Council - 15 Oct 2019 - Agenda — North Frontenac News Media

Published October 15, 2019

Word Count 45495 words

Reading Time 214 min read

Body: Council Type: Agenda Meeting: Regular Date: October 15, 2019 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: South Frontenac

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/south-frontenac/Agendas/Council/2019/Council - 15 Oct 2019 - Agenda.pdf)

Document Text

Page 1 of 160

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA

TIME: DATE: PLACE:

6:00 PM, Tuesday, October 15, 2019 Council Chambers.

Call to Order

Resolution

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof

Approval of Agenda

Scheduled Closed Session

Move into Closed Session

Labour Relations and Employee Negotiations (report to be tabled at meeting)

Pending Acquisition of Land

Minutes of previous Closed Sessions - July 2, 2019 and October 1, 2019

Move out of Closed Session

***Recess - reconvene at 7:00 p.m. for Open Session

Public Meeting

Open Public Meeting

Closure of Road Allowances • RC-19-05 - Gary & Lucille McDonald - 3742 Fair Grounds Road • RC-19-06 - Estate of Irene Belle Lansdell - 6449 Road 38

Gary McDonald, re: Road Allowance - Fairgrounds Road

Close Public Meeting

Delegations

Karl Hammer, re: South Frontenac Stocksport Club

Approval of Minutes

October 1, 2019 Council

Business Arising from the Minutes

Notice of Motion - Vulnerable Ground Water

4 - 21

23 - 28

Page 2 of 160

Notice of Motion - Climate Change Strategy

Notice of Motion - Public Health & Ambulance Dispatch Services

AMO - Addressing Growing Municipal Liability and Insurance Costs

32 - 50

Draft Response to Ministry of Municipal Affairs on the Provincial Policy Statement Update

51 - 63

Reports Requiring Action

ICIP - Community Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Application

64 108

Public Services - 2020 Capital Budget

109 127

Kennel Exemption from Noise By-law

128 129

Committee Meeting Minutes

Heritage Committee meeting held June 6, 2019

130 133

Development Services Committee meeting held August 26, 2019

134 137

Recreation Committee meeting held September 9, 2019

138 143

By-laws

By-law 2019-60 - Land Acquisition (to be tabled at meeting)

Reports for Information

Accounts Payable and Payroll Listing

144 153

3rd Quarter Building Activity Report

154 155

3rd Quarter Planning Activity Report

156 158

Information Items

New Leaf Link Open House - November 21, 2019

Notice of Motions

Announcements/Statements by Councillors

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

Closed Session (if requested)

Confirmatory By-law

159

Page 3 of 160

By-law 2019-61

Adjournment

160

Page 4 of 160

REPORT TO COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT DATE: AGENDA DATE:

October 10, 2019 October 15, 2019

SUBJECT:

Public Meeting – Road Closure RC-19-05 Gary & Lucille McDonald 3742 Fair Grounds Road, Inverary, Plan 24 Pt Lot 50 Pt Lot 51, District of Storrington, Township of South Frontenac

RC-19-06 Lansdell (Estate of Irene Belle Lansdell) 6449 Highway 38, Pt Lot 10, Concession 10, Pt 1, RP13R1459, District of Portland, Township of South Frontenac

RECOMMENDATION Council hear public comments or concerns for a proposal to consider the closing and transferring ownership of a portion of an unopened road allowance adjacent to the property at 3742 Fair Grounds Road (RC-19-05) and an unopened road allowance adjacent to the property addressed as 6449 Highway 38 (RC-19-06).

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to bring forward two applications for a road closure and to hold a public meeting on the application as required under the Municipal Act.

BACKGROUND RC-19-05 Gary & Lucille McDonald An application was submitted by the McDonalds to Development Services Department to stop up and close a portion of unopened road allowance at the north side of the property at 3742 Fair Grounds Road and an approximately 20 foot strip of the road allowance to the west of the subject property to be closed and sold to the McDonalds. The unopened road allowance located between 3738 and 3742 Fair Grounds Road contains an existing pathway on the unopened road allowance that provides access and entrance to the Ken Garrett Memorial Park. Planning and Public Services staff had indicated that they were not in support of closing a portion of the unopened road allowance for the lands that provide access to the Ken Garrett Park. This proposal came before Council for consideration at the September 3, 2019 Council Meeting. Council were supportive of providing approval in principle to the McDonald’s to stop up and close a portion of unopened road allowance at the north side of their property in Inverary, but not the approximately 20 foot strip of the road allowance to the west of the subject property which provides access to Ken Garrett Memorial Park. Staff agree that the road allowance at the north side of the property at 3742 Fair Grounds Road be stopped up, closed and ownership transferred to the owner

Page 5 of 160

Gary & Lucille McDonald. The transfer of the lands will assist in enlarging the property at 3742 Fair Grounds Road. A portion of the driveway is located on the unopened road allowance. Staff recommend that the McDonalds’s pay the price of the land based on Township policy. Council agreed to sell land in principal and require payment in accordance with Township policy. The McDonalds have had the survey prepared and will proceed to give direction to their surveyor to deposit the survey following the public meeting. RC-19-06 Lansdell (Estate of Irene Belle Lansdell) An application was submitted by James and William Lansdell (File RC-19-06) on behalf of the Estate of Irene Belle Lansdell to stop up and close a portion of unopened road allowance for a small triangular portion of land located on the unopened road allowance at the north side of the existing dwelling. The lands subject to the road closing have 7.2 metres of frontage along Highway 38, a depth of 43.467 metres and consists of approximately 153m2. The property at 6449 Hwy 38 backs onto the K&P Trail which is located to the west of the residential dwelling. This portion of property is identified as part of an unopened street in the name of Adelaide Street on Plan 13R-5794 dated December 13, 1982. This proposal came before Council for consideration at the September 3, 2019 Council Meeting. Council were supportive of the request by the Lansdell’s to stop up and close a portion of unopened road allowance for a small triangular portion of land located on the unopened road allowance. Staff agree that the road allowance at the north side of the property at 6449 Hwy 38 be stopped up, closed and ownership transferred to the Langdell’s (Estate of Irene Belle Lansdell). The transfer of the lands will assist in enlarging the property at 6449 Hwy 38. Staff recommend that the Lansdell’s pay the price of the land in accordance with Township policy. Council agreed to sell land in principal and pay for the road allowance in accordance with Township policy. The Lansdell’s have had the survey prepared and will proceed to give direction to their surveyor to deposit the survey following the public meeting.

NOTICE Consistent with the requirements of the Municipal Act, a Notice of Road Closing was posted on the Township website on September 6, 2019 and advertised in the Frontenac News for the past 4 weeks since September 16, 2019. On October 9, 2019, a resident stopped into the Township offices to discuss the road closing and transfer inquiry pertaining to file RC-19-06 Lansdell (Estate of Irene Belle Lansdell). Based on the discussion, it appears that the resident had no objection to this road closing.

CONCLUSION Council should hear anyone who wishes to speak at this public meeting on the closing of the road allowance. If Council is still favourable to the proposal, a road closing by-law will be considered at such time as the reference plan is deposited and submitted to the Township.

FINANCIAL and STAFFING CONSIDERATIONS Staff time to prepare reports, advertising, hold a public meeting and liaise with lawyers involved in the transfer.

Page 6 of 160

ATTACHMENTS RC-19-05 Gary & Lucille McDonald Attachment #1 – Location Map – 3742 Fair Grounds Road, Inverary Attachment #2 – Proposed 66 ‘ Purchase of the Road Allowance Attachment #3 – Photos Attachment #4 – Letter from the McDonalds RC-19-06 Lansdell (Estate of Irene Belle Lansdell) Attachment #1 – Location Map – 6449 Highway 38 Attachment #2 – Plan 13R-5794 Proposed 156+ m2 (1,343.34 ft2) x 66 ft. Purchase of the Road Allowance Draft of Plan 13R-21430 Report to Council, September 3, 2019 RC-19-05 Gary & Lucille McDonald, RC-19-06 Lansdell (Estate of Irene Belle Lansdell) Submitted by: Trudy Gravel, CPT, AMCT, Planner, Township of South Frontenac Approved by: Claire Dodds, MCIP, RPP, Director of Development Services, Township of South Frontenac Approved by: Neil Carbone, CAO

FAIR

G RO

UND

S RO

Proposed Road Closing

MACDONALD RC-19-05-S 3742 FAIR GROUNDS RD

Legend MacDonald Property Parcel Fabric River / Stream Provincially Significant Wetlands

Waterbodies

Water Area, Permanent

O KR

ROAD 38

Wetland Area, Permanent

EW LE YV I VA L

BURN

Inset Map

While the Township makes every effort to insure that the information presented is accurate for the intended uses of this map, there is an inherent error in all mapping products, and accuracy of the mapping cannot be guaranteed for all possible uses. This map displays basic topographic features only.

Scale 1:600

0 2.75 5.5 Hambly Lake

16.5

Meters UTM Projection NAD 83

Page 7 of 160

ETT R OA

IV E

C DS DRIVE RO Hardwood Creek CEDARWOO LL E B

Produced by the Township of South Frontenac under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2015.

0018

0019

36291 n

0030

0054

-meters

LEGEND

LIMITED II|TER|E5TPROPER1‘f

…_ _.

Queen’s

Printer

for

.('’_> 5* Ontario 2019

REFERENCEPLANS UNDERLYINGI/IOITERECENT RI:‘FEI’\El'1CEPLANS ARE NOTILLUSTRATED

ONLYM/\JOI\EXISEMENTSARE SHOWN

FOR DIMENSIONS OF PROPERTIES BOUNDARIESSEE RECORDED PLANS AND DOCIJIJENTS

REGISTRA’|’ll)I|

DOCUMENTS RECORDED IN THE LAND ‘>YSTI’.M AND HI?|.>’ l3l:lE|' YI(I:I’I‘.I<l:L) FOR PROPERTY INDEXING PURPOSES ONLY

THIS I-‘IA?’WAS COMPILED FROM PLANS AI-II)

FOR COMPLETE PROPERTY INFORMATION AS THIS MAP MAY NOT REFLECT RECENT REGISTRATIONS

REVIEW THE TITLE RECORDS

NOTES

THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY

GEOGRAPHIC FABRIC FJISEMENT

PROPERTY NUMBER BLOCK NUMBER

CONDO!/IINIUI/IPROPERTY RETIRED PIN IMAPUPDATE PENDING)

INDEX MAP FRONTEN/\C(N0.

PROPERTY

SCALE

FREEHOLDPROPERTY LEASEHOLD PROPERTY

PRINTED ON lOJUL, 2019 AT 10 28 00 FOR RPTCHEGUS

Serviceontario

Page 8 of 160

Page 9 of 160

Page 10 of 160

Page 11 of 160

_ __

3 :o_3mm <

.383 mum3

n:o3 R3 mE33

3 3833

2,3 3.03283

383

5 333. 3.83

:3_m3oc

0* mQ<m2.m_3m :32

am32.3

m o

3,.

n_ m<3»< mu3o<33m . mHo 2.. n_ m_3m 2:. cm.

m_ _o«m38 mm33 #3

.n3mm.8m m 3 33 38 .4o3m 3.3 9.0: 3 am

a 33 £22 mo 3 3 m330 “B323m.n3mm 303:22: 3 m Pu. <03 m m. 3 o3_ <

m
mam
mQ3 oma
m 0,2 m38,3. .«m
3 csocmz
_m
. A
o_3x m
. n_omma
m
m2:030
m 3 m:3m
_ma
% m:3 no33 ao_
m 3.023¢ 38
E mm?:
o_a
. cmmam: ma .1 «m_3 o3 m:.m m monmmm .?3m.$ m. 33 2no: a3 m«83 23:. .3 9. 33m

333 _m3m33303 328

m
3mm
mmm3cox
.33m:3_m 8:3
<
mm as.mm3
8 833 2 H3m8 S3 3.6L
m31:3 m3<m ‘m3 mmxu_m33mE 3 m
mn_n=:o..;
o.. 2a < n_m.oo& m m33
3: H3 m<m3mm3<m 2 3m_ 353 3333

m3.83 2o3 333 .132 mmm %m….. m__o«m3nm833 m3o 2 3 A o3 m mm

cm 33 Hooc3

V3 $.39.1: o 33m33 :< m3m _.<

Page 12 of 160

Page 13 of 160

Hardwood Creek

DR RWOODS

LANSDELL ESTATE RC-19-06-P

ROAD 38

EW LE YV I VA L

ETT R OA BURN

Inset Map

IVE

IV E

Hardwood Creek CEDA

ROAD 38

R LL BE

K OC

6449 ROAD 38

Legend

Hambly Lake

Proposed Road Allowance Closing Lansdell Property

ADELAID E STREE T

Owner Parcels (PINs) River / Stream Provincially Significant Wetlands

Waterbodies

Water Area, Permanent Wetland Area, Permanent

Produced by the Township of South Frontenac under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2015. While the Township makes every effort to insure that the information presented is accurate for the intended uses of this map, there is an inherent error in all mapping products, and accuracy of the mapping cannot be guaranteed for all possible uses. This map displays basic topographic features only.

0 4.75 9.5

28.5

Meters UTM Projection NAD 83

Page 14 of 160

Scale 1:965

/ I

.«-;::S ‘ ‘

min

u….-.m-.

I '

-’

‘J"§

u’

“’

ll In *”’

min»

.w……m.. nnurlnn

nnmu

nu,

unvlvnll

Mll_IlI_

unn

K»

4..

“l2 1

nnum

-mm ms

Ian WI

, _J9».u_11_a.1

nun

non sum-:1

umno-I

zumun

n I: u

“I so J‘

-mam-4

é—

hynuuu

J’

““’

umvnnrn

an ““’""“'

—~—

" J

‘

mum-= um: um

can: FICAYE

-v

‘Ln-1.1‘? —…w—*;;é:-_::r-‘r‘—i”’%t‘.r-twnv-iowslun.‘

.. .

manvan

now: I

E1 5’. L

.‘v’’’;,}’” “1

—«.-:n’

5:.

I1 I

ma um-n

W7…

mmu

PLAN ISNJ).-_

Page 15 of 160

PART 2

LANDSURVZYGRSINC. -:20 18-

HOPKDIS CENT)’

‘l?vnlr-I

SCALE‘-1 600

COUNTY of FR ONTENAC QQIIIIH

{:2 N. 257?‘;

47-0

K $

L07,

PLAN of S UR VEY of PAR Tof ADELAIDE STREE T. REGISTERED PLAN No. 35 Geo graphic Township of Port land TOWNSHIP of SOUTH FRONTENAC

(QR!)

man. «uncut

but

Inn

(wand)

u mmpmnn

:—.,…… 2 ::::::”

Alf!‘

?ll?

on.-u

l.I4~lJl

?ll

;

CDUII‘ W

,., ._,,,,

Will!

ncmun ll.

lllll

writing-

CHHTI’-ELI‘

“W.” N‘ lair! 41 Au-urn: .1-run. Ar Ila. .1: mnlsmr or rwm.uuI

HOPKINS CHITTY LAND SUIWSYDRS INC.

I. T|llUl7fD'0u:lwI)klOllIlXAIlV?dIyqI JIPHHIIH. 1011

ICIRHFY

5’ CERTIFICA11‘: SURVEYDR’

ran l’Io’unnd

n.un—a.L: nu mun-y

‘

lq[annu’u’!|-u tn nu

All

ID‘

llr

u) um}

loci

?ack

up‘?”

‘nu (1’I’)

PLANTIB Jill’ M IIISUIIICIINY anulnuml

nun

II!

38”’!

LEGEND:

n: CIOCKYISI In

CLOCK’!!!

SHOWN BU THIS PLAN All ll! Ulflll If NVIHNC DY 6.8041 Ill)‘

I ‘11’ -II‘

OF 1’ I 1'10"

DUSJIVAHOIII

LONGHIIFII

was um…

Jana-»oo4a

UIU CHIP, DIIIVID PIBU HULHPLI 51* ‘1’ TV ‘I’. VYUIOIII 1! (VP Ill’?

(VIVID)

lIS‘fANCl’.1‘AND Cé???lllfll AND CAN ll’ DBNVIIYID N

NA!!!

PRGU ????k?f

All

my.

IIAIIIICJ

|“_,’:‘,‘f,,‘gt!-nl| :5 | mucarz

nuuvrrmc (No.

REPRESENTA TIVB FOR LAND REGISTRAR FOR THE LAND mus DIVISION or

IIAII‘-’

RECEIVED AND DIPOSITID

PLAN1 sn— Lwjm

SCHEDULE PARTI LOT/STREET IPLANIINSTRUMENTIPART of PIN No]

anmuo um: sunvmm

@lllJL_4l?l

‘CT

PIIII. Ir c-mm’

NH"

RESIST)"

I REQUIRE 11115 PLAN 1D Bl.‘ DEPOSIIED UNDER ?ll‘

Page 16 of 160

Page 17 of 160

REPORT TO COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT DATE: AGENDA DATE:

August 19, 2019 September 3, 2019

SUBJECT:

RC-19-05 Gary & Lucille McDonald Road Closing and Transfer Inquiry 3742 Fair Grounds Road, Inverary, Plan 24 Pt Lot 50 Pt Lot 51, District of Storrington, Township of South Frontenac RC-19-06 Lansdell (Estate of Irene Belle Lansdell) Road Closing and Transfer Inquiry 6449 Highway 38, Pt Lot 10, Concession 10, Part 1, RP13R1459, District of Portland, Township of South Frontenac

RC-19-07 Walter & Donna Allen Road Closing and Transfer Inquiry 1056 Torrible Lane, Pt Lot 6 & 7, Concession 14, Parts 1 - 2, RP13R3184 and Parts 1, 4 & 6 RP13R2119, District of Bedford, Township of South Frontenac

RECOMMENDATION That Council consider the closing and transferring ownership of two portions of an unopened road allowance adjacent to the property at 3742 Fair Grounds Road, and an unopened road allowance adjacent to the property addressed as 6449 Highway 38 and an unopened road allowance that is located midway on a property located at 1056 Torrible Lane.

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to provide background information necessary to enable Council to provide direction to staff regarding the closing of a portion of an unopened road allowance for three properties in the Township.

BACKGROUND RC-19-05 Gary & Lucille McDonald – 3742 Fair Grounds Road, Inverary The applicants are requesting that the unopened road allowance at the north side of the property at 3742 Fair Grounds Road be closed and that an approximately 20 foot strip of the road allowance to the west of the subject property be closed and sold to the McDonald’s. The McDonald’s have been maintaining the unopened road allowance to the north and a portion to the west for the past 43 years. The property contains an existing two-storey dwelling with storage shed. Robert Tchegus of Cunningham Swan is providing assistance to the McDonald’s with the application for road closing. The unopened road allowances have been surveyed and stakes are located on the subject lands. The McDonald’s have indicated that they would like to sell their property in the future and would like to ensure that the lands where they have been encroaching onto are included in the property holding. The unopened road allowance located between 3738 and 3742 Fair Grounds Road contains an existing pathway on the unopened road allowance that provides a pathway and entrance to the Ken Garrett Memorial Park. Registered

Page 18 of 160

Plan 24 for the Village of Inverary, dated August 22, 1973, indicates that this portion of the unopened road allowance is the southern extension of Raglan Street (Fair Grounds Road). Based on a site inspection of the properties, it appears that the property owners at 3738 and 3742 Fair Grounds Road have been sharing in the maintenance of the unopened road allowance. Survey stakes have been provided indicating the location of the unopened road allowance. The McDonalds have a flower bed located on the eastern portion of the unopened road allowance and it appears that the property owner at 3738 has an existing fence encroaching onto the unopened road allowance. A letter was submitted with the road closing application, dated August 9, 2019 from the Inverary Youth Activities Inc. group, which indicated that the McDonald’s attended a meeting of the group on August 9, 2019 and provided a drawing and request to close a portion of the road allowance. A motion was passed which indicated that the Inverary Youth Activities had no objection to closing a section of the road allowance that abuts the Ken Garrett Memorial Park. A letter dated August 11, 2019 from the owner of 3738 Fairgrounds Road was submitted with the application for road closing indicating that he has no objection to the sale of a 20 foot portion of the unopened road allowance to the McDonalds. Based upon a site inspection on August 16, 2019, Public Services staff indicated that they were not in support of closing a portion of the unopened road allowance as this portion of the unopened road allowance provides current and future access to the Park. Planning staff agree with Public Services staff that the road allowance west of the subject property should be retained by the Township and not sold to the McDonalds. Staff in Parks were circulated the application for review and have indicated that the Inverary Youth Sport Fields are not Township owned or operated. Included in the application for road closing, the McDonald’s are requesting the road closing of the unopened road allowance to the north of their property at 3742 Fair Grounds Road and south of the property at 3746 Fair Grounds Road. Registered Plan 24 for the Village of Inverary, August 22, 1973 indicates that this portion of the unopened road allowance is the western extension of Wellington Street (Fair Grounds Road). A letter dated August 11, 2019, from the owner of 3746 Fair Grounds Road, indicated that they had no objection to the sale of the unopened road allowance to the McDonalds. Based upon a site inspection and from review of our GIS information, the McDonalds have an existing paved driveway located on the unopened road allowance. A shed is located to the rear of the property and south of the unopened road allowance. The property owners at 3746 Fair Grounds Road have a septic system located to the rear of their existing home and garage. Prior to Council considering selling this portion of road allowance, confirmation of the location of the septic system should be confirmed to ensure that the septic system is not located on this portion of the unopened road allowance. Staff are asking for direction as to whether Council is supportive of stopping up, closing and transferring the road allowance to the northwest of the McDonald’s to merge with their property at 3742 Fair Grounds Road and to waive the request to advertise the road closing to agree to the purchase price proposed by the applicant. If Council is supportive of the request to purchase the unopened road allowance to the north and waiving the requirement to advertise, a public meeting and passing of the by-law will be required. The applicant has paid the $3,000.00 for a deposit and has surveyed the unopened road allowances. A survey will be required from the applicant. The McDonald’s are requesting that the unopened road allowances be purchased for $1.00 as the McDonald’s have been maintaining the lands for the past 43 years.

Page 19 of 160

At the rate of $0.80 per square foot for a residential lot, the sale price of the road allowance for the purchase of the unopened road allowance to the north is as follows: 

166 foot long portion of the road allowance x 0.80 per sq. foot = $8,764.80

The purchase price of the road allowance is subject to HST. If Council is supportive of the request, staff can begin the process to stop up and close the portion of the road allowance to the north of 3742 Fair Grounds Road. Staff are not supportive of stopping and closing the unopened road allowance to the west that leads to Ken Garrett Memorial Park based on input from Public Services. Consistent with the Township’s Notice By-law and the Municipal Act the municipality will advertise a public meeting. The property owners to the north and west of the portion of the unopened road allowance and the Inverary Youth Activities Inc. have indicated that they are not interested in purchasing a portion of the unopened road allowance. RC-19-06 Lansdell (Estate of Irene Belle Lansdell) 6449 Highway 38 James and William Lansdell, on behalf of the Estate of Irene Belle Lansdell, have submitted an application for Road Closing for a small triangular portion of land located on the unopened road allowance at the north side of the existing dwelling. The lands subject to the road closing have 7.2 metres of frontage along Highway 38, a depth of 43.467 metres and consists of approximately 153 m2. The property at 6449 Hwy 38 backs onto the K&P Trail which is located to the west of the residential dwelling. This portion of property is identified as part of an unopened street identified as Adelaide Street on Plan 13R-5794 dated December 13, 1982. John Goswell is representing the Lansdells in clearing up a “conflict of ownership” between the Township and the estate of Irene Lansdell. The road allowance has never been opened and has been used as part of the residential property since its construction in 1945. The property is a non-convert from the Registry System to the Land Titles System because of the unclosed road allowance. The remaining portion of Adelaide Street was closed and transferred in 2018 to facilitate a tax sale. A report was presented to Council at the June 19, 2018 meeting, for a road closure and transfer of the majority of the lands known formerly as Adelaide Street, Verona through By-law 2018-43 which consisted of 0.94 acres with 157 feet of frontage on Highway 38. At that time a title search had identified that there were discrepancies with the legal description of the land through a tax sale process. The lands were identified in a survey in 1982 as being Parts 1-4 on Registered Plan 13R-5174. Parts 3 & 4 on Plan 13R-5174 (Adelaide Street) were identified as being owned by the Township. In order to proceed with the tax sale, Parts 3 and 4 were stopped up and closed and merged with Parts 1 and 2 of Plan 13R-5174 by By-law 2018-43. The applicant has indicated that there are no structures on the road allowance. The owner’s property contains an existing 1.5 storey, single detached dwelling consisting of 1903 ft2 with a detached two-car garage with loft. The Lawyer on behalf of the Lansdells indicated that the road allowance should have been fully closed when the By-law was passed in 1997 being By-law 97-23 by the Corporation of the Township of Portland. By-law 97-23 was a by-law to stop up, close and sell a portion of the original unopened road allowance in registered Plan 35, Part Lots 3, 4 and 5 originally known as Adelaide Street,

Page 20 of 160

being Part 3 on Reference Plan 13R-5174 in the Township of Portland. By-law 97-23 states that Mr. Edward Landsell, the property owner on the south side of the road allowance has waived his rights pursuant to Section 315 (2) of the Municipal Act to purchase half of the road allowance. By-law 2018-35 amended By-law 97-23 as a transfer had not been registered on title and that the house as per the 1982 Registered Plan is located across the property line. The Lansdells are requesting that the purchase price for unopened road allowances be waived or reduced. Staff are asking for direction as to whether Council is supportive of stopping up, closing and transferring the remaining portion of the road allowance to the property addressed as 6449 Highway 38. Staff do not have concerns with the road closing for this property but recommend that Lansdells pay the appropriate price of the land as they had previously waived their rights to purchase the lands in 1997. If Council is supportive of the request to purchase the unopened road allowance, there is a requirement to advertise, hold a public meeting and passing of the bylaw. A draft of the survey Plan 13R-21430 has been prepared for the unopened road allowance by the applicant. The applicant has paid the $3,000.00 deposit fee with the completed application form. At the rate of $0.80 per square foot for a residential lot, the sale price of the road allowance is outlined as follows: 

156m2 or 1,679ft2 portion of the road allowance x 0.80 per sq. foot = $1,343.20

The purchase price of the road allowance is subject to HST. If Council is supportive of the request, staff can begin the process to stop up and close the portion of the road allowance to the north of 6449 Highway 38 to be merged with this property. Consistent with the Township’s Notice By-law and the Municipal Act the municipality will advertise a public meeting. RC-19-07 Walter & Donna Allen - 1056 Torrible Lane, Desert Lake The applicants Walter and Donna Allen are requesting that the unopened road allowance, that intersects the property at 1056 Torrible Lane, be closed and sold to the Allen’s. The road allowance is located between Lots 6 and 7, Concession 14. The road allowance continues to the south of 1056 Torrible Lane and appears to be located on the properties to the south addressed as 1031 Smeltzer Lane and 1029 Snug Harbour Lane. The property contains an existing cottage and garage at the west side of the unopened road allowance closer to the waterfront. The request for the road closing is to assist with the property conversion from Registry to Land Titles. This portion of the unopened road allowance does not lead to water to the north. The northern portion of the road allowance was closed and sold to Susan Torrible in June 2011 by By-law 2011-34. It was determined in 2011 that the Torrible cottage had been constructed on the unopened road allowance. Staff are asking for direction as to whether Council is supportive of stopping up, closing and transferring the road allowance that intersects the property at 1056 Torrible Lane to be merged with the property at 1056 Torrible Lane. If Council is supportive of the request from the Allen’s to purchase the unopened road allowance there is the requirement to advertise, hold a public meeting and the passing of the by-law. The applicant has paid the $3,000.00 deposit with the

Page 21 of 160

completed application. A survey of the unopened road allowance will be required from the applicant. At the rate of $0.80 per square foot for a residential lot, the sale price of the road allowance is outlined as follows: 

Approximately 534 foot long x 66 foot (35,244ft2 ) portion of the road allowance x 0.80 per sq. foot = $28,195.20

The purchase price of the road allowance is subject to HST. If Council is supportive of the request, staff can begin the process to stop up and close the portion of the road allowance that intersects the property at 1056 Torrible Lane. Staff are supportive of the stopping and closing of the unopened road allowance as the unopened road allowance to the north has been closed, this portion of the unopened road allowance does not appear to lead to water and there are no neighbours that would be impacted with the road closing. Consistent with the Township’s Notice By-law and the Municipal Act the municipality will advertise a public meeting.

FINANCIAL and STAFFING CONSIDERATIONS Staff time to prepare reports, advertising, hold a public meeting and liaise with lawyers involved in the transfer.

ATTACHMENTS RC-19-05 Gary & Lucille McDonald Attachment #1 – Location Map – 3742 Fair Grounds Road, Inverary Attachment #2 – Proposed 20’ & 66’ Purchase of the Road Allowance Attachment #3 – Photos Attachment #4 – Letter from the McDonalds and Letters from the Adjacent Property Owners RC-19-06 Lansdell (Estate of Irene Belle Lansdell) Attachment #1 – Location Map – 6449 Highway 38 Attachment #2 – Plan 13R-5794 Proposed 156m2 (1,3433.34ft2) x 66 ft Purchase of the Road Allowance Attachment #3 – Draft of Plan 13R-21430 RC-19-07 Walter & Donna Allen Attachment #1 – Location Map – 1056 Torrible Lane Attachment #2 – Proposed 534 foot long x 66’ Purchase of the Road Allowance Submitted by: Trudy Gravel, CPT, AMCT, Planner, Township of South Frontenac Approved by: Claire Dodds, MCIP, RPP, Director of Development Services, Township of South Frontenac Approved by:

Neil Carbone, Chief Administrative Officer

Page 22 of 160 Mr Mayor, Councillors, and staff On behalf of myself and my wife, I thank you for the time to address you this evening. When I applied for the Road Closing, I asked that 2 unopened Road Allowances be considered. One Road Allowance to the west is used as access to the Ken Garrett Park. In the application, I had asked for a small portion of the 66 ft. wide road allowance and emphasized that a large portion remain open for village residents to access the park. The Inverary Youth Activities group agreed with me and supported my application which was rejected by Council. We still don’t understand why a 66 ft. allowance is necessary for residents to access the park since this access is not open to vehicles. The other Road Allowance to the north is on the agenda this evening having proceeded through the notification process. The property to the north of the Road Allowance is owned by Bonnie Bird who has submitted a letter stating that she has no objections to my acquiring the Road Allowance. We own the properties located directly to the east and south. I was recently in contact with Wendell Silver, the owner and builder of the house at 3742 Fair Grounds Rd, through his sister Beatrice. Mr Wendell Silver acquired the property in 1973 from his father Gordon Silver who had purchased all of the lots on Fair Grounds Rd from Albert Freeman in 1949. Wendell had the recollection that by 1973, the portion considered to be a road allowance was just another lot since he owned the property to the east and south of the Road Allowance and the road had nowhere to go. He had considered building a house on the lot prior to deciding to sell and move. In the survey of the property in 1973, there were iron bars planted at the extremities of the property including the Road Allowance and no other bars were planted. The coordinates of the original deed were entered on the survey. We can only surmise that as in similar cases that the Road Allowance as Wendell Silver understood, was closed but never registered. I bring your attention to a motion passed by council on November 15, 2016 which states in part: “That council reaffirm the position that in the sale of public lands, including road allowances, all members of the public will be treated equally…” I also bring to your attention 2 similar examples of road closings since 2016 where council has reduced or eliminated the purchase price.  Bovey Bylaw 2017‐42  Kot Bylaw 2019‐01 My wife and I are proud of our property and street in Inverary. Along with our neighbours, we take pride in maintaining our properties. We have assumed responsibility for the upkeep of the road allowance by seeding, weeding, fertilizing and cutting the grass for over 43 years. We therefore ask council that our application be “treated equally” with respect to the purchase price as others have been treated.

Page 23 of 160 Minutes of Council October, 1, 2019 Time: 7:00 PM Location: Council Chambers Meeting # 26

Present: Mayor Ron Vandewal, Ray Leonard, Doug Morey, Alan Revill, Norm Roberts, Randy Ruttan, Ron Sleeth, Ross Sutherland Staff: Neil Carbone, Chief Administrative Officer, Claire Dodds, Director of Development Services, Mark Segsworth, Director of Public Services, Angela Maddocks, Clerk. 1.

Call to Order

Resolution Resolution No. 2019-26-01 Moved by Councillor Revill Seconded by Councillor Ruttan That the Council meeting of October 1, 2019 be called to order at 7:00 p.m. Carried

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof

Councillor Leonard declared a pecuniary interest with respect to Agenda Item 13 a), the Accounts Payable and Payroll Listing.

Approval of Agenda

Resolution Resolution No. 2019-26-02 Moved by Councillor Ruttan Seconded by Councillor Revill That the agenda for the October 1, 2019 Council meeting be approved. Carried

Scheduled Closed Session - not applicable

Recess - not applicable

Delegations

Graham Forsythe, Deputy Chair, Kinsmen Dream Home Lottery Graham Forsythe provided an overview of the work that the Kinsmen group have done locally over the last 30 years which includes putting $6 to $7 million back into local communities and charitable organizations. One hundred percent of the money raised through the Kinsmen Dream Home Lottery goes back to the community. Upon Council’s request to direct a donation to two separate charities within South Frontenac, he explained the challenges of this based on the regulations set out under the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Commission. A resolution regarding the Kinsmen Dream Home funding request was addressed under Agenda Item 10 a).

Page 24 of 160 Minutes of Council October, 1, 2019 b)

Matt Trousdale, re: Opportunity to secure train sections from Upper Canada Village. Matt Trousdale and Daisy Belec circulated a copy of their “expression of interest” they will be presenting to the St. Lawrence Parks Association in an effort to acquire sections of trains from the Upper Canad Village site. The logistics of transporting and relocating to South Frontenac was discussed along with potential locations for each section and the necessary upgrades. Council agreed to provide a letter of support in principle to Mr. Trousdale and his proposed acquisition of the train sections. Resolution No. 2019-26-03 Moved by Councillor Ruttan Seconded by Councillor Revill That Council supports Mr. Matt Trousdale in principle, in his potential acquisition of the steam locomotives and box cars from the St. Lawrence Parks Commission. Carried

Public Meeting - not applicable

Approval of Minutes

Special Committee of the Whole meeting held September 10, 2019 Resolution No. 2019-26-04 Moved by Councillor Ruttan Seconded by Councillor Revill That the minutes of the September 10, 2019 Special Committee of the Whole meeting be approved. Carried

Council meeting held September 17, 2019 Resolution No. 2019-26-05 Moved by Councillor Revill Seconded by Councillor Ruttan That the minutes of the September 17, 2019 Council meeting be approved. Carried

Business Arising from the Minutes

Notice of Motion - Creation of a Lake Association Committee Councillor Ruttan proposed an amendment to the resolution as he believed Council was already supportive of moving forward with this committee. Resolution No. 2019-26-06 Moved by Councillor Ruttan Seconded by Councillor Revill That Council direct staff to report on the potential creation of a Lake Association Committee of Council including consideration for its terms of reference.

Resolution No. 2019-26-07 Moved by Councillor Ruttan Seconded by Councillor Revill Amendment

Page 2 of 6

Page 25 of 160 Minutes of Council October, 1, 2019 That Council direct staff to develop terms of reference for a Lake Association Committee of Council approved by Council. Carried b)

Notice of Motion - Single Use Plastic Water Bottles The process of how to implement this in township facilities in conjunction with user agreements will need to be considered. Resolution No. 2019-26-08 Moved by Councillor Sutherland Seconded by Councillor Morey That Council supports the following: Be it resolved that the Township stop providing water in single use plastic bottles at Township events in facilities that have a dependable supply of potable water, and Further be it resolved that the Township encourage groups that use these facilities and our partners to do the same, and Further be it resolved where dependable potable water is not available that, where possible, the Township provides water in reusable water jugs. Carried

Reports Requiring Action

2019 Kinsmen Dream Home Funding Request Resolution No. 2019-26-09 Moved by Councillor Roberts Seconded by Councillor Leonard That Council fund the cost of building permit fees and development charges in the total amount of $23,146.00 for Home Valley Builders’ for the construction of the 2019 Kinsmen Lottery Dream Home, subject to a donation by the Kinsmen of a comparable amount to local charities or not for profit agencies. Carried

Site Plan Control Agreement - Henderson See By-law 2019-59

Temporary Winter Closures at Northern Waste Disposal Sites Resolution No. 2019-26-10 Moved by Councillor Sutherland Seconded by Councillor Leonard That the Bradshaw and Salem Waste Disposal Sites be closed on a trial basis from January 1st to April 30th 2020 to encourage greater utilization of Townshipwide garbage collection. Carried

PW-P02-2019 Engineering Services for Bridge Design Resolution No. 2019-26-11 Moved by Councillor Leonard Seconded by Councillor Sutherland That Council approves the bid of Ambashi Engineering for the Fish Creek Bridge for $8,045.00, plus HST. And That Council approves the bid of The Greer Galloway Group for the Hinchinbrooke Road North Culvert for $15,515.00, plus HST.

Page 3 of 6

Page 26 of 160 Minutes of Council October, 1, 2019 And That Council approves the bid of HP Engineering for the Bedford Road Mills Bridge for $5,000.00, plus HST. And That Council approves the bid of Ainley and Associates for the Stafford Lane Culvert for $27,450.00, plus HST And That Council approve an increase of $25,000 to the capital budget for a total project budget of $75,000. This increase is to be funded from the Linear Assets Contingency budget line. Carried e)

PW-2019-19 Battersea Road Reconstruction Resolution No. 2019-26-12 Moved by Councillor Leonard Seconded by Councillor Roberts That Council approves the bid of R.W. Tomlinson Ltd. for Tender No. PW-201919, Battersea Road Reconstruction, in the amount of $1,804,399.26, including all applicable taxes. Carried

2020 Budget Cycle - Revised Resolution No. 2019-26-13 Moved by Councillor Roberts Seconded by Councillor Leonard That Council adopt the revised 2020 budget cycle as presented. Carried

Committee Meeting Minutes

Police Services Board meeting held June 27, 2019 Neil Carbone, CAO, provided an update on the contract renewal with the Ontario Provincial Police which is to expire in December as well as noting that a new comprehensive Police Services Act is now in place which will impact contractual arrangement with the OPP in the New Year.

Public Services Committee meeting held August 15, 2019

Bellrock Hall Committee meeting held August 14, 2019 Resolution No. 2019-26-14 Moved by Councillor Leonard Seconded by Councillor Roberts That Council receives for information the minutes of the following committee meetings: • Police Services Board meeting held June 27, 2019 • Public Services Committee meeting held August 15, 2019 • Bellrock Hall Committee meeting held August 14, 2019 Carried

By-laws

By-law 2019-59 - Site Plan Control Agreement - Henderson Resolution No. 2019-26-15 Moved by Councillor Roberts Seconded by Councillor Leonard That By-law 2019-59 be given first and second reading.

Page 4 of 6

Page 27 of 160 Minutes of Council October, 1, 2019 Carried Resolution No. 2019-26-16 Moved by Deputy Mayor Sleeth Seconded by Councillor Morey That By-law 2019-59, being a by-law to authorize the Mayor and the Clerk to execute a site plan agreement between the Corporation o the Township of South Frontenac and Cindy and James Henderson et al, be given third reading, signed and sealed. Carried 13.

Reports for Information

Accounts Payable and Payroll Listing

Summer Program Report Questions were asked about the number of program users residing in South Frontenac and how could we do better in promoting the programming at McMullen Beach in future years.

Tender PW-2019-15 - Gilmour Point Pavilion

RFP-PW- PO4-2019 Keeley Road Boiler Mark Segsworth confirmed that this is not part of the facility improvement project.

Information Items

Allan and Partners - Audit Planning Letter for the Year Ending December 31, 2019

Geoff Rae, General Manager, CRCA - 2020 Budget - Updated Apportionment Data

South Frontenac Museum Newsletter - 2019 Fall Edition

Notice of Motions

Councillor Revill served a notice of motion regarding the development of a climate change mitigation and adaptation initiative for South Frontenac.

Councillor Sutherland served a notice of motion regarding options for South Frontenac to work with the City of Kingston and the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority to map vulnerable ground water areas.

Announcements/Statements by Councillors

Councillor Leonard requested that the issue of parking at Harrowsmith Public School on Colebrooke Road be included on a Public Services Committee agenda for review.

Councillor Revill commended the Public Services Department on the handling of detour signage for the temporary road closure due to the Desert Lake Causeway project.

Mayor Vandewal reminded Council of the “Road Tour” that is scheduled for Friday, November 1, 2019.

Page 5 of 6

Page 28 of 160 Minutes of Council October, 1, 2019 17.

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

Closed Session

Resolution Resolution No. 2019-26-17 Moved by Deputy Mayor Sleeth Seconded by Councillor Morey That the Council meeting of October 1, 2019 move into closed session as permitted by the Municipal Act, Section 239.2 (c) to discuss a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board. Carried

Verbal Update from CAO, re: Land Acquisition for Seniors Housing Project

Resolution Resolution No. 2019-26-18 Moved by Deputy Mayor Sleeth Seconded by Councillor Morey That Council move out of closed session. Carried

Confirmatory By-law

By-law 2019-60 Resolution No. 2019-26-19 Moved by Deputy Mayor Sleeth Seconded by Councillor Morey That By-law 2019-60, being a by-law to confirm generally previous actions of the Council of the Township of South Frontenac, be given first and second reading this 1 day of October, 2019. Carried Resolution No. 2019-26-20 Moved by Councillor Morey Seconded by Deputy Mayor Sleeth That By-law 2019-60, being a by-law to confirm generally previous actions of the Council of the Township of South Frontenac, be given third reading, signed and sealed this 1 day of October, 2019. Carried

Adjournment

Resolution Resolution No. 2019-26-21 Moved by Councillor Morey Seconded by Deputy Mayor Sleeth That the Council meeting of October 1, 2019 be adjourned at 8:32 p.m. Carried

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Angela Maddocks Clerk

Page 6 of 6

Page 29 of 160

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERKS DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE: October 15, 2019 SUBJECT:

Notice of Motion – Vulnerable Ground Water

RECOMMENDATION Whereas the City of Kingston is approaching the KFL+A Public Health Unit and the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority to investigate areas of ground water vulnerability in rural Kingston, Be it resolved that South Frontenac indicate support for this project and explore ways to work with Kingston, the KFL+A Public Health Unit and the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority to expand the evaluation of vulnerable ground water to South Frontenac Township.

BACKGROUND Council’s Procedural By-law 2017-76 establishes the process for Notice of Motion. At the Council Meeting on October 1, 2019, Councillor Sutherland served a notice of motion regarding options for South Frontenac to work with the City of Kingston and the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority to map vulnerable ground water areas. A notice of motion requires a seconder at the next regular Council meeting. If seconded, the motion is debated and voted on.

ATTACHMENTS Not applicable

Submitted/approved by: Angela Maddocks Clerk

Our strength is our community.

Page 30 of 160

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERKS DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE: October 15, 2019 SUBJECT:

Notice of Motion – Climate Change Strategy

RECOMMENDATION That Council direct staff to bring forward a report and recommendations in early 2020 regarding the development of a Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Strategy for the Township.

BACKGROUND Council’s Procedural By-law 2017-76 establishes the process for Notice of Motion. At the Council Meeting on October 1, 2019, Councillor Revill served a notice of motion regarding the development of a Climate Change Adaption and Mitigation strategy for South Frontenac. A notice of motion requires a seconder at the next regular Council meeting. If seconded, the motion is debated and voted on.

ATTACHMENTS Not applicable

Submitted/approved by: Angela Maddocks Clerk

Our strength is our community.

Page 31 of 160

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERKS DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE: October 15, 2019 SUBJECT:

Notice of Motion – Public Health & Ambulance Dispatch Services

RECOMMENDATION Whereas public health care consistently ranks as the top priority in public opinion polls, and; Whereas Public Health provides vital health promotion and prevention services based on the unique demographic and economic, social, and cultural needs of our communities, and; Whereas the evidence from hospital amalgamation in Ontario and across Canada is that they have cost billions of dollars and have not yielded the promised administrative savings but have taken money away from frontline care, and; Whereas there is no evidence to support the proposed closure of 25 out of 35 local Public Health Units, the closure of 12 of 22 local ambulance dispatch centres, and the closure of 49 out of 59 local ambulance services, and; Whereas the Provincial Government delayed the closure and merger of Ambulance Dispatch Centres and Public health units due to vocal public concern, Therefore, be it resolved that South Frontenac Township calls upon the Ontario government to permanently halt the closures of, mergers of, and cuts to our local health care services including Public Health Units and land ambulance services, And, further that South Frontenac calls upon the government to fund these services to meet local health needs, and support local control and responsiveness.

BACKGROUND Council’s Procedural By-law 2017-76 establishes the process for Notice of Motion. At the Committee of the Whole Meeting on October 8, 2019, Councillor Sutherland served a notice of motion regarding proposed closures of local Public Health Units and local Ambulance Dispatch Centres. A notice of motion requires a seconder at the next regular Council meeting. If seconded, the motion is debated and voted on.

ATTACHMENTS Not applicable

Submitted/approved by: Angela Maddocks Clerk

Our strength is our community.

Page 32 of 160

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERK’S DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE:

October 15, 2019

SUBJECT:

AMO – Addressing growing municipal liability and insurance costs

RECOMMENDATION: That Council supports the seven recommendations outlined in the submission to the Attorney General of Ontario from AMO President, Jamie McGarvey with respect to changes to joint and several liability. And that a copy of this resolution be sent to the Attorney General of Ontario, AMO and other Ontario Municipalities. BACKGROUND: Included on the agenda for the October 8, 2019, Committee of the Whole meeting was a copy of a letter and submission to the Attorney General of Ontario from Jamie McGarvey, AMO. President, calling for a reasonable balance to prevent further scaling back of public services owing to joint and several liability. Council was supportive of endorsing the concerns outlined in the document and directed staff to bring forward a report and recommendation to support AMO’s position. FINANCIAL/STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: Not at this time. ATTACHMENTS: Submission to the Attorney General of Ontario.

Submitted/approved by: Angela Maddocks, Clerk

Our strength is our community.

Page 33 of 160

Towards a Reasonable Balance: Addressing growing municipal liability and insurance costs Submission to the Attorney General of Ontario October 1, 2019

Page 34 of 160

Table of Contents Letter to the Attorney General of Ontario……………………………………………………………………………… 3 Executive Summary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5 Recommendations …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7 Insurance Cost Examples……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8 Joint and Several in Action - Recent Examples ……………………………………………………………………….. 9 Joint and Several Liability in Action - Other notable cases …………………………………………………… 11 2011 Review of Joint and Several Liability – Law Commission of Ontario …………………………….. 11 2014 Resolution by the Ontario Legislature and Review by the Attorney General ……………….. 12 Options for Reform – The Legal Framework …………………………………………………………………………. 13 The Saskatchewan Experience ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 15 Insurance Related Reforms ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 17 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 18

Page 35 of 160

Sent via email to: doug.downeyco@pc.ola.org magpolicy@ontario.ca October 1, 2019 The Honourable Doug Downey Attorney General of Ontario McMurtry-Scott Building, 11th Floor 720 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario M7A 2S9 Dear Attorney General Downey, Municipal governments accept the responsibility to pay their fair share of a loss. Always. Making it right and paying a fair share are the cornerstones of our legal system. Citizens expect nothing less of their local governments. But what is a challenge for municipalities and property taxpayers alike, is being asked to assume someone else’s responsibility for someone else’s mistake. Municipal governments should not be the insurer of last resort. For municipalities in Ontario, however, the principle of joint and several liability ensures that they are just that. Joint and several liability means higher insurance costs. It diverts property tax dollars from delivering public services. It has transformed municipalities into litigation targets while others escape responsibility. It forces municipal government to settle out-of-court for excessive amounts when responsibility is as low as 1%. There must be a better way. There must be a better way to help ensure those who suffer losses are made whole again without asking municipalities to bear that burden alone. There must be a better way to be fair, reasonable, and responsible. AMO welcomes the government’s commitment to review joint and several liability. It is a complex issue that has many dimensions. Issues of fairness, legal principles, “liability chill”, insurance failures and high insurance costs are all intertwined. Many other jurisdictions have offered additional protection for municipalities and AMO calls on the Ontario government to do the same. What follows is a starting point for that discussion. Our paper reasserts key issues from AMO’s 2010 paper, AMO’s 2011 insurance cost survey, provides more recent examples, and details some possible solutions of which there are many options. Municipalities are in the business of delivering public services. Municipal governments exist to connect people and to advance the development of a community. It is time to find a reasonable balance to prevent the further scaling back of public services owing to joint and several liability, “liability chill”, or excessive insurance costs.

Page 36 of 160

Together with the provincial government, I am confident we can find a better way. Sincerely,

Jamie McGarvey AMO President

Page 37 of 160

Executive Summary AMO’s advocacy efforts on joint and several liability in no way intends for aggrieved parties to be denied justice or damages through the courts. Rather, municipal governments seek to highlight the inequity of how much “deep pocket” defendants like municipalities are forced to pay, for both in and out of court settlements. It is entirely unfair to ask property taxpayers to carry the lion’s share of a damage award when a municipality is found at minimal fault or to assume responsibility for someone else’s mistake. Municipal governments cannot afford to be the insurer of last resort. The principle of joint and several liability is costing municipalities and taxpayers dearly, in the form of rising insurance premiums, service reductions and fewer choices. The Negligence Act was never intended to place the burden of insurer of last resort on municipalities. As public organizations with taxation power and “deep pockets,” municipalities have become focal points for litigation when other defendants do not have the means to pay. At the same time, catastrophic claim awards in Ontario have increased considerably. In part, joint and several liability is fueling exorbitant increases in municipal insurance premiums. The heavy insurance burden and legal environment is unsustainable for Ontario’s communities. Despite enormous improvements to safety, including new standards for playgrounds, pool safety, and better risk management practices, municipal insurance premiums and liability claims continue to increase. All municipalities have risk management policies to one degree or another and most large municipalities now employ risk managers precisely to increase health and safety and limit liability exposure in the design of facilities, programs, and insurance coverage. Liability is a top of mind consideration for all municipal councils. Joint and several liability is problematic not only because of the disproportioned burden on municipalities that are awarded by courts. It is also the immeasurable impact of propelling municipalities to settle out of court to avoid protracted and expensive litigation for amounts that may be excessive, or certainly represent a greater percentage than their degree of fault. Various forms of proportionate liability have now been enacted by all of Ontario’s competing Great Lakes states. In total, 38 other states south of the border have adopted proportionate liability in specific circumstances to the benefit of municipalities. Many common law jurisdictions around the world have adopted legal reforms to limit the exposure and restore balance. With other Commonwealth jurisdictions and the majority of state governments in the United States having modified the rule of joint and several liability in favour of some form of proportionate liability, it is time for Ontario to consider various options. There is precedence in Ontario for joint and several liability reform. The car leasing lobby highlighted a particularly expensive court award made in November of 2004 against a car leasing company by the victim of a drunk driver. The August 1997 accident occurred when the car skidded off a county road near Peterborough, Ontario. It exposed the inequity of joint and several liability for car leasing companies. The leasing companies argued to the government that the settlement had put them at a competitive disadvantage to lenders. They also warned that such liability conditions would likely drive some leasing and rental companies to reduce their business in Ontario. As a result, Bill 18 amended the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, the Highway Traffic

Page 38 of 160

Act and the Ontario Insurance Act to make renters and lessees vicariously liable for the negligence of automobile drivers and capped the maximum liability of owners of rental and leased cars at $1 million. While Bill 18 has eliminated the owners of leased and rented cars as “deep pocket” defendants, no such restrictions have been enacted to assist municipalities.

A 2011 survey conducted by AMO reveals that since 2007, liability premiums have increased by 22.2% and are among the fastest growing municipal costs. Total 2011 Ontario municipal insurance costs were $155.2 million. Liability premiums made up the majority of these expenses at $85.5 million. Property taxpayers are paying this price. These trends are continuing. In August of 2019, it was reported the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury faces a 59% insurance cost increase for 2019. This is just one example. AMO encourages the municipal insurance industry to provide the government with more recent data and trends to support the industry’s own arguments regarding the impact joint and several has on premiums. Insurance costs disproportionately affect small municipalities. For 2011, the per capita insurance costs for communities with populations under 10,000 were $37.56. By comparison, per capita costs in large communities with populations over 75,000 were $7.71. Property taxpayers in one northern community are spending more on insurance than their library. In one southern county, for every $2 spent on snowplowing roads, another $1 is spent on insurance. In 2016, the Ontario Municipal Insurance Exchange (OMEX), a not-for-profit insurer, announced that it was suspending reciprocal underwriting operations. The organization cited, a “low pricing environment, combined with the impact of joint and several liability on municipal claim settlements” as reasons for the decision. Fewer choices fuels premium increases. Learning from other jurisdictions is important for Ontario. The Province of Saskatchewan has implemented liability reforms to support its municipalities. As a municipal lawyer at the time, Neil Robertson, QC was instrumental in laying out the arguments in support of these changes. Now a Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan, AMO was pleased to have Neil Robertson prepare a paper and address AMO conference delegates in 2013. Much of the Saskatchewan municipal experience (which led to reforms) is applicable to the Ontario and the Canadian municipal context. Summarised below and throughout this paper are some of Robertson’s key findings. Robertson found that, regardless of the cause, over the years municipalities in Canada have experienced an accelerating rate of litigation and an increase in amounts of damage awards. He noted these developments challenge municipalities and raise financial, operational and policy issues in the provision of public services. Robertson describes the current Canadian legal climate as having placed municipalities in the role of involuntary insurer. Courts have assigned municipal liability where liability was traditionally denied and apportioned fault to municipal defendants out of proportion to municipal involvement in the actual wrong. This increased exposure to liability has had serious ramifications for municipalities, both as a deterrent to providing public services which may give rise to claims and in raising the cost and reducing the availability of insurance. The cost of claims has caused insurers to reconsider not only

Page 39 of 160

what to charge for premiums, but whether to continue offering insurance coverage to municipal clients. Robertson also makes the key point that it reasonable for municipal leaders to seek appropriate statutory protections. He wrote: “Since municipalities exist to improve the quality of life for their citizens, the possibility of causing harm to those same citizens is contrary to its fundamental mission. Careful management and wise stewardship of public resources by municipal leaders will reduce the likelihood of such harm, including adherence to good risk management practices in municipal operations. But wise stewardship also involves avoiding the risk of unwarranted costs arising from inevitable claims.” And, of course, a key consideration is the reality that insurance premiums, self-insurance costs, and legal fees divert municipal funds from other essential municipal services and responsibilities. It is in this context that AMO appreciated the commitments made by the Premier and the Attorney General to review the principle of joint and several liability, the impact it has on insurance costs, and the influence “liability chill” has on the delivery of public services. Now is the time to deliver provincial public policy solutions which address these issues.

Recommendations AMO recommends the following measures to address these issues:

The provincial government adopt a model of full proportionate liability to replace joint and several liability.
Implement enhancements to the existing limitations period including the continued applicability of the existing 10-day rule on slip and fall cases given recent judicial interpretations, and whether a 1-year limitation period may be beneficial.
Implement a cap for economic loss awards.
Increase the catastrophic impairment default benefit limit to $2 million and increase the third-party liability coverage to $2 million in government regulated automobile insurance plans.
Assess and implement additional measures which would support lower premiums or alternatives to the provision of insurance services by other entities such as non-profit insurance reciprocals.
Compel the insurance industry to supply all necessary financial evidence including premiums, claims, and deductible limit changes which support its, and municipal arguments as to the fiscal impact of joint and several liability.
Establish a provincial and municipal working group to consider the above and put forward recommendations to the Attorney General.

Page 40 of 160

Insurance Cost Examples The government has requested detailed information from municipalities regarding their insurance costs, coverage, deductibles, claims history, and out-of-court settlements. Municipalities have been busy responding to a long list of provincial consultations on a wide range of topics. Some of the information being sought is more easily supplied by the insurance industry. AMO’s 2011 survey of insurance costs produced a sample size of 122 municipalities and assessed insurance cost increases over a five-year period. The survey revealed an average premium increase which exceeded 20% over that period. All of the same forces remain at play in 2019 just as they were in 2011. Below are some key examples. Ear Falls - The Township of Ear Falls reports that its insurance premiums have increased 30% over five years to $81,686. With a population of only 995 residents (2016), this represents a per capita cost of $82.09. This amount is a significant increase from AMO’s 2011 Insurance Survey result. At that time, the average per capita insurance cost for a community with a population under 10,000 was $37.56. While the Township has not been the subject of a liability claim, a claim in a community of this size could have significant and long-lasting financial and service implications. The Township has also had to impose stricter insurance requirements on groups that rent municipal facilities. This has had a negative impact on the clubs and volunteers’ groups and as a consequence, many have cut back on the service these groups provide to the community. Central Huron – For many years the municipality of Central Huron had a deductible of $5,000. In 2014, the deductible was increased to $15,000 to help reduce insurance costs. The municipality also increased its liability coverage in 2014 and added cyber security coverage in 2018. The combined impact of these changes represents a premium cost of $224,774 in 2019, up from $141,331 in 2010. Per capita costs for insurance alone are now $29.67. Huntsville – Since 2010, the Town of Huntsville reports an insurance premium increase of 67%. In 2019 this represented about 3.75% of the town’s property tax levy. At the same time, Huntsville’s deductible has increased from $10,000 to $25,000. The town also reports a reluctance to hold its own events for fear of any claims which may affect its main policy. Additional coverage is purchased for these events and these costs are not included above. Ottawa - In August 2018, the City began working with its insurance broker, Aon Risk Solutions (“Aon”), to prepare for the anticipated renewal of the Integrated Insurance Program in April 2019. As the cost of the City’s insurance premiums had risen by approximately 25% between 2017 and 2018, this early work was intended to ensure that any further increase could be properly accounted for through the 2019 budget process. Early indications of a possible further 10% premium increase prompted the City and Aon in late 2018 to explore options for a revised Program, and to approach alternative markets for the supply of insurance. On January 11, 2019, an OC Transpo bus collided with a section of the Westboro Station transit shelter, resulting in three fatalities and numerous serious injuries. This was the second major incident involving the City’s bus fleet, following approximately five years after the OC Transpo – VIA train collision in September 2013.

Page 41 of 160

The January 2019 incident prompted insurance providers to re-evaluate their willingness to participate in the City Program. Despite Aon’s work to secure an alternative provider, only Frank Cowan Company (“Cowan”), the City’s existing insurer, was prepared to offer the City an Integrated Insurance Program. Cowan’s offer to renew the City’s Program was conditional on revised terms and limits and at a significant premium increase of approximately 84%, or nearly $2.1 million per year. According to Cowan, these changes and increases were attributable to seven principle factors, including Joint and Several Liability: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Escalating Costs of Natural Global Disasters; Joint and Several Liability; Claims Trends (in the municipal sector); Increasing Damage Awards; Class Action Lawsuits; New and/or Adverse Claims Development; and, Transit Exposure.

Cowan also indicated that the primary policy limits for the 2019-2020 renewal would be lowered from $25 million to $10 million per occurrence, thereby raising the likelihood of increased costs for the City’s excess liability policies.

Joint and Several in Action - Recent Examples The following examples highlight joint and several in action. The following examples have occurred in recent years. GTA Municipality – A homeowner rented out three separate apartments in a home despite being zoned as a single-family dwelling. After a complaint was received, bylaw inspectors and Fire Prevention Officers visited the property. The landlord was cautioned to undertake renovations to restore the building into a single-family dwelling. After several months of non-compliance, charges under the fire code were laid. The owner was convicted and fined. A subsequent visit by Fire Prevention Officers noted that the required renovations had not taken place. Tragically, a fire occurred which resulted in three fatalities. Despite having undertaken corrective action against the homeowner, joint and several liability loomed large. It compelled the municipality to make a payment of $504,000 given the 1% rule. City of Ottawa - A serious motor vehicle accident occurred between one of the City’s buses and an SUV. The collision occurred at an intersection when the inebriated driver of the SUV failed to stop at a red light and was struck by the City bus. This collision resulted in the deaths of the SUV driver and two other occupants, and also seriously injured the primary Plaintiff, the third passenger in the SUV. The secondary action was brought by the family of one of the deceased passengers. The Court ultimately concluded that the City was 20% liable for the collision, while the SUV driver was 80% at fault. Despite the 80/20 allocation of fault, the City was required to pay all of the approximately $2.1 million in damages awarded in the primary case and the $200,000 awarded in the secondary case, bringing the amount paid by the City to a total that was not proportionate to its actual liability. This was due to the application of the principle of joint and several liability, as well as the interplay between the various automobile insurance policies held by the SUV owner and

Page 42 of 160

passengers, which is further explained below. Although the City appealed this case, the Ontario Court of Appeal agreed with the findings of the trial judge and dismissed it. This case was notable for the implications of various factors on the insurance policies held by the respective parties. While most automobile insurance policies in Ontario provide for $1 million in third party liability coverage, the insurance for the SUV was reduced to the statutory minimum of $200,000 by virtue of the fact that the driver at the time of the collision had a blood alcohol level nearly three times the legal limit for a fully licensed driver. This was contrary to the requirements of his G2 license, which prohibit driving after the consumption of any alcohol. Further, while the Plaintiff passengers’ own respective insurance provided $1 million in coverage for underinsured motorists (as the SUV driver was at the time), this type of coverage is triggered only where no other party is in any way liable for the accident. As a result, the primary Plaintiff could only effectively recover the full $2.1 million in damages if the Court attributed even a small measure of fault to another party with sufficient resources to pay the claim. In determining that the City was at least partially responsible for the collision, the Court held that the speed of the bus – which according to GPS recordings was approximately 6.5 km/h over the posted limit of 60 kilometres an hour – and momentary inattention were contributing factors to the collision. To shorten the length of the trial by approximately one week and accordingly reduce the legal costs involved, the parties had earlier reached an agreement on damages and that the findings regarding the primary Plaintiff would apply equally to the other. The amount of the agreement-upon damages took into account any contributory negligence on the part of the respective Plaintiffs, attributable to such things as not wearing a seat belt. City of Ottawa, 2nd example – A Plaintiff was catastrophically injured when, after disembarking a City bus, he was struck by a third-party motor vehicle. The Plaintiff’s injuries included a brain injury while his impairments included incomplete quadriplegia. As a result of his accident, the Plaintiff brought a claim for damages for an amount in excess of $7 million against the City and against the owner and driver of the third-party vehicle that struck him. Against the City, the Plaintiff alleged that the roadway was not properly designed and that the bus stop was placed at an unsafe location as it required passengers to cross the road mid-block and not at a controlled intersection. Following the completion of examinations for discovery, the Plaintiff’s claim against the CoDefendant (the driver of the vehicle which struck the plaintiff) was resolved for $1,120,000 comprising $970,000 for damages and $120,000 for costs. The Co-Defendant’s policy limit was $1 million. The claim against the City was in effect, a “1% rule” case where the City had been added to the case largely because the Co-Defendant’s insurance was capped at $1 million, which was well below the value of the Plaintiff’s claim. On the issue of liability, the pre-trial judge was of the view that the City was exposed to a finding of some liability against it on the theory that, because of the proximity of the bus stop to a home for adults with mental health issues, the City knew or should have known that bus passengers with cognitive and/or physical disabilities would be crossing mid-block at an unmarked crossing. This, according to the judge, could have resulted in a finding being made at trial that the City should

Page 43 of 160

either have removed the bus stop or alternatively, should have installed a pedestrian crossing at this location. The judge assessed the Plaintiff’s damages at $7,241,000 exclusive of costs and disbursements which he then reduced to $4,602,930 exclusive of costs and disbursements after applying a reduction of 27.5% for contributory negligence and subtracting the $970,000 payment made by the Co-Defendant’s insurer. Settlement discussions took place and the judge recommended that the matter be resolved for $3,825,000 plus costs of $554,750 plus HST plus disbursements.

Joint and Several Liability in Action - Other notable cases Deering v Scugog - A 19-year-old driver was driving at night in a hurry to make the start time of a movie. She was travelling on a Class 4 rural road that had no centerline markings. The Ontario Traffic Manual does not require this type of road to have such a marking. The driver thought that a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction was headed directly at her. She swerved, over-corrected and ended up in a rock culvert. The Court found the Township of Scugog 66.7% liable. The at-fault driver only carried a $1M auto insurance policy. Ferguson v County of Brant - An inexperienced 17-year-old male driver was speeding on a road when he failed to navigate a curve which resulted in him crossing the lane into oncoming traffic, leaving the roadway, and striking a tree. The municipality was found to have posted a winding road sign rather than a sharp curve sign. The municipality was found 55% liable. Safranyos et al v City of Hamilton - The plaintiff was leaving a drive-in movie theatre with four children in her vehicle at approximately 1 AM. She approached a stop sign with the intention of turning right onto a highway. Although she saw oncoming headlights she entered the intersection where she was struck by a vehicle driven 15 km/h over the posted speed limit by a man who had just left a party and was determined by toxicologists to be impaired. The children in the plaintiff’s vehicle suffered significant injuries. The City was determined to be 25% liable because a stop line had not been painted on the road at the intersection. Mortimer v Cameron - Two men were engaged in horseplay on a stairway and one of them fell backward through an open door at the bottom of a landing. The other man attempted to break the first man’s fall and together they fell into an exterior wall that gave way. Both men fell 10 feet onto the ground below, one of whom was left quadriplegic. The trial judge determined both men were negligent, but that their conduct did not correspond to the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries. No liability was attached to either man. The building owner was determined to be 20% and the City of London was found to be 80% liable. The Court awarded the plaintiff $5 M in damages. On appeal, the City’s liability was reduced to 40% and building owner was determined to be 60% liable. The City still ended up paying 80% of the overall claim.

2011 Review of Joint and Several Liability – Law Commission of Ontario In February 2011 the Law Commission of Ontario released a report entitled, “Joint and Several Liability Under the Ontario Business Corporations Act”. This review examined the application of

Page 44 of 160

joint and several liability to corporate law and more specifically the relationship between the corporation and its directors, officers, shareholders and stakeholders. Prior to the report’s release, AMO made a submission to the Law Commission of Ontario to seek to expand its review to include municipal implications. The Law Commission did not proceed with a broader review at that time, but the context of its narrower scope remains applicable to municipalities. In fact, many of the same arguments which support reform in the realm of the Business Corporations Act, are the same arguments which apply to municipal governments. Of note, the Law Commission’s 1 report highlighted the following in favour of reforms: Fairness: “it is argued that it is unfair for a defendant, whose degree of fault is minor when compared to that of other defendants, to have to fully compensate a plaintiff should the other defendants be insolvent or unavailable.” Deep Pocket Syndrome: “Joint and several liability encourages plaintiffs to unfairly target defendants who are known or perceived to be insured or solvent.” Rising Costs of Litigation, Insurance, and Damage Awards: “Opponents of the joint and several liability regime are concerned about the rising costs of litigation, insurance, and damage awards.” Provision of Services: “The Association of Municipalities of Ontario identifies another negative externality of joint and several liability: municipalities are having to delay or otherwise cut back services to limit exposure to liability.” The Law Commission found that the principle of joint and several liability should remain in place although it did not explicitly review the municipal situation.

2014 Resolution by the Ontario Legislature and Review by the Attorney General Over 200 municipalities supported a motion introduced by Randy Pettapiece, MPP for PerthWellington which called for the implementation a comprehensive, long-term solution in 2014. That year, MPPs from all parties supported the Pettapiece motion calling for a reform joint and several liability. Later that year the Ministry of the Attorney General consulted on three options of possible reform:

The Saskatchewan Model of Modified Proportionate Liability Saskatchewan has adopted a modified version of proportionate liability that applies in cases where a plaintiff is contributorily negligent. Under the Saskatchewan rule, where a plaintiff is contributorily negligent and there is an unfunded liability, the cost of the unfunded liability is split among the remaining defendants and the plaintiff in proportion to their fault.

1 Law Commission of Ontario. “Joint and Several Liability Under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.” Final Report, February

2011 Pages 22-25.

Page 45 of 160

Peripheral Wrongdoer Rule for Road Authorities Under this rule, a municipality would never be liable for more than two times its proportion of damages, even if it results in the plaintiff being unable to recover full damages.
A combination of both of the above Ultimately, the government decided not to pursue any of the incremental policy options ostensibly because of uncertainty that insurance cost reductions would result. This was a disappointing result for municipalities. While these reviews did not produce results in Ontario, many other common law jurisdictions have enacted protections for municipalities. What follows are some of the options for a different legal framework.

Options for Reform – The Legal Framework To gain a full appreciation of the various liability frameworks that could be considered, for comparison, below is a description of the current joint and several liability framework here in Ontario. This description will help to reader to understand the further options which follow. This description and the alternatives that follow are taken from the Law Commission of Ontario’s February 2011 Report entitled, “Joint and Several Liability Under the Ontario Business Corporations Act” as referenced above. 2 Understanding the Status Quo and Comparing it to the Alternatives Where three different defendants are found to have caused a plaintiff’s loss, the plaintiff is entitled to seek full payment (100%) from any one of the defendants. The defendant who fully satisfies the judgment has a right of contribution from the other liable parties based on the extent of their responsibility for the plaintiff’s loss. For example, a court may find defendants 1 (D1), 2 (D2) and 3 (D3) responsible for 70%, 20%, and 10% of the plaintiff’s $100,000 loss, respectively. The plaintiff may seek to recover 100% of the loss from D2, who may then seek contribution from D1 and D3 for their 70% and 10% shares of the loss. If D1 and/or D3 is unable to compensate D2 for the amount each owes for whatever reason, such as insolvency or unavailability, D2 will bear the full $100,000 loss. The plaintiff will be fully compensated for $100,000, and it is the responsibility of the defendants to apportion the loss fairly between them. The descriptions that follow are abridged from pages 9-11 of the Law Commission of Ontario’s report. These are some of the key alternatives to the status quo.

2 Ibid. Page 7.

Page 46 of 160

Proportionate Liability a) Full Proportionate Liability A system of full proportionate liability limits the liability of each co-defendant to the proportion of the loss for which he or she was found to be responsible. Per the above example, (in which Defendant 1 (D1) is responsible for 70% of loss, Defendant 2 (D2) for 20% and Defendant 3 (D3) for 10%), under this system, D2 will only be responsible for $20,000 of the $100,000 total judgement: equal to 20% of their share of the liability. Likewise, D1 and D3 will be responsible for $70,000 and $10,000. If D1 and D3 are unable to pay, the plaintiff will only recover $20,000 from D2. b) Proportionate Liability where Plaintiff is Contributorily Negligent This option retains joint and several liability when a blameless plaintiff is involved. This option would cancel or adjust the rule where the plaintiff contributed to their loss. As in the first example, suppose the plaintiff (P) contributed to 20% of their $100,000 loss. D1, D2 and D3 were responsible for 50%, 20% and 10% of the $100,000. If D1 and D3 are unavailable, P and D2 will each be responsible for their $20,000 shares. The plaintiff will remain responsible for the $60,000 shortfall as a result of the absent co-defendants’ non-payment (D1 and D3). c) Proportionate Liability where Plaintiff is Contributorily Negligent with a Proportionate Reallocation of an Insolvent, Financially Limited or Unavailable Defendant’s Share In this option of proportionate liability, the plaintiff and remaining co-defendants share the risk of a defendant’s non-payment. The plaintiff (P) and co-defendants are responsible for any shortfall in proportion to their respective degrees of fault. Using the above example of the $100,000 total judgement, with a shortfall payment of $50,000 from D1 and a shortfall payment $10,000 from D3, P and D2 must pay for the missing $60,000. P and D2 have equally-apportioned liability, which causes them to be responsible for half of each shortfall $25,000 and $5,000 from each non-paying defendant. The burden is shared between the plaintiff (if determined to be responsible) and the remaining defendants. d) Proportionate Liability with a Peripheral Wrongdoer Under this option, a defendant will be proportionately liable only if their share of the liability falls below a specified percentage, meaning that liability would be joint and several. Using the above example, if the threshold amount of liability is set at 25%, D2 and D3 would only be responsible for 20% and 10%, regardless of whether they are the only available or named defendants. However, D1 may be liable for 100% if it is the only available or named defendant. This system tends to favour defendants responsible for a small portion of the loss, but the determination of the threshold amount between joint and several liability and proportionate liability is arbitrary. e) Proportionate Liability with a Reallocation of Some or All of an Insolvent or Unavailable Defendant’s Share This option reallocates the liability of a non-paying defendant among the remaining defendants in proportion to their respective degrees of fault. The plaintiff’s contributory negligence does not

Page 47 of 160

impact the application of this reallocation. Joint and several liability would continue to apply in cases of fraud or where laws were knowingly violated. f) Court Discretion Similar to the fraud exception in the option above, this option includes giving the courts discretion to apply different forms of liability depending on the case. For example, if a particular co-defendant’s share of the fault was relatively minor the court would have discretion to limit that defendant’s liability to an appropriate portion. 2. Legislative Cap on Liability Liability concerns could be addressed by introducing a cap on the amount of damages available for claims for economic loss. 3. Hybrid A number of jurisdictions provide a hybrid system of proportionate liability and caps on damages. Co-defendants are liable for their portion of the damages, but the maximum total amount payable by each co-defendant is capped to a certain limit.

The Saskatchewan Experience As referenced earlier in this paper, the Province of Saskatchewan responded with a variety of legislative actions to assist municipalities in the early 2000s. Some of those key developments are listed below which are abridged from “A Question of Balance: Legislative Responses to Judicial Expansion of Municipal Liability – the Saskatchewan Experience.” The paper was written by Neil Robertson, QC and was presented to the annual conference of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario in 2013. Two key reforms are noted below.

Reforming joint and several liability by introducing modified proportionate liability: “The Contributory Negligence Act” amendments The Contributory Negligence Act retained joint and several liability, but made adjustments in cases where one or more of the defendants is unable to pay its share of the total amount (judgement). Each of the parties at fault, including the plaintiff if contributorily negligent, will still have to pay a share of the judgement based on their degree of fault. However, if one of the defendants is unable to pay, the other defendants who are able to pay are required to pay only their original share and an additional equivalent share of the defaulting party’s share. The change in law allows municipalities to reach out-of-court settlements, based on an estimate of their degree of fault. This allows municipalities to avoid the cost of protracted litigation. Neil Robertson provided the following example to illustrate how this works in practise: “…If the owner of a house sues the builder for negligent construction and the municipality, as building authority, for negligent inspection, and all three are found equally at fault, they would each be apportioned 1/3 or 33.3%. Assume the damages are $100,000. If the builder has no funds, then the municipality would pay only its share ($33,333) and a 1/3 share of the builder’s defaulting share

Page 48 of 160

(1/3 of $33,333 or $11,111) for a total of $44,444 ($33,333 + $11,111), instead of the $66,666 ($33,333 + $33,333) it would pay under pure joint and several liability.” This model will be familiar to municipal leaders in Ontario. In 2014, Ontario’s Attorney General presented this option (called the Saskatchewan Model of Modified Proportionate Liability) for consideration. At the time, over 200 municipal councils supported the adoption of this option along with the “Peripheral Wrongdoer Rule for Road Authorities” which would have seen a municipality never be liable for more than two times its proportion of damages, even if it results in the plaintiff being unable to recover full damages. These two measures, if enacted, would have represented a significant incremental step to address the impact of joint and several to Ontario municipalities. 2. Providing for uniform limitation periods while maintaining a separate limitation period for municipalities: “The Limitations Act” This act established uniform limitation periods replacing many of the pre-existing limitation periods that had different time periods. The Municipal Acts in Saskatchewan provide a uniform one-year limitation period “from time when the damages were sustained” in absolute terms without a discovery principle which can prolong this period. This helps municipalities to resist “legacy” claims from many years beforehand. This act exempts municipalities from the uniform two-year discoverability limitation period. Limitation periods set deadlines after which claims cannot be brought as lawsuits in the courts. The legislation intends to balance the opportunity for potential claimants to identify their claims and, if possible, negotiate a settlement out of court before starting legal action with the need for potential defendants to “close the books” on claims from the past. The reasoning behind these limitations is that public authorities, including municipalities, should not to be punished by the passage of time. Timely notice will promote the timely investigation and disposition of claims in the public interest. After the expiry of a limitation period, municipalities can consider themselves free of the threat of legal action, and continue with financial planning without hurting “the public taxpayer purse”. Municipalities are mandated to balance their budgets and must be able to plan accordingly. Thus, legacy claims can have a very adverse affect on municipal operations. Here in Ontario, there is a uniform limitations period of two years. Municipalities also benefit from a 10-day notice period which is required for slip and fall cases. More recently, the applicability of this limitation deadline has become variable and subject to judicial discretion. Robertson’s paper notes that in Saskatchewan, courts have accepted the one-year limitations period. A further examination of limitations in Ontario may yield additional benefits and could include the one-year example in Saskatchewan and/or the applicability of the 10-day notice period for slip and fall cases. Other Saskatchewan reforms Saskatchewan has also implemented other reforms which include greater protections for building inspections, good faith immunity, duty of repair, no fault insurance, permitting class actions, and limiting nuisance actions. Some of these reforms are specific to Saskatchewan and some of these currently apply in Ontario.

Page 49 of 160

Insurance Related Reforms Government Regulated Insurance Limits The April 2019 provincial budget included a commitment to increase the catastrophic impairment default benefit limit to $2 million. Public consultations were led by the Ministry of Finance in September 2019. AMO wrote to the Ministry in support of increasing the limit to $2 million to ensure more adequate support those who suffer catastrophic impairment. In 2016, the government lowered this limit as well as third-party liability coverage to $200,000 from $1 million. This minimum should also be also be increased to $2 million to reflect current actual costs. This significant deficiency needs to be addressed. Insurance Industry Changes In 1989 the Ontario Municipal Insurance Exchange (OMEX) was established as a non-profit reciprocal insurance provider for Ontario’s municipalities. It ceased operations in 2016 citing, “[a] low pricing environment, combined with the impact of joint & several liability on municipal claim settlements has made it difficult to offer sustainable pricing while still addressing the municipalities’ concern about retro assessments.”3 (Retro assessments meant paying additional premiums for retroactive coverage for “long-tail claims” which made municipal budgeting more challenging.) The demise of OMEX has changed the municipal insurance landscape in Ontario. That joint and several liability is one of the key reasons listed for the collapse of a key municipal insurer should be a cause for significant concern. Fewer choices fuels cost. While there are other successful municipal insurance pools in Ontario, the bulk of the insurance market is dominated by for-profit insurance companies. Reciprocal non-profit insurers are well represented in other areas across Canada. Municipalities in Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia are all insured by non-profit reciprocals. The questions for policy makers in Ontario: Are there any provincial requirements or regulations which could better support the non-profit reciprocal municipal insurance market? What actions could be taken to better protect municipalities in Ontario in sourcing their insurance needs? How can we drive down insurance costs to better serve the needs of municipal property taxpayers?

3 Canadian Underwriter, August 11, 2016 https://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/insurance/ontario-municipal-insurance-

exchange-suspends-underwriting-operations-1004098148/

Page 50 of 160

Conclusion This AMO paper has endeavoured to refresh municipal arguments on the need to find a balance to the issues and challenges presented by joint and several liability. It has endeavoured to illustrate that options exist and offer the reassurance that they can be successfully implemented as other jurisdictions have done. Finding solutions that work will require provincial and municipal commitment. Working together, we can find a better way that is fair, reasonable, and responsible. It is time to find a reasonable balance.

Page 51 of 160

REPORT TO COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA DATE REPORT DATE SUBJECT:

October 15, 2019 October 10, 2019 Draft Response to Ministry of Municipal Affairs on the 2019 Provincial Policy Statement Update

RECOMMENDATION: That South Frontenac Council direct staff to submit the comments as set out in Appendix 1 of this report to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing prior to the deadline of October 21st, 2019. BACKGROUND:

Attachment 1 is a draft response from the Township of South Frontenac to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) with regard to its draft update of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). MMAH released the draft on July 22nd, 2019, and is asking for comments on the revisions to the PPS prior to October 21st, 2019. Attachment 1 has been updated to incorporate comments from Council provided at the October 8, 2019 Committee of the Whole meeting. Changes made to the conditions are highlighted in yellow. Highlighting will be removed on the official submission to MMAH. The PPS serves as the foundational policy document for land use planning across Ontario and provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest. The Ontario Planning Act requires that decisions on land use planning matters made by municipalities and other approval authorities “shall be consistent with” the PPS, including the development of Official Plans, Zoning By-laws, subdivision approvals, and minor variances. FINANCIAL/STAFFING IMPLICATIONS:

None at this time. The updated policies of the Provincial Policy Statement will be reflected in the update to the South Frontenac Official Plan. ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – Response to MMAH on the 2019 Provincial Policy Update Prepared/Submitted by: Claire Dodds, MCIP, RPP, Director of Development Services Approved by: Neil Carbone, CAO

Page 52 of 160

Appendix 1

Provincial Policy Statement Review County of Frontenac Submission October 2019

Provincial Policy Statement Review Township of South Frontenac Submission to the Province of Ontario October 2019

Page 2 of 13

Page 53 of 160

Township of South Frontenac Response to Proposed Changes to 2019 Provincial Policy Statement Update Background This paper is a response from the Township of South Frontenac to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) with regard to its draft update of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). MMAH released the draft on July 22nd, 2019, and is asking for comments on the revisions to the PPS prior to October 21st, 2019. The PPS serves as the foundational policy document for land use planning across Ontario and provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest. The Ontario Planning Act requires that decisions on land use planning matters made by municipalities and other approval authorities “shall be consistent with” the PPS, including the development of Official Plans, Zoning By-laws, subdivision approvals, and minor variances. The Township provided input into the response provided by the County of Frontenac. Many of the recommendations provided by the County are paralleled in the Township response. That said, the Township response focuses on matters that impact implementation of the PPS at a local level. PPS in the Context of Frontenac County The County of Frontenac is similar in size and density to the other Counties of Eastern Ontario. Frontenac is a primarily rural area, with a permanent population of approximately 27,000 spread over 4,000 sq km. The vast majority of development is residential with both permanent and a growing seasonal population. Frontenac County is characterized by a predominantly rural landscape and small villages and hamlets. The County has a rich agricultural history with a range of agricultural and forestry farms. The County has over a thousand lakes, conservation areas, Provincial Parks and a significant portion of the northern half of the County is Crown Land. The landscape has some of the most beautiful natural features and biodiversity that draws permanent and seasonal residents, outdoor recreational enthusiasts, artists and artisans. The regions tourism, recreation and hospitality sectors are strongly linked to the natural heritage and outdoor recreational opportunities that exist. The way the policies are implemented into the four Township Official Plans impacts businesses, farmers, rural landowners, economic investment and many community interests. It is important for sustainable growth to have a planning system that is working well, balancing competing interests and preserving the rural lifestyle that draws people to work and live here. Land use policies play a major role in guiding decisions over where development should take place, how quickly, and how much land should be allocated for various uses in the villages and the countryside.

Page 54 of 160 The next County Official Plan update is due to start in 2021. The County Official Plan will need to be updated to be consistent with the updated 2019 PPS at that time. PPS in the Context of the Township of South Frontenac South Frontenac is a predominately rural Township that has a mix rural, agricultural, waterfront and rural settlement land uses. It is located just north of the City of Kingston and has a population of 18,650 residents with a land area of 971.56 km2. The Township has an active and diversified agricultural industry which forms an important part of the local economy and cultural fabric of the community. South Frontenac currently has 13 areas designated as settlement areas within the Township, including a mix of villages and hamlets. Twenty five percent of the land area of the Township is covered with water, having over 75 lakes. It also has significant natural heritage features and biodiversity in part recognized at an international level, with a significant portion of the Township being recognized as part of the Frontenac Arch World UNESCO Biosphere. The eastern portion of the Township includes lands and lakes which form part of the Rideau Canal, a World Heritage UNESCO site. There are many parks (Frontenac Park) and conservation lands (Gould Lake, Elbow Lake) that provide for outdoor recreation and opportunities for public access to water bodies. South Frontenac is forecasted to grow in population – increasing by approximately 3000 people by 2034. It is forecast that approximately 70% of growth within Frontenac County will occur within South Frontenac. Much of the growth and development within South Frontenac over the past 20 years has been through the creation of rural residential lots within the commuter-shed of Kingston. With the southern portion of the Township being an easy commute to Kingston, Township residents are able to enjoy a rural lifestyle, while being close to Regional commercial, employment and health care opportunities. Like many rural communities in Eastern Ontario, the majority of development within South Frontenac is serviced with private water and septic systems. Sydenham is the only settlement area that is partially serviced with municipal water service available in the village. The policies in the PPS have broad long term implications for the growth and development of South Frontenac. On August 6th, 2019, South Frontenac Township Council held a Section 26 meeting and officially began the process to develop a new Official Plan. This is the first complete update to the Official Plan since it was put in place, post-amalgamation in 2003. The Official Plan review will unfold over the next two years with the goal of putting the Plan in front of the County for approval in late 2021. The development of a new Official Plan for South Frontenac will be directly impacted by the proposed changes to the PPS. With this request from MMAH to comment to the Province, the Township is using this opportunity to make suggestions that will provide a better balance between economic Provincial Policy Statement Review Township of South Frontenac Submission to the Province of Ontario October 2019

Page 4 of 13

Page 55 of 160 development, community sustainability, ecological protection, and protection of farmland in the Township. MMAH has posed five questions to respond to the draft PPS during this consultation. The Township response to the questions posed by MMAH are outlined below: Question 1: Do the proposed policies effectively support goals related to increasing housing supply, creating and maintain jobs, and red tape reduction while continuing to protect the environment, farmland, and public health and safety? The 2019 update maintains the existing planning framework requiring Official Plans to “be consistent with” provincial policy. This continuation of “shall be consistent with” provides certainty in the planning process and in developing land use policy for the Township. The Township is supportive of maintaining this policy framework. The draft 2019 PPS is consistent with the current PPS, recognizing that rural settlement areas shall be the focus of growth. While the Township recognizes the need to direct growth to settlement areas, the continued flexibility of being able to permit limited rural residential development outside of settlement areas and continuing to permit recreational residential uses is critical to the future of the Township. The draft PPS has been revised to apply some additional flexibility in rural areas when it comes to dealing with planning issues such as settlement area boundary adjustments. This additional flexibility is generally well received. Revisions to policy 1.1.3.9 to allow settlement area boundary adjustments outside a comprehensive review provides significantly more flexibility than under the current 2014 PPS. This is important to the Township as we begin an exercise to consider the rationalization of settlement boundaries as part of the development of a new Official Plan. Being able to make logical adjustments in settlement area boundaries without undertaking a full comprehensive review assists the Township to make decisions to align settlement boundaries to areas where there is infrastructure and appropriate servicing. Many major policy sections remain unchanged in the 2019 update. The majority of policy sections; in particular natural heritages and natural heritage policies contain the same level of environmental and natural protection. Section 2.1.10 provides further clarification that municipalities can chose to manage wetlands not recognized by the Provincial Policy Statement (e.g. locally significant wetlands) in accordance with Provincial Guidelines (Natural Reference Manual). It also recognizes the relationship between protecting natural heritage features and climate change mitigation. Revisions proposed to the PPS support and reinforce the existing policies in the County and local Official Plan that protect natural heritage, farmland, and public health and safety largely remain unchanged in this update.

Provincial Policy Statement Review Township of South Frontenac Submission to the Province of Ontario October 2019

Page 5 of 13

Page 56 of 160 Agriculture is an important part of the employment sector in South Frontenac. Despite having a limited amount of prime agricultural land, farming activity takes place across the region and is an important part of not only the economy but the culture of rural Eastern Ontario. The draft 2019 PPS helps recognize the value of agriculture in rural areas by including new terminology to describe “Agricultural Systems” and the “AgriFood Network” that support the broader farmer community in rural and prime agricultural areas. With respect to increasing housing supply, the inclusion of the term “Housing Options”, (single detached, semi-detached, townhouses, multiplexes, second residential units and tiny homes) provides a range of housing types and forms throughout the Township; permitting a range of housing options will be considered as part of the new Official Plan for South Frontenac. Greater clarification is needed on the use of term “market-based range and mix” when referring to residential uses in section 1.1.1.b). In the context of South Frontenac, the current market is for single-detached dwellings, and as this trend continues, opportunities for affordable housing or a mix and range of residential uses on rural residential or waterfront lots may not be met. Private individual water and septic services restrict the flexibility to intensify residential units as of right. Private servicing lends itself to supporting single detached dwellings as the predominant housing type in the Township for the foreseeable future. In addition, there are many factors beyond the municipality’s control when allocating residential development and outside factors such as short-term accommodation rentals add extra layers of complexity, especially related to affordability. Section 1.1.5 Rural Lands in Municipalities is the section of the PPS that most directly guides development in the Township. Greater clarification is required for the use of the term limited rural residential development and how that relates to support for rural lot creation would be helpful as the Township considers policy options for development within its rural lands. Further definition of resource-based recreational uses (including recreational dwellings) as a permitted use in the rural area would also be helpful. When modelling lake capacity, it is imperative to understand the use of the residential property to properly assess phosphorous loading potential. Greater clarification on the use of the term recreation dwelling would assist staff when calculating lake capacity. Fracking for natural gas and petroleum is a concern in the Township where we have the majority of our development located on a fractured Limestone. Aquifers for water within the southern limestone portions of the Township. Protection of rural water and existing aquifers is critical. One threat that may impact existing and future development is fracking for natural gas and petroleum. The Township is of the position that the Province should develop a policy to prohibit fracking for natural gas and petroleum. Recommendations:

The Township of South Frontenac supports the retention of the existing natural heritage policies in the 2019 draft PPS. Provincial Policy Statement Review Township of South Frontenac Submission to the Province of Ontario October 2019

Page 6 of 13

Page 57 of 160

The Township of South Frontenac supports the continued requirement that all planning approvals “shall be consistent with” the Provincial Policy Statement as it provides a high level of consistency in the land use planning process and the development of land use policy.
The Township of South Frontenac supports the proposed changes to Section 1.1.3 (Settlement Areas) that provide more flexibility for rural communities. In particular.
The Township of South Frontenac supports the new definitions for “Agricultural System” and “Agri-food Network” as well as corresponding policy changes to Section 1.7(i) (Long Term Economic Prosperity) and Section 2.3.2 (Agriculture) that are intended to sustain and protect agricultural resources.
The Township of South Frontenac supports the inclusion of the term “Housing Options” but seeks greater clarity on the term “market-based” as referenced in section 1.1.1.b) and 1.4.3.
The Township of South Frontenac requests greater clarity on the terms “limited rural residential development” and “recreational dwellings” under the rural policies of the 2019 PPS.
The Township of South Frontenac recommends a policy be developed to prohibit fracking for natural gas and petroleum. Question 2: Do the proposed policies strike the right balance? Why or why not? The Township supports the “shall be consistent with” approach – this level of certainty (compared to “have regard to”) assists to expedite the planning process and review. South Frontenac supports the continued strong environmental protection policies contained in the draft PPS (Natural Heritage) which will allow for the protection of a significant percentage of the land area in the Township. The revisions to rural land use policies in the draft PPS have resulted in a policy section that is less prescriptive and more flexible. This is a pragmatic approach that recognizes that the rural landscape – and permitted rural land uses – can be significantly different across Ontario, and which allows municipalities to have more control over the policy approach that best fits their circumstances. This is also reinforced in the changes to the boundary expansion / revision process that will allow smaller rural communities to make boundary changes through a less rigorous process than urban areas. The Township supports the inclusion of the term “Impacts of a Changing Climate” and the direction for climate change action at the regional and local levels. In recognizing that natural heritage features play a critical role in mitigating the impacts of a changing climate, the Township works with three Conservation Authorities within the region in the Provincial Policy Statement Review Township of South Frontenac Submission to the Province of Ontario October 2019

Page 7 of 13

Page 58 of 160 protection of wetlands and waterbodies. Proposed language in the draft PPS, such as supporting the management of wetlands as listed in Section 2.1.10, further recognizes the role that environmental features play to mitigate the impacts of climate change. While it is important to prepare for the impacts of a changing climate, the Township is equally concerned about municipalities’ responsibility to consider climate mitigation and taking measures to limit damage to the climate. It is recommended that there be stronger policy related to climate change mitigation and guidance material be developed by the province to assist municipalities take action on climate change mitigation. The revisions to Section 2.5 Mineral Aggregate Resources propose to permit extraction in certain natural heritage features provided that the long-term rehabilitation can demonstrate no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions are concerning to the Township. The lifecycle for extraction could mean that a natural heritage feature is removed for several decades prior to meaningful rehabilitation taking place. While the Township supports extraction of mineral aggregates and has areas identified for potential, greater clarification is required how such an operation would have no negative impact on the natural features or their ecological functions through a rehabilitation plan. Recommendations: 8. The Township recognizes, when compared to the 2014 PPS, the draft 2019 PPS provides a better balance and more flexibility to deal with planning issues in rural planning areas and the Township supports these changes. 9. The Township acknowledges that the term “Impacts of a Changing Climate” provides clarification for planning authorities incorporating climate related policies within land use plans. The Township supports the retention of the existing natural heritage policies and that Section 2.1.10 clarifies the opportunity to designate locally significant wetlands, should we chose to do so. 10. The Township recommends the Province provide stronger policy and guidance material for municipalities to take action on climate change mitigation. 11. The Township recommends the Province provide clarification on the requirements for mineral aggregate extraction in identified natural heritage features as listed in section 2.5.2.2 as to how these operations can demonstrate no negative impacts on the natural features or ecological functions of said features. In many instances in the Township, aggregate pits or quarries take several decades for extraction to be complete prior to rehabilitation and there is a loss of natural features or ecological functions during this interim period until rehabilitation could occur. 12. The Township does not see a significant benefit to increasing the planning horizon from 20 to 25 years for the protection of employment land and under 1.4.1. the maintenance of increasing the land supply period from 10 to 12 years of land supply for residential growth. The Township and County have been Provincial Policy Statement Review Township of South Frontenac Submission to the Province of Ontario October 2019

Page 8 of 13

Page 59 of 160 working through the process to update population projection using a 20 year time horizon. It is recommended that the planning horizon remain consistent with the timeframes currently established in the 2014 PPS (20 year planning horizon & 10 year supply of land for residential growth). 13. Section 1.4.3 speaks to permitting an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet projected market-based needs. “Market based needs” is not a defined term. It is recommended that either a definition or a guideline document provide further direction on what the Province means by “market based needs”. Question 3: How do these policies take into consideration the views of Ontario communities? It is the Township’s position that the 2019 PPS provides a better balance and more flexibility to deal with planning issues in rural planning areas than the current 2014 PPS. It recognizes the need for strong protection of natural heritage features and functions, the protection of agricultural land and more broadly the agricultural industries that support it, it considers the need to provide a variety of housing options to allow all people in a community to be able to access safe, affordable and reliable housing choices. It also considers servicing scenarios that are more common in rural Ontario for communities that do not have municipal servicing. While many views of Ontario’s communities are taken into account, the policies proposed in section 4.7 of the draft PPS speak to the “fast-tracking priority applications which support job related growth and development”. This same section speaks to “reducing the time needed to process residential and priority applications to the extent practical”. While there is a recognition that getting housing to market is a priority across the Province, recent reductions in timelines to process planning applications has already occurred through Bill 108. Bill 108 has also significantly altered the public’s ability to appeal decisions on Plans of Subdivisions or Condominium, the two most common planning applications to bring housing to market. In rural communities, the idea of “fast tracking priority applications” goes against the transparency that local government strives to achieve. While it is a priority to bring housing to the market, it should not be at the expense of undertaking appropriate review of developments within the public realm through the planning process. Staff and Council believe in fairness and equity in receiving and reviewing development applications through the already shortened timeframe for planning applications under Bill 108. It is also challenging to implement criteria for prioritization of fast tracking applications in a two-tier planning system where there may be differing criteria at the County than at the Township level. Recommendation: 14. Remove section 4.7 and its mention of “fast-tracking priority applications” and leave the timelines to process a planning application in the regulations already put into effect with Bill 108. Provincial Policy Statement Review Township of South Frontenac Submission to the Province of Ontario October 2019

Page 9 of 13

Page 60 of 160

Question 4: Are there any other policy changes that are needed to support key priorities for housing, job creation, and streamlining of development approvals? With the exception of the water system in the village of Sydenham, there are no municipal water or sewer systems in the villages and hamlets in the Township and it is highly unlikely that any municipal systems will be created in the near future. The current PPS does not recognize that there are many settlement areas in rural Ontario that have no water or sewer services. Where private services (water and septic) are the only servicing option – the current development standards mean that there is no difference between the lot size (2 acres) and density of development within a rural settlement area and the development standards for a rural residential lot outside of a settlement area (2 acres). It is challenging for rural municipalities to direct growth to settlement areas where there is no advantage (reduced lot size, density, housing mix) to develop within a settlement area rather than outside it. There are also challenges for the redevelopment and vitality of existing village/hamlet development where these lots are significantly undersized based on today’s standards for development on individual services. There is a shortage of housing options other than single detached dwellings and large lots to meet the needs of our aging rural population. Long-term rural residents want to stay in their home communities and not leave to find more suitable housing options in larger regional centres. Rural municipalities, like South Frontenac need a viable servicing option and alternative to individual servicing – but one that does not require a rural communities to carry the financial burden that installing full municipal services would put on its residents. The installation of full municipal services in the Township’s settlement areas could not happen without a significant infrastructure funding investment from the Province. The County of Frontenac has spent the past two years completing a regional study to promote the use of communal services for new development and redevelopment in settlement areas - 2019 Communal Services Study. The Township has been directly involved in this study as it has developed. Implementation will begin in 2020 and will be crucial to create new employment areas, allow for new forms of residential development beyond single detached homes, and the stabilizing and strengthening of existing mainstreets, as well as better environmental protection. It is noted that there are a number of changes proposed in the draft PPS that promote communal services both for new forms of development and protecting and strengthening mainstreets. For example:

New wording has been added in the Settlement Areas policy section that states that “vitality and regeneration (emphasis added) of settlement areas is critical” (Section 1.1.3);

Provincial Policy Statement Review Township of South Frontenac Submission to the Province of Ontario October 2019

Page 10 of 13

Page 61 of 160

In the Housing section it is noted that planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities, in part by “permitting and facilitating housing options required to meet . . . the needs arising from demographic changes and employment opportunities” (Section 1.4.3 b) ). Further, in Section 1.7 it is noted that long term economic prosperity should be supported by … encouraging residential uses to respond to dynamic marketbased needs and provide necessary housing supply and range of housing options for a diverse workforce” (Section 1.7.1 b) ). In the Township (as in other parts of rural Ontario) there is a lack of seniors housing, medium density housing, and apartments. The only opportunity for this housing market to be supplied is through installation of communal services.

Section 1.6.6.3 is proposed to be revised to state that where full municipal services are not available (or financially feasible), that “… private communal sewage services and private communal water services are the preferred form of servicing for multi-unit/lot development to support protection of the environment and minimize potential risks to human health and safety” (Section 1.6.6.3). The County recognizes that the wording is proposed to be changed from “municipalities may allow the use of” communal services to recognizing this type of servicing as a “preferred form”. The Township would like to ensure there is flexibility in the Provincial Policy Statement to ensure that the opportunity to provide Municipal Communal Servicing continues to be an option to service rural settlement areas.

The term “Housing Options” outlines a number of residential uses including rowhouses and townhouses that may be made feasible in rural settlement areas as a result of development on communal services.

The Township of South Frontenac supports engagement with Indigenous communities in the coordination of land use planning matters with the included policy in Section 1.2.2. South Frontenac looks forward to receiving guidance documents from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to assist the Township to fulfill its duty to consult with First Nations peoples with land claims to our area. Recommendations: 15. The Township of South Frontenac supports the proposed changes to Sections 1.4, 1.6, and 1.7 that will facilitate the use of communal services in villages and hamlets which for Frontenac will support key priorities for housing and job creation. 16. The Township requests provincial support to continue to keep flexibility to allow municipalities to provide municipal communal servicing in rural settlement areas to assist in providing housing options and support employment uses.

Provincial Policy Statement Review Township of South Frontenac Submission to the Province of Ontario October 2019

Page 11 of 13

Page 62 of 160 17. The Township of South Frontenac requests guidance materials to assist in understanding the responsibilities and obligations of the Township in its duty to consult with First Nations people in our area. Question 5: Are there other tools that are needed to help implement the proposed policies? One planning tool that is not currently prescribed under the Planning Act or through regulation is the use of conditional zoning. Conditional zoning allows for increased flexibility and permits municipalities to respond to the unique features of a particular land use application. It has the potential to allow for a planning approval through one planning process and can be applied in rural areas where the landscape and land uses are typically diverse. Rehabilitation of mineral aggregate sites is important to consider in the update of the 2019 PPS. Progressive rehabilitation is directed through the PPS but the municipality has few tools to ensure that progressive rehabilitation is occurring. This is a particular concern where mineral aggregate pits are established in natural environment features and prime agricultural areas. Additional tools either through the Aggregate Resources Act or through the Planning Act to ensure ongoing progressive rehabilitation occurs in licensed mineral aggregate operations are needed. Communal servicing has the potential to enhance the vitality of rural communities to achieve more of the goals and objectives set out through the policy framework established in the PPS and County Official Plan. More importantly, communal servicing has the potential to create the servicing flexibility needed to meet the needs of local communities. That said, rural communities, such as South Frontenac, need tools to be able to mitigate the real and perceived risks associated with this form of development. Other legislation that has a direct or indirect impact on the feasibility of implementing communal servicing should be reviewed by the Province. For example, if a communal private water well is established (communal well), is there a full requirement to undertake the establishment of a well-head protection zone under Source Water Protection zone or would a different scale of study and protection be appropriate? With identifying private communal servicing as a preferred option for multi-lot developments in rural settlement areas it is recommended that the Province review all aspects of legislation and permitting in order to ensure that real and perceived barriers that would hinder this type of servicing solution are removed. South Frontenac encourages the province to take a leadership role in helping rural communities make communal servicing a workable and implementable servicing solution. Recommendations: 18. The Township of South Frontenac recommends that the Province consider allowing for the use of conditional zoning in the planning process. Provincial Policy Statement Review Township of South Frontenac Submission to the Province of Ontario October 2019

Page 12 of 13

Page 63 of 160 19. The Township of South Frontenac recommends that the Province consider additional tools to ensure progressive rehabilitation of mineral aggregate operations, especially in prime agricultural areas and natural environment features. 20. The Province take a leadership role with managing and mitigating risk from the implementation of communal servicing system in order to support rural communities to direct growth to rural settlement areas and providing housing options for rural communities. 21. The Province review other legislation that may put barriers in place to facilitating the implementation of communal servicing in rural Ontario. Additional Comments The Township supports the County’s request to obtain accurate, up-to-date mapping from the province to support local planning decisions. The Provincial Policy Statement directs planning authorities to protect a number of features and resources as well as to avoid development in certain areas. In the context of Frontenac, the County and member municipalities rely on the various Ministries including the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry and the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, to identify these areas. Efficiencies are found when this work is carried out at the Provincial level; the costs of retaining a consultant to perform mapping services is not feasible at the local level. In addition to updated mapping, South Frontenac would like to request that implementation guidelines be prepared as part of the release of the 2019 PPS. Implementation guidelines will provide greater clarity to approval authorities and members of the public and private consultants. Summary and Conclusion The Township of South Frontenac generally supports the overall changes to the Provincial Policy Statement. The changes will allow for a greater degree of flexibility and discretion for dealing with small-scale development in rural Ontario that can enhance economic opportunities. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the Provincial Policy Statement. The Township looks forward to a continued partnership with the Ministry on this project and future engagement on changes to the land use planning framework in Ontario.

Provincial Policy Statement Review Township of South Frontenac Submission to the Province of Ontario October 2019

Page 13 of 13

Page 64 of 160

REPORT TO COUNCIL Office of the Chief Administrative Officer

AGENDA DATE:

October 15, 2019

REPORT DATE:

October 8, 2019

SUBJECT:

Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP) – Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Application

RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve making a joint application to the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP) – Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream, along with the Frontenac Community Arena and the Township of Central Frontenac, for the Frontenac Community Arena Rehabilitation Project, including the following replacements and upgrades:         

Condenser unit Plate heat exchanger Brine pump Concrete slab and glycol lines Dasher boards, Acrylic shields Players benches and Timekeepers box Safety Netting Flooring Accessible ramp/viewing area and rubberized walking surfaces

And That Council approve the expenditure of $59,990.83 in 2020 and $151,452.26 in 2021, being South Frontenac’s share of the total project cost. BACKGROUND: ICIP Program The Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP) is a federal program designed to create long-term economic growth, build inclusive, sustainable and resilient communities and support a low-carbon economy. Through the ICIP, the federal government is providing $11.8 billion dollars in federal infrastructure funding to cost-share projects under the following four streams:    

Public Transit Green Infrastructure Community, Culture and Recreation Rural and Northern Communities

The Province of Ontario is a cost sharing partner in these programs. Under this intake of the Community, Culture and Recreation Funding stream, Ontario is supporting publicly accessible, multi-purpose spaces that bring together a variety of different services, programs and/or social and cultural activities to reflect local community needs. Approximately $407 million in federal funding and $320 million in provincial funding is available for the Community, Culture and Recreation stream over 10 years starting in 1 Our strength is our community.

Page 65 of 160

REPORT TO COUNCIL Office of the Chief Administrative Officer

2019-20. The following breakdown defines the maximum cost-share percentages of total eligible costs. % Federal Contribution

40.00

Provincial Contribution

33.33

Applicant Contribution

26.67

The Community, Culture and Recreation stream prioritizes projects that are community-oriented, non-commercial and open to the public. Projects must be completed prior to 2027-28. In addition to federal criteria, projects will be assessed based on their alignment with the following provincial objectives:    

Meets community and user needs or service gap Promotes good asset management planning Represents good value for money Fosters greater accessibility

There are two streams under which eligible applicants may apply; 1) a Multi-Purpose Category for new builds and larger projects up to $50 million in value, and 2) a Rehabilitation and Renovation Category for projects up to $5 million in value. Applications to the ICIP – Community, Culture and Recreation stream are due by end of day on November 12, 2019. Based on the timing of this application window, the need for a supporting business case, and the applicant-share of funding that is required, staff is recommending that the Township submit a joint application, along with the Frontenac Community Arena and the Township of Central Frontenac, for needed improvements to the ice plant, floor and related infrastructure at the Frontenac Community Arena. ANALYSIS: Need Arena and Township staff have identified much needed upgrades to the ice plant and floor at the Frontenac Community Arena as being a high priority for the Townships, and an eligible project under the Rehabilitation and Renovation Funding Stream of the ICIP program. In addition to mitigating significant health & safety and operational risks associated with the aging arena ice plant infrastructure (see attachment 2), the Frontenac Community Arena Rehabilitation Project offers the best chance of receiving grant funding due to its alignment with numerous project review criteria, including:   

High project readiness (within capital plan; quotes, specifications available) Identified in asset management plan and building condition assessment Joint projects and/or those that serve multiple communities receive additional consideration 2 Our strength is our community.

Page 66 of 160

REPORT TO COUNCIL Office of the Chief Administrative Officer



Strong business case and project rationale including accessibility and efficiency improvements, and reduced risk and maintenance costs

Project Scope The Frontenac Community Arena Rehabilitation Project involves a series of ice-plant upgrades, a new arena floor, and related works estimated at $1.3 million over a twoyear period (2020-2021), as outlined below: Frontenac Community Arena Rehabilitation Project Budget Year

2020

Capital Works

Cost

Condenser Unit replacement and Tower upgrades

$120,000

Plate Heat Exchanger (Chiller system)

$150,000

Brine Pump Package

$25,000

Floor flushing and glycol charge

$10,000 2020 Subtotal

2021

$305,000

Remove Slab, brine lines, boards, glass, etc.

$150,000

Replace concrete slab, brine lines

$300,000

Dasher Boards, Acrylic shields, Benches, Timekeepers Box

$150,000

Access to players benches, Safety netting

$30,000

Flooring area around pad and in Ice Resurfacer Room

$20,000

Accessible ramp/viewing area, Rubberized access surfaces

$60,000

‘Buried’ Mains and Headers

$60,000 2021 Subtotal

$770,000

Total Project Subtotal

$1,075,000

Contingency (25%)

$268,750.00

Total Project Cost

$1,343,750.00

Joint Projects The ICIP – Community, Recreation and Culture program encourages joint projects between eligible applicants (where each co-applicant contributes financially), and encourages neighbouring communities to work together to assess co-use of facilities to address service level gaps and to achieve economies of scale. For the Frontenac Community Arena Rehabilitation Project, both Townships and the Arena (as a NFP Corporation) are each considered eligible. A joint project submitted by multiple applicants must provide supporting documentation by way of an individual partner-member municipal council resolution, or board of directors’ resolutions or letter of agreement, clearly stating the project name and applicant/recipient contribution to the project. 3 Our strength is our community.

Page 67 of 160

REPORT TO COUNCIL Office of the Chief Administrative Officer

Project Administration The Ministry fo Tourism, Culture & Sport advised the Township that The Frontenac Community Arena should serve as the lead applicant for the grant. As lead applicant, the Arena would be required to sign a transfer payment agreement with the province and also enter into a partnership agreement with the co-applicant Townships contributing to the project. Funds would only be made available to the lead applicant, which is responsible for the financial management of the project and meeting provincial reporting requirements. Successful joint applicants are encouraged to enter into an agreement clearly setting out the nature of their relationship and key elements of the project that is in line with their application and with the funding approval described in the transfer payment agreement. FINANCIAL/STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: Based on the ICIP – Community, Culture and Recreation Program funding model, the total applicant share of the project cost would be as follows: Contributions to Arena Project Cost through ICIP Grant

Cost

Federal Contribution

40.00

$537,500

Provincial Contribution

33.33

$447,872

Applicant Contribution

26.67

$358,378

Total

100.00

$1,343,750

The Frontenac Community Arena is funded annually through grants, user fees and through funding from the two member Townships, with South Frontenac funding 59% and Central Frontenac funding 41% of annual anticipated operating deficits and capital reserve contributions. Based on this funding model, should the grant application be successful, the Townships’ share of the total applicant contribution to the project would be as follows: Township Shares of Applicant Contribution to Project Cost through ICIP Grant

2020

2021

w/contingency

Total Contribution

South Frontenac (59%)

$59,991

$151,452

$211,443

Central Frontenac (41%)

$41,688

$105,246

$146,935

Annual Totals

$101,679

$256,698

$358,378

4 Our strength is our community.

Page 68 of 160

REPORT TO COUNCIL Office of the Chief Administrative Officer

*It is important to note that the Arena rehabilitation works described above should be completed in the prescribed timeframe regardless of whether ICIP funding is secured for the project. In the event funding is not secured, Council will be asked to consider capital contributions in the 2020 and 2021 budgets to offset its share of the entire cost of the required upgrades. ATTACHMENTS:

ICIP – Community, Culture and Recreation Program Guidelines Frontenac Community Arena Capital Presentation Articles on Arena Flooring Replacement and Amonia Leaks

Submitted/approved by: Neil Carbone, CAO

5 Our strength is our community.

Page 69 of 160 Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program – Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines

INVESTING IN CANADA INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM: Community Culture and Recreation Program Guidelines

Page 70 of 160 Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program – Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines

Table of Contents 1.

Overview – Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program ……………………………………….. 4

Objectives Community, Culture and Recreation Stream………………………………………… 5

Applicant Eligibility …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5

Project Eligibility and Conditions ………………………………………………………………………… 6 4.1

Eligible Projects …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 6

4.2

Joint Projects ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8

4.3

Other Project Conditions …………………………………………………………………………………. 8

Project Submission Process ……………………………………………………………………………….. 9 5.1

Number of Project Submissions ……………………………………………………………………….. 9

5.2

Submissions and Funding Approval Steps …………………………………………………………. 9

Timelines …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..10

Evaluation Process …………………………………………………………………………………………….11 7.1

Recipient Eligibility and Application Completeness ……………………………………………..11

7.2

Project Scope Review …………………………………………………………………………………….11

7.3

Alignment with Provincial Objectives …………………………………………………………………11

7.3.1 Asset Management Planning …………………………………………………………………………..11 8.

Financial, Contractual and Reporting Requirements …………………………………………….12 8.1

Maximum Project Costs ………………………………………………………………………………….12

8.2

Cost Sharing …………………………………………………………………………………………………12

8.3

Stacking of Funding ……………………………………………………………………………………….13

8.4

Eligible Costs ………………………………………………………………………………………………..13

8.5

Ineligible Costs ……………………………………………………………………………………………..14

8.6

Payments ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..15

8.7

Contractual Obligations …………………………………………………………………………………..15

8.8

Reporting Requirements …………………………………………………………………………………15

Consultations with Indigenous Peoples……………………………………………………………….15

Further Information …………………………………………………………………………………………16

Appendix A – Technical Criteria ……………………………………………………………………………….17 Appendix B – Federal Program Parameters ………………………………………………………………..18 I.

Eligible Recipients………………………………………………………………………………………….18

II.

Procurement …………………………………………………………………………………………………19

III.

Climate Lens Assessment……………………………………………………………………………….19

IV.

Community Employment Benefits …………………………………………………………………….19

Environmental Assessment ……………………………………………………………………………..19 2

Page 71 of 160 Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program – Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines VI.

Indigenous Consultation …………………………………………………………………………………20

Appendix C – Asset Management Regulation Phase-In Schedule [municipalities only] …21 Asset Management Plan ………………………………………………………………………………………….21 Asset Management Phase-in Schedule ………………………………………………………………………21

Page 72 of 160 Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program – Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines

Overview – Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program

The Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP) is a federal program designed to create long-term economic growth, build inclusive, sustainable and resilient communities and support a low-carbon economy. Through the ICIP, the federal government is providing $11.8 billion dollars in federal infrastructure funding to cost-share projects under the following four streams: • • • •

Public Transit Green Infrastructure Community, Culture and Recreation Rural and Northern Communities

The Province of Ontario is a cost sharing partner in these programs. Under this intake of the Community, Culture and Recreation Funding stream, Ontario is supporting community infrastructure priorities across the province. Community infrastructure is defined as publicly accessible, multi-purpose spaces that bring together a variety of different services, programs and/or social and cultural activities to reflect local community needs. Approximately $407 million in federal funding and $320 million in provincial funding will be available for the Community, Culture and Recreation stream over 10 years starting in 2019-20. At least $30 million of federal funding must be carved out for off-reserve Indigenous projects.* The following breakdown defines the maximum cost-share percentages of total eligible costs.

Federal Contribution Provincial Contribution Applicant Contribution

Percentage 40.00 33.33 26.67

The following breakdown defines the maximum cost-share percentages of total eligible costs for Indigenous recipients (e.g. First Nations, Indigenous communities and organizations).

Federal Contribution Provincial Contribution Indigenous Contribution

Percentage 75.00 18.33 6.67

Note: Projects with an Indigenous focus will not be limited to funding from the $30 million federal carve out for off-reserve Indigenous projects. Indigenous applicants will also be eligible for funding under the broader stream.

Page 73 of 160 Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program – Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines

Objectives Community, Culture and Recreation Stream

The Community, Culture and Recreation stream supports projects that improve access to and / or quality of community, cultural, and recreation priority infrastructure projects. Priority is given to projects that are community-oriented, non-commercial and open to the public. Projects must be completed prior to 2027-28. In addition to federal criteria, Ontario’s objectives for the current proposed Community, Culture and Recreation stream project intake are noted below. Projects will be assessed based on their alignment with these objectives: • • • •

Meets community and user needs or service gap Promotes good asset management planning Represents good value for money Fosters greater accessibility

See sections 4 and 7 for more details on these assessment criteria. The intake will include two categories of funding: •

Multi-Purpose Category

•

Rehabilitation and Renovation Category

Note: The Community, Culture and Recreation intake is a competitive process. Funding approval is not guaranteed. In addition, the Province may contact an applicant to request additional information or for clarification on information provided in the application form or supporting documentation.

Applicant Eligibility

Eligible applicants under Ontario’s Community, Culture and Recreation Funding stream are: • • • • •

Municipalities First Nations Other Indigenous communities / organizations Broader public sector organizations* Non-Profit organizations

Broader public sector organizations include, for example, school boards, hospitals, colleges and universities. Note: Joint projects between multiple eligible applicants, particularly those that service multiple communities, are encouraged and will be given additional consideration as part of the assessment process.

Note: Education and health care facilities are ineligible for funding, with the exception of those advancing Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action. However, broader public sector organizations that typically deliver health care and education could apply for projects outside

Page 74 of 160 Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program – Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines their core mandate as long as they meet federal and provincial criteria. For example, a school board could apply for funding to construct or renovate a community centre attached to a school.

Project Eligibility and Conditions

4.1

Eligible Projects

(1) Required Eligibility Criteria: a. A project must include a capital component. A project may also include preconstruction planning and design work; however, planning and design work are not eligible as stand-alone projects. b. A project must meet the outcome of improving access to and/or increasing quality of cultural, recreational and/or community infrastructure for Ontarians. Facilities must be publicly accessible. c. A project must meet the following minimum technical requirements: i. Project meets federal criteria and is aligned with provincial objectives and priorities ii. Demonstrated organizational capacity to implement the project iii. Demonstrated ongoing financing to manage operating pressures without creating operating and/or capital cost-pressures for the Province, municipalities, Consolidated Municipal Service Managers and District Social Service Administration Boards, from new infrastructure iv. Demonstrated availability of cost-shared funding to proceed with project v. Demonstrated project readiness vi. Operational plan developed (alignment with asset management plans for municipal projects) vii. Demonstrated community need for proposed project/service (e.g., service delivery gap / lack of access to services) For more details regarding these minimum criteria for evaluation, refer to Appendix A. Note: Applicants are permitted to use approved funding from other project-based capital programs to demonstrate ongoing financing and availability of cost-shared funding. (2) Eligible asset type*: • recreation facilities (e.g., hockey arenas, multipurpose recreation centres, playing fields) • cultural facilities (e.g., theatres, libraries, museums, cultural centres, civic squares, performing arts centres) • community centres / hubs (e.g., multi-purpose spaces that bring together a variety of different services, community centres including recreation facilities) • education and health facilities advancing Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action (e.g., funding for new and/or existing Indigenous healing centres, spaces in education facilities for traditional teaching/programming) Note: applicants are encouraged to reach out to a Regional Advisor or the ICIP Community, Culture and Recreation team at ICIPculture@ontario.ca or 1-888-222-0174 if they have questions or need clarification.

Page 75 of 160 Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program – Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines

(3) Eligible project types: a.

Multi-Purpose Category: This project category focuses on the principle of integrated service delivery to address identified service gaps. The individual project cap will generally be $50 million in total project cost, but exceptions may be made in some cases. Eligible projects consist of: o new build / construction projects o larger scale renovation o expansion of existing facilities.

b. Rehabilitation and Renovation Category This project category focuses on maximizing the funding impact of small-scale projects that would improve the condition of existing facilities. The individual project cap is $5 million in total project cost. Eligible projects consist of: o renovation and rehabilitations to address functionality and use of existing facilities o Small-scale improvements to address accessibility (e.g., hand rails, ramps, accessible doors/parking/elevators, wayfinding and signage etc.) o Small new build / construction projects of recreation, cultural or community centre infrastructure (e.g., playing fields, tennis courts, small community squares) Note: broader facilities that include ineligible components (e.g., community centres with a neighbourhood health centre component) can be scoped to apply for only eligible components. Note: projects that focus on vulnerable populations (e.g., low income persons) and Indigenous people will be given additional consideration as part of the assessment process. (4) Other requirements: Projects must meet the following other criteria to be considered eligible: ✓ Capital components must be owned by an eligible entity. ✓ Projects must be substantially completed by March 31, 2027. ✓ Projects must be informed by and consistent with an applicants’ asset management plan (municipalities only). ✓ Projects components must meet or exceed the requirement of the highest published accessibility standard in Ontario in addition to applicable provincial building codes and relevant municipal by-laws, and any applicable accessible design guidelines. ✓ Project components must meet or exceed any applicable energy efficiency standards for buildings outlined in the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change.

Page 76 of 160 Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program – Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines ✓ For joint projects with other eligible applicants, all applicants must also secure the endorsement of their projects by their respective municipal, CMSM/DSSAB or First Nation Band Council, board of directors, or governing body and provide the Ministry with evidence of such endorsement in the form of by-laws / resolutions / letters of agreement. •

•

4.2

Integrated asset types: Applicants must select only one primary project asset type but may integrate more than one eligible project asset type (e.g., community centre with adjoining hockey arena). Integrated projects must demonstrate that each component of the project for which the applicant is requesting funding meets eligibility requirements. Asset ownership: Municipalities must attest to owning the infrastructure assets put forward for funding.

Joint Projects

Joint projects between eligible applicants are encouraged. Joint projects are those where each co-applicant contributes financially to the project or to the operation of the facility. The cap may be flexible for joint projects. All applicants must meet the applicant eligibility criteria. Joint projects may be larger than projects submitted by a single applicant, as joint applicants may combine the grant funding they request. Neighbouring communities are encouraged to work together to assess co-use of facilities to address service level gaps and to achieve economies of scale. The lead applicant will be required to sign a transfer payment agreement with the province and also enter into a partnership agreement with the other eligible applicant(s) that will be contributing to the project. Funds will only be made available to the lead applicant, who is responsible for the financial management of the project and meeting provincial reporting requirements. Successful joint applicants are encouraged to enter into an agreement clearly setting out the nature of their relationship and key elements of the project in line with the Community, Culture and Recreation stream application and with funding approval described in the projects ICIP transfer payment agreement.

4.3

Other Project Conditions

Projects must comply with the following conditions to be considered eligible: (1) Contract Award Date: Contracts must be awarded after federal approval of funding. Contracts awarded before approval of funding are not eligible for reimbursement. (2) Energy standards: Projects must meet or exceed any applicable energy efficiency standards for buildings outlined in the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change. (3) Accessibility standards: Projects must meet or exceed the requirements of the highest published accessibility standard in a jurisdiction in addition to applicable provincial building codes and relevant municipal by-laws and accessible design guidelines.

Page 77 of 160 Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program – Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines (4) Asset management plans [municipalities only]: Projects should be informed by an applicant’s asset management plan as outlined in Asset Management Planning for Municipal Infrastructure Regulation, O. Reg. 588/17This means the proposed project was identified based on the plan’s prioritized lifecycle activities (e.g., construction, maintenance, renewal, rehabilitation, replacement, etc.) for the applicable asset category (e.g., community, recreation and cultural facilities). For example, if an applicant has identified recreation centre needs as a priority lifecycle activity within its asset management plan, then submission of a recreation centre project would be appropriate. Where a project is not based on an asset management plan, a strong rationale must be provided in the application form. Note: project prioritization in an asset management plan does not apply in cases where the project assets are not owned by the municipality. (5) Supporting documentation [First Nations only]: Projects should be identified in, or supported by, a 5-Year Capital Plan; a Comprehensive Community Plan; a Strategic Community Plan; an Asset Conditions Reporting System report; a Feasibility Study or Detailed Design. Where not based on a supporting document, a strong rationale must be provided. The province may request an electronic copy of one or more supporting documents during the project review stage. (6) Financial sustainability: Projects must have a financial plan in place to operate the assets and not seek senior level government support for ongoing operational funding. First Nations applicants may have operational funding arrangements with the federal government that satisfy this condition.

Project Submission Process

5.1

Number of Project Submissions

Eligible applicants can apply for multiple projects.

5.2

Submissions and Funding Approval Steps

Step 1: Applicants must register or login online through the Province of Ontario’s online grant portal, Transfer Payment Ontario. Step by step support for working with the online grant portal are found here. For full functionality, the support tool link must be opened in Internet Explorer. Step 2: Applicants must fully complete one Community, Culture and Recreation funding stream application form and the applicable business case. Completion of only one business case is required; the business case must correspond to the funding stream. The application form and the associated business case are available through the Transfer Payment Ontario online portal. Please follow the prompts in the application form and business case to respond to each question. Step 3 [joint projects]: A joint project submitted by multiple applicants must provide supporting documentation by way of an individual partner-member municipal council resolution, a band council resolution or board of directors’ resolutions or letter of agreement, clearly stating the project name and applicant / recipient contribution to the project.

Page 78 of 160 Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program – Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines Step 4: The application and required attachments (i.e., business cases, supporting documents, etc.) must be submitted through Transfer Payment Ontario by 11:59 p.m. EDT on November 12, 2019. A scanned application form will not be accepted. Failure to meet submission requirements will result in an incomplete submission and the submission may be considered ineligible. If you are unable to submit the application form through the Transfer Payment Ontario, please contact: TPONCC@ontario.ca or call (416) 325-6691/(855) 216-3090. Step 5: Once the completed application form has been submitted, an automated acknowledgement of receipt and a file number will be emailed to the applicant. Step 6: Projects will be assessed by the province and nominated for federal government review and approval. Provincial project nomination to the federal government does not guarantee funding approval. Step 7: Applicants will be notified of both successful and unsuccessful projects. Provincial staff will be available to provide feedback for unsuccessful projects, if requested. Step 8: The province may request applicants to provide an attestation that the recipient share of funding to undertake and complete the project has been secured. Step 9: Successful municipal applicants will be required to obtain a municipal by-law or council resolution; other applicants will be required to submit a board of directors’ resolution or letter of agreement or band council resolution to execute the project level transfer payment agreement with the provincial government. Step 10: The transfer payment agreement will require procurement to be executed through a value-for-money process. Projects must undertake a competitive pricing or tendering process to demonstrate value-for-money. Applicants may be requested by the province to provide: • • •

Copies of proposals or bids from three (3) bidders; Statement indicating selected bidder; and Written explanation if the lowest bid is not chosen.

Timelines •

Applications and all supporting documentations must be submitted through Grants Ontario by 11:59 p.m. EDT on November 12, 2019. Note: that applications will not be accepted after this time. All supporting documentation must also be submitted by the deadline in order to be considered part of the application. Applicants cannot change the proposed project after the application deadline unless extraordinary circumstances arise (e.g., destruction of an arena) and permission is granted by the province.

• • •

The province will notify applicants if their project has been selected for nomination to the federal government for review and approval in winter 2020 (estimated). Applicants will be notified of the federal funding decision in spring/summer 2020 (estimated). Projects must be completed by March 31, 2027.

Page 79 of 160 Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program – Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines

Evaluation Process

7.1

Recipient Eligibility and Application Completeness

Recipients must meet Community, Culture and Recreation program eligibility requirements. Additionally, all mandatory fields of the application form must be populated correctly for a submission to be considered validated and complete. For more information, refer to Section 4 above regarding eligibility and to 4.1.4 regarding eligible categories of funding under the program.

7.2

Project Scope Review

Projects must meet federal project eligibility requirements, be technically viable and be achievable within the program timelines.

7.3

Alignment with Provincial Objectives

a) Applicants must demonstrate that projects meet the following objectives under the Community, Culture and Recreation stream: a. Meets community and user needs: identified and demonstrable communitylevel need or service gap, including barriers to social inclusion and accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities, and underserved small communities; b. Promotes good asset management: demonstrates optimization of assets, including through multi-purpose and integrated service delivery; aligns with municipal asset management plans (municipalities only); c. Represents good value for money: demonstrated efficiency and value for money. The most cost-effective option for delivering a similar level of service should be sought, maximizing population/communities served; d. Foster greater accessibility: commitment to meeting minimum highest level of accessibility standards; use of Universal Design Principles and innovative solutions to increasing accessibility beyond minimum standards. See Appendix A for details of the technical criteria associated with these objectives. Note: Please refer to the Community, Culture and Recreation stream Business case on the Grants Ontario website.

7.3.1 Asset Management Planning Ontario Regulation 588/17- Asset Management Planning for Municipal Infrastructure, or the Asset Management Planning Regulation sets out new requirements for undertaking municipal asset management planning. The regulation is being phased in over a 6-year period, with progressive milestone requirements for municipalities with respect to their asset management plans. For clarity, at the time of application, the asset management plan used to inform the proposed project can be developed according to either the province’s 2012 Guide (Building together: guide for municipal asset management plans) or the new asset management planning regulation. As part of project reporting requirements, and to remain eligible for funding, successful municipal applicants are required to submit their updated asset management plans in

Page 80 of 160 Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program – Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines accordance with the regulation for the duration of the project. For example, municipalities that have an active project in 2021 will be required to submit asset management plans developed in accordance with the first phase of the regulation. Please refer to the Appendix which summarizes key regulation milestones in 2021, 2023 and 2024 for municipal asset management plans. For more information about asset management planning, as well as tools and supports available to help municipalities develop and improve their plans, please visit the http://www.ontario.ca/assetmanagement.

Financial, Contractual and Reporting Requirements

8.1

Maximum Project Costs

Rehabilitation and Renovation Category: o The maximum total eligible cost per project for a single applicant is $5 million o For projects with multiple applicants (i.e., joint projects), each applicant can submit up to $5 million of total eligible project costs. For example, a joint project with three eligible coapplicants can submit a project with a maximum total eligible project cost of $15 million. Multi-purpose Category: o The maximum total eligible cost per project for a single applicant is $50 million. The cap may be flexible for joint projects. Value for money will be a significant funding consideration. If an applicant’s project exceeds $50 million, please contact ICIPculture@ontario.ca or call 1-888-222-0174. Note: Projects that have a total eligible cost of more than $10 million must complete a federal climate lens assessment and report on community employment benefits. See Appendix for more information. Note: Applicants must pay for all ineligible project costs as well as any cost over-runs experienced on a project. Cost over-runs reflect any costs that exceed the total project cost submitted at the time of application.

8.2

Cost Sharing

The following breakdown defines the maximum cost share percentages of the total eligible cost: Applicant Type

Municipality Non-Profit BPS Indigenous Recipient

Federal Cost Share (Max %) 40% 40% 40% 75%

Provincial Cost Share (Max %) 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% 18.33%

Applicant Cost Share (Min %) 26.67% 26.67% 26.67% 6.67%

Page 81 of 160 Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program – Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines Note: The cost-sharing breakdown assumes municipal or Indigenous applicants own or have control over the asset being nominated for funding and is subject to change

For instance, this means that: • •

8.3

An eligible municipality may request up to 73.33% of the total eligible costs. Indigenous recipient may request up to 93.33% of the total eligible costs.

Stacking of Funding

General: • •

Applicants may combine funding received through the Community, Culture and Recreation funding stream and funding from another project-based capital program. Applicants can apply for a project at the same location as a project already receiving funding from another capital program where the project in question would be ineligible for Community, Culture and Recreation funding, but the applicant must clearly scope out the component that is unique to the Community, Culture and Recreation funding stream application.

Applicants who are not sure how to best combine funding are encouraged to contact a Regional Advisor or the ICIP Community, Culture and Recreation team at ICIPculture@ontario.ca or call 1-888-222-0174 before submitting an application.

8.4

Eligible Costs

Project costs are eligible only if they are incurred after federal approval. Eligible Expenditures will include the following: •

•

All costs considered by Canada and Ontario to be direct and necessary for the successful implementation of an eligible Project, and which may include third party costs such as project management, capital costs, construction and materials, design / engineering and planning, contingency costs (25% maximum), and costs related to meeting specific Program requirements, including completing climate lens assessments (see Note 2 below) and creating community employment benefit plans; The incremental costs of employees of a Recipient may be included as Eligible Expenditures for a Project under the following conditions: o The Recipient is able to demonstrate that it is not economically feasible to tender a contract; and o The arrangement is approved in advance and in writing by Canada and Ontario. o Note: Applicants submitting for these costs must submit a rationale for the use of own-force labour when the application is submitted.

Note 1: Contracts must be awarded after federal approval of funding. Contracts awarded before approval of funding are not eligible for reimbursement. Note 2: Costs associated with completing climate lens assessments, which are eligible before project approval, but can only be paid if and when a project is approved by Canada for contribution funding under contracts

Page 82 of 160 Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program – Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines Note 3: Capital costs are only eligible once the project receives notification that Canada is satisfied that the applicant has met its Duty to Consult and Environmental Assessment requirements. Before this notification is received, no site preparation, vegetation removal or construction may take place.

8.5

Ineligible Costs

When a project meets a federal outcome in the Community, Culture and Recreation Infrastructure stream, it is not eligible for funding if it: • • • •

has a private sector, for-profit Ultimate Recipient; is a stand-alone daycare facility, for-profit daycare facility, daycare facility associated with a school board, or a daycare facility funded under Canada’s Early Learning and Child Care initiative; is a religious site that serves as a place of assembly for religious purposes, which includes among others, a site, church, mosque, synagogue, temple, chapel (e.g., within a convent or seminary), shrine or meeting house; or is a professional or semi-professional sport facility that is primarily a commercial operation, such as those that serve major junior hockey leagues.

Other ineligible project costs include: •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Costs incurred before federal project approval and all expenditures related to contracts signed prior to federal project approval, except for expenditures associated with completing climate lens assessments Costs incurred for cancelled projects Costs related to health or education functions (except for those advancing Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action) Acquisition or leasing of land, buildings and other facilities Leasing equipment other than equipment directly related to the construction of the project Real estate fees and related costs Financing charges Legal fees Loan interest payments including those related to easements (e.g. surveys) Costs of completing the application Taxes, regardless of rebate eligibility Any goods and services costs which are received through donation or In-kind Staff costs, unless pre-approved by the federal and provincial governments Operating costs and regularly scheduled maintenance work Costs related to furnishing and non-fixed assets which are not essential for the operation of the project Costs that have not been claimed for reimbursement by March 31 of year following the year in which the costs were incurred (e.g., costs incurred between April 1, 2018 and March 31, 2019 must be submitted for reimbursement no later than March 31, 2020).

Page 83 of 160 Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program – Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines •

•

All capital costs, including site preparation and construction costs, until Canada has confirmed in writing that environmental assessment and Indigenous consultation obligations have been met and continue to be met. All costs related to any component of the project other than the approved scope

A more detailed list of eligible and ineligible expenditure categories will be provided in individual project level contribution agreements.

8.6

Payments

Funding is claims based and will be reimbursed upon review and approval of eligible costs under transfer payment agreements. Reimbursement of claims is based on the cost sharing percentage. The claims process requires Recipients to submit claims for the Ministry’s review, approval and submission to Canada and for Canada’s review and approval once received from Ontario. The claims format will be outlined in individual contribution agreements. All costs must be incurred by March 31, 2027. Recipients are required to keep all receipts/invoices and claims as they are subject to audit by the province or the federal government. Note: A holdback of 10% may be applied to payments under the program. The holdback would be released upon successful completion of all reporting requirements following project completion.

8.7

Contractual Obligations

Successful applicants will be required to sign a provincial contribution agreement containing clauses regarding, among other things, items such as insurance, arm’s length requirements, communications (including project signage), reporting requirements, and obligations with respect to consultations with Indigenous groups. Successful applicants will be required to obtain a municipal council resolution or board of director/governing body resolution or letter of agreement to execute the project level contribution agreement with the province. Joint applicants will be required to enter into a joint partnership agreement and must provide a copy of that agreement to Ontario. For cases where the applicant is not the asset owner, the province will provide additional support to coordinate the execution of the transfer payment agreement. Successful municipalities will also be required to complete an Asset Management SelfAssessment prior to signing their contribution agreement.

8.8

Reporting Requirements

Specific reporting requirements will be outlined in individual transfer payment agreements.

Consultations with Indigenous Peoples

The Government of Canada, the Government of Ontario and municipalities may have a duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate Indigenous peoples (e.g., First Nation and Métis communities) where an activity is contemplated that may adversely impact an established or asserted Aboriginal or treaty right.

Page 84 of 160 Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program – Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines Before providing funding to a project, the Government of Ontario will assess whether its duty to consult obligations are engaged. If the duty to consult is triggered, Ontario may delegate the procedural aspects of consultation to project proponents. Therefore, it is important that all applicants recognize that a duty to consult process may be necessary and appropriately plan for this work (e.g., resources, time, etc.) as part of their funding submission. The application form contains preliminary questions to begin considering the potential that a duty to consult may exist. Consultation requirements will vary depending on the size and location of the project in question and the depth and scope of the project’s potential adverse impacts on Aboriginal treaty rights. For successful applications, the province will provide further details in writing surrounding specific consultation requirements, including which communities require consultation. Throughout the duration of the project applicants should ensure they are fulfilling the duty to consult requirements delegated to them.

Further Information

Please contact a Regional Advisor or the ICIP Community Culture and Recreation team can be reached by telephone at 1-888-222-0174 or by email at ICIPculture@ontario.ca.

Page 85 of 160 Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program – Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines

Appendix A – Technical Criteria The province will assess and prioritize projects for federal nomination and funding based on the following criteria, aligned with provincial objectives: Provincial Objective A: Meets Community and User Needs Criterion 1: Community Need Applications must demonstrate that the proposed project is filling a clearly identified and documented service level gap and that there is a need in the community for the services that will be provided. Applicants should demonstrate that community members are in need of proposed services, and that the project will provide them with access to the required services. This may include both quantitative elements (e.g., demographic data), and qualitative elements (e.g., evidence that the community lacks access to services). Additional consideration will be given to projects focusing on vulnerable populations and/or Indigenous people (First Nations, Métis and Inuit populations). Criterion 2: Funding Need for Proposed Project Projects will be assessed according to greater funding need, including the cost of the proposed project per household, median household income and weighted property assessment per household. Note: for Indigenous Communities, proxy values may be applied. In general, applicants with greater funding need (i.e., higher project cost per household, lower median household income, lower weighted property assessment per household) will be more competitive in the evaluation process. However, applicants must still be able to fund all project costs and potential cost over-runs to be eligible for funding. Applicants should clearly note whether user fees or other sources of revenue are collected at the facility. Provincial Objective B: Promotes Good Asset Management Criterion 3: Provincial Land-Use Planning Projects must be aligned and support the expected and required provincial priorities and outcomes, as set out in provincial land use policy, provincial land use plans, and municipal official plans and supported by policy direction in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). Criterion 4: Efficiencies Through Joint Projects Additional consideration will be given to joint projects for providing benefit to multiple communities and generating efficiencies and community benefits. Criterion 5: Project Readiness Applications must demonstrate that planning in underway and that the projects are ready to begin, to ensure completion within federal timelines.

Page 86 of 160 Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program – Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines Provincial Objective C: Represents Good Value for Money Criterion 6: Financial Risk Assessment and Due Diligence The Province will conduct a financial risk assessment to ensure that sufficient resources are available to support project completion, including coverage of any cost overruns. Projects should have a financial plan in place to operate the assets and not seek senior level government support for operational funding. The Province may request additional supporting documentation upon review of the application. Criterion 7: Organizational Capacity for Implementation Projects will be evaluated based on organizational capacity. Organizations must demonstrate capacity to carry out capital project and implement the requested project and to manage ongoing costs related to operating the facility. Applicants must demonstrate that organizations (or partners) have sufficient funding to commit to the project (i.e., funding in place for the costshared amount, or demonstrated ability to fundraise the required amount). Criterion 8: Developed Operational Plan Applicants must demonstrate that there is a strong operational plan in place for the ongoing operation of the facility. This will include alignment with asset management plans for municipalities and may include memoranda of understanding for joint projects/partnerships. Provincial Objective D: Fosters Greater Accessibility Criterion 9: Accessibility Applications must demonstrate that projects will meet the highest published accessibility standards in alignment with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) and the Ontario Building Code. Projects will additionally be evaluated based on exceeding minimum standards; use of Universal Design Principles, accessible guidelines and innovative solutions to increasing accessibility.

Appendix B – Federal Program Parameters In the event of any conflict, contradiction or inconsistency in interpretation, the federal language in the Appendix shall prevail over summaries provided in the body of the guidelines.

Eligible Recipients

Eligible recipients for the Community, Culture and Recreation funding stream, subject to the terms and conditions of the Canada-Ontario ICIP Agreement, include: a) An Ontario municipal or regional government established by or under provincial statute; b) An Ontario’s broader public sector organizations (school boards, hospitals, colleges and universities). These entities can apply for funding of projects outside of their regular business. However, core business functions are not eligible (e.g., health and education services). c) Non-profit organizations d) First Nations and Indigenous Communities

Page 87 of 160 Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program – Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines

II.

Procurement •

III.

Successful applicants must award third-party contracts in a way that is fair, transparent, competitive and consistent with value-for-money principles, or in a manner otherwise acceptable to Canada, and if applicable, in accordance with the Canadian Free Trade Agreement and international trade agreements. Applicants must adopt a value for money procurement approach. Any requests for sole source procurement exemptions will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and requires pre-approval by the federal and provincial governments. Sole source procurement is not encouraged as approval is not guaranteed. (Refer to Section 4.5 above)

Climate Lens Assessment

Applicants with projects that have a total eligible cost of $10 million or more are required to complete a climate lens assessment using methodologies developed by the federal government after federal government approval of the project. The climate lens assessment consists of two potential assessments for projects being brought forward for funding which include a greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation assessment and a climate change resilience assessment. Visit Infrastructure Canada’s Climate Lens – General Guidance webpage for information on how to complete the assessment. Costs associated with completing climate lens assessments are eligible before project approval but can only be paid if and when a project is approved by Canada for contribution funding under this Agreement. Applicants are permitted to defer the Climate Lens assessment at the time of application, with the rationale that the Climate Lens assessment will be conducted during the detailed design phase of the project. Applicants can contact the Climate Services Support Desk to obtain standardized climate lens data that can be used to support the completion of climate lens assessments.

IV.

Community Employment Benefits

Applicants with projects that have a total eligible cost of $10 million or more are required to report on community employment benefits provided to at least three federal target groups (apprentices - from traditionally disadvantaged communities, Indigenous peoples, women, persons with disabilities, veterans, youth, new Canadians, or small-medium-sized enterprises and social enterprises). Visit the Community Employment Benefits General Guidance webpage for more information. Additional details on this reporting will be provided to Recipients when applicable.

Environmental Assessment

No site preparation, vegetation removal or construction will occur for a Project and Canada and Ontario have no obligation to pay any Eligible Expenditures that are capital costs, as determined

Page 88 of 160 Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program – Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines by Canada and Ontario, until Canada and Ontario are satisfied that the federal requirements are met and continue to be met: • • •

VI.

Requirements under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA, 2012), other applicable federal environmental assessment legislation that is or may come into force during the term of this Agreement, and; other applicable agreements between Canada and Indigenous groups (also referred to as Indigenous Peoples).

Indigenous Consultation

No site preparation, vegetation removal or construction will occur for a Project and Canada and Ontario have no obligation to pay any Eligible Expenditures that are capital costs, as determined by Canada and Ontario, until Canada and Ontario is satisfied that any legal duty to consult, and where appropriate, to accommodate Indigenous groups (also referred to as Indigenous Peoples) or other federal consultation requirement has been met and continues to be met. If required, Canada must be satisfied that for each Project: a) Indigenous groups have been notified and, if applicable, consulted; b) If applicable, a summary of consultation or engagement activities has been provided, including a list of Indigenous groups consulted, concerns raised, and how each of the concerns have been addressed, or if not addressed, an explanation as to why not; c) Accommodation measures, where appropriate, are being carried out by Ontario or the Ultimate Recipient and these costs may be considered Eligible; and d) Any other information has been provided that Canada may deem appropriate.

Page 89 of 160 Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program – Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines

Appendix C – Asset Management Regulation Phase-In Schedule [municipalities only] Asset Management Plan Ontario Regulation 588/17- Asset Management Planning for Municipal Infrastructure, or the Asset Management Regulation sets out new requirements for undertaking asset management planning. The regulation will be phased in over a 6-year period, with progressive requirements for municipalities with respect to their asset management plans.

Asset Management Phase-in Schedule Date

July 1, 2019

July 1, 2021

July 1, 2023

July 1, 2024

Milestone Date for municipalities to have a finalized strategic asset management policy that promotes best practices and links asset management planning with budgeting, operations, maintenance and other municipal planning activities. Date for municipalities to have an approved asset management plan for core assets (roads, bridges and culverts, water, wastewater and stormwater management systems, arenas, theatres) that identifies current levels of service and the cost of maintaining those levels of service. Date for municipalities to have an approved asset management plan for all municipal infrastructure assets that identifies current levels of service and the cost of maintaining those levels of service. Date for municipalities to have an approved asset management plan for all municipal infrastructure assets that builds upon the requirements set out in 2023. This includes an identification of proposed levels of service, what activities will be required to meet proposed levels of service, and a strategy to fund these activities.

Recipients will also be required to complete an Asset Management Self-Assessment prior to signing their TPA. For more information about asset management planning, as well as tools and supports available to help municipalities develop and improve their plans, please visit the http://www.ontario.ca/assetmanagement.

Page 90 of 160

A place for young people in Central and South Frontenac Townships, and surrounding area, to Dream Big.

A bit about the FCA • Opened in 1976 with funding provided through a WINTARIO Grant and with the support of several Townships in Frontenac County • Home to the Frontenac Flyers and Frontenac Fury Minor Hockey Leagues, adult leagues, learn to skate, etc. •

A ‘COMMUNITY’ Arena that provides positive recreation and leisure opportunities for all • 2016 Recreation and Leisure Survey, the FCA was listed as the 2nd most visited recreation and leisure facility in South Frontenac

• Over 70,000 hours of ice time booked since 1976 • Over 120 employees have worked at the FCA Page 91 of 160

• The Frontenac Community Arena is governed by an Arena Board, comprised of serving members of council from Central Frontenac and South Frontenac Townships • The FCA is an arms length Not for profit corporation; with SF and CF as the members/shareholders

Funding Model

The Township of South Frontenac funds 59% of anticipated Operating Deficit The Township of Central Frontenac funds 41% of anticipated Operating Deficit A small contribution made to reserve funds for Capital projects from each Township

Page 92 of 160

Financial Position (Operating) Operating Budget

2014

Revenues

2018

2019 approved Budget

2020 Preliminary Budget

2015

2016

2017

$ 264,699

$ 258,100

$ 275,692

$ 279,817

296,404

297,613

299,100

Expenses

$ 373,602

$ 346,447

$ 362,336

$ 371,337

366,625

374,765

384,600

Operating Deficit % That Arena Operating is subsidized

$ 108,903

70,221

77,152

85,500

29.1%

24.4%

Operating Contributions

2014

88,347

86,644

23.9%

2015

91,520

24.6%

2016

19.1%

2017

2018

20.5%

22.2%

2019 approved Budget

2020 Preliminary Budget Page 93 of 160

South Frontenac

42,139

44,437

38,037

37,406

39,052

37,265

42,185

District Contibution

13,628

14,000

Central Frontenac

29,283

30,880

26,432

25,994

27,137

25,869

29,315

85,050

89,317

80,485

79,417

82,207

77,134

85,500

Financial Position (Capital) Capital Contributions from Townships

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2020 Preliminary Budget

2019 approved Budget

South Frontenac

8,850

17,051

21,948

36,688

179,950

Central Frontenac

6,150

11,849

15,252

25,495

125,050

15,000

28,900

37,200

62,183

305,000

Investment into Reserves for Capital

2014

$356,998

18,500

2016

28,900

2017

37,200

2018

37,200

2019 approved Budget

20,540

23,000 Page 94 of 160

Reserve balance at the end of 2014

18,500

2015

2020 Preliminary Budget

Capital Projects/Asset Management Plan The decisions on replacements are made based on review of: • Building Condition Assessment • Annual Refrigeration plant Technical assessment • TSSA Guideline/inspections • Review of maintenance/service records • Daily plant operators log book/inspections Capital projects are prioritized based on: • Risk Management/ Impact on Safety to Staff and Patrons • Improving the facilities to benefit the Patrons • Long term costs • Improving efficiencies

The largest risk at an Arena is an ammonia leak resulting in staff/patron injury or even death

If a key component of the plant fails and cannot be repaired within a few hours there is a major impact on the user groups, staff and loss of revenue.

Page 95 of 160

It is imperative with major capital replacement of Refrigeration systems to ‘plan’ the service disruption vs. ‘unplanned’

Capital Projects since 2015 Since 2015 the Arena has spent just under $500,000 to complete necessary Capital projects. Installed an Ammonia gas detection and warning system (2015) Replaced the Refrigeration Plant control panel (2015) Replaced the two compressors (2016) Emergency exit upgrades and lock replacements (2016) Replaced the Spectator heating in the stands (2016) Replaced the arena sound system (2016) Replaced the overhead pad lighting with LED (2016) Replaced the dehumidification System (2017) Replaced building downspouts and eaves (2017) Replaced all tube lighting throughout the arena with LED (2018) Replaced one of the Propane furnaces (2019 Replaced the Ice Resurfacer (2019)

Since 2015 the Arena has received approximately $100,000 in grants/donations from other source other than the Townships to support these Capital Projects

Page 96 of 160

• • • • • • • • • • • •

Capital NEEDS moving forward As of this year we have depleted any reserves that we had. We are seeking an increase in contributions from both Townships for the 2020 & 2021 Capital needs. Beyond 2021 and based on our asset management strategy we should be in a position to fund future Capital needs via the annual Reserve Investment. • The largest risk at an Arena is an ammonia leak resulting in staff/patron injury or even death • Aging equipment that fails is almost always the cause of an ammonia leak

• Numerous articles provided • 2017 Fernie BC Ammonia Leak resulting in 3 deaths

Page 97 of 160

• This risk can be reduced through monitoring, maintenance and REPLACEMENT

2020 Capital Projects TOTAL 2020 CAPITAL PROJECTS: $305,000 • Condenser Unit replacement and Tower upgrades: $120,000 • Plate Heat Exchanger (Chiller system): $150,000 • Brine Pump Package: $25,000 • Floor flushing and glycol charge: $10,000 2020 Reserve Investment: $23,000 Capital Expenditures Reserve Investment: $15,500 Ice Resurfacer Reserve Investment: $7,500 Page 98 of 160

South Frontenac (Potential 2020 request): $193,520 (Based on funding 59% of anticipated Capital needs) Central Frontenac (Potential 2020 request): $134,480 (Based on funding 41% of anticipated Capital needs)

Condenser Unit

Why now? Maintenance costs since 2017 Brine Pump

Ammonia Chiller

$9,200 since 2017

$10,500 since 2017 Ammonia Chiller Cap

Page 99 of 160

$10,000 since 2017

2021 Capital Projects In 2017 The Townships of Central Frontenac and South Frontenac committed to funding their share of the costs for the Arena Floor/Boards Replacement. High Level Scope of Project: • Remove concrete slab, brine lines, boards, glass, benched, timekeepers box • Replace • Concrete slab, Brine Lines • Dasher Boards, Acrylic shields, Players Benches, Timekeepers Box (insulated) • Access to players benches, Safety netting • Flooring area around pad and up to and in Ice Resurfacer Room • Accessible ramp/ viewing area, Rubberized surface from double doors around pad • ‘Buried’ Mains and Headers

South Frontenac (Potential 2021 request): $590,000 (Based on funding 59% of anticipated Capital needs) Central Frontenac (Potential 2021 request): $410,000 (Based on funding 41% of anticipated Capital needs)

Page 100 of 160

Potential Project cost as per 2017 report to Council: $1,000,000

Potential Funding for the 2020/2021 Projects 2020/2021 Total Capital Costs: $1,305,000 • • • •

Township Contributions Hydro Grant Naming Sponsors for arena pad INVESTING IN CANADA INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM: • Community Culture and Recreation (Rehabilitation and Renovation stream)

The Arena will be submitting and application for the ICIP grant for these projects with both Townships as the coapplicants. If successful we could be eligible to receive up to $956,956 (73.33%) of the project costs. Page 101 of 160

If we are not successful we would potentially require full project funding from the two Townships

QUESTIONS?

Page 102 of 160

Page 103 of 160

Articles on Arena Flooring Replacement Projects and Ammonia Leaks Taking proactive measures on ammonia leak threat

October 9, 2019 St. Albert will be spending over a half-million dollars to upgrade ice rinks in the city to prevent hazardous ammonia leaks. On Monday evening, city council approved $604,600 from the city’s stabilization reserve to complete work at Servus Place, Jarome Igninla and Kinex arenas to come into compliance with legislation and safety code requirements. “This is about safety, the last thing I want to have is ammonia leaking. This is about being proactive … this needs to be done,” said Coun. Sheena Hughes. Other municipalities in the province are also making necessary safety upgrades to their ice rinks, following the tragic death of three people from a Fernie, B.C., ice rink ammonia leak almost exactly two years ago. Administration said there is no deadline to come into compliance with new safety code requirements – it is more a matter of being certain of safe operations as soon as possible for staff and members of the public. Coun. Jacquie Hansen asked whether there are any provincial grants to help municipalities make these upgrades, saying the problem is being downloaded onto cities and towns. “I understand from a safety point of view it has to be done, but I guess on our nickel,” she said. Administration was unsure if there are provincial grants available.

A devastating day’: Leak permanently closes Prescott ice rink

CBC News · Posted: Aug 22, 2018 11:10 A probable ammonia leak in the ice plant system at the Leo Boivin Community Centre in Prescott, Ont., has forced officials to permanently close the rink. The town’s refrigeration contractor, CIMCO, did pressure testing of the arena floor in light of the October 2017 death of three arena workers in Fernie, B.C. and recent closure of a rink in Goderich, Ont., due to problems with ammonia refrigeration systems. The pressure test failed, indicating a leak in the refrigeration system, and the decision to decommission the rink in Prescott was made at an emergency special council meeting held Tuesday. Prescott Mayor Brett Todd said the deaths in Fernie “changed the landscape for ammonia in arenas in Canada.” “It’s a devastating day. Arenas like this are the hearts of small towns. It’s a hit to the whole community,” he said. “Something like this is a huge part of the fabric of the whole town and not having it there will be a heck of an adjustment for us.” New centre to be built eventually Prescott’s town council has begun the process of identifying land for a new Leo Boivin Community Centre, which Todd said could cost between $8 million and $10 million. However, the new facility wouldn’t be ready for between 24 and 30 months, he said. The existing arena was built for Canada’s centennial in 1967. And like the hundreds of other projects constructed around that time across the country, he said — including bridges, sewer systems and arenas — many are nearing the end of their life. Todd said Ontario’s new government should be making plans to renew infrastructure. “It never became part of the dialogue during the campaign. It should have. You’re going to see more problems like this,” he said, pointing to the arena. “We’re kind of the canary in the coal mine.” Other uses for building being explored Town staff are now exploring other recreational uses for the building, including indoor soccer, about 95 kilometres south of Ottawa. For Prescott residents such as Daniel Cook, 44, who have lived with the arena nearby their whole lives, the closure is a blow. “If you’re in Canada, the hockey rink is the heart of the community, generally,” he said. The local businessman has twin 6-year-old children who played minor hockey

Page 104 of 160 in the building and, because they live only a couple of blocks away, were able to walk to their games. It’s a big deal. I remember my grandfather, who lived a block over from here, giving me $20 to go down to see the Prescott Falcons play. You got in your drink and hot dog, I was probably only 8 or 9 years old," he recalled. Still, Cook wouldn’t blame the town for the sudden decision to close the rink. “If they’re looking after the safety of the children that are going to use the facility, I can’t say anything against that.” “It will be sad to see it go, but hopefully we can make it work to (build) something new,” he said.

Risk of ammonia leak means Goderich Memorial Arena rink out of commission

The town of Goderich, Ont. will be down an ice rink this fall after a July inspection of the Memorial Arena revealed its ammonia refrigeration system to be in such bad condition that it can no longer safely operate. The inspection found that the refrigeration piping has deteriorated, has ’extensive rusting’ and is even flaking where the piping enters the floor. The arena’s concrete floor is also in bad shape, with cracks so large they could allow moisture to seep in and further damage the pipes, according to a report prepared by the YMCA of Goderich-Huron, which operates the rink. The arena is considered particularly high-risk because the ammonia actually travels underneath the arena floor, rather than being contained in the building’s mechanical room. “So if there’s a leak, the probability of exposing the public to ammonia is very high,” said YMCA general manager Anne Marie Thomson, adding that the rink also uses a significant amount of ammonia, between 2,000 to 2,500 pounds. Ammonia is highly toxic, and experts say poisoning can cause long-term damage and even death. A sad reminder of the risks came in October, when three men in BC were killed after an ammonia leak at Fernie Memorial Arena. The chemical is still used as a primary refrigerant in the roughly 750 arenas in Ontario, according to John Milton, chief administrative officer for the Ontario Recreation Facilities Association. With the Goderich Memorial Arena out of commission, the town’s ice skaters and hockey players will be shifted this fall to the nearby Maitland Recreation Centre, which is also run by the YMCA. The Maitland arena is just 15 years old, and uses a glycol-based refrigeration system, Thomson said. It’s going to be a big adjustment for the Maitland arena, which will have to absorb two arenas’ worth of users. In a town previously flush with ice time, Thomson said some groups will have to get used to shorter practices and odd hours. “[Before] it was pretty rare for us to have someone on the ice after 10:30, 11 o’clock,” said Thomson. “Now we’re looking at 5 weeknights of ice usage until midnight.” For now, Goderich town council has approved the decision to remove ammonia from the Memorial Arena system, but is in a “lame duck” period and can’t yet make any further decisions about the arena, according to the town’s chief administrative officer Larry McCabe. Between proposing and pricing out options, McCabe said the ultimate decision could take a year or more.

16 suffer ‘respiratory issues’ after possible ammonia leak in Brampton

CBC News · Posted: Jun 24, 2018 Sixteen people were treated by paramedics after a possible ammonia leak at a property in Brampton on Sunday morning. The patients suffered “respiratory issues” apparently caused by a chemical spill, according to a tweet from Peel paramedics. Eight were taken to local hospitals for further monitoring, while eight were treated at the scene. The incident occurred at an address on Orenda Road, near Highway 410 and Queen Street E., shortly before 8 a.m. Brampton fire officials referred to the property as a “plant” of some kind, but could not provide further details. Some 85 employees were inside the building at the time of the leak, Peel police said. Everyone was evacuated and has been accounted for, they added. Toronto paramedics are assisting with the call, as the service has access to a bus-like ambulance used to treat multiple patients at the same time.

Page 105 of 160

Fernie Memorial Arena worker deaths caused by aging equipment failure, poor decisions:

CBC News · Posted: Jul 25, 2018 9:28 AM PT | Last Updated: July 25, 2018 Leaky ice-making machinery that killed 3 men had been flagged for replacement Three arena workers died in Fernie, B.C., due to the failure of aging equipment and poor operational and management decisions, according to a report by Technical Safety B.C. In its investigation, TSBC — the independent body that oversees the installation and operation of arena ice-making machinery — found that a small ammonia leak in the equipment at the Fernie Memorial Arena curling rink escalated into “a rapid release of ammonia” into the mechanical room. Lloyd Smith, Fernie’s director of leisure services, Wayne Hornquist, Fernie’s chief facility operator and Jason Podloski, a refrigeration technician with contractor CIMCO Refrigeration in Calgary, were trying to fix the ice-maker on Oct. 17, 2017, when the ammonia burst from the unit, and likely suffered a “rapid death,” according to Jeff Coleman, lead investigator with TSBC. Exposure to acute levels of ammonia causes trauma to the respiratory system, essentially suffocating a person to death. Replacement delayed, then dropped According to the report, in 2010 a maintenance contractor advised the City of Fernie — a community of about 5,000 in southeast B.C. — to replace the piece of equipment in question, which is called a “chiller.” City officials initially scheduled funding for the replacement to take place in 2013 at a cost of $70,000, but then deferred it to 2014 for financial reasons before deleting the item from financial planning altogether. In the spring of 2017 a small ammonia leak was detected in the chiller. However, the decision was made to put it back into operation on Oct.16 in time for the fall curling season. The next day, the catastrophic ammonia release killed the three men. “The decision to operate the leaking chiller is pivotal in the development of the incident,” reads the report. “Once the leaking chiller was put back into operation, additional actions and decisions were a response to cascading failures and were beyond the scope of training and situational awareness of those involved.” The regular life expectancy of a chiller is 20 to 25 years. The Fernie chiller was 31 years old when it failed. In response to the report, Fernie Mayor Mary Giuliano said in a written statement: “Despite working with an approved certification for our system at the time of the incident, today’s report points to opportunities to further improve safety standards.”

A list of ammonia leaks at arenas in Canada

The Canadian Press Published Wednesday, October 18, 2017 Three people have died in Fernie, B.C., after a possible ammonia leak at an arena in the community. Here is a list of some of the ammonia leaks at other Canadian arenas: April 2017: Three employees of an arena in Pownal, P.E.I. were sent to hospital after a leak caused by a faulty valve. No one was seriously hurt. January 2016: A leak in the ice-cooling system prompted the evacuation of the Jean-Paul Sabourin Arena in Gatineau, Que. No one was injured. September 2011: Two people were sent to hospital after a leak at what was then called the Scotiabank Place arena in Ottawa. The building was evacuated and no one sustained lasting injuries. May 2010: A leak at an arena in Fenelon Falls, Ont., forced an evacuation of the surrounding neighbourhood. About 20 homes were evacuated for a few hours, but no one was injured. February 2010: A leak at the Kings Arrow arena in Oromocto, N.B., sent three employees to hospital, but all were released unharmed

Page 106 of 160 July 1999: Officials evacuated the arena at the University of Western Ontario in London, Ont. About 100 children taking summer programs at the university had to leave the building. No injuries were reported. August 1997: Officials blamed vandals for damaging a valve at an arena in Saint John, N.B. The resulting leak forced police to evacuate the area, including about 50 residents from a nearby seniors home. One rink employee received minor injuries. June 1996: An ammonia leak at an arena next to Edmonton’s South Side Recreation Centre prompted an evacuation of the building. About 31 people were sent to hospital. November 1995: A school outing took a dangerous turn when a valve on an ice cooling system came loose at a Toronto arena. An employee sustained second-degree burns and dozens of children from a local school were sent to hospital as a precaution. None of the students were injured. June 1991: Ammonia leaking at an arena in Grand Prairie, Alta., forced the evacuation of about 325 people. This included students from local high schools in the middle of writing year-end exams. Officials said the leak was caused by maintenance workers who accidentally ruptured a cooling line.

2017 Fall Newsletter - The Township of Bonnechere Valley

Eganville Arena Renovations Few things last forever and at 50 years old our area was in need of some surgery. Despite living a healthy life and taking care, some things were just worn out with age. The ice surface was badly cracked and the circulation system used for freezing, was leaky and corroded. Other systems needed to be updated as well. Facing over a million dollars in must do repairs we started to apply for grants and lobby any ministry willing to listen. We were fortunate to have the assistance of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport through the Ontario 150 - Community Capital Program administered by the Ontario Trillium Foundation. This grant in the amount of $445,000 would help us undertake this project. This was their single largest grant for this sort of project this year. With the paperwork signed in January, we began the process of engineering work. Originally this large project was scheduled to be completed in time for the hockey and skating season. However, after the tenders came in, the schedule of work increased from the projections by three weeks causing a disruption to the start of the ice season. Luckily we were able to find other venues for our regular summer bookings and look forward to having them back next year. We thank everyone who is being inconvenienced for their patience and understanding. Also a big thank you to our neighbours for their generosity in providing ice time. That said, we are making every effort to get this job done as early as possible and there may be some good news in a few weeks. We are grateful to be making these improvements which will see our arena servicing the community for another 50 years!

Page 107 of 160

South Dundas

Morrisburg Arena renovations are behind schedule Monday, August 21, 2017 5:59:38 EDT PM MORRISBURG - The Morrisburg Arena — under construction since May — is a few weeks behind schedule. The delay is leaving hockey and skating programs in the village scrambling for ice time at other local arenas. So far, the project has consisted of removing the old boards, pads, glass, and concrete base. The delay in schedule was caused by a few variables, but primarily because years ago when the foundation of the rink was replaced, contractors poured a layer of concrete on top of the existing one. This corner-cutting move meant contractors working on the current project had a huge, thick layer of concrete slab to rip up, slowing the job down by three or four weeks, according to Municipality of South Dundas director of recreation and facilities Ben Macpherson. “You’re lucky if you’re on schedule with projects like these. It’s an older building … it took longer than we thought to remove that thick layer of concrete with pipes all throughout it,” he said. Right now, all the previous materials have been removed, and the cooling pipes have been laid into the floor of the arena. Next, concrete will be poured on top of the pipes during the first week of September—which will take a month to cool and harden properly before any next steps can be taken. After that tedious job, the cooling system will be tested, new boards and glass put up, and skate tile installed around the perimeter of the ice and in dressing rooms. Macpherson estimated the ice will be fully ready for skates by the week of Oct. 22, but the town’s skating and hockey programs all begin in mid-September, forcing clubs to temporarily move elsewhere. The Lions Junior C hockey team has found a space in Finch to host its home games for the time being, and minor hockey and figure skating teams are also turning to neighbouring communities to look for a temporary solution. “We’re working with local clubs to help them find spaces for the month,” said Macpherson.

Morrisburg Arena opens for use October 22nd October 19, 2017 P. Blancher – Leader staff News

MORRISBURG – After months of construction, the Morrisburg Arena will open for use October 22nd. The arena has been under construction since May as contractors for the municipality worked to replace the arena’s ice pad. “Contractors are working on the final touches now,” South Dundas director of recreation and facilities Ben Macpherson told The Leader. “October 22nd is the opening day.” The project began after South Dundas received an Ontario Trillium Foundation grant this spring for $315,000, and proceeded once the project tender process was complete. Guy Saumure and Sons Construction was awarded the contract for $795,000, which was higher than the original $630,000 budgeted by the municipality. That amount included the Trillium funding. In addition to the ice pad construction, a number of repairs were made to the facility including to the support columns. A final bill for the arena project is not yet available. “There have been no massive cost overruns,” said Macpherson. “I don’t expect any others when we get the final bill. There were no red flags on the last instalment invoice we received.” Construction started with removing the existing boards, salvaging the glass from the boards, and removing the old concrete ice pad. After months of preparation work, crews began to pour the new concrete ice pad September 5th. The pad needed to cure for a minimum of 28 days before the refrigeration plant could be turned on. Meanwhile other installations took place.

Page 108 of 160 New boards were installed. Improvements to the player benches and penalty box layout have been made. Crews were scheduled Wednesday to finish installing the board glass, 75 per cent of which was saved and reused from the old boards. With the project there were some changes integrated into the design of the ice pad. It is one foot shorter than before. “The east end does not butt against the arena wall now,” said Macpherson. “That means there will be a little give in the boards, it will absorb impacts a bit better. It will be easier on skaters.” In addition to changes in the rink’s length, the corner radius of the boards has increased. “That will help with the Zamboni cleaning the ice,” Macpherson said. He added it will not impact playing space or regulation size of the ice. Flooding of the ice began last Friday by staff, with Eastern Rink Services whitewashing the ice and painting lines. Flooding will continue until Saturday, with the first use scheduled for Sunday October 22nd. The renovations delayed the ice season for user groups. However the ice season will not be extended past the normal end of March run. “The ice season will end as normal,” said Macpherson. “It is expensive and there is no identified need to go past the end of March.” “There will be no restrictions on the use of the ice pad when the ice is not in,” said Macpherson. “It was designed with the understanding that it would be used off season for shows and other events.” The South Dundas Chamber of Commerce hosts its annual spring trade show in April at the arena after the ice has been removed. South Dundas will be holding an official unveiling of the project October 20th with officials from the Ontario Trillium Foundation, MPP Jim McDonnell, council and staff.

Page 109 of 160

REPORT TO COUNCIL TREASURY DEPARTMENT AGENDA DATE:

October 15th, 2019

SUBJECT:

2020 Capital Budget – Public Services and Arena

RECOMMENDATION: That Council provides feedback on the draft capital budget – for incorporation into the full budget to be tabled for Council consideration in late October. BACKGROUND: Attached is the draft capital budget document excluding items that were presented on October 8th under the non-Public Services capital projects. This version provides a listing of Public Services including Transportation, Environmental Services, Facilities Management and Recreation with the remaining items previously presented separately on October 8th. A separate page is included in the capital budget in relation to the Arena capital for 2020 and 2021. A separate report and presentation provides further details on the items listed. The items presented are in line with the target capital budget within the 10 year long range financial plan. This draft capital budget represents the listing received from all department heads, vetted by the CAO and Treasurer, and incorporating input from committees and Council. Further, some items are driven from replacement schedules which are funded by defined reserves (e.g. Public Works equipment reserve) The format of the Capital budget reflects the changes made in 2018 to provide further information on multi-year projects. The first two columns after the description will provide the years over which the project is anticipated to take place as well as the overall estimated project cost. The Director of Public Services will be available for any questions on the listed items. A separate presentation will also be provided by the Director to highlight specific items; however, that presentation does not necessarily reflect or balance to the full listing of capital items. Council feedback on the draft capital budgets will be incorporated into the full budget document that is tabled in late October. ATTACHMENTS

2020 Capital budget – Public Services and Arena

Submitted/approved/prepared by: Louise Fragnito, Director of Corporate Services & Treasurer Approved by: Neil Carbone, CAO

Our strength is our community.

Page 110 of 160

2020 CAPITAL BUDGET PROJECT

TOTAL

2020

YEAR(S)

PROJECT

BUDGET

PROPOSED FINANCING TAX LEVY

RESERVES

OTHER

1 TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 2 New Projects 3 4 5 6 7 8

New Truck/SUV - replace Truck 13-56 3/4 Ton Truck - replace Truck 12-52 Tandem Truck - Replace Tandem 01-14 Electronic Sign - Sydenham Road & Keeley Streetlights - New Guiderail Upgrades

2020 2020 2020 2020 2018-2029 2020-29

Linear Asset Construction-Villages/Local Roads/Arterial Roads (separate Listing)

10 Total

40,000 65,000 290,000 50,000 370,000 500,000

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

PW - Equipment Reserve PW - Equipment Reserve PW - Equipment Reserve Infrastructure Reserve Infrastructure Reserve Infrastructure Reserve

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

10,420,800 6,375,000 3,386,669 1,950,000

1,038,331

11,735,800 6,900,000 3,386,669 2,475,000

1,038,331

AIR 900,000 DCF 550,000 FGT 500,000 OCIF 508,412 County FGT 529,919

11 SYDENHAM WATER

Mechanical, instrumentation and eletrical upgrades (Utilites Kington recommended) 13 Total 14 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 15 Sanitation-Disposal 16 Salem WDS- Vegetation & Benthic Monitoring 17 Green Bay WDS - Additional Monitoring Wells 18 Sub-total 19 Total 12

2020

98,500

8,500 20,000 28,500 127,000

2020

30,000

Federal Gas Tax

2019-20

125,000

115,000

Facilities Reserve

2020

50,000

Facilities Reserve

2020 2020

98,500 Water Reserve 0

0 0

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

98,500

Infrastucture Reserve Infrastucture Reserve 0 98,500

20 21 TOWNSHIP FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 22 New Projects 23

Townhall - Charging Station for Electric Vehicles

Townhall - Accessible Entrance Ramp & Front Step

Townhall - Lower Floor renovations/reconfiguration & 25 furnace Verona Medical Clinic - Design 2nd floor accessible 26 entrance 27 Glendower Hall- Gravel Parking Lot Extension 28 Keeley Admin Office - Window Replacement 29 Radon Abatement - various facilities 30 Verona Fire Hall - Repairs to Septic System 31 Keeley Road Improvements 32 Total

2020

5,000

15,000 12,000 100,000 10,000 1,500,000 1,847,000

15,000 12,000 100,000 10,000 100,000 437,000

2020

100,000

2020

40,000

2019-2020

40,000

10,000

2020

10,000

2020 2020 2020 2020 2019-2021

Facilities Reserve Facilities Reserve Facilities Reserve Facilities Reserve Facilities Reserve Infrastructure Reserve 0

33 34 RECREATION 35 New Projects 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

Centennial Park - Ice Stock Dedicated Lanes Centennial Park - Resurface & Paint - Pickle Ball & Tennis Courts Gerald Ball Park - Resurface & Paint - Pickle Ball & Tennis Courts 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

Boat Launch Upgrades - Shipyards

Recreation Master Plan

49 Total - Recreation 50 51

TOTALS

Dev Charges Parkland Parkland Parkland

2020

25,000

2020 2020 2020

6,000 200,000 6,000

Infrastructure Reserve Parkland Infrastructure Reserve Parkland

2020

40,000

Parkland

2020

5,000

Parkland

2020

10,000

Parkland

2019-20

30,000

25,000

Parkland

2020

30,000 542,000

30,000 507,000

14,251,800 7,971,000 3,386,669 3,447,500

1,136,831

Dev Charges

Page 111 of 160 Year 2020 Linear Asset Construction Schedule Project

New Projects

Buck Bay Road Bridge Bunker Hill Road Bridge Carrying Place Road Deyos Road Fish Creek Road Bridge Hinchinbrooke Road Hinchinbrooke Road Culvert

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 Perth Road at Buck Lake - Design Petworth Road Road 38 at Portland WDS Sunbury Village Yarker Road and Wilton Road Intersection Hard Surface Preservation Arterial Reserve

Reconstruction from North Shore Crescent to Leland Rd Design for culvert replacement, Widen, Boat Launch Kerr Road to Road 38, Reconstruction Mill asphalt, Profile surface, Pave with Fibres Start 2019, Complete July 2020 Design for Roundabout Various Roads

Total

2020

Year(s) 2020 2020 2018 - 2020 2020 - 2021 2019-2020 2020 - 2021 2020

Project 550,000 110,000 867,300 400,000 795,900 846,200 345,000

Budget 550,000 110,000 165,000 110,000 770,000 440,000 345,000

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

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

660,000 50,000 660,000 86,000 1,150,000 50,000 1,129,000 100,000

10,420,800

6,375,000

Page 112 of 160

2020 CAPITAL BUDGET PROJECT

TOTAL

2020

YEAR(S)

PROJECT

BUDGET

PROPOSED FINANCING TAX LEVY

ARENA - based on grant submission to ICIP - separate report & presentation, pre-budget approval

Condenser Unit replacement/Tower upgrades Plate Heat Exchanger (Chiller System) Brine Pump Package Floor Flushing and glycol charge

Total 2020

3 4

2020 2020 2020 2020

120,000 150,000 25,000 10,000

305,000

RESERVES

OTHER

SF share

CF & Grant

48,007

256,993 Grant 73.33%/Central 10.93%/SF 15.74%

7 8 9 10

Arena floor/boards replacement Total 2021 Total 2020/2021

2021 2020/2021

1,000,000 1,000,000 1,305,000

157,400 157,400 205,407

842,600 842,600 1,099,593

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT Page 113 of 160

2020 CAPITAL BUDGET

FACILITIES

Page 114 of 160

2020 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT NEW PROJECTS TOWNHALL – CHARGING STATION FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES

30,000



TOWN HALL – ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE RAMP & FRONT STEP

115,000



TOWN HALL – LOWER FLOOR RENOVATIONS/ RECONFIGURATION& FURNACE

50,000



VERONA MEDICAL CLINIC – DESIGN 2ND FLOOR ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE

5,000



GLENDOWER HALL – GRAVEL PARKING LOT EXTENSION

15,000



KEELEY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE – WINDOW REPLACEMENT

12,000



VARIOUS FACILITIES – RADON ABATEMENT

100,000



VERONA FIRE HALL – REPAIRS TO SEPTIC SYSTEM

10,000



KEELEY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS  CARRY FORWARD

$ $

100,000 348,000

785,000

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT TOTAL

Page 115 of 160



TRANSPORTATION

Page 116 of 160

2020 TRANSPORTATION NEW PROJECTS 

ELECTRONIC SIGN – SYDENHAM ROAD & KEELEY ROAD

50,000



STREETLIGHTS

30,000



GUARDRAIL UPGRADES - NEW

50,000

130,000

TRANSPORTATION TOTAL

Page 117 of 160

EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT

Page 118 of 160

2020 EQUIPMENT NEW PROJECTS NEW TRUCK  REPLACE TRUCK 13-56

40,000

THREE QUARTER TON TRUCK  REPLACE TRUCK 12-52

65,000

TANDEM TRUCK  REPLACE TANDEM 01-14

290,000

745,000

EQUIPMENT TOTAL

Page 119 of 160

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Page 120 of 160

2020 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES NEW PROJECTS SYDENHAM WATER  MECHANICAL, INSTRUMENTATION & ELECTRICAL UPGRADES

98,500

$ $

8,500 20,000

SANITATION-DISPOSAL TOTAL

28,500

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES TOTAL

127,000

SYDENHAM WATER TOTAL SANITATION-DISPOSAL  SALEM WDS – VEGETATION & BENTHIC MONITORING  GREEN BAY WDS – ADDITIONAL MONITORING WELLS

Page 121 of 160

ROADS AND BRIDGES

Page 122 of 160

2020 ROADS AND BRIDGES NEW PROJECTS BUCK BAY ROAD BRIDGE – REPLACE AND WIDEN FOR TWO LANES

550,000



BUNKER HILL ROAD BRIDGE – REMOVAL, CLOSE ROAD AT STRUCTURE

110,000



CARRYING PLACE ROAD – COMPLETE DITCHING AND SURFACE ROAD, END TO FIRE HALL  CARRY FORWARD

165,000

254,000



DEYOS ROAD – COMPLETE DITCHING  CARRY FORWARD

$ $

110,000 85,000



FISH CREEK ROAD BRIDGE – DESIGN 2019-2020, REPLACE 2020 $

770,000



HINCHINBROOKE ROAD – DESIGN IN 2020, RELOCATE POLES, COMPLETE 2021

440,000



HINCHINBROOKE ROAD CULVERT – REPLACE 2020

345,000



NORTH SHORE ROAD – RECONSTRUCTION FROM NORTH SHORE CRESCENT TO LELAND ROAD

660,000

Page 123 of 160



2020 ROADS AND BRIDGES NEW PROJECTS CONTINUED 

PERTH ROAD AT BUCK LAKE – DESIGN FOR CULVERT REPLACEMENT, WIDEN, BOAT LAUNCH

50,000



PETWORTH ROAD – KERR ROAD TO ROAD 38, RECONSTRUCTION

660,000



ROAD 38 AT PORTLAND WDS – MILL ASPHALT, PROFILE SURFACE, PAVE WITH FIBRES

86,000



SUNBURY VILLAGE – START 2019, COMPLETE JULY 2020  CARRY FORWARD

$ 1,150,000 $ 980,000



YARKER ROAD AND WILTON ROAD INTERSECTION – DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUT



HARD SURFACE PRESERVATION – VARIOUS ROADS

$ 1,129,000



ARTERIAL RESERVE

100,000

$ 7,694,000

Page 124 of 160

ROADS AND BRIDGES TOTAL

50,000

RECREATION

Page 125 of 160

2020 RECREATION NEW PROJECTS CENTENNIAL PARK – ICE STOCK DEDICATED LANES

100,000



CENTENNIAL PARK – RESURFACE & PAINT-PICKLE BALL & TENNIS COURTS

40,000



GERALD BALL PARK – RESURFACE & PAINT-PICKLE BALL & TENNIS COURTS  CARRY FORWARD

10,000

30,000



POINT PARK – PAINT-PICKLE BALL  CARRY FORWARD

$ $

10,000 8,000



POINT PARK – PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO TENNIS COURT & PICKLE BALL

25,000



POINT PARK – ADDITIONAL DOCK FOR PADDLE SPORTS

6,000



DAVIDSON BEACH – ACCESS ROAD TO SWIM AREA

200,000



INVERARY BALL PARK – FIELD LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS

6,000

Page 126 of 160



2020 RECREATION NEW PROJECTS CONTINUED 

VARIOUS SITES – PLAYGROUND RUBBERIZED SURFACES & EQUIPMENT

40,000



BOWES/CENTENNIAL/POINT BALL DIAMONDS – DESIGN OF ACCESSIBLE WASHROOMS

5,000



BOWES/CENTENNIAL/POINT BALL DIAMONDS – LIGHTING KEY SWITCHES & TIMERS (SAFETY CONCERN)

10,000



BOAT LAUNCH UPGRADES – SHIPYARDS

25,000



RECREATION MASTER PLAN

30,000

507,000

RECREATION TOTAL

Page 127 of 160

Page 128 of 160

REPORT TO COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE:

October 15, 2019

REPORT DATE:

October 2, 2019

SUBJECT:

Kennel exemption from Noise By-law

RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the recommendation of the Development Services Committee that no amendments for exemptions be made to the Noise By-law or the Dog Control By-law at this time; And that the licensing and regulation of kennels be reviewed and included in future revisions to the Site Plan Control by-law. BACKGROUND: As a follow up to the June 18, 2019 Council meeting and the Notice of Motion from Councillor Revill, the Director of Development Services provided a report on the possible exemption for kennels under the Noise By-law 2015-41 and the Animal Control By-law 2001-66 at the Development Services Committee meeting held September 30, 2019. The issue of noise from an existing licensed kennel has prompted the request to review and provide alternatives. As By-law 2001-66, simply relates to the keeping of dogs, kennels and licensing the recommendation is not to amend this particular by-law. Excerpt from By-law 2015-41 – Noise By-law: Section 1 – Definitions c) “Clearly audible” shall mean a noise level that a reasonable person would, in all of the circumstances, consider to be excessive or unnecessary, or intrusive, or disturbing or unacceptable; o) “point of reception” means any point on a premises where noise from other than those premises is received; p)“residential area” means any area of the Municipality that is zoned residential in the Zoning By-law of the Municipality. An individual who asks about the requirements for a new kennel are required to confirm the zoning of their property and it is determined at that time whether their lot size can accommodate a kennel and meet the required setbacks from lot lines. The setback established in the South Frontenac Zoning By-law is 150 metres. A kennel is listed as a permitted use within the Rural (RU) zone. The Zoning By-law defines a Kennel as: “KENNEL” shall mean a building or structure for the care of four (4) or more dogs, cats or other domestic household pets where such animals are kept commercially for boarding, training, propagation, grooming or sale. 1 Our strength is our community.

Page 129 of 160

REPORT TO COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Under the Rural zone, there are special provisions in the Zoning By-law that establishes: No building or structure used for the housing, training or care of animals in conjunction with a kennel as defined in this By-law, shall be located less than 150 metres (492.1 ft.) from a residential zone or existing residential use. (s.7.3.1) On an ongoing basis, Frontenac Municipal Law Enforcement conduct site visits when there are concerns or complaints expressed about the operations of a kennel. It should be noted that this is a rare occurrence and in speaking with other staff members there has been a certain flexibility on the kennel guidelines as we live in a rural community where it is common to have several dogs and paying for a kennel license is more economical than purchasing individual dog tags. That said, there has been consistency with the prohibition of dogs running at large, the requirement for a kennel license if there are more than 6 dogs being boarded or lodged; all dogs over two months old must be licensed and the requirement to pick up any feces left by a dog on any property. Currently there are 18 licensed kennels in the township. The Development Services Committee considered the following in evaluating if kennel operations should be exempted from a noise by-law:     

If kennels are exempt from the noise by-law it lessens the basis to conduct inspections of kennels What has been the frequency of complaints against Kennels in the Township? If “kennel” is removed from the Noise By-law and there is a complaint, there will be no grounds for By-law Enforcement to undertake inspections when a noise complaint is filed. The Noise By-law includes definitions for a reasonable person, intrusive, excessive, and unnecessary as described in the Noise By-law. The current noise by-law does not define how “excess” will be measured for enforcement. Kennels must be licensed and comply with zoning. A setback of 150m is established in the zoning by-law to separate kennel and residential uses. Council could direct setbacks to be updated and to update the by-law to make kennels subject to site plan control. Site plan control could establish conditions on a new kennel to address noise issues at the source of noise.

FINANCIAL/STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: None at this time. ATTACHMENTS: None. Submitted by: Claire Dodds, Director of Development Services Approved by: Neil Carbone, CAO 2 Our strength is our community.

Page 130 of 160 Minutes of Heritage Committee June, 6, 2019 Time: 6:30 PM Location: Council Chambers

Present: Wilma Kenny, Chair, Councillor Pat Barr, Brad Barbeau, Michael Gemmell, Mark Millar, Stephanie Soto-Gordon Absent: David Jefferies Staff: Clair Dodds, Director of Development Services, Emily Caird, Executive Assistant 1.

Call to Order

The Chair called the meeting to order at 6:33 pm.

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof

There were no declarations of pecuniary interest.

Delegation

Ian MacLean - Board Member for Community Heritage Ontario The Chair introduced and welcomed Ian MacLean to the Committee. Mr. MacLean gave an overview of his background and heritage related experience. He explained that he was previously a property & facilities manager who since retiring in 1984, has worked as a museum specialist in Ottawa and the surrounding area with places such as; NHS Canada, the Museum of Nature, the Mississippi Textile Museum in Almonte, The Diefenbunker Museum, as well as a number of other historically driven institutions. Mr. MacLean then went on to note a number of resources available to the Committee, including but not limited to the following:        

Heritage Tool Kit Photo Record - Heritage Trust National Trust Canada Community Heritage Ontario Ontario Association of Architects Parks Canada ACO Website - Architectural Conservancy Ontario Ontario Association of Heritage Professionals

Mr. MacLean then gave an overview of the Annual Ontario Heritage Conference that had recently passed. He noted the various number of interesting workshops that took place and encouraged the Committee to partake in the conference should the opportunity ever arise. He noted that he would forward onto the Committee any presentation material that was shared with him. Claire Dodds inquired if Mr. MacLean had any words of wisdom or advice for a new Heritage Committee. Mr. MacLean noted that he encouraged the Committee to attend an orientation

Page 131 of 160 Minutes of Heritage Committee June, 6, 2019 workshop being held north of Brockville in the fall. He also provided a number of documents that he offered to the Committee for their resource library. Mr. MacLean spoke to the Committee about the importance of historic plaques and the lack of them throughout South Frontenac. He also noted that topics such as historical churches, cheese factories, archaeological sites, and historical structures that have undergone an adaptive re-use process may all be points of interest for this Committee. He encouraged the Committee to build their property listing prior to going through the designation process. Mr. MacLean explained that as a young Committee, it is important to identify properties and justify why they should be designated prior to going through the process. He also noted that with the introduction of Bill 108, the Committee will be required to notify property owners when adding a property to the list, of which the owner can appeal to Council. 4.

Approval of Minutes

May 2nd, 2019 Stephanie Soto-Gordon requested an amendment to the minutes from May 2nd, 2019. She noted that the list of industry professionals acquired from the City of Kingston was provided, but does not represent a list of recommendations by the City of Kingston. Resolution No. 2019-Heritage-06/06-1 Moved by Brad Barbeau Seconded by MIchael Gemmell THAT the minutes of the May 2, 2019 meeting were adopted by the Committee as amended. Carried

Business Arising from the Minutes

Report back from Committee Members - Local Places of Worship The Committee discussed the listing of historical and culturally significant churches that had been included in the agenda. Multiple members of the Committee noted that they were still in the process of collecting photographs and additional oral histories that could be added to the inventory. The Committee agreed that they would discuss the properties in more detail at the next meeting after everyone had the opportunity to gather more information on places of worship in the Township.

Resource Library Space - Town Hall Claire Dodds announced there is now a designated bookshelf outside her office that will house any information or material that the Committee feels is important to have available. Claire Dodds inquired with the Committee if there were any resources they felt important to have, as there were some funds available to acquire such items. Stephanie Soto-Gordon noted that she felt having the Meacham Atlas of 1878 would be an important staple.

Report from Wilma Kenny - Re-Imagining Places of Faith Workshop The Chair provided the Committee with an overview of the recent Re-Imagining Places of Faith Workshop she attended. She noted that the workshop focused on finding ways to keep places of worship open and economically viable through the creation of multi-use/multi-purpose spaces that could generate

Page 132 of 160 Minutes of Heritage Committee June, 6, 2019 revenue. The Chair explained that many places were turning their facility into a rent-able space open to community groups during the week, and still using it for services over the weekend. She noted that another local space within South Frontenac has added a commercial kitchen that they rent out as a means of revenue. Other spaces such as the Grace Center in Sydenham have preserved their exterior physical integrity, but changed the internal use and purpose. d)

Community Heritage Ontario Membership Claire Dodds notified the Committee that the Township had recently purchased a membership with Community Heritage Ontario. This will provide the Committee with access to additional resources such as newsletters, workshops taking place, and advice and support from individuals such as Mr. MacLean

New Business

Bill 108 and the Ontario Heritage Act Claire Dodds noted that Bill 108 had been given Royal Assent as of June 6, 2019. She explained that there would be changes within this bill that directly affect the Heritage Committee, in terms of appeals being handled by LPAT, and changes to the Heritage Registry requirements. Claire Dodds highlighted some of the changes for the Committee, which included the requirement to notify the property owner prior to adding their property to the registry or listing. The owner would then have the opportunity to object to having their property listed to Council. Council would then have to make a decision as to whether to include the property in question on the listing.

Creation of Heritage Registry Following Mr. MacLean’s presentation and the requirements as designated under Bill 108, the Committee discussed their next steps. It was determined that Committee members would continue to gather information for an inventory of historically and culturally significant properties throughout the Township. It was decided that the Committee would then identify a few properties of interest and do more involved research to build a fully developed profile on the property before moving towards the designation process. The Chair encouraged the Committee members to continue sending in their research to Emily Caird, with the intent of building the inventory for the next meeting. The Committee then discussed the importance of being transparent when gathering information for the inventory. Claire Dodds noted that the members are representatives of the municipality and that it is good practice to always be open and respectful of residents and their properties. The topic of hosting a South Frontenac Doors Open in 2020 was brought up and the Committee felt that this should be an agenda item for the next meeting.

Update from the South Frontenac Museum The Chair referenced the summary provided by David Jefferies. In his absence, the Chair encouraged everyone to review the on goings of the museum.

Next Meeting:

Page 133 of 160 Minutes of Heritage Committee June, 6, 2019 a)

Proposed Date of September 5 or 19, 2019 The Committee decided that the next Heritage Committee Meeting would take place Thursday September 19, 2019 at 6:30 pm in Council Chambers.

Adjournment:

Resolution Resolution No. 2019-Heritage-06/06-2 Moved by Michael Gemmell THAT the Heritage Meeting on June 6, 2019 be adjourned at 8:34 pm. Carried

Page 134 of 160 Minutes of Development Services August, 26, 2019 Time: 8:30 AM Location: Council Chambers

Present: Chair Councillor Sutherland, Councillor Norm Roberts, Councillor Randy Ruttan, Mayor Ron Vandewal Staff: Claire Dodds, Director of Development Services, Neil Carbone, Chief Administrative Officer, Angela Maddocks, Clerk 1.

Call to Order

Chairman Sutherland called the meeting to order at 8:30 am.

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof

There were no declarations.

Approval of Minutes

May 27, 2019 Resolution No. DSC-2019-08/26-01 Moved by Councillor Roberts Seconded by Councillor Ruttan That the minutes of the May 27, 2019 meeting be approved. Carried

Business Arising from the Minutes - n/a

New Business

Bill 108: More Homes, More Choice Act Claire Dodds reviewed the impacts of Bill 108 with respect to the Planning Act, Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act, the Development Charges Act and the Ontario Heritage Act. It was noted that the changes in the legislation will represent significant pressure on Council’s role and less ability to delay a decision to obtain more studies due to shortened timeframes to make decisions and reduced appeal rights for the public.

Streamlining Planning and Building Approval Processes Claire Dodds, explained that Development Services has been documenting the public demand for building and planning services over the past year. There is a high and increasing demand for the services offered in the Department which has been communicated to Council through quarterly building permit and planning activity reports. Over the past year efforts have been made to integrate planning and building services to assist internal and external customers and improve service levels. An ongoing review of opportunities for service delivery efficiencies and process improvement is regularly being pursued in the Department. The provincial changes to shorten Planning application approval timeframes and timeframes established in the Building Code to process permit applications, staff have identified that there is a need to implement process improvement and records management through software and other technology solutions.

Page 135 of 160 Minutes of Development Services August, 26, 2019 The recommendation is that the Township apply to both the RED and RII funding programs for a project we are calling ‘Streamlining Business and Housing Development in South Frontenac’. The project would generally involve the following: •Implementation of a new Development Permitting and CMS software solution which would pull planning and building files together within one system •Integrate permitting information with the County’s existing GIS (ESRI) system •Make a larger amount of GIS information publicly available through web-based viewers to aid developers, businesses and residents •Implement mobile technology (tablets/software) for building inspectors to reduce duplication of efforts in the office and in the field, provide clients with quick access to reporting electronically and ensure all data is being captured electronically within the new permitting system. Resolution No. DSC-2019-08/26-02 Moved by Councillor Roberts Seconded by Councillor Ruttan That the Development Services Committee support the Township’s application to the Rural Economic Development and Rural Innovation Initiative Programs for the service delivery improvements outlined in the Directors report dated August 22, 2019, and And that the Development Services Committee recommend that Council approve a pre-budget expenditure towards the project, subject to the receipt of funding through one or both of the programs. Carried c)

Pre-consultation By-law Claire Dodds noted that the Province recognized the importance of preconsultation on planning application, with amendments to the Planning Act under Bill 51 that was put into effect in 2007. The amendments included provisions under several sections of the Planning Act (sections 22(3.1)(b), 34(10.0.1)(b), 41(3.1)(b) and 51(16.1)(b) of the Planning Act), provide that Municipality may, by By-law, require applicants to pre-consult prior to submission of planning applications for Official Plan Amendments, Zoning Bylaw Amendments, Site Plan Agreements, Consent Applications, Plans of Subdivision and Plans of Condominium. She noted that while staff have set aside two days per week to have preconsultation meetings with potential applicants, there continues to be a percentage of applicants (mostly for Committee of Adjustment applications) where the applicant submits an application prior to speaking with staff and are unaware of study requirements or information required on the sketch to ensure the application is complete, these are the applications that consume more staff time to work with the applicant to obtain information that could have been identified if the applicant had pre-consulted with staff. Staff recommend that the cost for the pre-consultation would be paid up front and then discounted on the application fee when a complete application is submitted. The Committee was supportive of a pre-consultation by-law. Staff will use their judgement as some inquiries are not necessarily about planning applications but simply potential land sales questions. Claire Dodds estimated that about 80% of the consultations are for consent and minor variances applications. She suggested that the pre-consultation fee be considered as part of a larger planning application review. Resolution No. DSC-2019-08/26-03

Page 2 of 4

Page 136 of 160 Minutes of Development Services August, 26, 2019 Moved by Councillor Roberts Seconded by Councillor Ruttan That the Development Services Committee direct staff to prepare a preconsultation by-law for consideration by Council that will require applicants to formally pre-consult with township Planning staff prior to an application being considered complete. Carried d)

Official Plan - Open House Format Claire Dodds reviewed her report and the proposed format for open houses this fall that will begin the visioning and community consultation on the new Official Plan. The committee supported the proposed format and provided some suggestions with regard to the list of questions.

Micro Cannabis Operations Claire Dodds reviewed her report noting that currently there is nothing to restrict or regulate micro cannabis operations in the zoning by-law. There needs to be consideration for compatibility given that there may be odor and noise concerns with micro cannabis operations. This is a cultural shift which could also help the rural economy. The recommendation for a housekeeping zoning by-law amendment to be prepared includes the following: •Create a definition of Cannabis Production and Processing in the Zoning Bylaw. •Permit Cannabis Production and Processing as of right in the rural, agricultural and rural industrial zones, subject to provisions; •Create a new section in the General Provisions of the zoning by-law to regulate cannabis production and set minimum separation distances from sensitive land uses such as residences, parks, schools, daycares and community centres; and •Require larger setbacks for facilities operating under the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes with no air treatment control. Also: •Update the site plan control by-law to include cannabis production and processing facilities as a site plan control area; and •During Official Plan review establish policies so it is clear that Cannabis Production and Processing is permitted in Employment Areas (industrial), Rural and Agricultural Designations. Resolution No. DSC-2019-08/26-04 Moved by Mayor Vandewal Seconded by Councillor Ruttan That the Development Services Committee recommend that Council provide staff direction to prepare a housekeeping zoning by-law amendment and update to the site plan control by-law to regulate cannabis in South Frontenac. Carried

Licensing of Docks from Township Properties This item was not discussed due to time restrictions and will be placed on the September meeting agenda.

Noise By-law Exemption for Licensed Kennels This item was not discussed due to time restrictions and will be placed on the September meeting agenda.

Page 3 of 4

Page 137 of 160 Minutes of Development Services August, 26, 2019 6.

Next Meeting: September 30, 2019

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 am.

Page 4 of 4

Page 138 of 160 Minutes of Recreation Committee Meeting September, 9, 2019 Time: 7:00 PM Location: Council Chambers

Present: Councillor Roberts, Councillor Sutherland, Councillor Barr, Councillor Morey, Joanne Timmins, Toni Cochand, Karl Hammer, Andy Bryson, John Kot, Lee Dillabough, Roberta Smith, Mark Schjerning, Jill Kilgour, Linda Bates, Amanda Pantrey, Carol Sparling, Tracy Holland, Paul Wash. Audience – Mayor Vandewal. Absent: Annie Campbell, Heidi Traulsen, Shane Kidd, Donna Garland Staff: Tim Laprade - Recreation Supervisor, Jamie Brash - Facilities & Waste Management Supervisor, Mark Segsworth, Director of Public Services, Emily Caird Executive Assistant. 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.

Welcome & Introductions

Introduction of Committee Members & their Stream Tim Laprade provided an overview of the Agenda for the evening and then had each person introduce themselves and their committee stream.

Introduction of Staff and their Role Tim Laprade noted that Jamie Brash would be the staff contact for the Recreation and Leisure Committee, while he would be the staff liaison for the Community Programming Committee. He then gave an overview of what each committee would be involved in and their capacity in relation to providing Council with input and recommendations.

Business Arising from Previous

New Committee’s structures/functions Tim Laprade reviewed the Committee reporting structures and looked at the various sub-committees that will report to these new functional committees. Tim explained that the new Functional Committees will work with the small committees to compile important information that they will then report back to Council.

Attendance Process Tim Laprade went over the attendance process with the Committee members and explained that they would be required to sign in at each meeting they attend.

Terms of Reference  Honorariums and Mileage - Banking information required

Page 139 of 160 Minutes of Recreation Committee Meeting September, 9, 2019 Tim Laprade explained that this is a trial period and that the structure and functionality of the Committee will be reviewed in September of 2020. Tim Laprade noted that there will be some information that Committee members will have to provide in terms of banking and contact information. d)

Meeting Frequency - Times & locations Tim Laprade noted that the Terms of Reference indicates a minimum of 4 meeting per year, however, the meeting frequency beyond that will depend on what is happening during the year for each committee. He explained that these will not all be traditional meetings, but may possibly include holding public input open houses, information gathering outings, or even attending events in the area and talking to residents.

Agenda Template Tim provided the public with a template for possible items that may be on the agenda or will be brought to the committee for discussion. He explained that the goal of both committees is to constantly be thinking of community needs, and bring those needs to each meeting. Mark Schjerning inquired about how the meeting schedule will rotate and their locations. Tim explained that our goal is to spread it out across the various communities, but it will also depend on the availability of facilities.

New Business

Committee Objectives & Deliverables - On the horizon for the Committees          

Community Engagement strategy Asset management plan Current Capital and Operating items for 2019 and potential for 2020 Volunteer recruitment and retention strategy User Fees Canada Day Fireworks Facility booking Volunteer award program Event support and attraction Event planners guide

Tim Laprade spoke to a number of items in relation to Committee objectives. He noted that one of the first goals will be to engage with individuals on how to obtain the best feedback, and on how to best meet the needs of the community and their recreational desires. Tim Laprade explained that asset management is currently a project that the municipality is focusing on and the Committee will need to focus on this element as well when working with Council to move projects and initiatives forward. Also on the horizon is a Recreation Master Plan, which will help to set the direction for South Frontenac over the next 20 years. This will aid in the utilization of municipal spaces and facilities. Norm Roberts inquired about the possibility of doing a tour across the Township so that every Committee member is familiar with all South Frontenac facilities. Tim Laprade agreed that this was a great idea. Linda Bates wants to ensure that all members from both committees will be included in the bus tour

Page 140 of 160 Minutes of Recreation Committee Meeting September, 9, 2019 as it is vital for community planning to know what is at each facility. Tim Laprade noted that the Township currently utilizes a software for swim and day camp registrations, but that the software has the capacity to let residents book a facility online. This is an option that the municipality wants to explore with the intention of having an online portal where the public can book facilities. Tim Laprade explained that the topic of Canada Day fireworks and the number of shows will be addressed in the next year. He noted that the Committee will look at the various options and make a recommendation as to what is best for the community. Tim Laprade briefly explained that the Committees will also be looking at how the Township can provide more event support. He noted that the municipality is consistently receiving requests to host more events and festivals such as the Lakes and Trails Festival and the Pumpkin Festival. The Committee will look at how to make South Frontenac more attractive for people to host and attend events. Tim Laprade noted that there is room to grow South Frontenac’s Tourism industry, which in turn will improve accommodation options in the area. Tim Laprade noted that a key to success with both Committees will be their ability to engage with the community and share their needs. He asked the Committee members what ideas/topics they had heard recently. Members of both Committees mentioned the following items:       

  

Community pool Skate park Splash pad Second arena Another dog park at the Storrington Centre More museums New website looks great, more opportunities to utilize it and host a volunteer portal through the website. People looking to volunteer can go there to look for opportunities or for the Committee to search for volunteers (i.e. High school kids). Once more events are occurring, there may be an influx of new people volunteering. Earth day clean up - joint effort between local schools and Committee Members Use the arena in the summer to do a scooter skate night with ramps for scooters & roller blades. Host one Canada Day hub on the Township’s website as opposed to separate individual sites for each event/location.

Carol Sparling inquired about the studies and surveys that were done in each district as they may still have valid information that can be used. Tim Laprade noted that there is definitely an opportunity to look at previous data collected and see if these interests are still valid. Tim Laprade also noted that the Skate Park feasibility study is to be completed within the next few weeks. This will provide us with community feedback as well as the ideal locations for a skate park and the operational and capital costs associated with the implementation of a skate park. Mayor Vandewal inquired if part of the Committee’s capacity will include looking at which projects provide the most good for the most number of people. He noted that it is important to identify community needs, as fiscal responsibility still needs to be a priority as well. Tim Laprade agreed and explained to the committee that it is their job to provide Council with strong rationale and information to help them make

Page 141 of 160 Minutes of Recreation Committee Meeting September, 9, 2019 informed decisions. Councillor Sutherland inquired about the collection of data on current facility and park usage, and what locations are seeing the most traffic. Tim Laprade noted that there is a dedicated resource to organizing our facility bookings, which means we can categorize what areas are getting the most use, which are making the most revenue, and which one are costing us the most to operate. Drop ins or non-booked events are not being tracked. John Kot inquired about staff resources and what the role of Committee members is in terms of determining community needs. Tim Laprade explained that the Committee will take on the role of engaging residents through surveys, petitions, networking, and delegations. The second element will be for Staff to take that information and research what other municipalities are doing to make their initiatives work. Mark Segsworth explained that it is the Townships hope that many of these needs and wants will come out of the recreational master plan process. The vision is that this committee will act as ambassadors for that plan and helping to move it forward, make it accurate, and then implement and measure the outputs and outcomes. Councillor Morey noted that he felt being on either of these Committees means that members will have a more active role than previous committee structures. He noted that the expectation is not to pound the pavement every day, but to communicate with contacts is other groups, sit in on their meetings, listen to others ideas, and bring it back to these Committees for support. Councillor Morey also inquired in there would be interaction between the two committees moving forward and how that would work. Tim Laprade explained that there could be a topic or event that may require both committees to work together, but it would be determined on a case by case basis. b)

Tim Laprade noted that it was budget season and that the following capital and operational budget items would be submitted based on the previous recreation committee’s feedback: 

Pickleball - proposing to support this by doing resurfacing at Centennial Park.



Ice Stock - This sport is starting to expand and the Township appears to be a hot spot for enthusiasts. There is a possibility of South Frontenac hosting the American Cup 2021 which would be a great opportunity for increased tourism and economic development. Tim Laprade explained that as part of the budget process, the Township is looking at a dedicated ice stock facility or surface as it is quite different from asphalt and poses some conflicts with Pickleball as the two sports have different surface needs. A local group is looking at grants as well. This surface can still be utilized for other purposes and events.



Exploring opportunities to support paddle sports communities - regatta support and building extensions on the docks to accommodate these activities.



Yearly Play Structure evaluations and upgrades to ensure safety and accessibility.



Boat launch upgrades



Inverary Ball park lighting upgrades.

Page 142 of 160 Minutes of Recreation Committee Meeting September, 9, 2019 

The Storrington Centre continues to be upgraded.



Gerald Ball courts - we are waiting another year before we can resurface the court. It will accommodate basketball, tennis, and pickleball.

Tracy Holland noted that there is need to upgrade many township structures and facilities, but tax payers don’t want to see their taxes go up too much. She inquired if there will be a dedicated staff resource that will look for grants and submit applications. Tim Laprade noted that there is currently no dedicated resource at the moment, but the topic of grant applications is something that staff want to explore. Councillor Roberts expressed concerns with the new Committees not having the opportunity to provide their input on the Capital budget items. Tim Laprade explained that unfortunately the creation of these committees and budgetary timelines did not match up well this year. He noted that everything on the budget was brought forward from previous committee concepts, or community requests. Councillor Barr inquired about the status of projects budgeted for 2019 at Glendower hall. She noted that Bedford appeared underrepresented in the Capital budget items discussed previously. Tim Laprade explained that painting at Glendower was most likely an operational item and assured the Committees that at each meeting moving forward, there will be a section on standing items. Both Paul Wash and Councillor Sutherland noted that at this point, both Committees need to put faith in the previous committees and go with what they decided. Let’s follow the protocol and trust in the process. Staff agreed that both Committees would meet jointly on October 7 to review these budget items once more. It was also decided that Tim Laprade would send out a listing of the Capital Budget items to the Committee in advance of the meeting. 6.

Next Meeting:

Community Programming & Events Committee

Recreation & Leisure Facilities Committee It was determined that both Committees would meet jointly on October 7, 2019 in advance of capital budget decisions. The location is TBA. The group briefly discussed the possibility of having a bus tour in advance of the next meeting so that members could familiarize themselves with each of the parks and facilities. All felt there was merit in this but decided it was not possible before the October 7th meeting.

Announcements:

Community Events Karl Hammer announced that the Annual Bubba Bowl is on October 11 in Sydenham. He noted that the community will be full and encouraged everyone to attend. Amanda Pantry reminded everyone that the 25th Annual Pumpkin Festival is on October 5, and that they are still in need of volunteers should anyone be looking to help out.

Page 143 of 160 Minutes of Recreation Committee Meeting September, 9, 2019 Mayor Vandewal noted that he hoped this Committee focuses on the big picture for South Frontenac, as these Committees will help to build the future and focus on providing Council with input and guidance.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 pm

Page 144 of 160

Payment Listing For the period of October 2, 2019 to October 15, 2019

Accounts Payable Payment Listing:

455,409.67 For the period of October 2, 2019 to October 15, 2019

Payroll Payment Listing: Pay Period #19-21

Pay date October 9, 2019

98,302.68

For the period of September 22, 2019 to October 5, 2019 Volunteer Firefighters

Pay date October 15, 2019

98,870.95

For the period of July 1 to September 30, 2019

Total Payments

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that Council receive for information the listing of the Accounts Payable and Payroll for the period ending October 15, 2019 in the amount of

553,712.35

Submitted by: Mark Foster - Accounting Clerk Approved by: Tracey Pritchard - Acting Deputy Treasurer

553,712.35

System:

2019-10-10

User ID:

mfoster

Ranges: Cheque Date:

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

10:34:29 AM

From: 2019-10-02

To: 2019-10-15

Page:

Page 145 of 160

Distribution Types Included: PURCH, MISC

10 GG 1000 Cheque 070536

Date

Inv #

2019-10-15 152534

Total 070536 EFT000000012161

2019-10-15

Vendor

Description

WESTBURY NATIONAL SHOW SYSTEMS Delegate Unit-Conf. System

Amount $1,114.27 $1,114.27

CULLIGAN 96833TI 2624932

Total EFT000000012161 EFT000000012175 2019-10-15

Water Cooler Rental

274876

HAVEN HOME ENTERPRISE INC Diagnostic on AC

26659597

SUPERIOR PROPANE INC. 1564.4L @.45

TROUSDALE’S FOODLAND Cleaning Supplies

Total EFT000000012175 EFT000000012204 2019-10-15 Total EFT000000012204 EFT000000012211 2019-10-15 Total EFT000000012211 EFT000000012213 2019-10-15

$11.56 $10.12 $21.68 $100.74 $100.74 $765.72 $765.72 $7.92 $7.92

TRUE ELECTRIC 6904

Change Lamps

Total EFT000000012213

Total

$203.52 $203.52

$2,213.85

1210 CAO Cheque EFT000000012170

Date

Inv #

2019-10-15 8666

Vendor

Description

GALLAGHER MCDOWALL ASSOCIATES Compensation RevLHw

Total EFT000000012170

Total CAO

Amount $748.58 $748.58

$748.58

1250 Clk Cheque 070535 Total 070535 EFT000000012211

Date

Inv #

2019-10-15

Vendor

Description

Amount

TROPHY HOUSE 6692

5X Name Plates + 5X Holders

1612 8355 8342

TROUSDALE’S FOODLAND Milk+Cream+ Apples + Treats Cream + Milk Coffee+ Cream

2019-10-15

Total EFT000000012211

$178.08 $178.08 $28.60 $8.57 $23.97 $61.14

Total Clk

$239.22

Total GG

$3,201.65

20 PP&P 2100 Fire Cheque 070524 Total 070524 070530 Total 070530 070531

Total 070531 070532

Date

Inv #

2019-10-15

KINGSTON FIRE AND RESCUE NFPA 1021 Course K.R.

FUEL-19/09/18

JOHN TOPPERS MARKET Fuel

1382984 1401721

SNC-LAVALIN GEM ONTARIO INC. Consulting Consulting

2019-10-15

Amount $279.84 $279.84 $865.91 $865.91 $580.03 $610.56 $1,190.59

SNIDER, PERCY

2019-10-15

Grass Cutting

30827

BOULTON SEPTIC/LARMON’S Holding Tank Pumped

A2410441 A2408065

ABELL PEST CONTROL INC. 19/09 Pest Control 19/09 Pest Control

1-252368

BELL MOBILITY (RADIO DIVISION) 19/10 Site Rental

2245 2245 2245 2245 2245

CAMERON MECHANICAL Repairs Repairs Repairs Repairs Repairs

Total EFT000000012139 EFT000000012140 2019-10-15

Total EFT000000012140 EFT000000012147 2019-10-15 Total EFT000000012147 EFT000000012152 2019-10-15

Total EFT000000012152 EFT000000012156 2019-10-15

Description

4872

19/09/27-02 Total 070532 EFT000000012139

Vendor

CANADIAN SAFETY EQUIPMENT

$128.22 $128.22 $244.22 $244.22 $50.80 $41.18 $91.98 $328.00 $328.00 $1,453.13 $228.96 $91.58 $91.58 $778.46 $2,643.71

System:

2019-10-10

User ID:

mfoster

10:34:29 AM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 44821-1

Total EFT000000012156 EFT000000012169 2019-10-15

Gloves

131775

FRASSO AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE Brakes

KS26158 KS26191 KS26148 KP66568

KENWORTH ONTARIO - KINGSTON Safety+ Various Repairs Safety + Emerg. Light Safety+ 2X Muffler Straps Coolant

Total EFT000000012169 EFT000000012179 2019-10-15

Total EFT000000012179 EFT000000012181 2019-10-15

Page:

Page 146 of 160 $146.53 $146.53 $1,691.25 $1,691.25 $2,033.87 $428.61 $659.63 $41.31 $3,163.42

LEONARD FUELS 1057-1029366 1057-1030032 1057-1030143 1057-1033679 1057-1036532 1057-1035625 1057-1035403 1057-1037678 1057-1042784 1057-1039691 1057-1040101 1057-1040199 1057-1040200 1057-1040201 1057-1042785 1057-1042916 1057-1043154 1057-1043525 1057-1043856 1057-1043954

Total EFT000000012181 EFT000000012182 2019-10-15

68.06L @1.0964 66.20L @1.1230 74.87L @1.1230 75.72L @1.0522 68.06L @1.1053 62.12L @1.0522 38.47L @1.123 74.85L @1.0522 55.05L @1.0611 55.05L @1.0611 82.32L @1.0522 43.75L @1.0522 12.56L @1.0522 58.04L @1.0522 110.62L @1.0522 31.69L @1.0611 85.00L @1.0522 40.72L @1.0434 40.72L @1.0434 Lubes

19/09/17-47

LEONARD, ELIZABETH Cleaning

2101349612 2101378130 2101350902

MESSER CANADA INC. Oxygen Cylinder Utilization Fee Oxygen

156995

M&L SUPPLY, FIRE & SAFETY Glove

Total EFT000000012182 EFT000000012183 2019-10-15

Total EFT000000012183 EFT000000012186 2019-10-15 Total EFT000000012186 EFT000000012193 2019-10-15

$75.93 $74.30 $84.01 $79.53 $75.17 $65.25 $43.19 $78.62 $58.32 $42.77 $86.47 $45.94 $13.20 $60.96 $116.19 $33.58 $89.26 $42.41 $54.25 $65.65 $1,285.00 $60.00 $60.00 $444.00 $109.90 $349.12 $903.02 $144.20 $144.20

PRINCESS AUTO 1302660 1304839

Total EFT000000012193 EFT000000012194 2019-10-15

4X Wheel Chock+2X Masks+Reel Assorted Supplies

$140.36 $211.53 $351.89

PRODECAL LTD 8668

Total EFT000000012194 EFT000000012198 2019-10-15

199X Navy Cotton Tees

11435

R. THURSTON TECHNOLOGIES 19/10-19/12 Tower Rental

26592484

SUPERIOR PROPANE INC. 394.8L @.45

6083-564191 6083-560971 6083-561200 6083-565605

TOWN AND COUNTRY AUTO SUPPLY Fluid Film Fluid Film Bulb 2X Fire Truck Light

18676

UNITY SOD FARM LTD. 3X Blue Spruce Trees

Total EFT000000012198 EFT000000012204 2019-10-15 Total EFT000000012204 EFT000000012210 2019-10-15

Total EFT000000012210 EFT000000012214 2019-10-15 Total EFT000000012214

Total Fire

$2,956.64 $2,956.64 $381.60 $381.60 $193.24 $193.24 $126.61 $49.19 $10.25 $172.99 $359.04 $2,044.61 $2,044.61

$19,452.91

2105 Pub Ed Cheque EFT000000012186

Date

Inv #

2019-10-15 156997

Vendor

Description

M&L SUPPLY, FIRE & SAFETY 2XLED Light Kits+2XCO Monitor

Total EFT000000012186

Total Pub Ed

Amount $894.56 $894.56

$894.56

2605 Build Cheque 070537 Total 070537 EFT000000012148

Date

Inv #

2019-10-15

Vendor

Description

1049092

WORKPLACE SAFETY & PREVENTION SERVICES Ergo Assessment C.B.

36005

BLACK DOG TIRE & LUBRICANTS 4X Tires

2019-10-15

Total EFT000000012148

Total Build

Amount $356.16 $356.16 $838.50 $838.50

$1,194.66

2625 Lvstck Cheque

Date

Inv #

Vendor

Description

Amount

System:

2019-10-10

User ID:

mfoster

070515 Total 070515 EFT000000012196

10:34:29 AM

2019-10-15

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT BARTSCH, JACK & LISA 19/07/18-LIVESTOCK 19/07/18-LIVESTOCK

2019-10-15

Page:

Page 147 of 160 $967.68 $967.68

REDDEN, JOSEPH 956266 956266 956266

2X Livestock 2X Livestock 2X Livestock

Total EFT000000012196

$100.00 $9.90 $66.18 $176.08

Total Lvstck

$1,143.76

Total PP&P

$22,685.89

30 Trans 3000 PW OH Cheque EFT000000012142

Date

Inv #

2019-10-15

Vendor

Description

C14258-1019

ALLIANCE WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS 19/10 Answering Services

6512

TROUSDALE’S FOODLAND Sandwichs+Fruits+Veg+Squares

Total EFT000000012142 EFT000000012211 2019-10-15 Total EFT000000012211

Total PW OH

Amount $292.79 $292.79 $55.95 $55.95

$348.74

3005 RdAdmOH Cheque EFT000000012147

Date

Inv #

2019-10-15 1-252368

Vendor

Description

BELL MOBILITY (RADIO DIVISION) 19/10 Site Rental

Total EFT000000012147

Total RdAdmOH

Amount $295.38 $295.38

$295.38

3010 Cheque 070519 Total 070519 070525

Total 070525 070532

Date

Inv #

2019-10-15

Vendor

1046

DAVE BENNETT MOBILE AUTOGLASS Windshield

711492795 711478055

LAFARGE CANADA INC Gabion Stone Gabion Stone

2019-10-15

Flagging Flagging Flagging Flagging

30817 30816

BOULTON SEPTIC/LARMON’S Flagging Flagging

70397303 70525488

AIR LIQUIDE CANADA INC. Oxygen Oxygen

INV62736

ARMSTRONG MONITORING Calibration of Exhaust Sensor

6629

ASSELSTINE HARDWARE Hitch Pins+ Clips+ Snap Hooks

24232012 24232012 24232261

BATTLEFIELD EQUIPMENT RENTALS Roller Rental Roller Rental Survey Rod

36401 35375 36721 36576

BLACK DOG TIRE & LUBRICANTS 4X Tires Tire Service Call- Tire Change Service Call- Tire Change

1909-004

BRICAZA CORPORATION Winter Sand

Total EFT000000012139 EFT000000012141 2019-10-15

Total EFT000000012141 EFT000000012143 2019-10-15 Total EFT000000012143 EFT000000012144 2019-10-15 Total EFT000000012144 EFT000000012145 2019-10-15

Total EFT000000012145 EFT000000012148 2019-10-15

Total EFT000000012148 EFT000000012149 2019-10-15 Total EFT000000012149 EFT000000012151 2019-10-15

Amount $391.78 $391.78 $696.55 $338.19 $1,034.74

SNIDER, PERCY 19/09/18-11 19/09/17-10 19/09/16-09 19/09/25-21

Total 070532 EFT000000012139

Description

CAMECH INDUSTRIAL INC. 34863-CORRECTION 30’ Hose Guard - Correction 34863-CORRECTION 30’ Hose Guard - Correction

Total EFT000000012151 EFT000000012154 2019-10-15 22126892-00 Total EFT000000012154 EFT000000012157 2019-10-15

CANADIAN BEARINGS LTD. 2X Ball Bearing Insert

$312.66 $478.53 $478.53 $478.53 $1,748.25 $799.83 $1,483.66 $2,283.49 $35.32 $34.19 $69.51 $254.40 $254.40 $30.97 $30.97 $2,099.00 $2,099.00 $75.47 $4,273.47 $1,016.27 $830.17 $129.13 $73.16 $2,048.73 $62,874.45 $62,874.45 $4.51 $4.51 $9.02 $222.43 $222.43

CINTAS 884294237 884294237 884294236 884294236 884292336

Uniform Cleaning Supplies Uniform Cleaning Supplies Uniform

$10.16 $71.61 $33.72 $204.73 $33.72

System:

2019-10-10

User ID:

mfoster

10:34:29 AM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 884292336 884292337 884292337

Total EFT000000012157 EFT000000012158 2019-10-15

Page:

Page 148 of 160

Cleaning Supplies Uniform Cleaning Supplies

$122.09 $10.16 $32.37 $518.56

Hose

$396.86 $396.86

Machine Rental

$483.36 $483.36

CLEAN ONTARIO 59409

Total EFT000000012158 EFT000000012163 2019-10-15

DIG’N DIRT LTD. 1452

Total EFT000000012163 EFT000000012165 2019-10-15 9412 Total EFT000000012165 EFT000000012166 2019-10-15

D.MARTIN WELDING & FABRICATING Weld Bracket

$639.05 $639.05

DRAPER DOORS 14803

Total EFT000000012166 EFT000000012167 2019-10-15

Replace Door Operator

$1,556.93 $1,556.93

8X Culverts+ 6X Couplers

$14,594.62 $14,594.62

HUBB CAP 1018540

Total EFT000000012167 EFT000000012168 2019-10-15

FISH, DOROTHY 6010

Cleaning

56946 57187

GIN-COR INDUSTRIES INC 4X Quick Disconnect M+F Tyrone Tandem Pump

P220558 P220559 P220557

GRAND & TOY LIMITED Drawer Organizer Keyboard Gel Rest Office Supplies

15182 15181

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

9307066109

KENT AUTOMOTIVE 43 Series Fittings

19/09/28-46

LEONARD, ELIZABETH Cleaning

2101378237 2101131267 2101350241

MESSER CANADA INC. Cylinder Utilization Fee 2X Nozzles + 2X Gas Diffuser Gases

19/08/31

LOUIS W BRAY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Payment Cert. #1

5198276 5200136 5200137 5200100

ONTARIO HOSE SPECIALTIES LIMITED Hose + Rags Hose Assembly 2X Ratchet Load Binder Hose Assembly

Total EFT000000012168 EFT000000012171 2019-10-15

Total EFT000000012171 EFT000000012172 2019-10-15

Total EFT000000012172 EFT000000012176 2019-10-15

Total EFT000000012176 EFT000000012178 2019-10-15 Total EFT000000012178 EFT000000012182 2019-10-15 Total EFT000000012182 EFT000000012183 2019-10-15

Total EFT000000012183 EFT000000012185 2019-10-15 Total EFT000000012185 EFT000000012188 2019-10-15

Total EFT000000012188 EFT000000012191 2019-10-15

$320.00 $320.00 $434.03 $1,526.95 $1,960.98 $17.05 $29.14 $99.26 $145.45 $122.11 $162.82 $284.93 $293.37 $293.37 $300.00 $300.00 $68.18 $70.50 $276.44 $415.12 $184,186.41 $184,186.41 $125.77 $65.22 $109.40 $166.26 $466.65

PETRIE FORD 278269 278269 278638

Total EFT000000012191 EFT000000012195 2019-10-15

Back Up Alarm + Bulb 2X Lights+2X Grommets Brake Cleaner + Anti Freeze

$46.31 $52.97 $104.20 $203.48

Shipping -Trillium Municipal

$38.69 $38.69

PUROLATOR INC. 442577267

Total EFT000000012195 EFT000000012200 2019-10-15 38741

SELECT DOOR AND FRAME ABUS Key

5769

SIMMONS PLUMBING & PUMP SERV. Replace Boilers 50%

S-0061135 S-0061298 S-0061298 S-0061298 S-0061298 S-0061298 S-0061261 S-0061261

SWEET’S SAND & GRAVEL Gravel Gravel Gravel Gravel Gravel Gravel Gravel Gravel

2446 2442 2441 2440 2439 2438

SYDENHAM LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS Truck Rental Truck Rental Truck Rental Truck Rental Truck Rental Truck Rental

355340KI 353956KI

RUSH TRUCK CENTRES Gasket Valve + O Ring

Total EFT000000012200 EFT000000012201 2019-10-15 Total EFT000000012201 EFT000000012205 2019-10-15

Total EFT000000012205 EFT000000012207 2019-10-15

Total EFT000000012207 EFT000000012208 2019-10-15

$79.00 $79.00 $13,483.20 $13,483.20 $125.31 $4,432.22 $2,111.34 $122.07 $243.49 $2,102.08 $9,036.11 $1,559.76 $19,732.38 $732.67 $773.38 $854.78 $773.38 $814.08 $936.19 $4,884.48 $38.87 $66.28

System:

2019-10-10

User ID:

mfoster

10:34:29 AM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 355370KI

Total EFT000000012208 EFT000000012209 2019-10-15

Tee ML

WO040659508

TOROMONT INDUSTRIES LTD. 500 HR Service

1656 9690 4946. 4466

TROUSDALE’S FOODLAND Water Water Plastic Spoons Water

97320 96952

TROUSDALE’S HOME HARDWARE Weed Barrier+ Key+ Batteries Builders Hardware

173-249640 173-249582 173-249229 511-312371 173-249304 173-249317 511-312380 173-248812

UNIVERSAL SUPPLY GROUP Nut + Spindel Relay Valve Coreless Valve 4X Filters Drum Kit Relay Valve Oil Box Lamp + 2X Pigtails

130189 130189

WHITE’S WEARPARTS LTD Grader Blades Grader Blades

Total EFT000000012209 EFT000000012211 2019-10-15

Total EFT000000012211 EFT000000012212 2019-10-15

Total EFT000000012212 EFT000000012215 2019-10-15

Total EFT000000012215 EFT000000012219 2019-10-15

Total EFT000000012219

Total

Page:

Page 149 of 160 $11.42 $116.57 $1,964.89 $1,964.89 $19.96 $251.16 $1.12 $39.92 $312.16 $61.00 $13.13 $74.13 $1.93 $180.10 $46.78 $268.10 $290.01 $89.52 $120.85 $61.41 $1,058.70 $1,016.64 $2,819.29 $3,835.93

$327,587.14

3201 Villg Beau Cheque EFT000000012212

Date

Inv #

2019-10-15 96438

Vendor

Description

TROUSDALE’S HOME HARDWARE 2X Cement Mixer

Total EFT000000012212

Total Villg Beau

Amount $508.80 $508.80

$508.80

3206 Mowing Cheque 070532

Date

Inv #

2019-10-15

Vendor

Description

Amount

SNIDER, PERCY 19/09/17-05 19/09/10-13

Roadside Mowing Mowing Ditches

Total 070532

Total Mowing

$839.52 $763.20 $1,602.72

$1,602.72

3215 Drainage Cheque 070525

Date

Inv #

2019-10-15 711532572

Total 070525 070532

2019-10-15

Vendor

LAFARGE CANADA INC Gabion Stone

Amount $348.65 $348.65

SNIDER, PERCY 19/09/19-12 19/09/26-22 19/09/23-19 19/09/21-20

Total 070532 EFT000000012145

Description

2019-10-15

Flagging Flagging Flagging Flagging

24232080

BATTLEFIELD EQUIPMENT RENTALS Tamper Rental

315019

COCO PROPERTIES CORP Gravel

7303

G WILLIAMS PAVING LTD 2X Road Cuts-Washburn

S-0061260 S-0061261

SWEET’S SAND & GRAVEL Cat Hoe Rental Gravel

2447

SYDENHAM LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS Truck Rental

Total EFT000000012145 EFT000000012159 2019-10-15 Total EFT000000012159 EFT000000012173 2019-10-15 Total EFT000000012173 EFT000000012205 2019-10-15

Total EFT000000012205 EFT000000012207 2019-10-15 Total EFT000000012207

Total Drainage

$514.14 $277.04 $478.53 $478.53 $1,748.24 $1,662.38 $1,662.38 $250.66 $250.66 $4,615.83 $4,615.83 $1,546.75 $3,655.41 $5,202.16 $732.67 $732.67

$14,560.59

3310 Hardtop Patching Cheque EFT000000012220

Date

Inv #

2019-10-15 4100

Vendor

Description

WILLIAMS HOT MIX LTD 34.48MT Hot Mix

Total EFT000000012220

Total Hardtop Patching

Amount $3,421.53 $3,421.53

$3,421.53

3405 Washout Cheque

Date

Inv #

Vendor

Description

Amount

System:

2019-10-10

User ID:

mfoster

10:34:29 AM

EFT000000012205

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

2019-10-15 S-0061298

SWEET’S SAND & GRAVEL Gravel

Total EFT000000012205

Total Washout

Page:

Page 150 of 160 $374.83 $374.83

$374.83

3425 Gradng & Grvl resurf Cheque EFT000000012159

Date

Inv #

2019-10-15 320073

Vendor

Description

COCO PROPERTIES CORP Gravel

Total EFT000000012159

Total Gradng & Grvl resurf

Amount $1,494.06 $1,494.06

$1,494.06

3515 Stock Snd&Slt Cheque 070531

Date

Inv #

2019-10-15 1448781

Total 070531 070532

2019-10-15

Vendor

SNC-LAVALIN GEM ONTARIO INC. Inspection testing

Amount $305.28 $305.28

SNIDER, PERCY 19/09/12-14

Total 070532 EFT000000012177

Description

2019-10-15

Skidsteer Rental K+S WINDSOR SALT LTD Winter Salt Winter Salt

$407.04 $407.04

Total EFT000000012177

$6,717.46 $9,840.78 $16,558.24

Total Stock Snd&Slt

$17,270.56

5300451423 5300452294

3610 Trfc Sg mnt Cheque 070516

Date

Inv #

2019-10-15 70-1028918

Vendor

Description

BLACK & MCDONALD Service-Traffic Controller

Total 070516

Total Trfc Sg mnt

Amount $983.00 $983.00

$983.00

3615 Street signs Cheque 070514 Total 070514 EFT000000012212

Date

Inv #

2019-10-15

Vendor

Description

231958

ATKINSON HOME BUILDING CENTRE Lumber

97300

TROUSDALE’S HOME HARDWARE Lumber for Sign Posts

2019-10-15

Amount $136.34 $136.34

Total EFT000000012212

$54.93 $54.93

Total Street signs

$191.27

3625 RR cross mnt Cheque EFT000000012155

Date

Inv #

2019-10-15 11114590

Vendor

Description

CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY 19/09 Flasher Contract

Amount

Total EFT000000012155

$744.00 $744.00

Total RR cross mnt

$744.00

3638 Locates Cheque EFT000000012187

Date

Inv #

2019-10-15 201904383

Vendor

Description

ONTARIO ONE CALL 19/09 Notifications

Total EFT000000012187

Total Locates

Amount $119.16 $119.16

$119.16

3650 Street Lights Cheque EFT000000012213

Date

Inv #

2019-10-15

Vendor

Description

Amount

TRUE ELECTRIC

Total EFT000000012213

$1,218.64 $1,218.64

Total Street Lights

$1,218.64

6903

Street Light Repairs

3800 Crssng Guards Cheque EFT000000012160

Date

Inv #

2019-10-15 89042 89256

Vendor

Description

COMMISSIONAIRES SECURITY SOLUTIONS Crossing Guards Crossing Guards

Amount

Total EFT000000012160

$1,022.31 $1,022.31 $2,044.62

Total Crssng Guards

$2,044.62

Total Trans

$372,765.04

40 Env 4110 Water Treat Cheque EFT000000012146

Date 2019-10-15

Inv #

Vendor

Description

BELL CANADA-WATER TOWER PHONE LINE N6027631-19/09 19/09- Telephone

Amount $89.61

System:

2019-10-10

User ID:

mfoster

10:34:29 AM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

Page:

Page 151 of 160

Total EFT000000012146

$89.61

Total Water Treat

$89.61

5105 Garb coll Cheque 070528

Date

Inv #

2019-10-15 22657

Total 070528 070532

2019-10-15

Vendor

MADDOCKS ENGINEERING 3X TyeDee Bin

Amount $2,546.81 $2,546.81

SNIDER, PERCY 19/09/25-24 19/09/19-06 19/09/18-08

Total 070532 EFT000000012139

Description

2019-10-15 30885

Garbage Clean Up Garbage Truck Rental Garbage Clean Up BOULTON SEPTIC/LARMON’S Garbage Pick Up

Total EFT000000012139

Total Garb coll

$152.64 $305.28 $152.64 $610.56 $821.71 $821.71

$3,979.08

5110 Gab disp Cheque 070532

Date

Inv #

2019-10-15

Vendor

2019-10-15

Amount

SNIDER, PERCY 19/09-15 19/09/26-23 19/09/23-16 19/09/19-03 19/09/17-07

Total 070532 EFT000000012217

Description 19/09 Bin Rental Portland Dump/Dozer Portland Dump/Waste Portland Dump/Waste Portland Dump/Dozer+Cat Shovel

WASTE CONNECTIONS OF CANADA 647-0000025968 22.33 MT ICI + Const. Waste 647-0000025930 85.64 MT ICI+ Resi Waste 7150-0000336402 Dump + Exchange

Total EFT000000012217 EFT000000012218 2019-10-15 812369

WHALEY, GEORGE 19/09 Landfill Maint.

Total EFT000000012218

Total Gab disp

$152.64 $1,139.71 $356.16 $534.24 $1,099.01 $3,281.76 $2,561.19 $8,486.59 $1,287.74 $12,335.52 $5,551.01 $5,551.01

$21,168.29

5210 Rec Disp/Prc Cheque 070532

Date

Inv #

2019-10-15

Vendor

Description

Amount

SNIDER, PERCY 19/09/23-17 19/09/16-04

Green Bay Recycle Salem Recycle

Total 070532

$864.96 $1,068.48 $1,933.44

Total Rec Disp/Prc

$1,933.44

Total Env

$27,170.42

70 Cem 7000 Health Cheque 070532

Date

Inv #

2019-10-15

Vendor

Description

Amount

SNIDER, PERCY 19/09/30-01

Total 070532

Grass Cutting

$323.60 $323.60

Total Health

$323.60

Total Cem

$323.60

80 Rec 8000 Rec Cheque 070517

Total 070517 070518

Date 2019-10-15

Inv #

2019-10-15

Total 070520 070521

Total 070521 070522

2019-10-15

HOLLAND, TRACY 19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC

2019-10-15

Total 070523

2019-10-15

DAHM PAINTING & DECORATING LTD Painting Painting

GARLAND, DONNA 19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC

1903 Total 070522 070523

Description

COCHAND, TONI 19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC

1007 1009 Total 070518 070520

Vendor

HYLAND, MAUREEN Committee Recruitment

KILGOUR, JILL 19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC

19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC

Amount $32.47 $28.73 $61.20 $4,782.72 $1,526.40 $6,309.12 $32.47 $15.84 $48.31 $32.47 $27.74 $60.21 $300.00 $300.00 $32.47 $28.73 $61.20

System:

2019-10-10

User ID:

mfoster

070526 Total 070526 070527 Total 070527 070533

Total 070533 070534

Total 070534 EFT000000012139

10:34:29 AM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

2019-10-15 1232

LINK LINE FENCE LTD Repair Chain Link Fence

6135

LOYALIST IRRIGATION LIMITED Winterizing Sprinkler System

2019-10-15

TIMMINS, JOANNE 19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC TRAULSEN, HEIDI 19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC

2019-10-15 30805 30813

Total EFT000000012139 EFT000000012150 2019-10-15

Total EFT000000012150 EFT000000012153 2019-10-15 Total EFT000000012153 EFT000000012164 2019-10-15

Total EFT000000012164 EFT000000012174 2019-10-15

Total EFT000000012174 EFT000000012180 2019-10-15

BOULTON SEPTIC/LARMON’S Holding Tank Pumped Holding Tank Pumped

BRYSON, ANDY 19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC

CAMPBELL, ANNIE 19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC DILLABOUGH, LEE 19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC HAMMER, KARL G. 19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC KOT, JOHN 19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC

Total EFT000000012180 EFT000000012184 2019-10-15

Total EFT000000012184 EFT000000012189 2019-10-15 19240

$447.74 $447.74 $32.47 $11.89 $44.36 $32.47 $27.74 $60.21 $244.22 $244.22 $488.44 $32.47 $6.93 $39.40 $32.47 $32.47 $32.47 $8.91 $41.38 $32.47 $19.81 $52.28

19/10 Monitoring & Rental 19/10 Monitoring & Rental

$28.49 $28.49 $56.98 $508.80 $508.80 $32.47 $51.51 $83.98

PINCHIN LTD. Haz. Building Materials Assess

SCHJERNING, MARK 19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC

Total EFT000000012199 EFT000000012202 2019-10-15

$966.72 $966.72 $32.47 $30.71 $63.18

SLEETH, SARAH 19/09/20-01

Cleaning

SMITH, ROBERTA 19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC

Total EFT000000012203 EFT000000012206 2019-10-15 K621227 K620902

SWISH MAINTENANCE LIMITED Cleaning Supplies Cleaning Supplies

97333 97057

TROUSDALE’S HOME HARDWARE Cleaning Supplies Lumber

Total EFT000000012206 EFT000000012212 2019-10-15

Total EFT000000012212 EFT000000012213 2019-10-15 Total EFT000000012213 EFT000000012216 2019-10-15

$1,221.12 $1,221.12

$32.47 $44.58 $77.05

P & D SEALING AND LINES Paint Pickle Ball Courts

1479948

Total EFT000000012202 EFT000000012203 2019-10-15

Page 152 of 160

19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC

PANTREY, AMANDA 19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC

Total EFT000000012190 EFT000000012192 2019-10-15 Total EFT000000012192 EFT000000012199 2019-10-15

LONDRY ALARMS 200032 200032

Total EFT000000012189 EFT000000012190 2019-10-15

19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC

Page:

$420.00 $420.00 $32.47 $32.47 $198.28 $80.33 $278.61 $5.79 $3.20 $8.99

TRUE ELECTRIC 6904

Change Lamps

$203.53 $203.53

WASH, PAUL 19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC

19/10/07-SF REC 19/10/07-SF REC

$32.47 $35.67 $68.14

Total EFT000000012216

Total Rec

$12,035.89

8025 Day Cmps Cheque EFT000000012211

Date

Inv #

2019-10-15 4945 1569. 4789 6676

Total EFT000000012211

Total Day Cmps

Vendor

Description

TROUSDALE’S FOODLAND Plastic Spoons Mr. Freeze+ Oranges Water Popcorn

Amount $1.12 $14.99 $2.69 $6.29 $25.09

$25.09

System:

2019-10-10

User ID:

mfoster

10:34:29 AM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

Page:

Page 153 of 160

8036 Family Day Cheque 070522

Date

Inv #

2019-10-15 1902

Vendor

Description

HYLAND, MAUREEN Family Day Poster

Total 070522

Total Family Day

Amount $150.00 $150.00

$150.00

8205 Pumpkinfest Cheque 070512

Date

Inv #

2019-10-02

Vendor

Description

Amount

LANGRIDGE, DAN 19/10/04-31

Giant Pumpkin

Total 070512

Total Pumpkinfest

$250.00 $250.00

$250.00

8405 Ver&Dis Hist Cheque 070538

Date

Inv #

2019-10-15 19/09/11

Vendor

Description

ADAMSON, ANDREW BL#18- Name Tags- Volunteers

Total 070538

Total Ver&Dis Hist

Amount $26.45 $26.45

$26.45

Total Rec

$12,487.43

90 Plan 9000 Plan Cheque EFT000000012162

Date

Inv #

2019-10-15 159466

Vendor

Description

CUNNINGHAM SWAN CARTY Legal Fees

Total EFT000000012162

Total Plan

Amount $123.54 $123.54

$123.54

9800 Dev Serv Cheque EFT000000012162

Date

Inv #

2019-10-15 159467

Vendor

Description

CUNNINGHAM SWAN CARTY Legal Advice

Total EFT000000012162

Amount $534.24 $534.24

Total Dev Serv

$534.24

Total Plan

$657.78

99 9999 Cheque 070529

Date

Inv #

2019-10-15 2210

Total 070529 070540

2019-10-15

Total 070541 070542 Total 070542 070543 Total 070543 EFT000000012197

2019-10-15

MINISTER OF FINANCE-publications ontario Ad- Tax Sale

Tax Refund

CRADJ5662-1

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION HALL Refund tax

CRADJ5666-1

MORRISON WAYNE REGINALD tax refund

CRADJ5674-1

GLEN MATTHEW JAMES Tax Refund

636713 636710 636717 636709 636829 636830 636828 636825 636826 636824 636823 636822

ROSEN ENERGY GROUP SUN 270.2L CLR @1.0227 F 943.0L MKD @.8897 F 2176.5L CLR @1.0227 F 1526.7L GAS @ .9662 B 721.5L CLR @1.0084 B 941.8l MKD @.8754 B 470.9L GAS @.9592 P 1304.5L CLR @1.0084 P 198.1L MKD @.8754 F 1165.1L MKD @.8754 F 1212.8L CLR @1.0084 F 2100.0L GAS @.9592

2019-10-15

Total EFT000000012197

Description

Amount $339.00 $339.00

VOITH ADAM CRADJ5660-1

Total 070540 070541

Vendor

$316.58 $316.58 $767.53 $767.53 $1,096.02 $1,096.02 $811.46 $811.46 $281.18 $853.76 $2,265.08 $1,501.06 $740.36 $838.96 $459.64 $1,338.61 $176.47 $1,037.88 $1,244.51 $2,049.76 $12,787.27

Total

$16,117.86

Total

$16,117.86

Total

$455,409.67

Page 154 of 160

REPORT TO COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ~~BUILDING~~ AGENDA DATE:

October 15th, 2019

SUBJECT:

3rd Quarter Building Activity Report for 2019

Summary of Report: The following report details Quarterly Construction Values from 2016 to present, as well as types of construction that have occurred, Building Permits that have been issued and closed and Walk-in inquiry data in 2019. Quarterly Construction Values for all projects: 2016 2017 2018 2019 CONSTRUCTION PERMITS CONSTRUCTION PERMITS CONSTRUCTION PERMITS CONSTRUCTION PERMITS VALUE ISSUED VALUE ISSUED VALUE ISSUED VALUE ISSUED January-March

$2,156,402.00

$2,077,900.00

April-June

$11,785,550.00

155

$12,728,150.00

July-September

$8,757,931.00

148

$11,499,769.00

$2,990,962.00

$2,211,814.00

148

$13,050,757.00

146

$14,794,702.00

142

129

$10,174,862.00

126

$11,678,813.00

134

$28,685,329.00

320

October-December

$6,622,100.00

$5,650,400.00

$5,501,998.00

Totals

$29,321,983.00

421

$31,956,219.00

418

$31,718,579.00

406

Quarterly Construction Values for Single Family Dwellings: 2016 2017 2018 2019 CONSTRUCTION PERMITS CONSTRUCTION PERMITS CONSTRUCTION PERMITS CONSTRUCTION PERMITS VALUE ISSUED VALUE ISSUED VALUE ISSUED VALUE ISSUED January-March

$1,425,400.00

$1,010,000.00

$900,000.00

$1,283,000.00

April-June

$8,569,875.00

$8,108,000.00

$7,844,000.00

$11,770,355.00

$8,042,000.00

$21,095,355.00

July-September

$5,095,876.00

$7,169,000.00

$7,027,500.00

October-December

$3,999,000.00

$3,290,500.00

$3,787,000.00

Totals

$19,090,151.00

$19,577,500.00

$19,558,500.00

Building Permits Issued: Type of Construction

JAN-MAR

Single Family Dwellings

Seasonal Dwellings

Additions & Renovations

Garage, Accessory Bldgs, Decks

103

Woodstove/Pellet/Chimney

Agricultural Buildings

New ICI/Multi-Res Bldgs.

Reno/Additions to ICI/Multi-Res Bldgs.

Demolitions

Pool enclosure

Other (Signs, Solar Panels, Towers)

142

134

TOTAL PERMITS

APR-JUNE JULY-SEPT OCT-DEC

YTD

320

Page 155 of 160

Building Permits Closed: Type of Construction

JAN-MAR

APR-JUN

JUL-SEP

Single Family Dwellings

Seasonal Dwellings

Additions & Renovations

Garage, Accessory Bldgs, Decks

Woodstove/Pellet/Chimney

Agricultural Buildings

New ICI/Multi-Res Bldgs.

Reno/Additions to ICI/Multi-Res Bldgs.

Demolitions

Pool enclosure

Other (Signs, Solar Panels, Towers)

115

TOTALS

OCT-DEC

YTD

221

SEPT

YTD

Building Department Walk-In Inquiries: Type of Inquiry New Inquiry Inquiry about existing building file Other** TOTALS

APRIL

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

Data not collected

372

276

122

126

180

128

181

737

**Other = Real Estate agent inquiries, inquiries meant for other departments etc. The walk-in customer averages = 35 customers per week or 7 customers per day at the counter for the Building Department.

Prepared by: Peggy Spafford Administrative Assistant – Building Department

Submitted/Approved by: Tom Berriault Chief Building Official

Approved by: Neil Carbone, CAO

Page 156 of 160

REPORT TO COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

PLANNING AGENDA DATE: REPORT DATE:

October 15, 2019 October 12, 2019

SUBJECT:

3rd Quarter – 2019 Planning Activity Report

SUMMARY: The below tables reports the activity in the delivery of Planning Services within the Development Services Department between June 25, 2019 to September 30th, 2019. The activities outlined below have been completed by the Planning Assistant, Planner and Director of Development Services. Email Inquiries – Year to Date Phone Inquiries – Year to Date Walk In Inquiries – Year to Date (May - September) Pre-consultation Meetings – Year to Date Applications Processed - Year to Date

5376 1775 783 221 65

Inquiries Phone Inquiries Inquiries

July

208

Clearing Conditions & Existing Applications 26

Other Development Services Matters

Totals

234

August September

190 255

16 27

2 17

208 299

3rd Quarter Total

653

741

2nd Quarter Total

393

166

603

1st Quarter Total

392

431

Year to Date Total

1438

260

1775

Other Development Services Matters

Monthly Totals

60 82 72 214

679 702 729 2110

Email Inquiries Inquiries

July August September 3rd Quarter Total

479 504 543 1526

Clearing Conditions & Existing Applications 140 116 114 370

2nd Quarter Total

1298

430

115

1843

1st Quarter Total

917

375

131

1423

Year to Date Total

3741

1175

460

5376

Page 157 of 160

REPORT TO COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

PLANNING Walk-in Inquiries New Inquiries July

Inquiry about Existing Application 18

Other Inquiries 28

Total Walk-in Inquiries 141

August

109

178

September 3rd Quarter Total

102 306

61 120

45 101

208 527

2nd Quarter Total Year to Date Total

161 *467

74 *194

21 *122

256 *783

*no data was collected in the 1st Quarter. Development Services. Development Services Staff began tracking and reporting walk-in inquiries in May 2019. Pre-consultation Meetings Number of Meetings this Quarter 33 23 24 80 82 59

July August September 3rd Quarter Total 2nd Quarter Total 1st Quarter Total Year to Date Total

221

Consent Applications

July August September 3rd Quarter Total 2nd Quarter Total 1st Quarter Total Year to Date Total

Complete Applications Submitted 4 0 3 7 7 4 18

Applications Heard by Committee 4 0 3 7 2 4 18

Complete Applications Submitted 5 1 4 10 10 6 26

Applications Processed

Minor Variance Applications

July August September 3rd Quarter Total 2nd Quarter Total 1st Quarter Total Year to Date Total

5 1 4 10 10 6 26

Page 158 of 160

REPORT TO COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

PLANNING Zoning By-law Amendment Applications Complete Applications Submitted 1 1 0 2 2 6 10

July August September 3rd Quarter Total 2nd Quarter Total 1st Quarter Total Year to Date Total

Applications Declared Complete & Processed 1 1 0 2 2 6 10

Site Plan Control Applications 

Two site plan control application were submitted in the 3rd quarter of 2019. A total of five site plan control applications have been submitted to date this year.

Development Agreements 

11 development agreements were prepared by Township Planning Staff in the 3rd Quarter of 2019. A total of 39 development agreements have been prepared to date this year.

Certificates of Official Issued (Finalizing Consent Applications)  

11 severance applications were finalized by the Planning Assistant clearing all conditions of the consent and issuing the certificate of official in the 3rd quarter of 2019. A total of 37 consent applications have been finalized to date this year. Certificates of Official are forwarded to the applicant’s lawyer to register the severance and finalize the transfer of land.

Other Applications & Planning Activities  



4 Road Closing applications have been received in the 3rd quarter and are in process. 6 road closing applications have been received to date this year. Prepared a letter to the County to clear conditions of Draft Plan Approval for McFadden Road Plan of Subdivision. County gave Final Approval to the McFadden Road Plan of Subdivision on May 3, 2019. The Subdivision Agreement has been registered and the first lot is under construction. Shield Shores Plan of Condominium Application was recommended with conditions to the County for draft plan approval in April 2019. The County granted draft plan approval in May 2019. No appeals were received. The developer has begun working towards clearing conditions of draft plan approval. Draft Plan Extension for Cranberry Cove and Johnston Point Plans of Condominium were considered by Township Council. County Council granted a one year extension to draft plan approval for both condominiums on June 19, 2019. Staff ware working with the developer to clear conditions on both these condominiums.

Submitted/approved by:

Claire Dodds, Director of Development Services

Prepared by:

Michelle Hannah, Planning Assistant & Trudy Gravel, Planner

Approved by: Neil Carbone, CAO

Page 159 of 160

NEW LEAF LINK Invites you to celebrate our United Way Adapted Diabetes Awareness Prevention and Management Program

Dancing with Deb, Refreshments and Displays Members Of The Community Welcome!

Thursday, November 21, 2019 − 11:00 - 2:00 Harrowsmith Free Methodist Church, 3876 Harrowsmith Rd. A special initiative for special adults www.newleaflink.ca

CRA Charitable Registration Number 81323 2816 RR0001

Page 160 of 160

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW 2019-61 A BY-LAW TO CONFIRM GENERALLY PREVIOUS ACTIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC. THEREFORE THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC, BY ITS COUNCIL, HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1.

The actions of the Council of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac at its Council Meeting of October 15, 2019 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 15 day of October, 2019. Read a first and second time this 15 day of October, 2019. Read a third time and finally passed this 15 day of October, 2019.

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.