee with other examples of grant programs that are currently offered by the Township. She explained that each of these programs are accompanied by a policy, set streams, criteria, maximum grant amounts, and reporting requirements. Claire Dodds provided clarity on what staff would expect to see in terms of categories, explaining that if this program were to parallel the Community Grants program, it would provide overarching broad streams for residents to apply under, and then determine if the proposal supported that category. She noted that from past discussions, the three categories for applications would be Prevention, Remediation, and Public Education & Outreach. The Chair noted that she would prefer to see two streams, with public education and outreach as a mandatory requirement for all proposals. The Chair asked the Committee if there were any project types under the two categories that the members felt should be removed. The following items were suggested to be removed: • • • • • •

Docks & Boathouses - New boathouses are no longer permitted and docks are governed by the conservation authorities. Light Pollution Individual sewage system upgrades Invasive species management - would be very complicated to undertake Recreational stressors Boating Law enforcement - may be outside the jurisdiction, more of a OPP matter

It was discussed that Shoreline protection and maintenance, and long term monitoring programs could be added to the list under preservation. Mayor Vandewal noted that the two topics that are most often brought to the attention of Council is sewage system inspections and shoreline and vegetation protection. Claire Dodds noted that with the Township now providing Part 8 Sewage System services, the topic of a sewage system inspection program and a shoreline protection bylaw may be initiatives the Committee would be able to address outside of the grant program and present to Council as policy recommendations. Holly Evans noted that a category for Habitat Enhancement could be fairly important, and could encompass a number of different project ideas such as monitoring of water quality or building an inventory of species. Holly Evans explained that although she likes the cohesiveness of the two categories, she noted that the program could be even broader with a simple focus of keeping the lakes healthy. The Committee discussed focus areas and narrowed down the list to include: run-off, habitat protection and enhancement, buffer zones, and monitoring. Jeff Peck offered to put together a draft program policy for the Committee to review. He explained that he would develop the framework and the Committee could review and edit as they see fit. Jeff Peck noted that he felt the Committee should avoid narrowing the scope too much, and rather let applicants propose their own unique ideas for the Committee to review and approve.

Page 2 of 3

Page 72 of 171 Minutes of Lake Ecosystem Advisory Committee February, 17, 2021 The Chair tasked the Committee with brainstorming evaluation criteria for applications. She noted that it would be ideal if the Committee could settle on those criteria at the next meeting. It was determined that members would submit their comments and the Chair would summarize them in preparation for the next meeting’s discussion.

New Business

The Committee discussed their role following the implementation of the the Lake Study Grant Programs. The Chair and Staff confirmed that the Committee would have the opportunity to discuss initiatives and policies of interest, with the potential of making recommendations to Council for review.

Next Meeting:

To be determined at meeting. The Committee set the next meeting date for March 24, 2021 at 7:00 pm.

Adjournment:

a) The meeting was adjourned at Resolution No. No. 2021-LEAC-02/17-02 Moved by Jeff Peck THAT the meeting be adjourned at 8:45 pm. Carried

Page 3 of 3

Page 73 of 171 Minutes of Lake Ecosystem Advisory Committee March, 24, 2021 Time: 7:00 PM Location: Council Chambers Lake Ecosystem Advisory Committee

Present: Ellie Prepas, Gerrit Buitenhuis, Gillian Lash, Janet Brown, Jeff Peck, John Sherbino, Kevin Strank, Michael Payne, Holly Evans, Councillor Randy Ruttan, Mayor Ron Vandewal. Regrets: Councillor Alan Revill. Staff: Christine Woods, Senior Planner, Claire Dodds, Director of Development Services, Neil Carbone, CAO. 1.

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 7:03 pm.

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof

a) There were no declarations of pecuniary interest. 3.

Approval of Minutes

Meeting Minutes from February 17, 2021. The minutes of the February 17, 2021 meeting be adopted as presented. Resolution No. 2021-LEAC-03/24-01 Moved by John Sherbino Seconded by Jeff Peck. THAT the minutes of the February 17, 2021 meeting be adopted as presented. Carried

Business Arising from the Minutes

Discuss & Finalize Lake Grant Study Program Policy (50 minutes) Feedback The Committee felt the format was clean and straight forward, but discussed concerns around setting a maximum funding limit of $10,000 per applicant. The Committee discussed the merits of funding multiple projects at lower amounts versus funding one at a larger amount. It was discussed that a contingency could be put in place to set a limit of $10,000, with Committee discretion for larger sums should the proposed project warrant more funding, and there be additional funds remaining in the budget. Michael Payne noted that it is important to ensure the grant program is also accessible for groups with smaller dollar amount projects, as to encourage participation and community engagement. Claire Dodds reiterated the notion, letting the Committee know that the lack of an upset limit may encourage all groups to apply for a large amount, forcing the Committee to pick one as opposed to awarding multiple groups with funding dollars.

Page 74 of 171 Minutes of Lake Ecosystem Advisory Committee March, 24, 2021 The Committee discussed the merits of project scope, noting that the prioritization of proposals based on community impact can be an element that is evaluated by the Committee once all proposals are received. Mayor Vandewal also noted that he would suggest the replacement of criteria relating to “lake bodies” with “water bodies” as South Frontenac contains many prominent streams that could benefit from the grant program as well. The Committee determined that they would review and discuss evaluation criteria at the next meeting. Resolution No. 2021-LEAC-03/24-02 Moved by Jeff Peck Seconded by Kevin Strank THAT the draft Lake Study Grant program policy be accepted as amended at the March 24, 2021 meeting. Carried 5.

New Business - N/A

Information Items

Report Back re: Recreation, Parks and Leisure Master Plan Focus Group Janet Brown Janet Brown provided an overview of her experience participating in the Recreation, Parks and Leisure Master Plan focus group. She noted that the turn out from lake association members was strong, and that much of the discussion focused on the increased number of boats on township lakes last summer during the pandemic and their impact on public boat launches, shoreline erosion, transfer of invasive species, educational signage, boat launch parking, excess littering, and need for additional by-law enforcement.

Report Back re: Rideau Lakes & Trent Severn Third Annual NSERC Strategic Partnership Grant Meeting - Janet Brown and John Sherbino Janet Brown provided an overview of the meeting she attended in relation to a multi-discipline study of the Rideau Canal & Trent Severn waterway. She noted that there were presentations from various group during the meeting. Janet Brown noted that highlights of the meeting included a social science project that collected a wide range of public input. This study resulted in a list of top lake related activities, including: boating, swimming, fishing, paddling, and walking. She noted that survey data also seemed to reflect a need for greater enforcement around development parameters The survey also reflected the main environmental threat to be blue-green algae bloom. Other projects of note included a study on green algae, Eurasian milfoil, turtle travel habits, and invasive fish species.

Township Initiatives - Christine Woods • Official Plan Update • Shoreline Protection By-law

Christine Woods provided the Committee with an update in relation to the Official Plan Update process. She noted that a consulting firm had been hired as of last week and there will be a variety of consultation opportunities for this group to take part in.

Page 2 of 3

Page 75 of 171 Minutes of Lake Ecosystem Advisory Committee March, 24, 2021 Christine Woods also noted that staff will be working on a Shoreline Protection By-law in the coming months, and will be looking to this Committee for feedback and input. d)

Watersheds Canada Love Your Lake Micro Grant Program • http://loveyourlake.ca/microgrant-program/

Next Meeting:

To Be Determined at meeting. The next meeting was scheduled for April 21, 2021 at 7:00 pm.

Adjournment:

The meeting was adjourned at 8:22 pm.

Resolution No. 2021-LEAC-03/24-03 Moved by Jeff Peck Seconded by Gerrit Buitenhuis THAT the meeting be adjourned at 8:22 pm. Carried

Page 3 of 3

Page 76 of 171

REPORT TO COUNCIL TREASURY DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE:

May 4th, 2021

SUBJECT:

2020 Draft Financials

RECOMMENDATION: The report is for information only. BACKGROUND: Attached are the draft 2020 year end financials to December 31st with a comparison to the total 2020 budget. This includes the majority of the anticipated year end adjusting entries for audit. The financials have been separated under two reports to reflect operating versus capital. ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION: Operating Under operating, most departments were under budget. Grant Revenues Under revenues, proceeds from Government grants were over budget. This is due to the use of the safe restart fund to offset the Township’s COVID-19 cost. An amount of $281,489 was used for 2020 to offset PPE, equipment costs, wages as well as loss of revenues due to the pandemic including penalties and interest on taxes. Policing Police was over budget due to the 2019 year-end reconciliation which resulted in an unbudgeted expense of $28,371. Transfers to Reserve A few departments such as General Government, Fire and Building initially appear over budget. This is the result of the following transfers to reserves which show as unbudgeted expenses but are offset by matching unbudgeted revenues: •

General Government includes the transfer of surplus funds for the OPP building which is transferred to the Facilities reserve, and the receipt of the Safe restart fund which has been transferred into the working fund reserve.

•

Fire includes the transfer from volunteer firefighter wages which is transferred to the volunteer firefighter wage stabilization reserve.

The building department had a reserve transfer of $10,105 due to higher revenues and lower expenses than budgeted. Any surplus from building is allocated to a separate building reserve as it is legislated to be self-funded. For Sydenham water, a transfer to reserve of $181,036 was processed.

Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader

Page 77 of 171

REPORT TO COUNCIL TREASURY DEPARTMENT

Winter Control Winter Control Expenses were under budget by $390,021 in 2020. As of 2019, Winter Control has been budgeted using a 3 year rolling average plus 2% for inflation. The reserve had been depleted in 2017 and this is the first year that contributions are going to the reserve since then. Solid Waste Under Solid Waste Management, additional expenses were incurred for the renewal of the new recycling and garbage contracts. Additional expenses were also incurred at the Portland Landfill for exporting as well as the Household Hazardous Waste Depot. This is attributed to the volume of product processed at both locations. Operating Summary The overall anticipated surplus, once finalized, would be transferred to the Working Funds reserve. Capital Under Capital, expenditures were overall under budget creating a surplus of $4,078,108. Of this amount $3,628,137 is being carried over to 2021 to finalize projects leaving a capital surplus of $449,971 remaining for 2020. These funds were sourced from various reserves and so will remain within those original reserves, providing additional funds for future capital projects. ATTACHMENTS: • •

2020 draft operating financials 2020 draft capital financials

Prepared by: Louise Fragnito Director of Corporate Services & Treasurer Submitted/approved by: Neil Carbone Chief Administrative Officer

Natural, Vibrant and Growing – a Progressive Rural Leader

2020 CAPITAL BUDGET Project Number GENERAL GOVERNMENT Corporate Services Carryovers Server Upgrade Asset Management Software & Document Update New Projects Council Projectors Budgeting software incl reporting, self serve and metrics Town Hall - Upgrade Electronic Sign Branding Strategy and Implementation Service Delivery Review Verona Land Purchase Total - Corporate Services PROTECTIVE SERVICES Building New Projects Inspection Truck - convert to SUV (replace 2011 Chev Colorado 152,000 kms)

2020 REVISED

PROJECT

BUDGET

BUDGET (with carryovers)

2020 Actuals

Variance

Year end status

27,000

-27,000 Carryover

19-06

72,500

-72,500 Carryover

20-01

7,500

7,517

17 Completed

20-02

50,000

36,227

-13,773 Carryover

20-03 20-04 20-05 19-62

45,000 40,000 50,000

45,000 25,000 50,000

45,000 25,000 204,581

192,500

177,500

431,581

0 9,235 204,581 291,370 548,929

-45,000 Carryover -15,765 Carryover 0 Completed 291,370 Completed -174,022

50,000

47,062

-2,938 Completed

45,460

45,460 Completed

20-06 20-49

Planning/Building Software & Support

20-07

Firehall Study

2020

19-04

Deputy CBO SUV

Sub-total Fire Carryovers SCBA Tanker 331 replacement (1994)

TOTAL

340,416

275,416

260,856

-14,560 Carryover

390,416

325,416

353,379

27,963

18-03 19-08

0 391,845

-4,780 394,388

-4,780 Completed 2,543 Carryover

19-12

15,000

-15,000 Carryover

Comments

Implementation Q1 2021 Waiting for branding

Purchase typically overlaps 2 years Postponed until Service delivery review was complete

Page 78 of 171

2020 CAPITAL BUDGET Project Number New Projects SUV - Assistant Fire Chief Volunteer Firefighters Standardized Uniforms & Safety Boots (125) Radio Repeaters - 1st Run Pumpers (8) Bunker Gear (10) Hoses and Appliances - Replacement Forceable Entry - Training Prop Drone - DJI Enterprise Breathing Apparatus Bench Tester Sub-total

Hartington Fuel System - Addition of gas for PW & Fire 1 Ton Truck - Truck for parks - replace F55-3 Ton (2013 with 210,000 kms) New Projects New Truck/SUV - replace Truck 13-56 3/4 Ton Truck - replace Truck 12-52 Tandem Truck - Replace Tandem 01-14 Tag Along Trailer Electronic Sign - Sydenham Road & Keeley Streetlights - (includes 18-17/19-14) Linear Asset Construction-Villages/Local Roads/Arterial Roads (separate Listing)

2020 REVISED

PROJECT

BUDGET

BUDGET (with carryovers)

2020 Actuals

Variance

Year end status

48,000

48,917

917 Completed

20-09

63,000

-63,000 Carryover

20-10 20-11 20-12 20-13 20-14 20-15

28,800 25,000 18,000 10,000 7,200 12,000 212,000

28,800 25,000 18,000 10,000 7,200 12,000 618,845

26,937 25,186 17,117 7,937 5,282 0 520,984

-1,863 Completed 186 Completed -883 Completed -2,063 Completed -1,918 Completed -12,000 Carryover -93,080

602,416

537,416

944,261

874,363

-65,118

19-17

40,000

-40,000 Carryover

19-19

40,000

39,767

989

-38,778 Carryover

19-21

100,000

99,861

-139 Completed

20-16 20-17 20-18 20-50 20-19

40,000 65,000 290,000 50,000 50,000

37,745 47,149 281,483 40,773 0

-2,255 Completed -17,851 Completed -8,517 Completed -9,227 Completed -50,000 Cancelled -54,887 Carryover

20-20

370,000

40,000 65,000 290,000 50,000 30,000

63,662

8,775

10,420,800 6,375,000

8,877,485

6,715,537

-2,161,948

11,285,800 6,850,000

9,615,914

7,232,312

-2,383,602

Comments

Listing of streetlights includes: Opinicon & Perth Road, Hidden Valley & Perth Road, Wilmer & Perth Road and Battersea Road & Frontenac/McGarvey Road

Page 79 of 171

Total

2020

20-08

Total - Protection Services TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Carryovers Storrington Pit Fencing

TOTAL

2020 CAPITAL BUDGET Project Number

TOTAL

2020

2020 REVISED

PROJECT

BUDGET

BUDGET (with carryovers)

2020 Actuals

Variance

Year end status

Comments

SYDENHAM WATER Carryovers Water Hauling Station & Mill Pond Drinking Station New Projects Mechanical, instrumentation and eletrical upgrades (Utilites Kington recommended) Total ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Sanitation-Disposal Carryovers Loughborough Waste Site - Ground Penetrating radar Required for MOE approval New Projects Salem WDS- Vegetation & Benthic Monitoring Green Bay WDS - Additional Monitoring Wells Sub-total Total

55,000

20-23

50,000 50,000

94,267

2,755

-91,512 Carryover

50,000

-50,000 Carryover

50,000

144,267

2,755

6,400

-6,400 Carryover

8,500 20,000 34,900 179,167

0 0 0 2,755

-8,500 Carryover -20,000 Carryover -34,900 -176,412

0 0 1,771 9,287

-8,000 Cancelled -10,000 Cancelled 1,771 Completed -10,036 Carryover

-141,512

19-25

45,000

20-24 20-25

8,500 20,000 73,500 123,500

14-18 16-31 17-08 18-23

8,000 10,000 75,000

8,000 10,000 0 19,323

19-30

100,000

106,179

6,179 Completed

19-31 19-32 19-34 19-35 19-36 19-37

5,000 15,000 5,000 15,000 15,000 10,000

5,000 15,000 5,000 14,412 13,741 10,000

0 9,615 0 14,861 0 0

-5,000 Carryover -5,385 Completed -5,000 Carryover 449 Completed -13,741 Carryover -10,000 Cancelled

8,500 20,000 28,500 78,500

COVID Delay - waiting for follow up with MOE

Council chamber and main floor

Completion May 2021 Other repairs done instead of capital investment

Page 80 of 171

TOWNSHIP FACILITIES MANAGEMENT Carryovers Bradshaw - station 1-paving (per study) Paving - station 7 - Latimer Keeley Admin Office - renovations Energy Retrofits Hartington Sand/Salt Storage Building - Replace building cover Sydenham Library - Replace plastic fencing on roof Town Hall - air conditioning in server room Town Hall - Main Floor washroom upgrades Verona Medical Centre - roof shingles Verona Medical Centre - Stretcher accessibility OPP Station - Asphalt repairs

18-18

2020 CAPITAL BUDGET Project Number OPP Station - Generator Burridge Station 2 - Lighting retrofit Sunbury - Station 8 - Front Step Sydenham - Station 5 - Front Eavesthrough/ asbestos tile removal and replacement Old Station 6 - Decommissioning New Projects Townhall - Charging Station for Electric Vehicles Townhall - Accessible Entrance Ramp & Front Step Townhall - Lower Floor renovations/reconfiguration & furnace Verona Medical Clinic - Design 2nd floor accessible entrance Glendower Hall- Gravel Parking Lot Extension Keeley Admin Office - Window Replacement Radon Abatement - various facilities Verona Fire Hall - Repairs to Septic System Keeley Road Garage - Communications tower relocation Keeley Road Improvements (including office/washroom/lunchroom upgrades) Battersea Land Acquisition Total

2020

2020 REVISED

PROJECT

BUDGET

BUDGET (with carryovers)

2020 Actuals

Variance

Year end status

18-24

180,000

-180,000 Cancelled

19-38 19-39

10,000 5,000

5,029 5,000

1,729 3,687

-3,300 Completed -1,313 Completed

19-40

8,500

-8,500 Carryover

19-41

25,000

15,809

14,406

-1,403 Completed

20-26 20-27

30,000 125,000

30,000 115,000

0 178

-30,000 Cancelled -114,822 Carryover

20-28

50,000

53,853

3,853 Completed

20-29

5,000

-5,000 Carryover

20-30 20-31 20-32 20-33

15,000 12,000 100,000 17,000

15,000 12,000 100,000 10,000

15,000 12,000 100,000 17,000

803 0 6,665 15,273

-14,197 Completed -12,000 Carryover -93,335 Completed -1,727 Completed

19-29

50,000

10,982

-39,018 Carryover

19-27

450,000

445,507

384,329

-61,179 Carryover

1,254,321

55,464 689,081

55,464 Completed -565,240

14-39 15-33

2,087 36,612

0 12,917

-2,087 Completed -23,695 Completed

16-39

59,009

-59,009 Cancelled

17-22

25,563

-25,563 Completed

18-34 18-37

8,458 261,771

13,610 265,830

5,152 Completed 4,059 Completed

100,000

20-51 854,000

437,000

Comments Combined with future project - joint facility

To be reviewed jointly with facility study

Design under way

On order, delivery 2021

Wait for recreation master plan outcome

Page 81 of 171

RECREATION Carryovers Recreation buildings - re-keying Facility Signage Fermoy Hall - Building Upgrades -Structural Integrity Walls/Chimney/Foundation Storrington centre-washrooms/septic/parking lot retroffitting Boat Launch Upgrades - Various Gilmour Point-Washrooms

TOTAL

2020 CAPITAL BUDGET Project Number Wilmer Ball Park - Pump/Storage Building Wall Repair Davidson Beach - Floating Dock (swimming lessons back up location) Glendower Hall - Painting, misc repairs Sydenham Point - Bunker roof replacement Sydenham Point - Multi-purpose pad work incl painitng, basketball/tennis posts/netting Wilmer Ball Park - foundation repairs pumphouse building Centennial Park & Gerald Ball Park - securing movable soccer nets Harris Park - painting, trim work & decommissioning outbuilding Centennial - Dog Park - walkway Storrington Centre - Design work for hall expansion Gerald Ball Park - Playground structure near soccer field Boat Launch Fencing New Projects Centennial Park - Multi-purpose Lanes

2020

2020 REVISED

PROJECT

BUDGET

BUDGET (with carryovers)

2020 Actuals

Variance

Year end status

Comments

18-43

6,000

6,253

253 Completed

19-43

10,000

-10,000 Cancelled

19-44 19-46

10,000 20,000

12,776 11,449

2,776 Completed -8,551 Completed

19-47

25,000

21,322

-3,678 Completed

19-49

6,000

-6,000 Carryover

Additional amount requested under 2021 Capital Budget

19-50

5,000

-5,000 Cancelled

No legislation changes

19-51

12,236

1,221

-11,015 Completed

19-52 19-54

4,349 50,000

0 0

-4,349 Completed -50,000 Carryover

19-56

35,000

17,434

-17,566 Carryover

19-58

5,000

-5,000 Carryover

Fencing around structure pending

20-35

142,464

100,000

142,464

3,114

-139,350 Carryover

20-36

40,000

45,957

54,849

8,892 Completed

Donation of $6,000 received

19-55

40,000

10,000

51,530

54,849

3,319 Completed

Donation of $6,000 received

20-38

10,000

12,720

2,720 Completed

20-39

25,000

-25,000 Carryover

20-40 20-41 20-42

6,000 50,000 6,000

4,291 0 5,088

-1,709 Carryover -50,000 Carryover -912 Completed

20-43

40,000

15,259

-24,741 Carryover

20-44

5,000

-5,000 Carryover

20-45

10,000

-10,000 Carryover

Design in progress Additional amount requested under 2021 Capital Budget

Page 82 of 171

Centennial Park - Resurface & Paint - Pickle Ball & Tennis Courts Gerald Ball Park - Resurface & Paint - Pickle Ball & Tennis Courts (includes 18-45) Point Park - Paint - Pickle Ball Point Park - Pedestrian Access to Tennis Court & Pickle Ball Point Park - Additional Dock for paddle sports Davidson Beach - Access Road to swim area Inverary Ball Park - Field Lighting Requirements Playground Rubberized Surfaces & Equipment various sites Bowes/Centennial/Point Ball Diamonds- Design of accessible washrooms Bowes/Centennial/Inverary/Point Ball DiamondsLighting key switches & timers - Safety concern

TOTAL

2020 CAPITAL BUDGET Project Number Boat Launch Upgrades - Shipyards Recreation Master Plan Total - Recreation PLANNING Carryovers Growth Management Study New Projects Official Plan Community Benefit Charge Strategy Total - Planning

TOTAL

2020

2020 REVISED

PROJECT

BUDGET

BUDGET (with carryovers)

2020 Actuals

Variance

Year end status

20-46

30,000

25,000

16,728

-8,272 Carryover

20-47

58,545 463,009

30,000 357,000

58,545 1,057,580

14,033 543,742

-44,512 Carryover -513,838

19-59

50,000

10,355

-39,645 Completed

19-60 20-48

176,000 15,000 241,000

140,000 15,000 155,000

145,232 15,000 210,232

0 0 10,355

-145,232 Carryover -15,000 Cancelled -199,877

13,762,225 8,592,416

13,693,056

9,901,538

TOTALS

Comments

-4,078,108

Item on hold - requiring follow up report to Council for release

Page 83 of 171

Linear Asset Construction Schedule Project 19-23 17-R06 17-R08 17-R10 18-R03 18-R04 18-R05 18-R13 19-R02 19-R08 19-R09 19-R13 19-R14

19-16/20-21 19-63 20-R01 20-R02

Carryover Projects Upgrading intersections Green Bay Bridge Bridge replacement study Bedford Road Desert Lake Causeway Petworth Culvert Sydenham Dam Bridge Masonville Road Devils Saddle Culvert Scanlan Road Murvale Boundary Road Perth Road Intersection Perth Road Preservation Contingency New Projects Guide Rail - Upgrades Village Revitalization Buck Bay Road Bridge Bunker Hill Road Bridge

18-R14 Carrying Place Road 18-R15/20-R03 Deyos Road 19-R05 Fish Creek Road Bridge 20-R04 Hinchinbrooke Road 20-R05 Hinchinbrooke Road Culvert

Design work - @ Northway Hardware

2019 carryover and 2020 Replace and widen for two lanes Removal, Close Road at Structure Complete Ditching and Surface Road, End to Fire Hall Complete Ditching Design 2019 - 2020, Replace 2020 Design in 2020, Relocate Poles, Complete 2021 Replace 2020

Northshore Road

2020

Project

Budget

275,133

501,018 301,384 50,000 425,000

0 0 0 0 56,314 286,919 0 31,835 24,794 0

2020 Actuals 5,831 80,679 20,244 3,130 80,942 258,662 679 0 29,398 7,614 672 7,601 563,773

Variance 5,831 Completed 80,679 Completed 20,244 Completed 3,130 Completed 24,628 Completed -28,257 Completed 679 Completed -31,835 Cancelled 4,604 Completed 7,614 Completed 672 Completed -38,242 Carryover -56,227 Carryover -255,639

50,000 620,000 425,000

45,843 620,000 255,639

2019-2029 2020 2020 2020

550,000 50,000 550,000 110,000

100,000 50,000 550,000 110,000

100,259 49,636 0 16,768

259 Completed -364 Completed -550,000 Carryover -93,232 Carryover

2018 - 2020 2020 - 2021 2019-2020 2020 - 2021 2020

867,300 400,000 820,000 846,200 345,000

232,411 193,710 816,957 440,000 345,000

169,682 89,260 37,232 153,132 197,098

-62,729 -104,450 Carryover -779,725 Carryover -286,868 Carryover -147,902 Completed

2020

660,000

1,148,266

50,000 660,000 86,000 2,115,600 705,800 1,129,000 1,100,000 10,444,900

50,000 660,000 86,000 1,957,255 75,808 1,129,000 100,000 8,877,485

438 660,305 87,897 1,821,347 11,961 1,013,031 100,000 6,715,537

2020 2020 2020 2019 - 2020 2020 - 2021 2020 2019-2022

Carryover

488,266

Completed Carryover

-49,562 305 Completed 1,897 Completed -135,908 Completed -63,847 Carryover -115,969 Completed 0 -2,161,948

Road 38 Snyder, Steeles, Buck Bay, Bob’s Lake, Gould, Bedford, Railton, Copper Kettle, Old Boy, Lake Side Road

Page 84 of 171

Reconstruction from North Shore Crescent to Leland Rd Design for culvert replacement, Widen, Boat Launch 20-R07 Perth Road at Buck Lake - Design Kerr Road to Road 38, Reconstruction 20-R08 Petworth Road Mill asphalt, Profile surface, Pave with Fibres 20-R09 Road 38 at Portland WDS Start 2019, Complete July 2020 19-R03 Sunbury Village 17-R02/20-R10 Stars Corner/Yarker Road and Wilton Road Design Various Roads 20-R11 Hard Surface Preservation* Arterial Reserve Total

Hard Surface Preservation Microsurfacing Single Surface treatments/seal coats 20-R06

Year(s) 2019 2017 2017/18 2017 2018 2018 2018 2018 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019

Total

INC STATEMENT BvA-Council

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC For the Twelve Months Ending Thursday, December 31, 2020

Page 85 of 171

2020 Year Budget

2020 YTD Actuals

YTD Actual vs YTD Budget Variance

Property Taxation User Charges Licenses, Permits and Rents Government Grants

16,974,000 1,130,139 890,457 1,793,847

17,005,255 1,116,858 867,554 2,178,452

Grants from Other Municipalities Investment Income Penalties and Interest on taxes Donations Other Transfer from Reserves/Reserve Funds Total Revenues

14,000 341,500 370,000 6,000 0 84,149 21,604,092

0 551,680 183,463 12,542 35,604 95,689 22,047,096

31,256 (13,281) (22,903) 384,605 Safe restart grant used $281,489 CRA Payroll subsidy/Recycling Grant/Main Street Funding (14,000) 210,180 (186,537) 6,542 35,604 11,539 443,004

4,630,327 0

4,467,263 200,797

(163,064) 200,797 OPP building/Safe restart

1,866,890 0 3,063,522 240,875 116,872 1,559 561,905 0

1,699,299 136,104 3,076,896 226,110 89,078 442 568,849 10,105

(167,590) 136,104 VF wage stabilization 13,374 2019 Year end reconciliation (14,765) (27,794) (1,117) 6,944 10,105

4,425,113

4,359,845

(65,268)

Transfer to Reserve - unbudgeted

66,340

Winter Control Transfer to Reserve - unbudgeted Environmental Services Water System Transfer to Reserve - Year end

2,298,076 0

1,908,055 390,021

(390,021) 390,021

387,700 0

270,036 181,036

(117,664) 181,036

Solid Waste Management

2,521,462

2,726,726

205,264

Transfer to Reserve - unbudgeted Parks, Recreation and Cemeteries Planning and Development Total Expenses TOTAL

0 950,961 538,830 21,604,092 0

34,649 669,556 523,229 21,604,436 (442,660)

34,649 (281,406) (15,601) 344 (442,660)

REVENUE

OPERATING EXPENSE General Government Transfer to Reserve - non budgeted Protection to Persons and Property Fire Transfer to Reserve - non budgeted Police Conservation Authorities Protective Inspections and Control Emergency Measures Building Department Transfer to Reserve - Year end Transportation Services Roadway Maintenance

Sale of equipment/investment interest

Recycling/Garbage contracts, Portland landfill exporting, HHW

Page 86 of 171 County of Frontenac 2069 Battersea Rd. Glenburnie, ON K0H 1S0 T: 613.548.9400 F: 613.548.8460

23 April 2021 The Township of South Frontenac 4432 George Street, Box 100 Sydenham ON K0H 2T0 Via email:

amaddocks@southfrontenac.net

Dear Township Council: Re:

Frontenac County Council Meeting – April 21, 2021 – Frontenac Regional Roads Network – KPMG Final Report

Please be advised that the Council of the County of Frontenac, at its regular meeting held April 21, 2021, passed the following resolution, being Recommend Reports from the Chief Administrative Officer, clause d): Recommend Reports from the Chief Administrative Officer d)

2021-035 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Regional Roads Network – KPMG Final Report

Motion #: 72-21

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Higgins Warden Vandewal

Be It Resolved that the Frontenac Regional Roads Network – KPMG Final Report be received; And Further That the Council of the County of Frontenac forward the report to each of the member municipalities for their review and action; And Further That the County provide the report to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housings advising that any further action will be at the discretion of the member municipalities;

Page 87 of 171 Letter to the Township of South Frontenac Frontenac Regional Roads Network – KPMG Final Report

Page 2 of 2

And Further That County involvement in this project moving forward be at the request of the member municipalities. Carried Enclosed for your consideration is a copy of the Frontenac Regional Roads Network – KPMG Final Report. I trust you will find this in order; however should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at 613-548-9400, ext. 302 or via email at jamini@frontenaccounty.ca. Yours Truly,

Jannette Amini, Dipl.M.M., M.A. CMO Manager of Legislative Services/Clerk Copy:

Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer

2069 Battersea Road, Glenburnie, ON K0H 1S0 T: 613.548.9400 | F: 613.548.8460 | frontenaccounty.ca

Frontenac Regional Roads Network Final Report County of Frontenac & Member Townships

July 27, 2020

Page 88 of 171

© 2021 KPMG LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG global organization of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a private English company limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Disclaimer This report has been prepared by KPMG LLP (“KPMG”) for the County of Frontenac (“Client”) pursuant to the terms of our Agreement with the Client dated October 3, 2019. KPMG neither warrants nor represents that the information contained in this report is accurate, complete, sufficient or appropriate for use by any person or entity other than Client or for any purpose other than set out in the Engagement Agreement. This report may not be relied upon by any person or entity other than Client, and KPMG hereby expressly disclaims any and all responsibility or liability to any person or entity other than Client in connection with their use of this report. This report is based on information and documentation that was made available to KPMG at the date of this report. KPMG has not audited nor otherwise attempted to independently verify the information provided unless otherwise indicated. Should additional information be provided to KPMG after the issuance of this report, KPMG reserves the right (but will be under no obligation) to review this information and adjust its comments accordingly. Pursuant to the terms of our engagement, it is understood and agreed that all decisions in connection with the implementation of advice and recommendations as provided by KPMG during the course of this engagement shall be the responsibility of, and made by, the County of Frontenac. KPMG has not and will not perform management functions or make management decisions for the County of Frontenac. This report may include or make reference to future oriented financial information. Readers are cautioned that since these financial projections are based on assumptions regarding future events, actual results will vary from the information presented even if the hypotheses occur, and the variations may be material. Comments in this report are not intended, nor should they be interpreted, to be legal advice or opinion. KPMG has no present or contemplated interest in the County of Frontenac nor are we an insider or associate of the County of Frontenac. Accordingly, we believe we are independent of the County of Frontenac and are acting objectively.

Page 89 of 171

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Table of Contents Page Disclaimer

Introduction

Current State

Analysis of Proposed RRN Models

Conclusion and Recommendations

Implementation Plan

Appendix A: Lennox & Addington County Agreement for Construction and Maintenance of County Roads and Bridges

Appendix B: Lennox & Addington County Budget for Paved Roads Administration Appendix C: KPMG Facilitated Session with Member Township CAOs (June 18, 2020) Appendix D: Original 6 Options (April 17, 2019)

Page 90 of 171

Introduction

Frontenac Regional Roads Network Final Report

Page 91 of 171

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Project Overview Project Objectives KPMG was engaged by the County of Frontenac (“the County”) to present analysis on two proposed delivery models for the creation of a Regional Roads Network (“RRN”) in the County of Frontenac. The County and member Townships have determined there are three preferred options for a RRN delivery model – an outsourcing model that relies on contracted engineering with limited County involvement, a model where County resources directly support the delivery of the RRN and a model that establishes a Joint Services Board (“JSB”) with no County involvement. KPMG was engaged to undertake a review of each delivery model and perform an analysis on the merits of each option. The overall goal of the project was to present the County and the Township Councils with a business case for the preferred option, a high level implementation plan, and a 5 year pro-forma budget for the new Regional Roads Network. The report’s analysis is based upon research, stakeholder consultation, document review, and the benchmarking of the County against comparable municipalities. KPMG anticipates this report will provide the necessary assessment regarding the merits and challenges of each option to enable the County and member Townships to select their preferred delivery model for implementation.

Project Principles The project was conducted in accordance with the following principles: •

The knowledge and expertise of Township staff was fully engaged, building upon their knowledge and expertise to arrive at recommended actions through a transparent, participative and inclusive process facilitated by KPMG.

•

The aim was to, wherever possible, transfer knowledge and necessary “tools” to Township employees to enable them to better develop their own solutions to operational and process issues and challenges over time.

•

Opportunities and recommendations are based on leading practice from other municipalities comparable to the County, with specific focus on the County of Lennox and Addington model of delivery.

Page 92 of 171

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Introduction and Context Setting the Stage Frontenac County and its member Townships of North Frontenac, Central Frontenac, South Frontenac and Frontenac Islands are linked by an extensive road network that serve both a local and regional purpose. In addition, Provincial Highways 7 and 41 connect the County to its neighbouring municipalities across the northern portion of the County. The regional road network within the County is important to the maintenance and sustainability of the local economy. The region is dependent on the transportation system for the movement of goods and services, tourism, and access to health and social services and is an essential part of the infrastructure that supports the County.¹ When the County was restructured in 1998, the local amalgamation board determined the County would not be deemed a County for road purposes and accordingly would not own, maintain, repair or construct roads. As a result, more than 400 kilometers of Provincial highways and County roads were downloaded to the four Townships of Frontenac County. It is the responsibility of the four Townships to provide regional transportation services and the financial liabilities of maintaining and repairing these regional roads.

2 Source: County of Frontenac Report to Council, April 17, 2019 © 2021 KPMG LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG global organization of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a private English company limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.

Page 93 of 171

The County recognizes the importance of the regional road network as a commuter, commercial, and recreational link across the Townships. Additionally, the County recognizes there is a potential benefit to a consolidated management model to ensure consistent road standards, adequate funding, and the overall strength of the connecting link through the County. Accordingly, in April 2019, County Council requested that an analysis be conducted on two preferred options for a regional road network across the County. KPMG was subsequently retained to conduct the analysis. 1 Source: County of Frontenac (2014). Official Plan.

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Project Overview Project Scope This engagement commenced on October 11, 2019, and was completed when the final report was submitted to the County on July 27, 2020. The diagram below depicts the key phases as outlined in the Project Charter.

Project Initiation

• • • •

Kick Off Meeting Project Charter/Plan Schedule and Milestones Communication / Engagement Plan

Current State Review

• •

Documentation Review Stakeholder Interviews

Analysis

• • • •

Delivery model options analysis Lennox & Addington Interviews and review 5 year pro-forma budget for each option Working session with Project Team to select delivery model

Final Report

• • •

Half day working session with Project Team Final business case and implementation plan for preferred delivery model Presentation to Councils

Page 94 of 171

Current State

Frontenac Regional Roads Network Final Report

Page 95 of 171

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Document Review Overview KPMG undertook a comprehensive document review relevant to the regional roads network within the County. This review provided us with an understanding of the needs and challenges facing the County and member Townships in the delivery of regional road transportation, as well as provided context and history to the discussion of a regional roads network. Road Needs Studies and asset management plans (where applicable), were reviewed for each of the four member townships. Additionally, KPMG reviewed staff recommendations and reports from County Council, the County Official Plan, current budgets and Financial Information Returns (FIRs) for member Townships, existing Shared Service Agreements between the County and member Townships, and two prior Regional Roads Reports (Watson, 2011; D.M. Wills 2013).

County of Frontenac, Roads Management Study – Fiscal Management Plan. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. (2011) In 2009, the County adopted their Integrated Community Sustainability Plan (ICSP) which established principles and decision-making policies to support sustainable behavior throughout the County. A list of strategic initiatives were identified, and an integrated long-term plan for future road development, maintenance and financing was identified as one of these priorities. In 2011, the County retained Watson and Associates to develop a fiscal management plan and roads management study. The Watson study created a life-cycle based capital plan, assessed the sufficiency of existing funding levels and determined appropriate levels of funding to maintain a defined Regional Roads Network. The Watson Report considered three options for a Regional Roads Network: Option 1: Only downloaded Provincial Highways and former County Roads Total Road Length (km) = 381.76 Option 2: Option 1 plus existing area municipal roads in North and Central Frontenac (Arden Road, Henderson Road, Ardoch Road, Buckshot Lake Road, Harlowe Road) Total Road Length (km) = 454.40

Total Road Length (km) = 519.40 Source: Watson & Associates (2011) County of Frontenac Roads Management Study – Fiscal Management Plan © 2021 KPMG LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG global organization of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a private English company limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.

Page 96 of 171

Option 3: Option 2 plus existing municipal roads that connect to regional status roads in neighbouring jurisdictions (Crow Lake Road, Fifth Lake Road, Long Lake Road, Mountain Grove Road, Wagerville Road)

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Document Review Watson Report (continued) The Watson Report considered the full life-cycle capital replacement needs for a Regional Roads Network with a 30-year phase in scenario, attempting to reach a sustainable replacement level within the 30-year period. The fiscal impact analysis completed in 2011 identified the current level of regional roads funding as insufficient relative to the long-term lifecycle needs for each Township. The report identified the Township’s historic reliance on grant funding for regional roads needs as a risk to sustainability and identified the need to establish a funding strategy to address the anticipated deficit. The report also identified current gaps in tax levy funding for roads across all Townships and recommended the tax impact for sufficient funding levels could be mitigated by financing the capital costs for roads infrastructure at the County level. “By smoothing, and thereby minimizing, future tax impacts to all County constituents, the provision of a better and more consistent overall level of service to all residents and businesses for regional roads will be facilitated. By the very nature of their regional benefit, the cost of maintaining regional roads should ideally impact County constituents in a relatively uniform manner. This is particularly important in light of scarce municipal funding to address a continuing overall needs deficit, unless a significant strategic action is identified and supported.”¹

Frontenac Corridor Roads Needs Study. D. M. Wills Associates Ltd. (2013) In 2013, the Townships of Frontenac County led an initiative to procure a roads needs study for a Frontenac Corridor (“the Corridor”) identified as the geographic portions of former Highways 506, 509, 38, 95, and 96, which connect together to complete a Corridor through the County and across Wolfe Island. The Townships intended to be proactive in response to anticipated funding opportunities for a roads corridor. Accordingly, the Townships retained D.M. Wills Associates Ltd to assess the state of infrastructure and related asset management and financial plans for roads maintenance and capital improvement on the Corridor. Data collected as a result of the study was used to identify a prioritized list of road network needs. The study and related recommendations considered the overall corridor as an asset group, spanning across the four Townships. The study noted that this integrated capital planning approach to maintenance and improvements within the Corridor would result in the lowest overall lifecycle costs and ensure the full service life of the road assets are realized.

Source: Watson & Associates (2011). County of Frontenac Roads Management Study – Fiscal Management Plan. Pg 5-3

Source: D.M. Wills Association Ltd. (2013) Frontenac Corridor Needs Study © 2021 KPMG LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG global organization of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a private English company limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.

Page 97 of 171

The Wills report also identified best management practices based on asset type and maintenance category. Levels of service, built from the Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways (O. Reg. 239/02), were established for roads capital improvements (reconstruction and upgrades), roads repairs (hard top), roads resurfacing, roadside maintenance (brushing & ditching), and bridges (including culverts).

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Documentation Review Road Needs Studies Road Needs Studies provide Council and staff with an inventory of all roads, a comprehensive review of existing conditions, and a plan to repair and maintain the road network to a satisfactory level of service. The purpose of a Road Needs Study is to present an up to date inventory and assessment of the road network within a municipality from which a financial program for the maintenance and capital improvements can be developed. Up-to-date Road Needs Studies and a comprehensive asset management plan are key components for a successful road infrastructure grant application. Three of the four Townships have procured updated Roads Needs Studies within the last 2 years. North Frontenac selected D. M. Wills to complete their comprehensive Roads Needs Study in 2017 (which was updated in 2019), Central Frontenac selected Greer Galloway to complete their study in 2018, and Frontenac Islands selected Jewel Engineering to complete their study in 2018. An updated condition assessment for South Frontenac’s roads infrastructure is completed internally every two years; their 2016 assessment was referenced for the purposes of this report.

Source: Greer Galloway Group Inc. (2019). Township of Central Frontenac 2018 Road Needs Study

Source: D.M. Wills Association Ltd. (2017) North Frontenac Road Needs Study Report

Source: Jewell Engineering Inc. (2018) The Township of Frontenac Islands Road Needs Study

Source: South Frontenac Township Asset Management Plan (2016)

Page 98 of 171

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Summary of Interview Findings Common Themes On October 25, 2019, KPMG staff conducted interviews with municipal stakeholders regarding the proposed regional road network. The interviews provided the context and history of regional road operations within the County, and involved a discussion regarding the two proposed RRN delivery models. Interviews were completed by all four member Townships and the County. Key themes identified during these interviews included: •

The County of Frontenac and its member Townships, while connected geographically and proximally throughout the County, are all very different in their transportation system requirements, use, and challenges

•

The Township’s concerns regarding the original methodology used in the Financial Information Return (FIR) analysis on the comparative reserve position of the Townships and County

•

The various stages of development for asset management plans and differing capital project budget processes across each of the Townships

•

The inconsistency in methodology regarding asset management and road needs studies throughout the County

•

Confusion regarding the regional road network as identified in the County of Frontenac Official Plan (2014)

•

Outstanding questions on how the 1% ownership stake proposed by the County would impact the OCIF funding formula for the Townships, as well as future access to grant funding for those municipalities who have had high levels of success in securing additional funds through grant applications

There was general agreement on the following benefits of a RRN:  Improved consistency in levels of service, maintenance standards, and investment in infrastructure across the RRN  Increased efficiencies in procurement, economies of scale, project bundling, and project management across the RRN From the consultation on the RRN, all parties see the merits of a regional approach as identified above. There are some outstanding questions that will need to be answered prior to implementation.

Page 99 of 171

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Projected Capital Needs The following table illustrates number of kilometers of regional road held by each Township as identified in the County of Frontenac Official Plan, and the corresponding capital expenditures required in the short (1-5 years) and medium (6-10 years) term. The capital needs identified below have been extracted from each Township’s most recent Road Needs Study, and the methodology may vary between Townships.

Township

Lane Kilometers of Regional Roads

Projected Capital Expenditure 1-5 years

Projected Capital Expenditure 6-10 years

North Frontenac

240

$2,406,000

$6,446,000

Central Frontenac

216

$5,191,000

$1,936,000

South Frontenac

382

$24,862,500

$7,230,000

Frontenac Islands

122

$49,638

*$3,032,279

Total

960

$32,509,138

$18,644,279

It is clear from the projected capital improvements required for the Regional Roads Network within the next 10 years, that greater financial investment in the County’s transportation system will be critical to maintain the current level of service moving forward. Potential consequences of delaying/reducing road maintenance programs and levels of service include:  Deterioration of road conditions  Compromising of road safety  Detachment of local communities  Diminished tourism and positive public perception  Damage to vehicles due to road conditions  Decreased emergency response times Source – Member Townships most recent Roads Needs Studies based on Regional Road Network as identified in County of Frontenac Official Plan (2016) *Frontenac Islands – Includes Howe Island Drive estimates by Director of Public Works, based on road needs as identified in Frontenac Islands Road Needs Study (2018) © 2021 KPMG LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG global organization of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a private English company limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.

Page 100 of 171

 Reduced efficiency and movement of goods and services

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Projected Capital Needs The following tables identify the regional roads held by each Township as identified in the County of Frontenac Official Plan, and the corresponding capital expenditures required in the short (1-5 years) and medium (6-10 years) term. The capital needs identified below have been extracted from each Township’s most recent Road Needs Study, and the methodology may vary between Townships. North Frontenac Township

Central Frontenac Township

Road Name

1-5 years

6-10 years

Ardoch Road

$997,000

$1,208,000

Ardoch Road

Buckshot Lake Road

$815,000

$763,000

Arden Road

$682,000

$88,000

Henderson Road

$1,749,000

Harlowe Road Henderson Road

Road Name

1-5 years

$660,000

Long Lake Road

$594,000

Road 506

$1,973,000

Mountain Grove Road

Road 509

$2,195,000

Road 38

South Lavant Road

$219,000

Road 509

$6,446,000

Westport Road

$2,760,000

Total

$5,191,000

Total

$2,406,000

Frontenac Islands Township

Road Name

1-5 years

6-10 years

$1,276,000 $1,936,000

6-10 years

Howe Island Drive

*$2,160,000

Road 95

$119,131 $49,638

$753,148

Total

$49,638

$3,032,279

Source – Member Townships most recent Roads Needs Studies based on Regional Road Network as identified in County of Frontenac Official Plan (2014) *Frontenac Islands – Howe Island Drive estimates by Director of Public Works, based on road needs as identified in Frontenac Islands Road Needs Study (2018) © 2021 KPMG LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG global organization of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a private English company limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.

Page 101 of 171

Road 96

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Projected Capital Needs The following table identifies the regional roads held by South Frontenac Township as identified in the County of Frontenac Official Plan, and the corresponding capital expenditures required in the short (1-5 years) and medium (6-10 years) term. The capital needs identified below have been extracted from South Frontenac’s Asset Management Plan (2016), and the methodology may vary between Townships. South Frontenac Township

Road Name

South Frontenac Township

1-5 years

6-10 years

Road Name

Battersea Road

$5,925,000

Sydenham Road

Bedford Road

$1,080,000

Sydenham William Street

Bellrock Road

Westport Road

Desert Lake Road

$90,000

1-5 years

$420,000

Wilton Road Yarker Road

$922,500

Henderson Road

Total

$24,862,500

Perth Road

$1,335,000 $1,485,000

Harrowsmith Road Moreland-Dixon Road

6-10 years

$7,230,000

$1,867,500 $4,875,000

$90,000

$10,050,000

$1,732,500

Portland Avenue Road 38 Rutledge Road

$630,000

Sunbury Road

$1,590,000

Sydenham Church Street

Page 102 of 171

Source – South Frontenac Asset Management Plan (2016) based on Regional Road Network as identified in County of Frontenac Official Plan (2014)

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Reserves Position of County verses Comparators The following graph represents the total roads reserve position for the County’s four Townships compared against the municipalities of Hastings County, Lanark County, Leeds and Grenville United Counties and Lennox and Addington County. Lanark County, Leeds and Grenville, and Lennox and Addington are responsible for the maintenance of a regional road network. Their reserve position is specific to the County funded regional roads. Frontenac County and Hastings County reserve position is the sum of all the member Township’s road reserves. The roads reserve position of the Frontenac County Townships is consistent with their peers, Lanark, Leeds and Grenville, and Lennox and Addington Counties, which have all experienced a growth in their road reserves over the past five years. Frontenac County has the second largest reserve position among the comparator group.*

Page 103 of 171

*Reserve position of Frontenac County includes a portion of non-designated reserves from the Township of South Frontenac

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Dedicated Roads Reserves per lane kilometer The following graph represents the dedicated roads reserve position per lane kilometer for the County’s four Townships compared against the municipalities of Hastings County, Lanark County, Leeds and Grenville United Counties and Lennox and Addington County. Lanark County, Leeds and Grenville, and Lennox and Addington are responsible for the maintenance of a regional road network. Their reserve position per lane kilometer is specific to the County funded regional road network. The Frontenac County and Hastings County reserve position per paved lane kilometer is the sum of all the member Township’s road reserves. The roads reserve position per lane kilometer of the Frontenac County Townships is the second lowest among the comparator group.

Page 104 of 171

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Grant Position of County vs Comparators The graph below shows the transportation grant position of Frontenac County Townships against the comparator group of four neighbouring Counties. The County of Frontenac and the County of Lennox and Addington are both comprised of four lower tier municipalities. Lanark County is comprised of eight lower tier municipalities, the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville is comprised of ten lower tier municipalities, and Hastings County is comprised of fourteen lower tier municipalities. The graph illustrates both conditional grants (yellow) and tangible capital asset grants (blue). Since 2016, the Frontenac County Townships have received significantly less grant funding when compared to their peers. In 2018, Frontenac County received an average of $3 million less in grant funding in contrast to the comparator group.

Page 105 of 171

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Grant Position of County vs Comparators The following graph shows the transportation grants per lane kilometer of municipal roadway. Lanark, Leeds and Grenville, and Lennox and Addington Counties are responsible for the maintenance of a regional roads network and the grants per lane kilometer is specific to the amount of lane kilometers maintained by the comparator County. Frontenac County and Hastings County are not responsible for a regional road network so the grants per lane kilometer reflect the total municipal lane kilometers of the member Townships. In 2018, Frontenac County received on average, 81% less grant dollars per lane kilometer when compared to their neighbouring municipalities.

Page 106 of 171

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Available Grant Programs KPMG conducted an examination of senior level grants available for municipal roads transportation infrastructure, reviewed eligibility requirements and total funding offered to construct a high level synopsis of the current state of grant funding. The Province of Ontario informed KPMG that the ICIP Funding for Rural and Northern Communities would be concluding at the end of 2019. The conclusion of this application based funding opportunity eliminates virtually all discretionary roads funding grant programs and will require municipalities in the future to find alternative ways to fund their transportation networks.

Grant Name Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF)* Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP): Rural and Northern Communities**

Funding Priorities

Eligibility

Funds available annually

Capital expenditures on core infrastructure that are part of asset management plan 2019 priorities: Near-term transportation improvement projects, for more reliable roads, bridges, air, and marine infrastructure

All small municipalities with populations less than 100k; Formula based

$200 million; guaranteed receipt of $50k minimum

All small municipalities with populations less than 100k; Application based

$250 million; concluding at end of 2019

Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF)

Operating support for local frontline services

Unconditional, supporting northern and rural municipalities

$500 million

Federal Gas Tax Funding

Local Infrastructure Projects

Unconditional

$1.64 Billion (Ontario)

*The Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund Top-Up (OCIF-TU) was used in the County’s calculation of senior level grant funding available to comparator counties in their April 17, 2019 report to Council. Since then, the Provincial government announced they would be redesigning the Top-Up portion of the OCIF and would no longer fund projects through the application-based top up portion of the Fund, redirecting $150 million in infrastructure funds.

Page 107 of 171

**Joint projects were identified as a priority within the ICIP: Rural and Northern Communities funding stream and additional consideration would be given to multiple eligible applicants partnering on projects in their region. Joint projects, as defined in ICIP, are those where each co-applicant contributes financially to the project. Joint projects count as project put forward by each municipality, and each partner may not also submit an individual application. Funds are only released to lead applicant, who is responsible for the financial management of the project and provincial reporting requirements.

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Key Findings The following are five key findings resulting from our analysis of the current model for the Regional Road Network.

The Watson and Associates Roads Management Study and the D.M. Wills Associates Frontenac Corridor Needs Study both identified the an integrated capital management plan as the most effective and efficient approach to maintaining the Frontenac Corridor.
The overall roads reserve position of the Frontenac County Townships is consistent with their peers, and is the second largest reserve position among the comparator group. However, the roads reserve position per lane kilometer for the Frontenac County Townships is substantially less than Hastings, Lanark, and Lennox & Addington Counties. While Frontenac County is positioned well in overall roads reserves among the comparator group, the low reserve position per lane kilometer indicates an unsustainable financial position if the current model remains unchanged.
Since 2016 , the Frontenac County Townships have received significantly less grant funding when compared to their peers. In 2018, Frontenac County received an average of $3 million less in grant funding than their comparator group. On a per lane kilometer basis, Frontenac County received, on average, 81% less grant dollars per lane kilometer when compared to their neighbouring municipalities
In the next 5 years, the individual Road Needs Studies of member Townships indicate the Frontenac County Townships will collectively need to invest approximately $32.5 million to maintain the 960 lane kilometers of regional roads as identified in the County of Frontenac Official Plan; per lane kilometer this equals $33,854. Currently, the Townships spend up to 60% of their annual operating budgets on road operations and maintenance.
The unstable nature of infrastructure grant funding provided by the Province of Ontario will require municipalities in the future to find alternative ways to fund their transportation networks.

Page 108 of 171

Based upon the above, there is a case for change in how the regional road network within Frontenac County is managed and supported. The municipal road reserve position per lane kilometer is behind its comparators, the future of traditional grant programs is uncertain, and there is a large unfunded capital liability for the regional road network over the next five years. It is apparent that the service delivery model of the regional road network will have to be fundamentally rethought to address these challenges.

Analysis of Proposed RRN Models Frontenac Regional Roads Network Final Report

Page 109 of 171

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Analysis of Proposed RRN Models Introduction KPMG was engaged by the County to explore the merits of two regional roads network delivery models previously selected by County Council; specifically a model using contracted engineering with limited County involvement and a model where County resources support the delivery of the RRN. As a result of the January 29th 2020 Joint Council meeting, a second phase of work was authorized to look at additional regional road network delivery models that precluded County involvement. On June 18th, an on-line working session was held with the Township CAO’s to discuss the different models available to the Townships of Frontenac County. Each model was evaluated and scored by the Township CAO’s. The highest scoring model has been included in our analysis. It is assumed, for purposes of this review, that the Regional Road Network are the roads of regional significance as identified in the County of Frontenac Official Plan, adopted in 2014. County of Lennox and Addington In the initial analysis performed by the County in April 2019, the County of Lennox and Addington (“L&A County”) regional roads transportation model was identified as a comparator municipality that could serve as a model for the proposed Frontenac County Regional Road Network. L&A County spans 2,777 square kilometers from Lake Ontario in the south to Renfrew County in the north. In addition to the County, there are four member municipalities: Town of Greater Napanee, Township of Addington Highlands, Loyalist Township and the Township of Stone Mills. The County maintains a significant transportation network that includes: 916 lane kilometers of urban, semi-urban and rural roads, specifically:  596 lane km of hot mix asphalt road  300 lane km of surface treated road  20 lane km of concrete road  50 bridges and 18 major culvert structures  1 roundabout

Source: https://lennox-addington.on.ca/traffic-roads-bridges/overview

Page 110 of 171

The County is responsible for all costs of the County road network, including, operation, maintenance, and capital construction. The member municipalities maintain the upper-tier County road network under contract on behalf of the County. L&A County has a Director of Infrastructure Services, a Supervisor of Roads and Bridges, a GIS Specialist, and 2 Certified Engineering Technologists to provide engineering and asset management support to the County road network.

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Analysis of Proposed RRN Models L&A Maintenance Agreement with member Townships and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) The County and the member municipalities have an “Agreement for the Construction and Maintenance of County Roads and Bridges,” which is reviewed annually and agreed to by all parties. Key highlights of the construction and maintenance agreement between the County and the Townships includes: 

County Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Terms of Reference



Annual base amount fee per kilometer for maintenance of County roads paid to the Townships, adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index



Scope of Services including winter control, bridges and culverts, hard top maintenance, road maintenance, safety devices, storm water management



Emergency maintenance authorization and procedures



Capital Construction program



Health and Safety



Insurance and Indemnity



Joint Inspection



Records, Documentation and GIS



Dispute Resolution

Page 111 of 171

The Technical Advisory Committee is comprised of one or more technical representatives from the County and member municipalities, as well as representatives from the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP). The Committee is chaired by the Director of Infrastructure for L&A County. The Committee meets monthly to coordinate capital and maintenance work, review and recommend long range construction programs and review proposed capital project designs. In addition, the Committee establishes work and payment scheduling for capital improvements, discusses traffic incidents, road safety and joint procurement opportunities as required.

In addition to interviews with County staff, KPMG attended a TAC Meeting on October 29, 2019 and observed the service delivery model for the County road network. It appears to meet the transportation network requirements of both the County and the member municipalities. There is a belief that the integrated capital planning approach realizes maximum value for money by creating efficiencies in joint procurement, project bundling, and economies of scale. © 2021 KPMG LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG global organization of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a private English company limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Analysis of Proposed RRN Models L& A Model – Legal Liability A key difference between the L&A County road network and the similar option, proposed by Frontenac County, is the difference in overall ownership of the road network. L&A County maintain official ownership and control of 100% of the regional roads network, including its asset management, GIS, and capital construction costs. There is an indemnity clause included in the Agreement for Construction and Maintenance of Roads and Bridges Terms of Reference that outlines legal liability between L&A County and it’s member municipalities.

Page 112 of 171

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Analysis of Proposed RRN Models Option 1: Regional Approach with County Resources This proposed operational model consists of a Regional engineer to support the regional roads network. The County would secure a 1% ownership stake in the Regional Roads Network and hire an engineer and engineering technician to work in conjunction with the Township Public Works Managers. The Regional Engineer would be responsible for developing regional priorities for capital construction, coordinate tendering and contract administration, establish key performance indicators (KPIs) for the regional roads network, provide project management and asset management support to the Townships, and report regularly to Council. Grant funding applications for regional roads would be prepared by the regional engineer and engineering technician and the County would be responsible for the submission of the grant applications and subsequent reporting, to the applicable funding agency. Member Townships would continue to be responsible for ongoing maintenance and roads operations.

Advantages

Challenges

 Responsibility and workload of regional road grant applications centralized to the County and facilitated by Regional Engineer

 Greater requirement to restructure the service delivery model and associated governance for roads when compared to the outsourcing model

 Regional Engineer can provide project management and asset management support to member Townships

 There are space constraints at the current County administrative offices

 In-house engineering staff provide the County and member Townships the ability to build long term relationships, institutional memory and in-house capacity

 Limited capacity to accommodate the administrative burden of administering large construction projects, grant funded project reporting, accounts payable etc.

 Regional engineer readily available for emergencies and/or key political engagements on short notice

 Recruitment of qualified Regional Engineer could require substantial lead time

 Regional Engineer serves only one client the County member Townships in comparison to the outsourcing model where a engineering firm has to balance multiple clients

 Added expense of ongoing training requirements and certifications of Regional Engineer

 County and member Townships already have experience with a shared services model in GIS, IT, and Planning services © 2021 KPMG LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG global organization of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a private English company limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.

Page 113 of 171

 Clear reporting relationships and delegation of authority

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Option 1 Financial Projection: In-House Regional Engineering The Lennox & Addington County budget for the administration of paved roads (Appendix B) was used as a model to estimate the cost of the In-House Regional Engineering option. 2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

Salaries & Benefits1

216,000

220,320

278,596

284,168

289,852

Materials & Supplies2

160,000

163,200

166,464

169,793

173,189

Services3

60,000

Departmental Allocation4

100,000

One Time Start Up5 Costs

200,000 543,520

605,060

613,962

623,041

Annual Costs Option 1

736,000

Notes:

Salaries and benefits for Frontenac County is based upon two positions in 2020 -2021 and an additional .5 position in 2022. Salaries and benefits are adjusted by 2% annually. Comparatively, L&A County budget for Regional Engineer, two Technologists and administrative support is $538,700.
Services include engineering consulting, legal and audit services and reflect the budgeted expenditures of L&A County.
Departmental allocation is an indirect cost assigned to the In-house Regional Engineering reflecting corporate overhead.
One time start up costs to standardize and organize the road data for all member municipalities estimated at $200,000. © 2021 KPMG LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG global organization of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a private English company limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.

Page 114 of 171

Materials and supplies to support the work of in-house regional engineering work is consistent with the L&A County requirements. Materials and supplies are adjusted by 2% annually.

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Analysis of Proposed RRN Models Option 2: Regional Approach Using Contracted Engineering Services This proposed operational model has limited Frontenac County involvement. The County would secure a 1% ownership stake in the Regional Road Network and would engage an independent engineering firm on a retention basis to work in conjunction with Township Public Works Managers. The consulting engineer would work collaboratively with the County and member Townships to develop regional priorities for capital construction, coordinate tendering and contract administration, establish key performance indicators (KPIs) for the regional roads network, and report regularly to Council. Grant funding applications for regional roads would be prepared by the consulting engineer (in consultation with the Township Public Works Managers). The County would be responsible for the submission of the grant applications to the applicable funding agency. Member Townships would continue to be responsible for ongoing maintenance and roads operations.

Challenges

 Specialized staff from engineering firm available specific to type of capital construction project

 Significant work still required at the Township staff level for preparation of grant applications and reporting

 Transfer partial liability to contracted engineering firm

 Risk of staffing fluctuations due to conflicting resource requirements for selected firm

 Option to pay/utilize resources from consultant on an ‘as-needed’ basis

 Selected firm could have travel/location constraints and not available on short notice for RRN needs/priorities/political engagements

 Option to terminate the consulting agreement with consultant if not meeting expectations

 Inability to build corporate knowledge and capacity when contracting out vs. maintaining resources in-house

 Consultant has no political associations with member Townships or County

 Contracted firm will have competing priorities and multiple clients

 Firm has existing administrative infrastructure to support contract administration for large projects, accounts payable, etc.

 Increased demands on Township administration for asset management administration

 Contracted firm is able to scale up or down quickly based on demand, projects, etc.

 Unclear reporting relationship between consulting engineer and County and member Townships; delegated authority would need to be defined

 Contracted firm could start immediately, requiring minimal lead time

Page 115 of 171

Advantages

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Option 2 Financial Projection: Regional Approach using Contracted Engineering Services The Contracted Engineering budget for the administration of a Regional Road Network was developed based upon the typical cost of an engineer and engineering technician and anticipated start up costs.

2020

2021

2022

2023

5% annual increase

2024

Contracted Engineer¹

243,360 $

255,528 $

268,304 $

281,720 $

295,806

Contracted Technician²

87,360 $

91,728 $

96,314 $

101,130 $

106,187

Departmental Allocation³

100,000 $

100,000

One Time Start Up Costs⁴

200,000 447,256 $

464,619 $

482,850 $

501,992

Annual Costs Option 1 $

630,720 $

Notes

Contracted engineer estimated at $195/hr. or $1,560/day for three days per week.
Contracted engineering technician estimated at $70/hr. or $560/day for three days per week.
One time start up costs to standardize and organize the road data for all member municipalities estimated at $200,000.

Page 116 of 171

Townships would require more coordination/resources to support the contracted engineer so there should be an overhead allocation under this scenario for time spent providing guidance, information, feedback, etc.

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Analysis of Proposed RRN Models Option 3: Joint Services Board This proposed operational model has no Frontenac County involvement. The member Townships would establish a Joint Services Board (JSB) which would be delegated the control and management of the regional transportation network. A Joint Services Board can be created under the Act by an agreement between two or more municipalities and the passage of corresponding delegation of authority bylaws. The Regional Roads Joint Services Board would hire an engineer who would report directly to the JSB and who would be supported by existing Township staff. The JSB Engineer would develop regional priorities for capital construction, coordinate tendering and contract administration, establish key performance indicators (KPIs) for the regional roads network and report regularly to member Township Councils. Grant funding applications for regional roads would be prepared by the JSB Engineer.

Advantages

Challenges



JSB has been successfully used my member Townships for other municipal services. Terms of reference, level of service standards, and shared services agreement would formalize role and responsibility of JSB for regional transportation.



Joint Services Board would promote joint procurement efforts, shared equipment and in-house resources and a holistic approach to regional roads across member Townships.



JSB Engineer would be readily available for emergencies and/or key political engagements on short notice.



JSB Engineer would serve only one client, the JSB, in comparison to the outsourcing model where an engineering firm has to balance multiple clients and demands.

The governance and controlling interest of the JSB needs to be determined to avoid the perception of unequal benefit and unfair distribution of costs. There are several different options to determining the governance model and controlling interest e.g. number of lane kilometers, assets value, road class, weighted assessment or equal controlling interest among all four townships.



Since the JSB is not a corporate entity, it has no taxation authority. The levy to fund regional roads would be subject to the annual approval of each member Township Council. The selected governance model would determine the annual levy amount for each Township.



The addition of RRN asset management support on member Township administrations may place increased demands on already limited Township resources.



The delegated authority between the member Townships, the JSB and its Engineer would need to be defined to ensure clarity in the reporting relationship



JSBs are not corporate entities; liability for regional roads would remain with the member Townships.



The JSB does not provide long-term sustainable funding for a Regional Road Network. If one Township withdraws from the JSB then it jeopardizes the sustainability of the Regional Road Network.

Because the JSB is not a corporate entity, it is unlikely that it would be able to submit grant applications on behalf of the Regional Road Network. It would need to be applied by one of the member Townships which would limit their ability to apply for Township grants; similar to the Eastern Ontario Warden’s Caucus (corporation) and the Eastern Ontario Leadership Council (unincorporated) © 2021 KPMG LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG global organization of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a 30  private English company limited by guarantee. All rights reserved. It duplicates the existing County governance model. 

Page 117 of 171



Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Option 3 Financial Projection: Joint Services Board The Engineering budget for the administration of a Regional Road Network managed by a JSB was developed based upon the typical cost of an engineer and anticipated start up costs consistent with a regional approach to roads management. 2% annual 2024 increase

2020

2021

2022

2023

Salaries & Benefits¹

145,800

148,716

151,690

154,724

157,819

Materials & Supplies²

160,000

163,200

166,464

169,793

173,189

Services³

60,000

Township Allocation⁴

100,000

One Time Start Up Costs⁵

200,000 471,916

478,154

484,517

491,008

Annual Costs Option 1

665,800

Notes

Salaries and benefits for Regional Engineer hired by JSB calculated at $108,000 annual salary plus 35% benefits. Salaries and benefits are adjusted by 2% annually.
Materials and supplies to support the work of JSB regional engineering are consistent with a regional approach to roads management. Materials and supplies are adjusted by 2% annually.
Services include engineering consulting, legal and audit services and are consistent with a regional approach to roads management.
One time start up costs to standardize and organize the road data for all member municipalities estimated at $200,000.

Page 118 of 171

Townships would provide increased coordination and resources to support the JSB Engineer so there should be an overhead allocation under this scenario for time spent providing guidance, administrative support, technician support, information, feedback, etc.

Conclusion and Recommendations Frontenac Regional Roads Network Final Report

Page 119 of 171

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Conclusion KPMG was engaged by the County to explore the merits of two regional roads network delivery models previously selected by County Council; specifically a model using contracted engineering with limited County involvement and a model where County resources support the delivery of the RRN. The objective of the proposed RRN was to allow the County and the Townships to collectively apply for infrastructure grants, coordinate priority setting for capital projects and procurement, realize operational efficiencies through greater collaboration, and develop and manage the asset management plan for a regional transportation network. As a result of the January 29th 2020 Joint Council meeting, a second phase of work was authorized to look at additional regional road network delivery models that precluded County involvement. On June 18th, an on-line working session was held with the Township CAO’s to discuss the different models available to the Townships of Frontenac County. It is assumed, for purposes of this review, that the Regional Road Network are the roads of regional significance as identified in the County of Frontenac Official Plan, adopted in 2014. KPMG has completed our analysis of the three proposed delivery models and worked with the Project Team to refine the different options. Some key findings from our analysis include:  In the next 5 years, the individual Road Needs Studies of member Townships indicate the Frontenac County Townships will collectively need to invest approximately $32.5 million to maintain the 960 lane kilometers of regional roads as identified in the County of Frontenac Official Plan; per lane kilometer this equals $33,854. Currently, the Townships spend up to 60% of their annual operating budgets on road operations and maintenance.  The unstable nature of infrastructure grant funding provided by the Province of Ontario will require municipalities in the future to find alternative ways to fund their transportation networks. Based upon the above, there is a case for change in how the regional road network within Frontenac County is managed and supported. The municipal road reserve position per paved lane kilometer is behind its comparators, the future of traditional grant programs is uncertain, and there is a large unfunded capital liability for the regional road network over the next five years. It is apparent that the service delivery model of the regional road network will have to be fundamentally rethought to address these challenges.

Page 120 of 171

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Recommendations Highest Scoring Option: The CAO’s of member Townships met on June 18, 2020 for a KPMG facilitated discussion regarding a Regional Road Network. The member Township CAO’s agreed that a coordinated approach to regional roads has potential to realize significant benefits for the member Townships through operational and procurement efficiencies, the establishment of consistent maintenance standards and levels of service throughout the road network, improved asset management, capital works priority setting, and financial planning. All member Township CAO’s agreed on six guiding principles for a Regional Road Network:

Access to increased funding opportunities
Cost savings and operational efficiencies
Investment in road infrastructure
Standardize level of service for regional transportation across the County
Responsible, well-defined, neutral governance with transparent controlling interest
Model that will facilitate the stable, consistent and sustainable financing component of Regional Road Network At the June workshop, member Township CAO’s evaluated and scored each approach based on the six guiding principles for a Regional Road Network. The Joint Services Board received the highest evaluation, scoring 16 out of a maximum of 18 points.

KPMG Recommendation: Based on the findings of this report, KPMG recommends a regional approach with County resources (Option 1). The reasons for this recommendation are as follows: The capital needs for regional roads will be a significant burden on the Townships in the near term. Additional taxation in the form of a County levy would guarantee stable, reliable and sustainable funding over the long term to support the necessary infrastructure of regional roads, and ensure a higher and more consistent level of service to all residents. The JSB does not provide this guaranteed sustainable funding mechanism for roads infrastructure.

The JSB duplicates an existing more effective governance model for regional service delivery across the county. Governance and reporting frameworks already exist with Option 1 and is a model used by all but one other similar jurisdiction in the Province of Ontario.

Since the JSB is not a corporate entity, it is unlikely to be capable of grant applications. The County would have the ability to make grant applications on behalf of the Regional Road Network without jeopardizing the ability of member Townships to apply for their own grants.

The County’s involvement with the Regional Road Network would support other transportation initiatives across the county e.g. ferries, trails that would increase the overall mobility of County residents.

Municipal staff acknowledge that there is limited public works and treasury capacity for increased workload at the Township level, the savings under Option 3 does not appear to be sustainable.

Page 121 of 171

Implementation Plan

Frontenac Regional Roads Network Final Report

Page 122 of 171

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Implementation Plan for KPMG Recommendation A high-level implementation plan is proposed for year one in the progression toward the establishment of a Regional Roads Network, facilitated by the County of Frontenac for Option 1 In-House Engineering delivery model. This implementation plan should be considered as a starting point for a framework and structure which will evolve over time. This KPMG recommended operational model consists of a Regional engineer to support the regional roads network. The County would hire an engineer and engineering technician to work in conjunction with the Township Public Works Managers. The Regional Engineer would be responsible for developing regional priorities for capital construction, coordinate tendering and contract administration, establish key performance indicators (KPIs) for the regional roads network, provide project management and asset management support to the Townships, and report regularly to Council. Member Townships would continue to be responsible for ongoing maintenance and roads operations. Suggested Preliminary Implementation Plan:

Establish a RRN Steering Committee, with participation from each of the four member Townships and the County, to provide the leadership and direction required to build out the foundation and framework for the RRN. As the Frontenac RRN program progresses, this committee could become the Frontenac Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).
Seek professional legal advice and guidance to arrange for the County to purchase 1% ownership stake of the regional road network from member Townships.
Hire a Regional Engineer to begin administration and coordination of the RRN. The Regional Engineer would be responsible for executing the following priorities:  Plan, coordinate and lead monthly TAC meetings  Undertake an evaluation of the RRN as identified in the County OP and obtain consensus from member Townships on Regional Roads for which to base the RRN on moving forward.  Procure the completion of a comprehensive Road Needs Study for regional roads as identified above, produced by one consultant, using consistent methodology throughout the assessment.

Page 123 of 171

 Establish levels of service and maintenance standards for regional roads to ensure a harmonized approach to maintenance and improvements within the regional road network. Levels of service provide a comprehensive approach to the maintenance of municipal infrastructure by setting out objectives and expectations to be achieved, as well as provide a measuring stick to ensure the municipal infrastructure is maintained to a standard that sustains or prolongs the life of the asset.

Frontenac Regional Road Network

Implementation Plan Suggested Preliminary Implementation Plan (continued):  Use the results of the Regional Roads Needs study for priority setting for capital projects and create 5-10 year capital plan. This integrated capital planning approach is important to realize maximum value for money and economies of scale, and ensure the full service life of the asset is realized. Prioritization of projects should be based on levels of service and priorities such as safety, life cycle cost, remaining service life, risk, AADTs, economic development, tourism, and recreation should be considered.¹  Establish and/or streamline asset management for the regional roads network into one software methodology and financial management system.  Consider and evaluate alternative regional road policies and funding models to account for significant infrastructure funding gap and create sustainable funding plan.  Identify and prepare two shovel ready projects for grant funding application and coordinate project completion.  Establish and implement a procurement program for a minimum of five high value roads maintenance products/supplies and/or contracted services.  Support political efforts to meet with provincial and federal departments and politicians, to ensure that a unified Frontenac voice is recognized at senior levels of government and funding agencies.  Provide quarterly progress reports to each municipality and host two meetings annually of all municipal councils, to review progress and solicit feedback.  In Year 2, develop and prepare a business plan for review by all municipalities.

Page 124 of 171

Appendix A Lennox & Addington County Agreement for Construction and Maintenance of County Roads and Bridges Frontenac Regional Roads Network Final Report

Page 125 of 171

Page 126 of 171

AGREEMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF COUNTY ROADS AND BRIDGES THIS AGREEMENT made in duplicate this _________ day of ________, 201 Between:

The Corporation of the County of Lennox and Addington (hereinafter called the “County”) and The Corporation of the _________________ (hereinafter called “the Municipality”)

WHEREAS: a) The County has, by by-law, established certain roads or public highways located within its boundaries and, further thereto, incorporated such roads, highways, and related bridge facilities into its road system; b)

The Municipal Act (Ontario) permits a municipality to enter into agreements for the joint management and operation of, among other things, a road system;

The County and the Municipality as identified above have reached agreement as to the terms by which the Municipality shall undertake such maintenance responsibilities in respect of roads, highways, and related bridge facilities incorporated in the County road system and which are located within the boundaries of the Municipality;

In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein the parties and their respective administrators, successors and assigns agree as follows:

Agreement The following schedules are attached to and shall form part of this Agreement: i) Schedule “A” referred to as a detailed description of roads and bridge/culvert facilities for which maintenance/repair services are required; ii) Schedule “B” referred to as a sketch identifying the location of relevant County roads and bridge/culvert facilities; iii) Schedule “C” referred to as Scope of Services for the County road system including County Roadway Service Standards attached as Appendix 1 within this Schedule; iv) Schedule “D” referred to as the Terms of Reference for the County Technical Advisory Committee – Roads and Bridges;
General Conditions The County will maintain ownership and control of the County road system listed in Schedule “A”. The Municipality will be responsible for the maintenance of the County road system located within the Municipality and may elect to perform some, or all, of the annual construction program on these roads and bridges in accordance with section 6 below.
Term This agreement shall commence on January 1, 2020 and continue thereafter unless notice is provided by either party to terminate the agreement no later than June 30th for effect on January 1st of the following year of proposed termination. This agreement may be revised at any time with the written consent of the parties.

Construction and Maintenance Agreement

Page 1

Page 127 of 171

County Technical Advisory Committee - Roads and Bridges In order that there continues to be good ongoing communication between the parties, a Technical Advisory Committee shall be formed and be comprised of technical representatives from each of the local municipalities within the County; the County Manager, Roads and Bridges and relevant support staff; and the County Director, Financial and Physical Services. The Terms of Reference of the County Technical Advisory Committee - Roads and Bridges are set out in Schedule “D” of this agreement.
Maintenance i) The Municipality agrees to provide maintenance services to those roads identified in Schedules “A” and “B” of this agreement as set out in Schedule “C” at least equal to the standards as specified in County By-law No. 3361/17 (“A Bylaw to Repeal By-Law 2941/03 and to Establish Roadway Service Standards for the Lennox and Addington County Road System”) as amended from time to time. The County shall pay the annual base amount of $6,016.58 for the maintenance of 458_ kilometres of County roads within the Municipality as set out in Schedule “A”, commencing with the calendar year 2020. For subsequent years, the maintenance compensation rate shall be adjusted based on the annual change in the Consumers Price Index in Ontario for the month of November of the previous year. The base maintenance amount is payable in equal installments on the same dates that the County Levy is paid by the Municipality to the County. For purposes of clarity, where a County Road intersects a road owned by or otherwise under the jurisdiction of the Municipality, the continuation of the County Road to its full width across the road so intersected is considered part of the County Road. Where a County Road intersects a Provincial Highway owned or otherwise under the jurisdiction of the Province of Ontario and/or the Ministry of Transportation Ontario, the continuation of the said Provincial Highway to its full width across the County Road so intersected is deemed to be part of the Provincial Highway and not part of the County Road and, as such, is not subject to the obligations set forth in this Agreement. ii) Within 120 days of the end of a calendar year, the local municipality will submit to the County a summary of all eligible County road and bridge maintenance costs incurred during the previous year on forms supplied by the County to determine the annual reconciliation amounts. Once all of the information has been submitted, County and local treasurers will meet to review the reconciliation adjustments. If the total of the actual eligible costs for the year is greater than 110% of the County’s maintenance allocation, the County will pay 100% of the excess greater than 110% to the Municipality. If the total of the actual eligible costs for the year is less than 90% of the County’s maintenance allocation, the Municipality will pay 100% of the amount less than 90% to the County. Staffing costs shall be determined using payroll burden including benefits. Equipment costs shall be determined using the Ontario Provincial Standard Specification “Schedule of Rental Rates for Construction Equipment, Including Model and Specification Reference” (OPSS 127). Municipalities will be compensated at 70% of the OPSS 127 listed rates. The rate will be reviewed and updated on a three year cycle with the first year being the year of this agreement’s commencement. Construction and Maintenance Agreement

Page 2

Page 128 of 171

iii) Additional road maintenance/repair services, either not identified or exceeding the expectations for maintenance stated in the Scope of Services identified in Schedule “C” may be performed by the Municipality by mutual agreement between the Municipality and the County. In the event that additional services are required by the County, they shall be reviewed with the Municipality, and the Municipality shall have the option of either seeking to perform such work or declining to perform such work. If the Municipality chooses to seek to perform such services, it shall provide a written cost estimate to the County, which shall have the option of either accepting the said cost estimate or rejecting such estimate, in which former case, the accepted estimate shall constitute the mutual agreement for such additional services between the parties as referred to above. In the event that the Municipality, in the first instance, rejects the opportunity to seek to perform such additional services or the County, in the second instance, rejects the written estimate prepared and delivered by the Municipality, then in either such instances, the County shall be at liberty to arrange for the additional services to be performed by a third party contractor other than the Municipality. In those circumstances where the Municipality is of the opinion that certain road maintenance/repairs are of an emergency nature and that such notice to the County is not practical and, as such, the Municipality shall have the right to arrange for and complete those emergency services and shall thereafter notify the County within the next working day of the services so provided. The Municipality shall prepare and deliver an invoice to the County for such additional maintenance/repair services, including any such emergency services. iv) The parties acknowledge that the Scope of Services set forth in Schedule “C” have been approved by County Council but may be amended during the term of this Agreement by the said County Council. The parties also acknowledge that the Minister of Transportation - Ontario may by regulation establish minimum standards for maintenance and repair of County Roads. Any proposed revisions to the Scope of Services shall be reviewed by the County and the Municipality prior to the anticipated passage of same by County Council. In this regard and in respect of a change in minimum standards by the Minister of Transportation Ontario, the County and Municipality shall review such proposed standards in relation to the Scope of Services to determine whether the said standards as proposed by the Province of Ontario are greater than or less than the requirements of the Scope of Services approved by Council. In this regard and in the event that the Province of Ontario adopts a regulation which contains minimum performance standards that are higher than the Scope of Services adopted by Council, then the parties shall adopt those higher performance standards and present to County Council and Municipal Council any amendments required to this Agreement. v) The Municipality hereby acknowledges and agrees that the maintenance and or repair works undertaken upon County Roads pursuant to this Agreement shall at all times satisfy the obligations to maintain and/or repair County Roads as established pursuant to the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended and to the Ontario Regulation Minimum Maintenance Standards, as amended. The Municipality hereby further acknowledges and agrees that its road maintenance/repair practices are of a nature and of a quality to satisfy all statutory obligations to maintain/or repair a highway. vi) It is understood and mutually agreed upon for services where a County road infrastructure component is new, upgraded or rehabilitated, the services are deemed to be beyond routine repair and maintenance. These operations will then be paid by the County and may be undertaken by the municipality subject to clause 5iii).

Construction and Maintenance Agreement

Page 3

Page 129 of 171

Determination if the scope of the service is routine maintenance or an upgrade or rehabilitation may require an informal decision by County senior staff in consultation with the local municipality and/or the County Technical Advisory Committee. 6. Capital Construction In order to determine a construction budget in each year, a long range County road and bridge capital construction program will be developed through consultation with County and local municipal staff and by the Technical Advisory Committee for consideration by County Council. County Council shall determine in each year the budget and schedule of construction for the County road system. Once the budget has been established and prior to tendering, the Municipality then has the first right of refusal and may elect to undertake select projects within the construction program. Prior to undertaking the work, the Municipality shall first submit its cost estimate to the County based on the detailed design developed by the County or the project’s consulting engineer. The submitted cost estimate shall not exceed the project’s cost estimate. Any additional expenditures due to changes in plan design or unforeseen conditions must be approved by the County. If a tendered County project is cancelled and deferred due to budget limitations, the local municipality where the project is located shall be advised as soon as practicable. In consultation with the local municipality, the County will review potential compensation to the local municipality for any additional costs necessary to sustain the road or bridge until it is addressed in the future if the road surface condition rating is a score of 5 or less as defined in Schedule “C”, item iv). 7. Additional Construction and Maintenance by the Municipality For additional construction and maintenance/repair services provided by the Municipality, including emergency services and within 60 days of completion of such services, the Municipality shall submit to the County an invoice detailing the nature and extent of such service, including a breakdown as between labour, equipment, materials, and taxes and a calculation of such charges. 8. Health and Safety The County and the Municipality agree to comply with the requirements of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and regulations as well as any other Federal or Provincial Legislative Act or regulation relating to health and safety. 9. Insurance i) During the term of this Agreement, each party shall obtain and maintain in full force and effect, Comprehensive General Liability Insurance naming the other party as an additional insured regarding their respective obligations under the Agreement. Each party shall also maintain Automobile Liability Insurance for owned vehicles and Non-Owned Automobile Liability Insurance for non-owned vehicles as may be used under this Agreement. Each of the coverages shall have limits of not less than ten million dollars ($10,000,000), and shall be issued by insurance companies licensed to carry on business in the Province of Ontario. Upon request, each party shall deposit for the other party, such evidence of its insurance as provided in or required under this Agreement. Each party shall take all reasonable steps to not do or omit or do anything that would impair or invalidate the insurance policies. The insurance coverages shall in no manner discharge, restrict or limit the liabilities and obligations assumed by the parties under this Agreement. ii) Effective the date of this Agreement, the Municipality shall require that contractors and third parties which perform maintenance and/or repair works upon any County road, bridge/culvert, highway or traffic control device in accordance with this Agreement shall maintain a comprehensive general liability Construction and Maintenance Agreement

Page 4

Page 130 of 171

insurance policy in an amount required as per the Municipality’s procurement policy, such policy to provide insurance coverage for and including bodily injury, death or property damage as sustained in connection with the performance of maintenance/repair services undertaken pursuant to this Agreement. The County and the Municipality shall each be named as additional insureds under the terms of this insurance policy. 10. Joint Inspection i) Without limiting the right of the County to do so at any time, the County and Municipality’s duly authorized employees or representatives may jointly inspect the condition of the roads, bridges/culverts and related features which are the subject of this Agreement and in relation to the Scope of Services attached as Schedule “C” to this Agreement. The County and Municipality representatives will then determine the appropriate action regarding the repairs and/or maintenance works to be completed. These joint inspections may be conducted in the Spring and Fall of each year or as necessary. ii)

Upon determination of the appropriate action to be taken, the Municipality shall forthwith undertake and complete all required repairs and/or maintenance works and shall advise the County of completion of those works within a reasonable period of time and in accordance with the requirements of the Minimum Maintenance Standards as amended. The Municipality shall contact the County’s representative to advise of its schedule to undertake this work.

iii) The Municipality acknowledges and agrees that the performance of joint inspections and the determination of the appropriate action for required repair and/or maintenance pursuant to paragraph 10i) above does not relieve the Municipality of its obligations to otherwise perform repairs and/or maintenance works to County roads, bridges/culverts and related features as set forth in this Agreement. 11. Records i) The Municipality shall maintain accurate records and documentation of works performed pursuant to this Agreement. ii)

The Municipality shall maintain records of its activities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement and shall allow access to such records and documentation to the County including access until the completion of any and all litigation, including appeals, to which such records and documentation are relevant.

iii) In order for the County to maintain current infrastructure records, the local municipality shall transfer updates regarding the upgrade or replacement of County roadside assets including but not limited to guide rails, culverts and signs utilizing one of the two following methods: a) A common infrastructure mapping application (preferred); or b) Through data transfer in a format that is congruent to the County’s existing infrastructure data holdings. Updates are to be submitted on a semi-annual basis as a minimum. 12. Indemnity i) The Municipality hereby indemnifies and saves harmless the County, its employees, agents and councillors, from any and all claims, demands, losses, costs, damages, actions, lawsuits or other proceedings by whomsoever made, sustained or prosecuted which may arise either directly or indirectly by any act, neglect or refusal of the Municipality, its servants, employees, agents, invitees or contractors to perform the maintenance services prescribed by this Agreement on County roads. Construction and Maintenance Agreement

Page 5

Page 131 of 171

ii)

In the event the maintenance services are undertaken without fault or negligence by the Municipality, it’s employees or agents, then the County hereby indemnifies and saves harmless the Municipality, its employees, agents, and councillors from any and all claims, demands, losses, or other proceedings that may be advanced against the County or the Municipality arising from the proper performance by the Municipality of the maintenance services on County roads.

iii) In the event that a Statement of Claim or legal proceeding arising from the responsibilities set out in this Agreement is commenced by a third party, each party named in the suit shall provide for its own legal representation. iv) All of the indemnities that arise from this Agreement extend beyond the term. v)

In the event the Municipality assigns or sub-contracts its responsibilities under the Agreement or otherwise employs sub-contractors, the Municipality shall be responsible for all payment requirements or other obligations of an owner pursuant to the Construction Lien Act. The Municipality shall be responsible to certify the completion of the works as required and shall comply with all notice requirements as set out in the Construction Lien Act.

Dispute Resolution County Council may retain a third party to provide an assessment of and report on the standard of repair, maintenance or construction of any County road or bridge and the cost of bringing the road or bridge up to the standard set in Section 5 (Maintenance) or Section 6 (Capital Construction) of this agreement. If the Municipality does not undertake the necessary repairs to bring the County road or bridge up to the standard set in Section 5 or Section 6 within a reasonable period of time after having received written notice, the County may undertake the work and deduct the cost from the amount payable to the Municipality. Any other dispute between the parties with respect to this agreement, which they are unable to resolve through negotiations, shall at the request of a party, be submitted to arbitration pursuant to the Arbitration Act, 1991, Chap. 17, and the decision of the arbitrator or, if more than one, the decision of a majority shall be final and binding on the parties. The arbitrator will not have any power to alter or change any provisions of this Agreement or to impose any new provisions to this Agreement or to substitute any new provisions for any existing provisions or to give any decision inconsistent with the terms and provisions of the Agreement. Each party shall pay its own costs of the arbitration and shall share equally the costs of the arbitrator(s).
Enurement This Agreement shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns. The parties hereto agree for themselves and on behalf of the foregoing persons to undertake such further acts and execute such further documents as may be necessary or expedient in order to carry out the purpose and intent of this Agreement.

Construction and Maintenance Agreement

Page 6

Page 132 of 171

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the County and the Municipality by their duly authorized representatives have set forth their signatures on the dates herein written below: Signed this ____________ day of _______________________, _____ THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF LENNOX AND ADDINGTON

Warden

Chief Administrative Officer

Signed this ____________ day of _______________________, _____ THE CORPORATION OF THE _______________________________

Page 133 of 171

COUNTY ROAD

SCHEDULE “A” County of Lennox & Addington Location of Roads and Bridge/Major Culvert Structures TOWN of TOWNSHIP TOWNSHIP of LOYALIST GREATER of STONE ADDINGTON TOWNSHIP NAPANEE MILLS HIGHLANDS

TOTALS

LENGTH OF ROAD IN MUNICIPALITY (KM) 1

13.1

2**

17.8

3 15.8

8.1

18.2

7.6

33.7

16.3 2.0

4**

20.6

34.1 0.7

2.7

27.0

42.8

4.8

12.9 15.9

34.1 7.6

30.0

38.1

10*

4.3

10.6

12*

10.7

7.2

17.8 10.7

4.8

21.6

17.6

1.4

4.5

0.2

1.0

0.8

3.8

3.5

3.1

3.0

6.9

3.9

9.9

24*

1.4

5.4

1.1

14.0

7.3

10.8

30*

19.8

41** TOTAL

98.4

16.3

27.1

7.3

50.7

158.5

162.6

37.9

457.4

Road - Notes:

Includes 50% adjustment for Boundary Road portions. ** Reference is to be made to Assumption By-law No. 1928, as amended, which designates County Roads by “plan method” of description.

Page 134 of 171

SCHEDULE “A” County of Lennox & Addington Location of Roads and Bridge/Major Culvert Structures ROAD NUMBER

LOYALIST TOWNSHIP

TOWN of GREATER NAPANEE

TOWNSHIP of STONE MILLS

NAME OF STRUCTURE Wiggins (B) CNR Overpass (B) CNR Subway (B) Minks (B)

9 10 11 12

Morven (B) Millhaven Creek (B)

Napanee River

Yarker (C) Napanee River – east of Yarker (C)

Napanee River (B) Deseronto (C) Little Creek (C) Spring Creek (C)

Drews (B) Millhaven (B) CNR Overpass (B) Ernestown (B) Odessa (B) Wilton Creek (B)

Camden East (B) Centreville (B) Tamworth (B) Yarker (B) CNR Viaduct (B) Outlet (B) Centre Street (B) Little Creek (B) Big Creek (B) Youngs (B) 0.5km west of S.Fred./Adol. bndry (C) Cuthill (B) Sucker Creek* (B) 0.3km north of County Road 1 (C) Rickley (B)

Neely’s (C)

Forest Mills (B) 0.7km north of Buttermilk Falls Rd (B) Carman Creek (B) Croydon (B) 1.4km west of Lake Road (C) 0.2km east of County Rd 27 (C) Salmon River (B) Puzzle Lake (C) Gull Creek (C)

TOWNSHIP of ADDINGTON HIGHLANDS

Page 135 of 171

SCHEDULE “A” County of Lennox & Addington Location of Roads and Bridge/Major Culvert Structures ROAD NUMBER

LOYALIST TOWNSHIP

TOWN of GREATER NAPANEE

TOWNSHIP of STONE MILLS

TOWNSHIP of ADDINGTON HIGHLANDS

NAME OF STRUCTURE Strathcona (B)

Alkenbrack (C)

17 20 22

Fisk (C) CNR Spur Overpass (B) CNR Overpass (B) Millhaven Creek (B) 2.1km west of County Rd 6 (C) CPR Subway (B) Black Creek (B) Newburgh (B)

Millhaven Creek (B) 1.3km south of Buckshot Dr.* (B) 1.9km south of East Bay Rd* (B) 0.7km south of North Shore Rd* (C)

N/A

Salmon River (B) Mud Creek (B) Sucker Creek (B) Thompsons (B) Centre St/CNR Underpass (B) 1.0km north of County Rd 11 (C) Kingsford* (B)

Melon Creek (B) Clare River (B) Beaver Creek (C)

Colebrook (B)

TOTAL 12 20* 16 2* BRIDGE TOTAL MAJOR 2 6 9 1* CULVERT Bridge - Notes: *Inventory includes Boundary Structures, one of which is on local road (Kingsford Bridge) (B) is Bridge, (C) is major culvert

Page 136 of 171

SCHEDULE “B” County of Lennox & Addington Location of Roads and Bridge/Major Culvert Structures Location Maps

SCHEDULE “B”

Page 137 of 171

County of Lennox & Addington Location of Roads and Bridge/Major Culvert Structures Location Maps

SCHEDULE “B” County of Lennox & Addington

Page 138 of 171

Location of Roads and Bridge/Major Culvert Structures Location Maps

SCHEDULE “B” County of Lennox & Addington Location of Roads and Bridge/Major Culvert Structures

Page 139 of 171

Location Maps

Page 140 of 171

SCHEDULE “C” Scope of Services for Maintenance of County of Lennox and Addington Roads, Bridges and Culverts i.

A local municipality shall undertake the responsibility to provide maintenance activities as detailed below on the County roads, bridges and culverts located in that municipality. These activities will be performed in compliance with County standards and policies and Provincial regulations and legislation, in particular the Minimum Maintenance Standards For Municipal Highways – Ontario Regulation 239/02, as amended and County By-law No. __________, as amended.

ii.

This Scope of Services describes maintenance activities required to be completed by a local municipality and are included in a local municipality’s annual base compensation payment. No additional compensation will be provided to a local municipality for the execution of the works included in the base maintenance allocation items described herein.

iii.

A local municipality’s fee to provide additional maintenance activities beyond those described herein will be reviewed and negotiated with the County to determine further action.

iv.

The following service costs will be assumed by the County and are not included in the annual base compensation payment the local municipality receives from the County: a) hot mix capital work included resurfacing and related rehabilitations b) surface treatment capital work including resurfacing and related rehabilitations c) concrete road major repairs and resurfacing d) local drainage/ditch grading upgrades and improvements including rock ditching and embankment stabilization – the County will review and assess ditch improvement requests from landowners e) annual location specific major right-of-way vegetation clearing and brushing program f) bridge and major/minor road crossing culvert structure rehabilitations and repairs/replacements (or relining as appropriate) g) traffic line painting h) capital and maintenance/operational costs for all electrical infrastructure including the County Road 41 RWIS station; Centre Street pumping station in Napanee; and traffic signals, beacons, streetlight illumination and rail level crossing flashers on County roads - the local municipality will undertake the necessary administration associated with the required maintenance and operations i) crack sealing j) bridge/major culvert protective sealant application with related pressure washing k) guide rail installation and maintenance l) shoulder rehabilitation including berm removals and associated edge of pavement repairs m) all costs associated with installation of new or revised road signs as directed by the County n) when the County directs the local municipality to provide vegetation and brush control and clearing operations beyond a distance of 2.0 m outside the established roadside grass line through the County’s brushing program o) installation, labour/equipment and material costs for new and upgraded sign installations the County or other regulatory agency initiates p) drainage infrastructure major repairs, upgrades, replacements or new facilities q) entrance culvert repairs, upgrades or replacements

The local municipalities shall provide the following services included in their annual base compensation.

Page 141 of 171

WINTER CONTROL Service 1.1 – Winter Maintenance • Local municipalities shall provide winter maintenance operations in compliance with the winter control requirements of the Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways – Ontario Regulation No. 239/02, as amended and County policy. • Local municipalities shall follow the “Canadian Code of Practice for the Environmental Management of Road Salts” and the County/local municipality joint road salt management plan. BRIDGES & CULVERTS MAINTENANCE Service 2.1 – Bridge and Major Culvert Structure Repairs • The local municipality shall be responsible for repairing minor defects on the travelled surface; • The local municipality shall be responsible for removing obstructions impeding watercourse flows and deck drain function. Service 2.2 – Bridge and Major Culvert Structure Cleaning • Structure deck, deck drains and expansion joints shall be cleaned annually. The local municipality shall remove graffiti when it becomes aware of it. • The balance of a structure’s exposed surfaces shall be cleaned as part of the County’s cleaning and sealing program. HARD TOP MAINTENANCE Service 3.1 – Asphalt Pavement • Maintenance to include pothole patch and repairs across entire pavement platform including paved shoulder; edge of pavement repair including related necessary roadside corrections. • All maintenance operations to be in compliance with Minimum Maintenance Standards. Service 3.2 – Surface Treated Pavement • Maintenance to include pothole patch and repairs across entire pavement platform; edge of pavement repair including related necessary roadside corrections. • All maintenance operations to be in compliance with Minimum Maintenance Standards. Service 3.3 – Concrete Pavement • Maintenance to include pothole and repairs across entire pavement platform in accordance with Minimum Maintenance Standards using temporary patching materials; edge of pavement repair including related necessary roadside corrections. • All maintenance operations to be in compliance with Minimum Maintenance Standards Service 3.4 – Gravel Shoulders • Maintenance shall include annual grading and as required in accordance with Minimum Maintenance Standards. • To eliminate edge of pavement drop-offs, standing water and depressions, isolated shoulder gravelling may be required. Service 3.5 – Hard Surface Sweeping • Maintenance shall consist of sweeping of the travelled road surface including curbs and gutters as required in urban areas. • Sweeping of the entire pavement platform in rural areas shall be completed as required.

Page 142 of 171

ROAD MAINTENANCE Service 4.1 – Vegetation Control • Cutting/clearing of vegetation shall be completed a minimum of two times per year, once in the Spring and once in the Fall or when required. The cutting width shall be a minimum of 2.0 metres beyond the established roadside grass line where physically possible. • Herbicides may be used to control unwanted vegetation and shall conform to the County’s policy and Provincial regulations and legislation in this regard. • Noxious weed concerns will be investigated and administered by the County through its authority as Area Weed Inspector in accordance with the Weed Control Act. • Vegetation that interferes with and obstructs roadside drainage systems shall be reviewed annually and removed as required. • Vegetation that obscures any road sign recognized by the Ontario Traffic Manual shall be removed in accordance with the Minimum Maintenance Standard requirements. Service 4.2 – Brush Control • Cutting of brush shall be completed annually and removed underneath and within 3.0 metres of culverts, bridges and guide rails and to a minimum of 2.0 m beyond the established roadside grass line. • Brush that interferes with and obstructs roadside drainage systems shall be reviewed annually and removed as required. • Brush that obscures any road sign recognized by the Ontario Traffic Manual shall be removed in accordance with Minimum Maintenance Standard requirements. Service 4.3 – Tree Maintenance • Dead trees located within a minimum of 2.0 m beyond the established roadside grass line on the road allowance limit shall be removed within the time required by County policy. • Tree limbs located within this limit that are broken and/or are a potential hazard to public safety shall be removed as required by County policy. • When trees are removed, stumps shall be ground down to be level with the adjacent terrain. In maintained lawn areas, ground stumps shall also be restored with topsoil and seed to match the adjacent terrain. Service 4.4 – Debris Control • All material deposited on the travelled portion of the road, shoulder, boulevard, bridge or culvert shall be removed upon the local municipality becoming aware of its presence. Examples include but are not limited to mud, rocks, dead animals and trash. Service 4.5 – Ditches • Ditches shall be maintained to provide positive drainage flow, embankment stabilization and to eliminate local standing water wherever possible. • Refer to Services 4.1 and 4.2 regarding vegetation and brush removal in ditches. Service 4.6 – Culverts, Inlets/Outlets and Subdrains • Entrance and road crossing culverts shall be cleaned as required by flushing or other effective means to ensure water flow is not restricted due to blockage by debris. • Drainage system inlets/outlets (culverts, ditches, subdrains) shall be maintained to be clean of obstructions impacting the outlet’s capacity in accordance with Service 4.2 (Brush Control). • Culverts shall be thawed as required to restore flow capacity and remove ice/snow blockages.

Page 143 of 171

COUNTY SAFETY DEVICES Service 5.1 – Road Signs • The local municipality shall be responsible to maintain all existing regulatory, warning and information road signs in accordance with the Ontario Traffic Manual and Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways, Ontario Regulation 239/02, as amended. • The local municipality shall be responsible for costs to install and supply all materials to replace damaged, deteriorated or missing signs including requesting utility locates as required. • Sign post requirements shall be as follows: a) maximum sign area of 0.60 sq. metres: one “U-Flange” steel post b) maximum sign area of 0.90 sq. metres: one 100 cm x 100 cm wood post c) maximum sign area of 1.50 sq. metres: two 100 cm x 100 cm breakaway wood posts OR one 150 cm x 150 cm breakaway wood posts d) maximum sign area of 4.50 sq. metres: two 150 cm x 150 cm breakaway wood posts with 5 cm x 10 cm cross bracing • Any roadside signage not in compliance that is a safety concern due to sightline or drainage obstruction, is found to be in an unsafe condition or location potentially posing a hazard to pedestrian and motorist safety or fails retroreflectivity standards shall be removed and replaced by the local municipality when identified. Any unapproved signage attached to County infrastructure shall be removed immediately. Service 5.2 – Guide Rail and Traffic Barrier Systems • Local municipalities shall, as part of their regular road patrols, document and report observed deficiencies and concerns with any County road safety device infrastructure to the County. • When a system is damaged to the extent that its structural integrity and function is compromised, the local municipality shall install temporary measures and notify the County so that repairs can be scheduled to restore its structural integrity and function. Service 5.3 – Electrical Infrastructure (Traffic Beacons, Traffic Signals and Streetlight Illumination) • Local municipalities shall, as part of their regular road patrols, document and report observed deficiencies and concerns with any County road electrical infrastructure to its electrical services contractor. It shall also notify the County of deficiencies and concerns regarding electrical infrastructure that the County has assumed repair and maintenance costs for. Service 5.4 – Road Closure Events and Detour Routes • The local municipality shall cooperate and coordinate with the appropriate emergency response agencies regarding all emergency road closure events and detour routes that are implemented. • Costs to facilitate and participate in an emergency closure event shall be borne by the municipality and are included in its annual base allocation for maintenance services. The local municipality may further choose to recover its related costs from the party/parties determined to be responsible for creating the event. • The local municipality shall have full access to use of the County’s portable variable message signs for emergency road closure and detour events and in accordance with County policy when the signs are available. • All costs to facilitate and participate in a road closure event on a County road that is a result of a public event shall be borne by the municipality.

Page 144 of 171

STORMWATER Service 3.3 – Storm Sewers, Curbs and Gutters, Catchbasins • Storm sewer drainage systems shall be cleaned when restricted flows have been identified which may require the removal of obstructions by flushing or other appropriate means. If required, the County will undertake video investigations to identify if obstructions are present. • Catchbasins shall be cleaned at least once every two years if debris has filled the sump. • Repairs involving maintenance hole or catchbasin cover/grate replacement or riser repairs and patching shall be completed under maintenance operations by the local municipality. Correction of all other defects or replacements shall be assumed by the County. • Gaps between curb and gutter or pavement surface at maintenance holes or catchbasins shall be filled when identified. Erosion occurring at curb and gutter outlets shall be stabilized and restored when identified with the appropriate materials. Obstructions at a curb and gutter outlet shall be removed when identified. OTHER SERVICES Service 9.1 – Other Maintenance Services • The local municipality shall be responsible for performing any other maintenance services not specifically identified in this agreement in accordance with the requirements of the Minimum Maintenance Standards for Ontario Highways, Ontario Regulation 239/02, as amended, and County By-law 3361/17, as amended.

Page 145 of 171

SCHEDULE “D” Terms of Reference County Technical Advisory Committee - Roads and Bridges A. MANDATE The mandate of the County Technical Advisory Committee - Roads and Bridges is to recommend in an advisory capacity to the Council of the County of Lennox and Addington with regard to the co-ordination and monitoring of construction and maintenance of the County road system and in particular: i)

Co-ordinate capital and maintenance work activity on County Roads and Bridges by the lower tier municipalities, utilities and others;

ii)

Annually review and recommend the long-range construction program for roads and bridges;

iii) Review proposed capital project designs as required (Note: alternatively, review of capital project designs may only include the host local municipality); iv) Develop, review and monitor the County’s Minimum and Desirable Roadway Standards, Policies and Road Classifications; v)

Share and update information databases including standardizing data collection and reporting;

vi) Establish work and payment scheduling for annual road and bridge capital improvements; vii) Review any other matters pertaining to the effective and efficient delivery of services on County Roads and Bridges. B. MEMBERSHIP The County Technical Advisory Committee - Roads and Bridges will be comprised of one or more technical representatives from each of the municipalities which form part of the County road system, the County Supervisor, Roads and Bridges, County support staff as required and the County Director, Infrastructure Services. C. GENERAL i)

Meetings will be chaired by the County Supervisor, Roads and Bridges whose responsibility will be to prepare agendas in advance of the meeting. A separate recording secretary to be agreed upon by the Committee will record and maintain a record of the proceedings.

ii)

Meetings will be held quarterly or more frequently as determined by the majority of members.

iii) Minutes of the Committee’s meetings shall be filed at the next regularly scheduled meeting of County Council. iv) A quorum will consist of greater than 50% of the Committee’s membership. Committee decisions and recommendations will be based on member consensus.

Appendix B Lennox & Addington County Budget for Paved Roads Administration Frontenac Regional Roads Network Final Report

Page 146 of 171

Corporation of the County of Lennox & Addington

Paved Roads Revenue (G-310-3101)

2019-11-12

For the Ten Months Ending Thursday, October 31, 2019

G/L Account

Description

2019 October Actual

2019 YTD Actual

YTD Budget

$24,810.30 0.00 0.00 2,150.00

$2,007,474.85 0.00 0.00 98,342.60

$1,301,100.00 758,500.00 50,000.00 90,000.00

($706,374.85) 758,500.00 50,000.00 (8,342.60)

154.29% 0.00% 0.00% 109.27%

$26,960.30

$2,105,817.45

$2,199,600.00

$93,782.55

95.74%

$2,105,817.45

$2,199,600.00

$93,782.55

95.74%

Variance

% of Budget

Revenues 0211 0212 0213 0791

Gas Tax Grants OCIF Grants Other Infrastructure Grants Miscellaneous Revenue

Total Revenue

Expenses

Net Income

$26,960.30

Page 147 of 171

Corporation of the County of Lennox & Addington

Paved Roads Administration (G-310-3111)

2019-11-12

For the Ten Months Ending Thursday, October 31, 2019

G/L Account

Description

2019 October Actual

2019 YTD Actual

YTD Budget

Variance

% of Budget

Expenses Salaries & Benefits 1110 1120 1310 1311 1320 1321 1330 1331 1335 1336 1337 1340 1350 1351 1352 1353 1360 1361 1363

Salaries & Wages - Full Time Salaries & Wages - Part Time Employment Insurance FT Employment Insurance PT Canada Pension Plan FT Canada Pension Plan PT EHT - Full Time EHT - Part Time WSIB Premiums Retirement Benefits Retirement Allowance OMERS- Full Time Extended Health Care Semi Private Dental Vision Care Life Insurance AD&D Long Term Disability

$34,048.04 0.00 350.68 0.00 1,142.84 0.00 666.66 0.00 177.80 254.60 184.30 3,507.96 1,288.02 89.94 753.44 79.76 140.66 16.20 972.04

$309,773.05 31,333.73 5,055.29 710.63 13,237.83 1,405.79 6,067.92 610.99 1,780.98 2,444.16 1,769.28 31,941.83 11,376.48 728.04 5,716.58 663.32 1,396.15 148.13 9,935.38

$400,300.00 25,900.00 5,100.00 500.00 13,700.00 1,100.00 7,300.00 500.00 2,000.00 3,300.00 2,400.00 38,700.00 13,600.00 900.00 6,700.00 800.00 1,900.00 200.00 13,800.00

$90,526.95 (5,433.73) 44.71 (210.63) 462.17 (305.79) 1,232.08 (110.99) 219.02 855.84 630.72 6,758.17 2,223.52 171.96 983.42 136.68 503.85 51.87 3,864.62

77.39% 120.98% 99.12% 142.13% 96.63% 127.80% 83.12% 122.20% 89.05% 74.07% 73.72% 82.54% 83.65% 80.89% 85.32% 82.92% 73.48% 74.07% 72.00%

Total Salaries & Benefits

$43,672.94

$436,095.56

$538,700.00

$102,604.44

80.95%

0.00 0.00 0.00 133.17 305.00 0.00 0.00 3,715.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

479.73 297.00 105.77 1,970.97 3,234.01 7,454.22 1,719.77 3,715.10 0.00 5,528.60 0.00 80,286.40

1,500.00 1,000.00 300.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 1,000.00 2,500.00 3,500.00 1,000.00 8,600.00 500.00 109,200.00

1,020.27 703.00 194.23 2,029.03 765.99 (6,454.22) 780.23 (215.10) 1,000.00 3,071.40 500.00 28,913.60

31.98% 29.70% 35.26% 49.27% 80.85% 745.42% 68.79% 106.15% 0.00% 64.29% 0.00% 73.52%

Materials & Supplies Office Supplies Printing & Advertising Postage & Courier Other Materials & Supplies Telecommunications Furniture & Equipment Equipment Computer Software RWIS Annual Maintenance RWIS Forecast Service MVAR System Insurance

Page 148 of 171

3001 3004 3005 3009 3010 3020 3021 3023 3056 3057 3058 3106

Corporation of the County of Lennox & Addington

Paved Roads Administration (G-310-3111)

2019-11-12

For the Ten Months Ending Thursday, October 31, 2019

G/L Account 3200 3201 3205

Description Staff Training Travel & Expenses Memberships

2019 October Actual

2019 YTD Actual

YTD Budget

Variance

% of Budget

0.00 0.00 0.00

961.63 10,083.51 2,853.51

5,000.00 18,500.00 2,200.00

4,038.37 8,416.49 (653.51)

19.23% 54.51% 129.71%

$4,153.27

$118,690.22

$162,800.00

$44,109.78

72.91%

0.00 0.00 0.00 136.46 4,723.19 0.00 0.00

20,636.53 5,524.04 (127.64) 1,293.10 26,961.84 4,373.77 169.73

53,100.00 3,000.00 3,900.00 0.00 10,000.00 5,500.00 500.00

32,463.47 (2,524.04) 4,027.64 (1,293.10) (16,961.84) 1,126.23 330.27

38.86% 184.13% -3.27% 0.00% 269.62% 79.52% 33.95%

$4,859.65

$58,831.37

$76,000.00

$17,168.63

77.41%

16,691.67 1,808.33 3,016.66

166,916.70 18,083.30 30,166.60

200,300.00 21,700.00 36,200.00

33,383.30 3,616.70 6,033.40

83.33% 83.33% 83.33%

$21,516.66

$215,166.60

$258,200.00

$43,033.40

83.33%

Total Expenses

$74,202.52

$828,783.75

$1,035,700.00

$206,916.25

80.02%

Net Income

($74,202.52)

($828,783.75)

($1,035,700.00)

($206,916.25)

80.02%

Total Materials & Supplies Services 4001 4002 4003 4052 4059 4060 4451

Consulting Legal Audit Equipment Services AVL Hosting Road Patrol Software Right of Way/Bylaw Enforcement

Total Services Departmental Allocations 8001 8011 8051

Program Support Allocation Property Services Allocation IT Capital Allocation

Total Departmental Allocations

Page 149 of 171

Corporation of the County of Lennox & Addington

Paved Roads Municipal Maintenance (G-310-3121)

2019-11-12

For the Ten Months Ending Thursday, October 31, 2019

G/L Account

Description

2019 October Actual

2019 YTD Actual

YTD Budget

Variance

% of Budget

Expenses

Services 4461 4462 4463 4464

Addington Highlands Greater Napanee Loyalist Stone Mills

$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

$171,021.00 690,221.00 393,389.41 733,722.00

$228,000.00 953,600.00 592,000.00 978,300.00

$56,979.00 263,379.00 198,610.59 244,578.00

75.01% 72.38% 66.45% 75.00%

Total Services

$0.00

$1,988,353.41

$2,751,900.00

$763,546.59

72.25%

Total Expenses

$0.00

$1,988,353.41

$2,751,900.00

$763,546.59

72.25%

Net Income

$0.00

($1,988,353.41)

($2,751,900.00)

($763,546.59)

72.25%

Page 150 of 171

Corporation of the County of Lennox & Addington

Paved Roads Non Capital Repairs (G-310-3131)

2019-11-12

For the Ten Months Ending Thursday, October 31, 2019

G/L Account

Description

2019 October Actual

2019 YTD Actual

YTD Budget

Variance

% of Budget

Expenses

Materials & Supplies 3711 3731

Line Painting Cty Rd 23 Extension Design

$0.00 0.00

$177,263.03 5,841.27

$210,000.00 0.00

$32,736.97 (5,841.27)

84.41% 0.00%

$0.00

$183,104.30

$210,000.00

$26,895.70

87.19%

Total Expenses

$0.00

$183,104.30

$210,000.00

$26,895.70

87.19%

Net Income

$0.00

($183,104.30)

($210,000.00)

($26,895.70)

87.19%

Total Materials & Supplies

Page 151 of 171

Corporation of the County of Lennox & Addington

Paved Roads OSIFA Debt Payments (G310-3191)

2019-11-12

For the Ten Months Ending Thursday, October 31, 2019

G/L Account

Description

2019 October Actual

2019 YTD Actual

YTD Budget

Variance

% of Budget

Expenses

Interest on Long Term Debt 2201

Roads OSIFA Interest Expense

Total Interest

$0.00

$13,368.07

$33,700.00

$20,331.93

39.67%

$0.00

$13,368.07

$33,700.00

$20,331.93

39.67%

Inter Fund Transfers 9061

Transfers to LT Debt

0.00

201,100.00

0.00%

$0.00

$201,100.00

0.00%

Total Expenses

$0.00

$13,368.07

$234,800.00

$221,431.93

5.69%

Net Income

$0.00

($13,368.07)

($234,800.00)

($221,431.93)

5.69%

Total Inter Fund Transfers

Page 152 of 171

Corporation of the County of Lennox & Addington

Paved Roads Capital (G-310-3195)

2019-11-12

For the Ten Months Ending Thursday, October 31, 2019

G/L Account

Description

2019 October Actual

2019 YTD Actual

YTD Budget

$0.00 153,129.86 3,554.63 8,550.99 17,036.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 (61,472.27) 12,144.29 5,547.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16,259.62 297,014.58 0.00 0.00 108,803.27 0.00 85,054.77

$27,470.29 3,598,167.62 142,030.91 10,537.19 17,036.32 88,836.48 0.00 85,878.32 520,530.95 40,640.59 52,388.38 17,105.75 0.00 2,301.80 8,784.78 (91,275.74) 59,793.60 1,030,028.69 8,613.73 29,834.36 108,803.27 176.04 89,981.58

$9,000.00 4,950,000.00 200,000.00 35,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 1,578,300.00 25,000.00 150,000.00 20,000.00 50,000.00 285,000.00 0.00 0.00 250,000.00 2,500,000.00 0.00 40,000.00 510,000.00 10,000.00 390,000.00

($18,470.29) 1,351,832.38 57,969.09 24,462.81 82,963.68 11,163.52 25,000.00 (60,878.32) 1,057,769.05 (15,640.59) 97,611.62 2,894.25 50,000.00 282,698.20 (8,784.78) 91,275.74 190,206.40 1,469,971.31 (8,613.73) 10,165.64 401,196.73 9,823.96 300,018.42

305.23% 72.69% 71.02% 30.11% 17.04% 88.84% 0.00% 343.51% 32.98% 162.56% 34.93% 85.53% 0.00% 0.81% 0.00% 0.00% 23.92% 41.20% 0.00% 74.59% 21.33% 1.76% 23.07%

$645,623.15

$5,847,664.91

$11,252,300.00

$5,404,635.09

51.97%

Variance

% of Budget

Expenses Capital & Amortization 7131 7201 7202 7203 7205 7206 7215 7220 7225 7231 7235 7240 7246 7271 7272 7702 7703 7704 7711 7723 7724 7753 7754

Vehicles Hot Mix Construction (501) Hot Mix Design/CA (501) Next Year Hot Mix Design (501) Asset Management Crack Sealing Odessa West Subdivision Des/CA Misc. Railroad Repairs Surface Treatment Program (500) CR 4 Concrete Des/CA (501) Bridge St/Centre St Intersection Construction Line Painting, Bars, Symbols CR1/10 Intersection Des/CA Cross Culvert Construction (530) Cross Culvert Design/CA (530) Cty Rd 1 Construction Cty Rd 2 Des & Adm Cty Rd 2 Construction Cty Rd 6 Des & Adm Cty Rd 12 Des & Adm Cty Rd 12 Construction Cty Rd 27 Des & Adm Cty Rd 27 Construction

Total Capital & Amortization Inter Fund Transfers 9121

Transfers from Reserves

0.00

(1,107,800.00)

0.00%

$0.00

($1,107,800.00)

0.00%

Total Expenses

$645,623.15

$5,847,664.91

$10,144,500.00

$4,296,835.09

57.64%

Net Income

($645,623.15)

($5,847,664.91)

($10,144,500.00)

($4,296,835.09)

57.64%

Page 153 of 171

0.00

$0.00

Total Inter Fund Transfers

Corporation of the County of Lennox & Addington

Structures Non Capital Repairs (G-320-3231)

2019-11-12

For the Ten Months Ending Thursday, October 31, 2019

G/L Account

Description

2019 October Actual

2019 YTD Actual

YTD Budget

Variance

% of Budget

Expenses

Materials & Supplies 3750

Bridge Protectant Program

$0.00

$22,076.83

$40,000.00

$17,923.17

55.19%

$0.00

$22,076.83

$40,000.00

$17,923.17

55.19%

Total Expenses

$0.00

$22,076.83

$40,000.00

$17,923.17

55.19%

Net Income

$0.00

($22,076.83)

($40,000.00)

($17,923.17)

55.19%

Total Materials & Supplies

Page 154 of 171

Corporation of the County of Lennox & Addington

Structures Capital (G-320-3295)

2019-11-12

For the Ten Months Ending Thursday, October 31, 2019

G/L Account

Description

2019 October Actual

2019 YTD Actual

YTD Budget

Variance

% of Budget

Expenses Capital & Amortization 7869 7870 7892 7913 7914

Forest Mills B CR12 Des & Adm Forest Mills B CR12 Const. CNR Overpass CR22 Const. Salmon River B CR41 Des & Adm Salmon River B CR41 Const.

$228.96 0.00 40,535.90 0.00 0.00

$18,956.92 106,993.53 40,535.90 3,938.65 0.00

$30,000.00 180,000.00 15,000.00 30,000.00 255,000.00

$11,043.08 73,006.47 (25,535.90) 26,061.35 255,000.00

63.19% 59.44% 270.24% 13.13% 0.00%

Total Capital & Amortization

$40,764.86

$170,425.00

$510,000.00

$339,575.00

33.42%

Total Expenses

$40,764.86

$170,425.00

$510,000.00

$339,575.00

33.42%

Net Income

($40,764.86)

($170,425.00)

($510,000.00)

($339,575.00)

33.42%

Page 155 of 171

Corporation of the County of Lennox & Addington

Traffic & Roadside Municipal Maintenance (G-330-3321)

2019-11-12

For the Ten Months Ending Thursday, October 31, 2019

G/L Account

Description

2019 October Actual

2019 YTD Actual

YTD Budget

Variance

% of Budget

Expenses

Services 4461 4462 4463 4464

Addington Highlands Greater Napanee Loyalist Stone Mills

$6,604.21 0.00 0.00 0.00

$6,604.21 (25,000.00) 0.00 0.00

$5,000.00 35,000.00 25,000.00 30,000.00

($1,604.21) 60,000.00 25,000.00 30,000.00

132.08% -71.43% 0.00% 0.00%

Total Services

$6,604.21

($18,395.79)

$95,000.00

$113,395.79

-19.36%

Total Expenses

$6,604.21

($18,395.79)

$95,000.00

$113,395.79

-19.36%

Net Income

($6,604.21)

$18,395.79

($95,000.00)

($113,395.79)

-19.36%

Page 156 of 171

Corporation of the County of Lennox & Addington

Traffic & Roadside Non Cap Repairs (G-330-3331)

2019-11-12

For the Ten Months Ending Thursday, October 31, 2019

G/L Account

Description

2019 October Actual

2019 YTD Actual

YTD Budget

Variance

% of Budget

Expenses

Materials & Supplies 3108 3109 3778 3784 3791

Streetlight Utilities CR 41 Stormwater Pumping Station Clearing & Spraying Program ROW Control Materials (Spot) Misc Well Decommissions (Spot)

$10,311.46 29,190.99 10,070.95 427.39 0.00

$91,054.68 88,146.59 62,438.05 2,336.40 2,696.64

$110,000.00 35,000.00 85,000.00 0.00 0.00

$18,945.32 (53,146.59) 22,561.95 (2,336.40) (2,696.64)

82.78% 251.85% 73.46% 0.00% 0.00%

Total Materials & Supplies

$50,000.79

$246,672.36

$230,000.00

($16,672.36)

107.25%

Total Expenses

$50,000.79

$246,672.36

$230,000.00

($16,672.36)

107.25%

Net Income

($50,000.79)

($246,672.36)

($230,000.00)

$16,672.36

107.25%

Page 157 of 171

Corporation of the County of Lennox & Addington

Traffic & Roadside Capital (G-330-3395)

2019-11-12

For the Ten Months Ending Thursday, October 31, 2019

G/L Account

Description

2019 October Actual

2019 YTD Actual

YTD Budget

Variance

% of Budget

Expenses Capital & Amortization 7350 7353 7356 7359 7361 7362 7375

Guide Rail Construction (520) Streetlight/Beacon/Signal/APS Programs (540) Cty Rd 23 Parrott’s Bay Injection (Spot) Shoulder & Roadside Program Ditching & Drainage Miscellaneous Land Purchases (Spot) Cty Boundary Signs (Spot) (541)

$16,104.54 9,583.88 0.00 0.00 3,752.04 115,318.19 0.00

$56,564.77 49,627.77 1,716.19 3,681.17 5,975.65 117,455.15 2,661.49

$75,000.00 80,000.00 0.00 120,000.00 100,000.00 150,000.00 50,000.00

$18,435.23 30,372.23 (1,716.19) 116,318.83 94,024.35 32,544.85 47,338.51

75.42% 62.03% 0.00% 3.07% 5.98% 78.30% 5.32%

$144,758.65

$237,682.19

$575,000.00

$337,317.81

41.34%

Total Expenses

$144,758.65

$237,682.19

$575,000.00

$337,317.81

41.34%

Net Income

($144,758.65)

($237,682.19)

($575,000.00)

($337,317.81)

41.34%

Total Capital & Amortization

Page 158 of 171

Appendix C Frontenac Regional Roads Network Working Session KPMG Facilitated Session with Member Township CAOs June 18, 2020 Frontenac Regional Roads Network Final Report

Page 159 of 171

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Agenda and Objectives Agenda: 1.

Confirm Regional Road Network Guiding Principles.

Review four Regional Road Network options.

Determine preferred model for implementation

Objective: Come to an agreement regarding the preferred model for establishing a Regional Roads Network.

Page 160 of 171

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Guiding Principles Why are we here? Why is a Regional Roads Network important? Guiding principles form the criteria against which to measure the different regional road models.  Access to increased funding opportunities  Cost savings and operational efficiencies  Investment in road infrastructure  Standardize level of service for regional transportation across the County  Responsible, well-defined, neutral governance with transparent controlling interest Additional guiding principles for consideration?

Page 161 of 171

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Agreement on Guiding Principles?

 = Agree X = Does not agree

Guiding Principles

North

Central

South

Islands

Access to increased funding opportunities



Cost savings and operational efficiencies



Investment in road infrastructure



Standardize level of service for regional transportation across the County



Responsible, well-defined, neutral governance with transparent controlling interest



Model that will facilitate the stable, consistent and sustainable financing component of regional road network



Page 162 of 171

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Options Analysis Option

Ownership

Governance

Staffing

Funding

Township Involvement

County Role

Dispute Resolution

Regional Approach with County Resources

99% Township – 1% County

TWP > TAC > Regional Engineer > County

Regional Engineer

Eng Tech hired by the County level. Phased implementation

Paid by County portion of Levy for County staff

Membership on TAC, 2 reps on County Council

Levy, approval of TAC/Twp plan

County levy is mandatory. 2 votes each for FI, CF and NF. 3 votes for SF

May require legal and survey for some roads. Can be phased

Political representation at all levels

Maintenance remains at Twp.

Financial support staff could be hired or contracted if required

resources only. Capital contribution would require an agreement at the Twp level.

Grant application, submission and reporting

Insurance and audit at the County

Municipal Service Corporation (MSC)

MSC> TAC > Twp.

Likely require legal and survey for roads. Can be phased

Separate Board appointed by each Twp. Twp’s control the Board through appointments, but not involved in the day to day governance and decision making

Maintenance of RRN contracted to Twp. by MSC This ownership model is essentially the L&A model, except as MSC

Requires the creation of a municipal MSC in accordance with the M.A. S.194 and O.Reg. 599/06

Business case study and public consultation required

Uses existing staff, rotating TAC Chair every three years For the purposes of RRN, TAC Chair would report to the MSC, not to the Twps. Financial support staff could be hired or contracted by the MSC from member township, external firm

Funding levels determined by weighted assessment, lane kms or asset value; SF majority shareholder

Appointment of Board members to the MSC Input as requested by the MSC Lobbying the MSC Levying and paying the MSC

N/A

Built into the MSC business plan Legal remedies, typically mediation then arbitration with all parties responsible for their own costs

MSC not eligible for municipal grants Separate audit and insurance required

Page 163 of 171

Regional Roads 100% owned by MSC who manages capital component, but delegates maintenance to Twps.

Additional Finance Admin support available Twp’s annually approve their share of the MSC budget

Assist with the coordination of procurement for operations

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Options Analysis Option

Ownership

Governance

Staffing

Funding

Township Involvement

County Role

Dispute Resolution

Regional Approach Using Contracted Engineering Services

99% Township – 1% County

Contracted Engineer -> TAC -> TWP -> County for grant submission

Supported by TWP staffing and TAC

Paid by County portion of Levy for contracted

Membership on TAC, 2 reps on County Council for approval of grants only

Limited to contracting of the Engineering Services and grant submission

County levy is mandatory. 2 votes each for FI, CF and NF. 3 votes for SF

May require legal and survey for some roads. Can be phased Maintenance remains at Twp.

Political representation at all levels

Financial support staff could be hired or contracted

engineering only. Capital contribution would require an agreement at the Twp. level.

Levy for contracted engineering

Insurance at the County

Joint Service Board (JSB)

Townships maintain ownership, managed by JSB Maintenance performed by Twps

Twp. > TAC = JSB Results in the creation of a joint service board in accordance with the M.A. s.202

Requires TAC/JSB members to represent Twp. interests

JSB would report to the Twp’s Councils

Eligible for municipal grants Separate entity audit and insurance not required, however additional insurance and audit costs would be incurred

Appointment of Committee members to the JSB, existing Council members Span of control outlined in Joint Service Agreement Township Councils approve By-Laws proposed by JSB

N/A

Built into the JSB service agreement Legal remedies, typically mediation then arbitration with all parties responsible for their own costs

Page 164 of 171

Board members appointed by each Twp. Twp’s control the Committee through appointments, but not involved in the day to day operations and decision making

Uses existing staff to support JSB Engineer

Audit part of County audit Twp’s annually approve their share of the JSB budget proposed to Councils

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

1 = weak support

Evaluation of Delivery Models

2 = support 3 = strong support

Proposed Delivery Models

Project Guiding Principles

Option 2: Contracted Engineering

Option 3: Municipal Service Corporation

Option 4: Joint Services Board

Access to increased grant funding

Cost savings and operational efficiencies

Investment in road infrastructure

Standard level of service for regional roads across County

Responsible, welldefined, neutral governance model

Stable, consistent sustainable funding model

Total

Page 165 of 171

Option 1: County Resources

Appendix D Original 6 Options (April 17, 2019) Frontenac Regional Roads Network Final Report

Page 166 of 171

Frontenac Regional Roads Network

Original 6 Options (April 17, 2019) Option 2: Ltd. County Involvement

Option 3: Contracted Engineering – Limited County Involvement

Option 4: County Augments Resources at Selected Municipality

Option 5: County Resources

Option 6: Full County Model

All roads are local responsibility. No regional road collaboration.

County assumes 1% ownership in regional roads and bridges, but provides no support to the project. All grant applications are developed, submitted, managed and reported by the benefitting municipality. Only County role is “signing off” on grant applications.

County assumes 1% ownership in regional roads and bridges, but provides no support to the project and engages an independent engineering firm to lead the program.

County assumes 1% ownership in regional roads and bridges, but provides no support to the project but would contract with one of the four member municipalities to provide oversight, management of a regional system.

County assumes 1% ownership in regional roads and bridges. Similar to Lennox & Addington County, the County employs a limited engineering staff complement to administer the program, maintain roads needs study and provide project management/support.

County assumes 100% ownership in regional roads and bridges. Similar to Lanark and Leeds & Grenville, the County employs a full engineering staff complement, maintenance and operations staff to administer the program, maintain roads needs study, provide project management/supp ort and provide day to day operations and maintenance of the regional roads.

Not Recommended by member Townships/County

Recommended by member Townships/County for further review

Not Recommended by member Townships/County

Recommended by member Townships/County for further review *South not in support

Not Recommended by member Townships/County

Page 167 of 171

Option 1: Status Quo

kpmg.ca

Page 168 of 171

Page 169 of 171

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Ministère des Affaires municipales et du Logement

Office of the Minister 777 Bay Street, 17th Floor Toronto ON M7A 2J3 Tel.: 416 585-7000

Bureau du ministre 777, rue Bay, 17e étage Toronto ON M7A 2J3 Tél. : 416 585-7000

April 27, 2021 Dear Head of Council, As you may be aware, the Ontario government is consulting on how to strengthen accountability for municipal council members. We want to ensure that councillors and heads of council maintain a safe and respectful workplace and carry out their duties as elected officials ethically and responsibly. More information on the scope of consultations can be found at Ontario.ca. As part of this work, my colleague Jill Dunlop, Associate Minister for Children and Women’s Issues will be seeking input from members of council representing each of Ontario’s municipalities through one of two hour-long telephone townhall sessions with municipal representatives from Eastern Ontario’s municipalities on May 20, 2021 at 12:30 PM EDT. This session will provide participants with the opportunity to share their valuable feedback on: • • • •

what changes or mechanisms are needed to better hold council members accountable for municipal code of conduct violations; how to effectively enforce these codes whether a broader range of penalties for violations of the codes of conduct are needed; and the circumstances in which these potential penalties could be applied.

Please identify one member of your council to participate in the session. Once chosen, the one identified member of your council should register via Eventbrite by Thursday, May 6, 2021. The registered member will receive instructions about how to participate in the session prior to the meeting. We have also launched an online survey to seek input on ways to strengthen accountability mechanisms for municipal council members. I encourage members of council and municipal staff to provide their input on this important topic through the online survey: Consultation: Strengthening accountability for municipal council members | Ontario.ca. This online survey will be available until July 15, 2021. Please share this link with your municipal staff. I hope you will accept this invitation to participate in this session, as we look forward to hearing your feedback on how to strengthen accountability for municipal council members. Sincerely,

Page 170 of 171

Steve Clark Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing c:

Clerk and Chief Administrative Officers Jill Dunlop, Associate Minister of Children and Women’s Issues Kate Manson-Smith Deputy Minister, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Marie-Lison Fougère, Deputy Minister Responsible for Women’s Issues

Page 171 of 171

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW 2021-25 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 special Council Meeting of May 4, 2021 be confirmed.

Execution by the Mayor and the Clerk 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 4 day of May, 2021. Read a first and second time this 4 day of May, 2021. Read a third time and finally passed this 4 day of May, 2021.

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Angela Maddocks, Clerk

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.