Published March 21, 2017

Word Count 48281 words

Reading Time 227 min read

Body: Council Type: Agenda Meeting: Regular Date: March 21, 2017 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: South Frontenac

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/south-frontenac/Agendas/Council/2017/Council - 21 Mar 2017 - Agenda.pdf)

Document Text

Page 1 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA TIME: DATE: PLACE:

7:00 PM, Tuesday, March 21, 2017 Council Chambers.

Call to Order

Resolution

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof

Scheduled Closed Session -n/a

Recess - n/a

Public Meeting

Resolution

Closing of Unopened Road Allowance in Concession VII, Part Lot 25, Loughborough

4-8

Application for Rezoning in Concession IV, Part of Lot 3, Loughborough -SFCSC

9 - 11

Application for Rezoning in Concession II, Part of Lot 19, Storrington

Campbell

12 - 20

Approval of Minutes

Minutes of the March 7, 2017 Council Meeting

21 - 24

Minutes of the March 14, 2017 Committee of the Whole Meeting

25 - 28

Business Arising from the Minutes

Notice of Motion, re: CivicWeb use

Notice of Motion - Notice Provisions

30 - 31

Notice of Motion - Overnight Parking Ban

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Response to County Resolution #35-17

33 - 35

Notice of Motion, re: Support for Quinte Conservation

36 - 37

Notice of Motion - Municipal Heritage Committee

Reports Requiring Action

Louise Fragnito, Treasurer, re: Interim Tax By-law 2017-10

Page 2 of 165

Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, re: South Frontenac Recreation Committee-Terms of Reference

40 - 45

Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, re: Ball Diamond Advertising Signage Policy

46 - 48

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Lease Extension

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Allocation of Proceeds from Memorial Endowment

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Seniors Housing

51 130

Committee Meeting Minutes

Corporate Services Committee meeting held February 22, 2017

By-Laws

By-law 2017-10 - Interim Tax Levy

133 135

By-law 2017-11 - Road Closing, Con VII, Part Lot 25, Loughborough

136 137

By-law 2017-12 - Rezone Concession IV, Part Lot 3, Loughborough District

138 139

Reports for Information

Accounts Payable and Payroll Listing

140 151

Louise Fragnito, Treasurer, re: 2016 Development Charges Reporting

152 153

Louise Fragnito, Treasurer, re: 2016 Statement of Remuneration and Expenses Paid to Council Members

154 155

Louise Fragnito, Treasurer, re: 2016 Draft Year End Financials

156 160

Information Items

Melissa Clark, VP Business Development, Abundant Solar Energy, re: 116 Wolfe Lake Rd Project

Notice of Motions

Announcements

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

Closed Session (if requested)

Confirmatory By-law

131 132

161 164

Page 3 of 165

By-law 2017-13

Adjournment

165

Page 4 of 165

REPORT TO COUNCIL PLANNING DEPARTMENT AGENDA DATE: March 21, 2017

REPORT DATE: March 16, 2017

SUBJECT: Road Closure and Transfer: Spencer

RECOMMENDATION The recommendation is that By-law 2017-11 to transfer ownership of a travelled portion of Leland Road to the Township and to close and transfer ownership of portions of the existing road allowance to the abutting property-owner in the District of Loughborough, be passed.

BACKGROUND Property-owners James and Keitha Spencer have requested to know whether Council would agree to the closure and transfer of ownership of a portion of unopened road allowance that runs diagonally through their property at Leland Road. Attachment #1 is a copy of their letter requesting the closure and Attachment #2 shows the location of the owners’ property and the portion of road allowance requested to be closed. The request was advertised and came to a public meeting at Council on January 17, 2017. No members had any comments on the closure and Council was favourable. The by-law to effect the closure and transfer could not be passed at that time because the survey plan had not been completed. However, the plan is now completed and registered and the closure can no proceed. For Council’s update, in the early 80’s and without consultation, Leland Road was re-routed through their property at 308 Leland Road. Apparently the Spencers were promised compensation for the property taken from them to realign the road, however, this compensation never actually occurred. They are requesting that:

The property now occupied by the travelled road be transferred to the Township
The title to the abandoned road allowance be transferred to them. Attachment #2 indicates how the road allowance effectively cuts the owners’ land into two parts. Their northern section is developed on its east end with a dwelling garage and outbuildings. It is 6.1 hectares (15 ac.) in size but it includes the area taken up by the travelled road. The southern portion is 0.8 hectares (2 ac.) in size and is vacant. Attachment #3 is an air photo showing the developed area and illustrating how the travelled portion of road was diverted off of the Townshipowned road allowance seemingly to avoid creating a sharp 90 degree turn in the road. Note that remnants of the original road are still visible on the photo. As noted in the owners’ letter, when the Leland Road was re-routed in the early 1980’s, the remnant piece of former road was to be conveyed to the Spencers. Council minutes from March 2, 1981 indicate that the Spencers were in fact involved in discussion relating to the reconstruction of Leland Road but no more specifics are provided. Council agreed that there can be no doubt that the road was diverted off of the road allowance as claimed and that it is reasonable that this former Township land should be transferred to the Spencers especially since the Township has now claimed the Spencers’ land on which the travelled portion of the road now

Page 5 of 165

exists. Council resolved that the transfer should be approved and at no cost to the property-owners. The attachments indicate that the actual travelled portion of the road is now located off the original road allowance further to the north. Logically, the Township would have no interest in retaining the former road allowance.

ATTACHMENTS Attachment #1 - is the letter from the Spencers Attachment #2 - is a location map. Attachment #3 - is an air photo of the travelled portion. Submitted/Approved by: Lindsay Mills RoadClosureReportSpencer3

Prepared by: Lindsay Mills

Page 6 of 165

ATTACHMENT #1 Mr. Lindsay Mills

Planner South Frontenac Township

?: Request for transfer of title?of unused road allowance at NE corner of lot 25 conc. 7Loughboro district, South Frontenac twp. to James and Keitha Spencer.

At some time in the late nineteen seventies or early eighties, without consultation with, or notification of the !aridowners, Leland road was rercuted through lot 25 conc.7(property identified as 308 Lelar,d road 13R694) To eliminate a dangerous curve. When we found out about the project, work had already started. We contacted the road supervisor for Loughboro Township Mr.’ Lyle Abrams and were told that in compensation for the property taken up by the reconstructed road we would be given title to the now abandoned portion of road allowance. Since l was in the armed forces at the time and seldom at home l did riot check to see that the title was in fact transferred. In 20161 checked on the title and found that the proi’nised transfer had never taken place. The result is that Loughboro Township and later South Frontenac Township has for approximately forty years used and continues to use property belonging to us as a public roadway.

We the owners of the above property request that:

The property now occupied by the road be transferred to the township.
The tit!e to the abandoned roadway be transferred to us. anl

eitha Spencer

308 Lel/nd Road Ph 613-353-6415 Cc: Mr.P.oss Sutherland

‘i

Page 7 of 165

Page 8 of 165

Attachment #3

-€)S

li J

] *

f a

jDgA

}

-‘01 € A

jr?

ll7/l

[ l

-J

Travelled Portion J

(

%N:’%

111

]

l’

yl. w

‘J

:7 -P’

}‘Q

? ?

%. ?

‘J!..’%?

7 ? ‘a?

‘k

‘I m

!""‘I

QRoad AllowanceL

%‘r

%.’

/ r

j s

<I O/

I

I I..

rT/ ?/

03’/ 2/

;/ P{

( t

r I

}

/ r

r F

0 20 40

’l

[

120

r Metei?rs 160

Page 9 of 165

REPORT TO COUNCIL PLANNING DEPARTMENT AGENDA DATE: March 21, 2017

REPORT DATE: March 15, 2017

SUBJECT: PUBLIC MEETING - Rezoning for Community Facility: S.F.C.S.

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council hear comments from the public on By-law 201712 to rezone lands in Part of Lot 3, Concession IV, District of Loughborough from Urban Residential-First Density (UR1) to Community Facility (CF-H) to permit an institutional use, and that the by-law be considered for passage.

BACKGROUND: An application has been submitted to amend the Township of South Frontenac Comprehensive Zoning By-law to rezone a 0.93 acre portion of land. The property was the subject of a lot addition to add the 0.93 acres onto an existing lot that is only 0.72 acres in size. The re-zoning is a condition of Consent Application S-18-16-L which was given conditional approval by the Committee of Adjustment on April 14, 2016. Attachment #1 is a map showing the location of the subject lot. The subject land, located on Stage Coach Road. It is vacant and is used for overflow parking for the abutting Grace Centre (Southern Frontenac Community Services). The property lies within the Settlement Areas designation - the Village of Sydenham. The land is to be added to the Grace Centre property to facilitate future expansion of the facility. As the Official Plan explains, it is Council’s intention that a majority of the new growth in the municipality will be directed to existing settlement areas designations where it can be supported by appropriate servicing. Community facility uses are contemplated within Settlement Areas on a site-specific basis by amendment to the implementing zoning by-law when Council is satisfied that the nature and scale of the proposed use is appropriate. Once the subject land is added to the abutting land, the property would be 1.65 acres in size. Recognizing that the land is serviced by municipal water, the expanded lot would be large enough to accommodate the proposed expansion to the Grace Centre. It should be noted that the present facility operates as a community centre (mostly for seniors) and two recently installed trailer units facilitate a community food bank and offices. The Grace Centre property is zoned Community Facility (CF). The added portion must be re-zoned to CF so that the whole of the expanded lot is in one zone. This is consistent with the intent of the Official Plan. However, a holding (H) symbol is being applied to the new CF zoning to recognize the proposed uses of the property but to prevent (hold) development until a site plan agreement is entered into between the owner and the Township and is registered on the title of the property. The site plan would specify the locations of the buildings and structures on the lot and would include parking and loading spaces, and septic locations. Once the study is completed and the site plan agreement registered, the holding symbol would be removed by by-law to allow the new development to proceed. From a planning perspective, the proposal is consistent with the intent of the Official Plan which directs institutional uses to the settlement areas to provide needed community services in the built-up areas of the Township. Thus, the proposal is supported by the Planning Department.

Page 10 of 165

At time of preparation of this report no comments had been received from the public in response to the advertisement of the application.

FINANCIAL and STAFFING CONSIDERATIONS Staff time will be required to review future site plan submissions.

ATTACHMENTS Attachment #1 – shows the location of the subject land. Submitted/approved by: Lindsay Mills SFCSZoningReport

Prepared by: Lindsay Mills

Page 11 of 165

Page 12 of 165

REPORT TO COUNCIL PLANNING DEPARTMENT AGENDA DATE: March 21, 2017

REPORT DATE: March 14, 2017

SUBJECT: PUBLIC MEETING - Zoning to Permit Four Residential Units

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council hear comments from the public on a by-law to rezone lands in Part of Lot 19, Concession II, District of Storrington from Urban Commercial (UC) to Special Urban Commercial (UC-27-H) to permit four residential dwellings in addition to the other uses permitted in the UC zone.

BACKGROUND: An application has been submitted to amend the Township of South Frontenac Comprehensive Zoning By-law to rezone a 5.52 acre lot to permit construction of a mixed-use building on the property. Commercial uses are proposed on the main floor and four residential units on the second floor. Attachment #1 is a map showing the location of the subject lot within the hamlet of Inverary and Attachment #2 depicts the proposed building and rough floor plan for the upper and lower floors. The subject land, located at the northeast corner of Perth Road and Davidson Road, is mostly vacant but a small portion of the property is used for drivethrough gasoline sales. The property is within the Settlement Areas designation as part of the hamlet of Inverary. As the Official Plan explains, it is Council’s intention that a majority of the new growth in the municipality will be directed to existing settlement areas designations where it can be supported by appropriate servicing. Commercial industrial, residential and community facility uses shall be permitted in Settlement Areas on a site-specific basis by amendment to the implementing zoning by-law when Council is satisfied that the nature and scale of the proposed use is appropriate. The land is flat and, at 5.52 acres, appears to be well suited to accommodate the proposed use. Attachment #3 is a scaled drawing of the building showing its size and location in relation to the size of the parcel. It shows that there is adequate room for parking and loading spaces, manoeuvring areas and septic and landscaping areas. Thus, the use and scale of the development appears appropriate as required by the Official Plan. The land is presently zoned Urban Commercial (UC) in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law which permits a full range of commercial-type uses. Commercially zoned land also exists on the abutting land to the north and to the east. A new residential subdivision is located across Perth Road on the west. Council should also know that the property-owner across Davidson Road on the south has also proposed to develop his land for a commercial use. However, the UC zoning on the subject land only permits one residential dwelling unit as an accessory use to commercial uses. The amendment would rezone the land to special Urban Commercial (UC-27-H) to permit four accessory residential units. It should be noted that the H is a holding symbol that recognizes the proposed uses of the property but prevents (holds) development until a site plan agreement is entered into between the owner and the Township and is registered on the title of the property. The site plan would specify the locations of all buildings and structures on the lot and would include parking and loading spaces, and septic and well locations. It would also, require that a traffic impact assessment be undertaken and would acknowledge that contributions must be

Page 13 of 165 made towards any required public road improvements identified in the study. Once the study is completed and the site plan agreement registered, the holding symbol would be removed by by-law to allow development to proceed. From a planning perspective, the proposal appears to be consistent with the intent of the Official Plan. Commercial office uses are normally directed to the Settlement Areas as noted and the land is large enough to accommodate both the commercial and residential uses as well as all associated septic, well and parking and loading spaces. There do not appear to be any compatibility issues given that commercial uses already exist abutting the subject land. Thus, the proposal is supported by the Planning Department in principle. The Public Works Department requires the traffic impact analysis (noted above). It is to be undertaken at the owner’s expense and any identified road work that is required will need to be apportioned to the owner. The application was circulated to KFL&A Public Health and the owner has discussed the proposal with KFL&A staff. However, weather conditions have not permitted the agency to assess and comment on the adequacy of the site and comments have not yet been received. As a result, Council should not pass the amending by-law at this time but should wait until Health comments are received in writing so as to consider their recommendations and/or conditions of approval. However, a copy of the draft amending by-law is attached as Attachment #4 for reference only. At time of preparation of this report no comments had been received from the public in response to the advertisement of the application.

FINANCIAL and STAFFING CONSIDERATIONS Staff time will be required for future regulation and enforcement.

ATTACHMENTS Attachment #1 – shows the location of the subject land. Attachment #2 - is a depiction of the proposed building. Attachment #3 - is a rough depiction of the building location. Attachment #4 - is a draft zoning amendment by-law.

Submitted/approved by: Lindsay Mills JodyCampbellZoningReport2017

Prepared by: Lindsay Mills

Page 14 of 165 ! l

Attachment #1

‘?

{(:X-F?7/A’/77 l Kt ?

to hborough take M N

W-‘E

,,=::..:z……….. ‘=%,’.4<V S ,14 ,Th , <’. O

0 jX

L. :}.

LoughboroughLake -’-"

!! . 11’ Gp6B%FISLD RoAo ’ ""

u w

Ig <) bm

.,, ….. ' ba M !! m + @ !! §wa @ wa

ig , g0= !! o.,% !‘9 x.-.-.-.-.-.—II’ ….. :‘ii - i n!- v16 e ROADr a r > 4,.2, !!<

- ,, ‘W’%l .

-J <i ’ h

l Collins Lake

I s

170340 680 1,020

} ?

Page 15 of 165

Page 16 of 165

l RECEIVED MAR 0 1 2017 TOWNSHIP OF

SOUTH FRONTENAC

PLANNiNG DEPARTMENT

k-’-’–i–?Q - :

L+vJ

hl lh

hilh

5ta!m

51aits

bini++g

Kltchtn

A:i

-’,’

blning

gathroom

utitity

?T"

‘J;‘TIQ

kdrmsm 2 Livln9

%di’oiim 1

m -!

Page 17 of 165

RECEIVED MAR 0 1 2017 TOWNSHIP OF SOU’iH FRONTENAC PLANNING DEPARTMENT

k + ‘? m

vrrta

30!V-

-.1

—-4

..-.–xa

–?I

“?

i li li

yyashromn

l j il

Sla?r’s S%lm

31t-8a-

l 211-(r-

?6’-0’-

Ilf#-

Mtchanical reom

?2r0’?

/VS

!-‘3

/‘ih

ff-‘1

ffi

-1:?-

?’:?

l-?

Page 18 of 165

Attachment #3

‘,,

}

‘g

‘%%

‘%

‘%?

% l

“b

,.€

% %% /

l l

l / J

l l

Proposed Building’ l

l l l

DAVIDSON ROAD

/ /’ l

:i t wi i t mmnummi mui umm 11 wl l aimui I W l wkuw? uamamai? iumm?miiml ji m?mwnm$

0 15 30 ao

H Meters

go 120

Page 19 of 165 ATTACHMENT #4

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW NuMBFR 2017-

BEING A BY-LAW TO AMEND BY-LAW NUMBER 2003-75, AS AMENDED, TO REZONE LANDS FROM URBAN COMMERCIAL

(UC) ZONE TO SPECIAL URBAN COMMERCIAL (UC-27-H) ZONE; PART LOT 19, CONCESSION 11, D?STRICT OF STORRINGTON: J. CAMPBELL

WHEREAS, the Municipal Council of the Township of South Frontenac deems it expedient to amend By-law Number 2003-75 as amended, as it relates to a parcel of land located in Part of Lot 19, Concession 11, of the District of Storrington, NOW THEREFORE THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH

FRONTENAC BY ITS COUNCIL, HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

THAT Schedule ‘G’ to Zoning By-law Number 2003-75 as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zoning from Urban Commercial (UC) Zone to Special Urban Commercial (UC-27-H) Zone for those Iands shown on the attached map designated as Schedule “1 “.
THAT a new section UC-27-H (Part Lot 19, Concession 11, Storrington District- J. Campbell) be added immediately following section UC-26 (Part Lot 6, Concession V, Portland District-Saputo), to read as follows: UC-27-H (Part Lot 19, Concession IV, Storrington District - J. Campbell)

Notwithstanding any other provision of this By-law to the contrary, on the lands zoned Special Urban Commercial (UC-27-H), the following uses are permitted in addition to all of the uses permitted in section 19.2: Permitted Uses

Four accessory residential units

All other provisions of this By-law shall apply.

THAT the uses permitted in the UC-27-H zone be subject to a site plan agreement to be entered into between the owner and the municipality and registered on the title of the property, specifying locations of all buildings and structures; well; septic system, parking, Ioading and manoeuvring areas, access aisles and entrances: specifying that a traffic impact analysis be undertaken to the Township’s satisfaction and acknowledging that contributions must be made towards and required road improvements identified in the study prior to the holding (h) symbol being removed by bylaw.
THIS BY-LAW shall come into force in accordance with sections 34 and

41 of the Planning Act, 1990, either on the date of passage or as otherwise provided by sections 34 and 41.

DatedattheTownshipofSouthFrontenacthis dayof ,2017. Readafirstandsecondtimethisthirddayof ,2017. Readathirdtimeandfinallypassedthis dayof ,2017. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Ron Vandewal, Mayor Wayne Orr, Clerk-Administrator

Page 20 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC SCHEDULE ‘1’ BY-LAW No. 2017-12

7? ffi?!43

ffl/flV.J ?

N AREA REZONED FROM lucl TO Iuc-z4-hl &

,&, = wE ‘%J4 M: m S

MOqELAND

@ ….. ‘aa’Dl)sRo.A.o.

wa wa

m , ‘< g :0 ‘= Ce wa

..,, , %JJ

! i J

J o :): M

m M ffi

i a .-

& wt

Gs.-,,4; -%

ii ii

ig…–. ,,,,,,,,,:liu ……………… – ’ -’ ii

ii a

<)Y 0

,* +

<€/ Q 45 90 180 270 360 0 /-’

Me{ers

THIS 18 SCHEDULE ‘1’ TO BY-LAW No. 2017-12

PASSED THIS 21?’ DAY OF MARCH, 2017

MAYOR CLERK

Page 21 of 165 Minutes of Council March, 7, 2017 Time: 7:00 PM Location: Council Chambers Meeting # 5 Present: Mayor Ron Vandewal, Pat Barr, Brad Barbeau, John McDougall, Alan Revill, Norm Roberts, Mark Schjerning, Ron Sleeth, Ross Sutherland Staff: Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, Angela Maddocks, Executive Assistant. 1.

Call to Order

Resolution Resolution No. 2017-5-01 Moved by Councillor Sleeth Seconded by Councillor Barbeau THAT the Council meeting of March 7, 2017 be called to order at 7:00 p.m. Carried

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof-n/a

Scheduled Closed Session - n/a

Recess - n/a

Public Meeting - n/a

Approval of Minutes

Minutes of the February 21, 2017 Council Meeting Resolution No. 2017-5-02 Moved by Councillor Sleeth Seconded by Councillor Barbeau THAT Council approves the minutes of the February 21, 2017 Council meeting. Carried

Business Arising from the Minutes - n/a

Reports Requiring Action

Louise Fragnito, Treasurer, re: South Frontenac Cemetery Contract Extensions Resolution No. 2017-5-03 Moved by Councillor Sleeth Seconded by Councillor Barbeau THAT Council extend the contract for sales/administration services, grave excavation and cemetery maintenance to D.G. Younge Concrete Burials Vaults for the two year period of May 1, 2017 to April 30, 2019 under the same terms as the existing contract. Carried

Louise Fragnito, Treasurer, re: Princess Anne Lease Resolution No. 2017-5-04

Page 22 of 165 Minutes of Council March, 7, 2017 Moved by Councillor Sutherland Seconded by Councillor Revill THAT Council authorize the CAO to execute a 5 year lease agreement with Portland Community Caring under the same terms as the previous lease. Carried c)

Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, re: PR-2017-01 Grass Cutting Contracts Resolution No. 2017-5-05 Moved by Councillor Revill Seconded by Councillor Sutherland THAT Council approve the contractors at the facilities and price per cut as specified in the Public Works Report for Tender PR-2017-01, 2017-18 grass cutting. Carried

Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, re: Tender PW -2017-05 Crack Sealing Program Resolution No. 2017-5-06 Moved by Councillor Revill Seconded by Councillor Sleeth THAT Council approves the bid of Roadlast Asphalt and Sealing Maintenance for Tender No. PW-2017-05, Crack Sealing, in the amount of $70,060.00 including applicable taxes. Carried

Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, re: Firehall cost estimate (verbal) Mark Segsworth reported that the design was based on the criteria approved by Council and that the only addition was the accessibility requirements in the washrooms. The architect has given a cost estimate that is over what Council has budgeted for the project, but he is confident that local contractors can come in at a lower price than the architects. Council gave direction to move forward with the tender process for this project.

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Township Flag Resolution No. 2017-5-07 Moved by Councillor Barr Seconded by Deputy Mayor Roberts THAT Council direct staff to purchase 10 Township logo flag(s). Carried

Committee Meeting Minutes

Verona Community Association meeting of January 11, 2017

South Frontenac Recreation meeting of August 22, 2016

South Frontenac Recreation meeting of September 19, 2016

South Frontenac Recreation meeting of November 28, 2016

Page 2 of 4

Page 23 of 165 Minutes of Council March, 7, 2017 Resolution No. 2017-5-08 Moved by Councillor McDougall Seconded by Councillor Schjerning THAT Council receives for information the minutes of the following committee meetings:  Verona Community Association meeting held January 11, 2017  South Frontenac Recreation meeting held August 22, 2016  South Frontenac Recreation meeting held September 19, 2016  South Frontenac Recreation meeting held November 28, 2016 Carried 10.

By-Laws - n/a

Reports for Information

Accounts Payable and Payroll Listing

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Staff Demographics

Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, re: Tender PW 2017-06 Dust Suppression Program

Information Items

Joel Locklin, Manager, Infrastructure Renewal Programs - OMAFRA, re: OCIF Top-Up Application

South Frontenac Letter to Minister of Education, re: Accommodation Review Process

Jannette Amini, County of Frontenac, re: Waste Management Opportunities Council asked staff to develop a response for Council’s approval.

Notice of Motions

Councillor Schjerning served a notice of motion that all committees provide their minutes and agendas for posting on the township website.

Councillor Sutherland served notice of motion that the County of Frontenac be advised of the extended notice requirements set out by South Frontenac Council.

Councillor Sutherland served a notice of motion to restrict overnight parking on Sydenham Walker Road.

Announcements

Mayor Vandewal provided a verbal report on the Ontario Good Roads Association conference that he and Deputy Mayor Roberts attended from February 26 to February 28. There was a different atmosphere to the conference with only 900 registered attendees since the OGRA/ROMA Conference was separated into two conferences this year. He provided a brief outline of the ten sessions he attended at the conference as well as on overview of the Ontario Waste Management conference he attended on March 1.

Mayor Vandewal outlined the projects for 2017 including the Storrington Salt Dome completion, Perth Road Firehall, Harrowsmith Intersection, Bedford

Page 3 of 4

Page 24 of 165 Minutes of Council March, 7, 2017 Road and improvements to The Point buildings. There is lots of work to complete this year! 15.

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

Closed Session - n/a

Confirmatory By-law

By-law 2017-09 Resolution No. 2017-5-09 Moved by Councillor Schjerning Seconded by Councillor McDougall THAT By-law 2017-09, 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 7 day of March, 2017. Carried Resolution No. 2017-5-10 Moved by Councillor Barr Seconded by Deputy Mayor Roberts THAT By-law 2017-09, 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 7 day of March 2017. Carried

Adjournment

Resolution Resolution No. 2017-5-11 Moved by Councillor Barr Seconded by Deputy Mayor Roberts THAT the Council meeting of March 7, 2017 be adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Carried

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer

Page 4 of 4

Page 25 of 165

Minutes of Committee of the Whole Meeting March 14, 2017 Time: 7:00 pm Location: Council Chambers Meeting #6 Present: Mayor Ron Vandewal, Brad Barbeau, Pat Barr, John McDougall, Alan Revill, Norm Roberts, Mark Scherning, Ron Sleeth, Ross Sutherland Staff: Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, Rick Chesebrough, Fire Chief, Ryan Arcand, Chief Building Official, Lindsay Mills, Planner, Angela Maddocks, Executive Assistant. 1.

Call to Order

Mayor Vandewal called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.

Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof- n/a

Scheduled Closed Session - n/a

Recess - n/a

Delegations

Additional Delegation It was moved by Councillor Revill and seconded by Councillor Sleeth that Pam Vaughn be added as a delegation.

Mary Royer, re: Outdoor Furnaces Mary Royer presented her concerns about a neighbours outdoor furnace and the impact it has had on her health. The outdoor furnace is CSA approved however what is being burned in the furnace is toxic. The furnace is only 10 to 15 metres away from her home and since her home is an older home, it is not air tight. The smoke does not go up, but stays. She has contacted the Ministry of Environment and the health unit. She realized that it is too late to change her situation if Council chooses to pass a by-law regarding outdoor furnaces, however she noted the Clean Air Act and air quality accountability should be considered especially in hamlet areas.

Jim Varrette, re: Outdoor Furnaces Jim Varrette agreed with the concerns expressed by Ms. Royer. He noted that he is a smoker and is not allowed to smoke within 9 metres of a public building; an outdoor furnace should not be permitted in hamlet as setbacks can’t be met to address the smoke and health concerns. He noted that he is not affected by the same amount of smoke as Ms. Royer but felt outdoor furnaces should not be permitted in a residential area.

Pam Vaughn, re: 116 B Wolfe Lake Road Solar Project Pam Vaughan expressed concerns about the proposed solar project on Wolfe Lake Road. The community is opposed to this project as they are concerned about the environmental impact to the habitat, possible leaking of sediment into the water, possible damage to the road during the construction, as well as the impact of the peacefulness of the countryside. She noted that this road is used

Page 26 of 165 Committee of the Whole March 14, 2017 by visitors who utilize the golf course and the condominiums and felt this project will be distracting to visitors and this in turn impacts tourism in the area. There is also a concern about artifacts on the site. Mayor Vandewal noted that ecological studies have been requires in that area before. There is also confusion as to whether the current owner intends to continue with the project or not. Wayne Orr noted that since the original owner had put in the application for the solar project, it is unclear as to whether the agreement is registered with the owner or the property. 6.

Reports Requiring Action

Ryan Arcand, Chief Building Official, re: Changes to Residential Tenancies Act The consenus of Council was to continue with the process in place however staff were directed to discuss this with Frontenac Municipal Law Enforcement to determine what their fee would be for this additional work.

Lindsay Mills, Planner, Planner, re: Draft Outdoor Furnace By-law Council directed this matter be referred to Corporate Services. It was recognized that the township can’t police what is being burned in outdoor furnaces. There was a consensus that these units should not be permitted within the hamlet boundaries and that existing outdoor furnaces would be ‘grandfathered” in. Generally Council was supportive of the setbacks indicated in the report although it was questioned as to whether the the 3 metre setback was enough. Mr. Mills noted that any changes to the Zoning By-law will require a public meeting.

Lindsay Mills, Planner, re: Review “Promoting Affordable Housing Act, 2016” Mr. Mills reviewed his report noting that there is still a need for more information from the province on implementation. There was discussion as to the definition of a secondary unit and can the owner live in the secondary unit. Lindsay Mills suggested that the secondary unit not be more than 40% of the existing structure and that the township has no say in who lives in either the secondary or primary unit, it is up to the property owner. It was recognized that it will be mandatory for the township to accommodate affordable housing in future developments with changes made to the Official Plan. Mr. Mills confirmed that there will need to be policies put in place in the Official Plan. He also noted that granny suites are permitted now as a temporary housing alternative, but are not considered as part of affordable housing. Council agreed to look at this initiative when the Official Plan is revisited and when more information and direction is provided by the province.

Lindsay Mills, Planner, re: Request to Purchase Parkland Council was not supportive of selling the parkland at this time. Councillor Sleeth will seek clarification as to how much this parkland is being utilized by residents in the neighbourhood.

Councillor Revill, re: Proposed repairs to Fermoy Hall

Page 2 of 4

Page 27 of 165 Committee of the Whole March 14, 2017 Councillor Revill presented the proposed repairs for Fermoy Hall, noting that the recommendations from the facility review are unknown at this time and that the scope of work could changed based on the review. The community group is anxious to undertake the work as soon as possible so that the hall could be used this summer. It was recognized that not all things are required right away. It was suggested that fundraising could be done for the chairs and tables. Council felt the plan presented was adequate enough to release the funds to go ahead with the project. 7.

Reports for Information

Lindsay Mills, Planner, re: Status of Subdivisions

Rise & Report

Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority Councillor Sutherland acknowledged the tragic death of Doug Good on the weekend. Mr. Good was a lovely person to work with and had been dedicated to improvements on the trail system. Both Councillor Sutherland and Revill knew Mr. Good through the Conservation Authority.

Quinte Region Conservation Authority Councillor Roberts noted that any information he has received via email from Quinte Conservation has been forwarded to all of Council.

Rideau Valley Conservation Authority Councillor Barr noted that at the February 23 meeting, approval was given on their Strategic Plan to 2020 with 2017-2018 priorities outlined. Hazardous land mapping has been approved and will be put forward for public consultation. Three new vehicles have been purchased for their fleet.

Information Items

Terry Murphy, General Manager, Quinte Conservation, re: Climate Change Innovation Program

Steve Clark, MPP, Leeds-Grenville, re: Wolfe Lake Road Solar Project PIN 362400491

2017 Farmland Forum - March 30, 2017 Councillor Barr felt this would be a worthwhile forum to attend; farmland is being lost all over the province. She suggested that the County Warden attend.

Francine Scheuermann, re: 116 B Wolfe Lake Road - Solar Project

Honourable Mitzie Hunter, Minister of Education, re: Accommodation Review Process Councillor McDougall noted that there has been lots of input from townships that was not anticipated by the Ministry. The meeting that he and Mayor Vandewal attended that was hosted by the Limestone District School Board was an indication that there are lots of municipalities who have opinions about

Page 3 of 4

Page 28 of 165 Committee of the Whole March 14, 2017 the accommodation review process. f)

Elliot Hughes, Senior Policy Advisor, Ministry of Finance, re: Bill C-274 Amending Income Tax Act

Coffee & Conversation with Fred Dean

Judy Borovski, Playground Chair, Inverary Youth Activities Inc, re: Community Grant

Notice of Motions

Councillor Sutherland served a notice of motion to support the request from Quinte Conservation - Agenda Item 9 (a).

Councillor Barbeau served a notice of motion to have staff investigate the development of a Municipal Heritage Committee.

Mayor Vandewal requested that Kingston This Week/Frontenac This Week be contacted about the delivery of their newspapers and to put them into a mailbox if there is one. Lots of residents don’t pick them up and newspapers are left alongside our roads.

Announcements

Wayne Orr announced that a Manager of Development Services has been hired. Forbes Symon will be starting on March 27, 2017.

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

Closed Session- n/a

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 8:53 p.m.

Page 4 of 4

Page 29 of 165

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERKS DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE: March 21, 2017 SUBJECT Notice of Motion – Civicweb use.

RECOMMENDATION That Council direct staff to draft revisions to the procedural bylaw and implement by June 1st a process so that Agendas are published in advance and Minutes are posted on Civicweb for the following committees: Committee of Adjustment, SF Recreation Committee, Police Services Board, Corporate Services Committee, and Public Services Committee; And that all other Committees of Council provide advance notice of meetings so that notice of dates, times and locations can be given to the public.

BACKGROUND Council’s Procedural By-Law 2016-71 establishes the process for Notice of Motion as outlined below. At the Council meeting of March 7, 2017, Councillor Schjerning served notice of motion to have Council direct staff to implement a process so that Agendas and Minutes for various committees of Council are published on Civicweb. A notice of motion requires a seconder at the next regular Council meeting. If seconded, the motion is debated and then voted upon. Currently there are fourteen (14) committees of Council excluding Committee of the Whole, nine of which are volunteer lead including, the four district recreation committees, Portland and District Historical Society, Community Caring, Verona Medical, Battersea Pumpkinfest and Verona Community Association.

FINANCIAL and STAFFING CONSIDERATIONS Increased workload on the Clerk’s Department staff. Limitations of current configuration of Civicweb to be investigated.

ATTACHMENTS None Submitted/approved by:

Prepared by:

Wayne Orr, CAO

Our strength is our community.

Page 30 of 165

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERKS DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE: March 21, 2017 SUBJECT:

Notice of Motion – Notice Provisions

RECOMMENDATION That South Frontenac forward Schedule 11 of Bylaw 2016-73 to the County of Frontenac and ask them to respect and implement the expanded public notification provisions found in the bylaw when considering proposed subdivision and vacant land condominium developments in South Frontenac Township.

BACKGROUND Council’s Procedural By-Law 2016-71 establishes the process for Notice of Motion as outlined below. At the Council meeting of March 7, 2017, in light of the County’s direction to hold independent public meetings for plans of subdivisions and vacant land condominium developments, Councillor Sutherland served notice of motion to have Council request the County respect and implement the enhanced notice provisions that South Frontenac has established. A notice of motion requires a seconder at the next regular Council meeting. If seconded, the motion is debated and then voted upon.

FINANCIAL and STAFFING CONSIDERATIONS No direct cost to the Township.

ATTACHMENTS Schedule 11 Bylaw 2016-73

Submitted/approved by:

Prepared by:

Wayne Orr, CAO

Our strength is our community.

Page 31 of 165

Schedule"11"to By-law2016-73 Procedures for Notice - Development

InadditiontotherequirementsassetoutinthePlanningAct,themunicipalityshall: For anysubdMsion or plan ofcondominium greater than 3 units:

Bringto the attention OfttlB Publicthrough a presentation to the Committee of ! anyproposal forsubdiviston or planofcondominium greaterthan 3

u"lte’-aterthe. deve.lopel’-has comPtet8d ttie pre consultation phase. This

shall occurno laterthan30daysbeforethenoticefora statutorvDublic meeting

provide sixc;al9ndarweeks’noticeofthestatutory publicmeetingthroughthe regulated means of advertising
Haw.thed.eve!operinsta11’attheirexpense,a durablesign,notifyingthe

communityofthe publicmeeting atleastSKweeks inadvanceofthe meetir

. Ensurethatthesignfortheproposeddevelopmentisina visiblelocationat

! ofthe property on the road abutting the property. The deveTo’oer’is to remove the signage 30days afterthe publlcmeeting?

Ensure ttl

‘at. the S19” sha” be at least 1 metre by 1.2 metres in size and

contain the Information specified bythe Planning Department

*Haw-thedeveloper provide Photo9raphic evidence thatthesigniserected on required.
Adve’flse. asummarYofthe Noticeinthewe®klybanneradvertisingdirecUr readersto.thewebsitesixwe®ksinadvanceofthe-meeting"A"i notlc®sha”.bePublishedthreeweeksInadvanceand’agam’oneweekTn’ ofthe meeting.

Page 32 of 165

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERKS DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE: March 21, 2017 SUBJECT: Notice of Motion – Overnight Parking Ban RECOMMENDATION That Council direct staff to draft an overnight parking ban to be instituted in the Walker Road parking lot.

BACKGROUND Council’s Procedural By-Law 2016-71 establishes the process for Notice of Motion as outlined below. At the Council meeting of March 7, 2017, Councillor Sutherland served notice of motion to have Council direct staff to develop an overnight parking ban for the Walker St. parking lot in Sydenham. A notice of motion requires a seconder at the next regular Council meeting. If seconded, the motion is debated and then voted upon.

FINANCIAL and STAFFING CONSIDERATIONS No direct cost to the Township.

ATTACHMENTS None Submitted/approved by:

Prepared by:

Wayne Orr, CAO

Our strength is our community.

Page 33 of 165

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERKS DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE: March 21, 2017 SUBJECT Response to County Resolution #35-17.

RECOMMENDATION That Council direct staff to forward this report to the County of Frontenac and the other Frontenac municipalities as South Frontenac’s comments and input into Motion #35-17.

BACKGROUND Further to correspondence from the County of Frontenac citing Motion #35-17 Waster Management Opportunities and the direction of Council on March 7; the Township of South Frontenac offers the following comments and input as requested: •

•

• •

Solid Waste is a local issue that requires a regional approach. The expertise to address this issue rests with the lower tiers and not at the County level. The Public Works Managers are best situated to offer insight and recommendations for action. The County should not be in a rush to allocate funds set aside to address waste management when the legislative landscape is changing; rather a cautious but exploratory approach is needed so as to be able to respond effectively once there is clarity in responsibilities. The sense of urgency is unwarranted and the request for a staff report from County staff should definitely not result in taking away from the other work that is within the County’s mandate or incur any additional expense for consultants or staff; Suggestions and recommendations that have not been fully evaluated or that do not benefit the entire County should not be advanced at this early stage; Any solution will need to reach beyond the Frontenacs in order to be successful; engaging our municipal partners will be key; Motion #35-17 is received for information.

FINANCIAL and STAFFING CONSIDERATIONS No direct cost to the Township.

ATTACHMENTS County correspondence re: Waste Management Opportunities Submitted/approved by:

Prepared by:

Wayne Orr, CAO

Our strength is our community.

Page 34 of 165

FRONTENAC

County of Frontenac 2069 Battersea Rd. Glenburnie, ON KOH 1SO

T: 613.548. 9400 F: 613.548. 8460 frontenaccounty. ca

February 22, 2017

Mr. Wayne Orr, CAO/Clerk Township of South Frontenac

£B2 7^

^s"0^

P. O. Box 100

Sydenham, ON KOH2TO Dear Mr. Orr;

Re: Waste Management Opportunities

^.T??-. ??advi??l-t??lthe co"“ciloftheCountyofFrontenacatitsregularmeeting

heldjebruary 15, 2017passedthefollowingresolution, beingMotions, NoticeofVWiich

has BeenGiven, clausea): a)

Waste Management Opportunities

Motionft 35-17

Moved By:

CouncillorDoyle

Seconded By:

Councillor Inglis

Whereasduring2012and2013FrontenacCountyCouncilspentconsiderabletime.

energy and expense to develop a Strategic Planwhich includedI threewildlv’imDorta’n 3, twoofwhicharemakinggood progress, hasmade little advancement; and,

Wiereasduring2014and2015WardensClaytonandDoylelobbiedtheEOWCand

sinthe Countyin determining whatmunicipalities shoulddoto the’EOWC’i ontheir longterm list ofitemsto reviewit has notyet been approved asa’
Ot land fill waste site closures. While interest was shown and ^pT

current year priority; and,

whereas. itis.t’me totakeanatherteoka"ddecide \

I take onthis strategic goal aswemustensure something B’done’to’ improve waste management across Frontenac County during this term’of’office? and.

wh®reasthe,provi"rehasrecentlypass®dBi"15’’.U1eWaste-FreeOntarioAct,which i the landscape considerably, andsome oftheoptions discussed’afewve

ago may no longer be appropriate; and,

^ ^

i^e53of55

Page 35 of 165

Whereas it has been suggested thatwe have an opportunity to bethe leader in the efforts led byAMOandthe Provincetoadoptthevisionarygoalofzerowasteand

eliminate GHG from the waste sector; and,

Whereas although Bill 151 makes it clearthat the industry is required to assume all cost

a!l^TTIla?eme"t?ftheCUITentBlueBoxitems’wemustdobette1’onotherMunidpal

waste streams such as oiganics, constructton materials and other non-recydables;r .

Therefore Be It Resolved That the Council ofthe County of Frontenac direct staffto S^^‘S. 0??10”?to as?’?t c.°^“9il ?) I][lake Pr109ress with the Frontenac County Waste

stratsfl’c GoalandreportbacktheirfindingsattheApril2017Counciimeeting,

?^d. in8wnsidelin? such programs asrecently approved bythe Ministiyofttie

EnvironmentandClimate Changeto divertalloiganicmaterial to a localAnaerobic Bio-

digester onWotfeIslandandcurrentenergy-from-waste technologiesfornon-oiganic waste. And Further That a copy ofthis resolution be circulated to the member municiDalitiE for their comment and input.

Carried

Should you have anyquestions orconcerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at613548-9400, ext. 302orviaemailatjamjni@frontenaccountv. ca. Youre truly,

innetteAmini, CMO

magerof LegislativeServices/Clerk Cc County file

2069 Battersea Road, Glenburnle, ON KOH 1SO

T: 613.548.9400 | F:613.54B.B460 | frontenaccounty.ca

A ‘.ge 54 of 55

Page 36 of 165

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERKS DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE: March 21, 2017 SUBJECT: Notice of Motion – Support for Quinte Conservation. RECOMMENDATION That the municipality of South Frontenac supports Quinte Conservation’s application for funding to the Climate Change Innovations Program so they can carry out climate change monitoring and assist the eighteen member municipalities with the preparation of drought management plans and drought preparedness.

BACKGROUND Council’s Procedural By-Law 2016-71 establishes the process for Notice of Motion as outlined below. At the Committee of the Whole meeting on March 14, 2017, Councillor Sutherland served notice of motion to have Council support Quinte Conservation in their funding application to the Climate Change Innovation Program. A notice of motion requires a seconder at the next regular Council meeting. If seconded, the motion is debated and then voted upon.

FINANCIAL and STAFFING CONSIDERATIONS N/A

ATTACHMENTS Letter Dated March 3, 2017, Quinte Conservation Submitted/approved by:

Prepared by:

Wayne Orr, CAO

Our strength is our community.

Page 37 of 165

3 March 2017 Attn: All Municipal CAOs and Mayors RE: MUNICIPALITIES FOR CLIMATE CHANGE INNOVATION PROGRAM- Requesting a letter of support from each municipality to help Quinte Conservation secure a grant. The Federal government will be announcing the availability of funding to help Municipalities and their Partners to prepare for the ever changing climate and the impacts that it has on everything that the Municipalities are involved in. The summer drought that we experienced in most of our watershed municipalities is a great example of how climate change impacted 50% of our residents. Quinte Conservation dealt with numerous complaints from residents whose wells had gone dry, both residential and agricultural. The drought also put a great stress on fish and wildlife, and created concerns for fire fighters due to the high risk of fires accompanied by the lack of water. Also, some municipal wells started to show signs of stress, which all lead to many warnings and restrictions on water use being put into place. Quinte Conservation is proposing to prepare an application for funding that would benefit every municipality in our watershed. The purpose of the project is to collect as much data as possible from the stressed areas in our watershed, so we can help each municipality prepare drought management plans. These plans will address all areas that might be impacted by drought and will make recommendations on how the Municipality can prepare and deal with these issues. Quinte Conservation is NOT asking the Municipalities to match 20% of the funding, we will use our current operating budget as the matching portion to secure the grant. We are only asking that your municipality forward a letter to Quinte Conservation that states: “The municipality of _____________ supports Quinte Conservation’s application for funding to the Climate Change Innovations Program so they can carry out climate change monitoring and assist the eighteen member municipalities with the preparation of drought management plans and drought preparedness.” If you have any questions about this funding, please contact me at this office. Please return the statement above ASAP with your support in order for Quinte Conservation to secure funding. Sincerely, Terry Murphy General Manager (613) 968-3434 or (613) 354-3312 ext. 103 tmurphy@quinteconservation.ca

Page 38 of 165

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERKS DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE: March 21, 2017 SUBJECT: Notice of Motion – Municipal Heritage Committee RECOMMENDATION That staff be directed to investigate and report, by April 25, 2017, on the steps necessary to establish a Municipal Heritage Committee.

BACKGROUND Council’s Procedural By-Law 2016-71 establishes the process for Notice of Motion as outlined below. At the Committee of the Whole meeting on March 14, 2017, Councillor Barbeau served notice of motion to have staff report back on the process to establish a Municipal Heritage Committee. A notice of motion requires a seconder at the next regular Council meeting. If seconded, the motion is debated and then voted upon.

FINANCIAL and STAFFING CONSIDERATIONS N/A

ATTACHMENTS N/A

Submitted/approved by:

Prepared by:

Wayne Orr, CAO

Our strength is our community.

Page 39 of 165

REPORT TO COUNCIL Treasury Department

AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT:

March 21, 2017

2017 Interim tax by-law

RECOMMENDATION That By-law 2017-10 be approved by Council.

BACKGROUND Under Section 290 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, the Council of a local municipality, before having adopted its final tax rate for the year can pass a bylaw to levy interim amounts on the assessment of the property in the local municipality. The attached by-law provides for the interim billing of 35% of the prior year’s tax levy with a due date of Thursday, March 31st, 2017. Further, the by-law provides for penalties to be charged the 1st of each month on outstanding arrears at a rate of 1.25%

ATTACHMENTS By-law 2017-10 Submitted/approved by:

Prepared by:

Louise Fragnito, Treasurer

Our strength is our community.

Page 40 of 165

STAFF REPORT RECREATION DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE: March 21, 2017 SUBJECT: South Frontenac Recreation Committee Terms of Reference RECOMMENDATION THAT Council approve the updated South Frontenac Recreation Committee Terms of Reference and direct staff to work through the district recreation Chairs to institute the terms.

BACKGROUND The following information report was prepared to provide updated information on the South Frontenac Recreation Committee Terms of Reference. Updates to the 2009 terms of reference reflect additions to provide further clarity and direction to the Committee. New additions are provided in blue for reference The South Frontenac Recreation Committee functions under the guidance of Terms of Reference approved in 2009. The Committee terms of reference are to be reviewed at the first meeting of each year and changes sent to Council for approval. At the November 21, 2016, South Frontenac Recreation Committee meeting, the 2009 terms of reference were distributed for review with the intention of making considerable changes in the New Year. At the January 16, 2017, South Frontenac Recreation Committee meeting an updated draft of the terms of reference were discussed and the Committee took the changes back to the local district recreation committees for further review. At the February 27, 2017, South Frontenac Recreation Committee meeting some additional changes were made to the updated draft of the terms of reference and the Committee recommended that the updated terms of reference be sent to Council for endorsement.

ATTACHMENTS Draft updated ‘South Frontenac Recreation Committee Terms of Reference Submitted/approved by:

Prepared by:

Mark Segsworth

Tim Laprade, Arena/Recreation Supervisor

Our strength is our community.

Page 41 of 165

South Frontenac Recreation Committee (SFRC) TERMS OF REFERENCE • • • • • • • •

PURPOSE To act as a conduit for information sharing between the local districts, community, sporting groups, clubs and organizations To facilitate communication between the district committees, community, SFRC and Council To provide information and recommendations to the Township for the use, development and maintenance of recreation facilities and parks To facilitate the delivery of District led programs and events To provide information and recommendations to the Township in the development of the annual operating, maintenance and capital budget To assist with gathering content for the Annual Recreation & Activity Guide To engage and recognize the community volunteers who serve on the local district recreation committees To involve and respect the vital role of our district committee partners

Reporting Structure The committee reports regularly to council through the Supervisor of Recreation by means of distribution of minutes and periodic reports and recommendations Composition Committee positions are advertised at the beginning of each council term Council appoints one councilor and 2 members from each of the recreation district committees based on nominations from the respective area for a total of 12 members. The Recreation Supervisor and Recording Secretary also sit on the committee as non-voting members. • The committee selects a Chair and Vice Chair annually at its first meeting of the calendar year. • The Chair and Vice Chair positions must be community members from the recreation district committees As per Councils Procedural Bylaw 2016-71; • Committee Chair may be removed only by a vote of a majority of the Committee. • The Chair of the South Frontenac Recreation shall serve as Chair for a period of no more than two consecutive years. • •

Example of call for Committee position: South Frontenac Council invites interested and experienced citizens to actively participate in a variety of committees and roles. Applications for Appointment will be received by the Clerk’s Office by no later than 3:00 pm on Wednesday January 14, 2015. Details of the various

Page 42 of 165

opportunities for involvement are posted on our website under. “News and Public Notices” Questions may be directed to Wayne Orr, CAO/Clerk by calling 613 376-3027 ext. 2225. Applicants are encouraged to provide either a resume or a detailed letter outlining background, experience and interests relevant to the particular committee / role of interest. Please be sure to clearly indicate the Committee / Role that you are most interested in. Applications may be forwarded to: admin@southfrontenac.net , or mailed to or dropped off at: Township of South Frontenac, 4432 George St. Box 100, Sydenham ON, K0H 2T0 Council will consider appointments at their meeting on Tuesday January 20, 2015 at 7:00pm. All applicants will be informed of the outcome following Council’s decision. For further discussion as possible additions: • Rotating Chair and Vice Chair position to represent a member from a different district. In the event that a district declines the position the position vacancy will move to the next district. • Vacancies on the SFRC will be advertised and filled as soon as possible through the District Committees Meeting Frequency • The committee will meet routinely at a minimum of 6 times per year Or at the call of the Chair • Quorum A quorum is considered 7 voting members, but must include one member from each district • Meetings are held in Council Chamber’s or at a location as arranged by the SFRC Chair

• •

Decision Making The committee follows Councils procedures for conducting meetings and making decisions as a group The committee will strive for consensus on all items, however if voting is necessary; all members of the committee shall have a vote, a simple majority will decide an issue, questions resulting in a tie vote will be defeated. In the absence of a committee member, an alternate from the district committee may attend and vote on behalf of the member. The Committee Chair may seek direction from the Supervisor of Recreation or Senior Staff to assist with the decision making process. Meeting Agendas

Page 43 of 165

The Supervisor of Recreation will prepare and agenda in consultation with SFRC Chair based on previous agenda items, Township/Council priorities and input from the Districts. Meeting Minutes • Written minutes of all meetings shall be prepared by the Committee Recording Secretary using the Township provided template. • Minutes will be provided to the committee for discussion and approval at the next committee meeting and distributed to Council after they have been passed by the committee. District Committees • The Township of South Frontenac has Four Recreation Districts Committees (Bedford, Portland, Storrington, Loughborough). • The District Committees provide input and recommendation to the SFRC that will then be discussed and recommendations made to Council • District committees include a maximum of 12 members Sub Committees Sub-committees for South Frontenac Recreation may be established as necessary, for a limited time and for a specific purpose. Sub-committees will report back to the next full committee meeting. Meeting Attendance & Compensation • The committee Chair will sign off on attendance list and provide it to the Supervisor of Recreation for authorization for remuneration. •

•

Committee and subcommittee members (excluding councilors and staff) will be compensated $30.00 per meeting effective January 1, 2015.’ AND THAT ‘this rate be adjusted on a regular basis at the same increment as negotiated for the Township’s bargaining unit commencing January 1, 2016.’

Committee Recording Secretaries will be compensated $65 per meeting All members including recording secretaries are paid for their mileage to attend the SFRC meetings. Delegations to Committees Delegations by groups or individuals made be made to the committee and will follow the following process; • Delegations will be received by the Committee and will be limited to a maximum ten minute presentation, unless otherwise approved by the Committee, and are considered in the following order: o Those persons the Committee has requested to appear o Citizens, organizations or their representatives who have notified the Chair or Supervisor of Recreation in advance of the Agenda being set with their desire to appear. The Chair or Supervisor of Recreation may request that the delegation presentation be moved to a different meeting date if the meeting agenda is full. • •

Communication between the Committee and Township

Page 44 of 165

The Committee Chair will communicate directly to the Supervisor of Recreation who can bring any requests for information or concerns to the appropriate Township staff. • The Supervisor of Recreation will; o attend each SFRC meeting and will invite other Township Staff if required. o bring matters of importance that require decision to the attention of the SFRC o share information of importance to the SFRC o make recommendations to SFRC based on Township Staff or Council direction Budget Process The development of Recreation Budgets are a joint effort between the District Committees and Township Staff along with direction from Council. •

Note: Council makes the final decision on Budget items submitted Rationale for proposing Capital and Maintain ace items are based on: • Has the need been identified through consultation w/Community (i.e. User groups, recreation survey, recreation plan) • Does it meet Council priorities • Are there risks if this proposed work is not completed? o Community safety concern o Environmental concern o Increase in maintenance o Long term cost implications o Impact on service/usability

Typical Budget Submission Timeline: June: Supervisor of Recreation to provide Budget submission template and guidelines to District Chairs July: Districts meet to discuss Budget requirements August (Early): Supervisor of Recreation and Supervisor of Facilities meet to identify any Budget impacts or priorities August (Mid): Supervisor of Recreation and Supervisor of Facilities meet with SFRC to discuss and Budget impact or priorities September (Early): Capital submissions due from District Rec Committees to Supervisor of Recreation using Budget template September (Mid):Supervisor of Recreation and Supervisor of Facilities meet to

Page 45 of 165

discuss Committee submissions September (Mid): Supervisor of Recreation and Supervisor of Facilities meet with SFRC to review submissions. September (Mid): finalize Budgets.

Supervisor of Recreation and Supervisor of Facilities meet to

September (End)

Budgets submitted to Treasury

• •

Review The committee at the first meeting of each year will review these terms of reference. Recommendations for change will be forwarded to Council for approval.

Page 46 of 165

STAFF REPORT RECREATION DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE: March 21, 2017 SUBJECT: Ball Diamond Advertising Signage Policy RECOMMENDATION THAT Council approve the Ball Diamond Advertising Signage Policy and direct staff to work through the district recreation Chairs to institute the policy.

BACKGROUND The following report was prepared to provide background information on Ball Diamond Advertising and a draft policy to offer direction and a consistent approach to advertising signage at the Township owned Ball Diamonds. The Storrington Minor Softball league has been approached by local businesses to provide financial support so that the league could continue to subsidize participant fees. In return the businesses would like to display a banner at the Battersea Ball Park. The request was brought to the Arena and Recreation Supervisor for consideration and discussion with the South Frontenac Recreation Committee. At the August 22, 2016, South Frontenac Recreation Committee discussed the request and it was recommended that the Arena/Recreation Supervisor work with the Storrington District Recreation Committee to make arrangements to move this initiative forward for the 2017 season and that a policy be drafted that could extend to the entire Township. At the August 29, 2016, Storrington District Recreation Committee the following motion was carried. Dave motions to approve advertisement spots in local ball fields, seconded by Annie Carried At the January 16, 2017, South Frontenac Recreation Committee the draft policy was presented and sent to District Rec Committees discussed District Rec Committees discussed the draft policy and suggested changes were brought forward to the February 27th South Frontenac Recreation Committee meeting. The draft policy was approved to be sent to Council for endorsement.

ATTACHMENTS Draft ‘Ball Diamond Advertising Signage Policy’ Submitted/approved by:

Prepared by:

Mark Segsworth

Tim Laprade, Arena/Recreation Supervisor

Our strength is our community.

Page 47 of 165

RECREATION DEPARTMENT

Ball Diamond Advertising Signage Policy Purpose of the Policy The Township of South Frontenac works closely with the Recreation District Committees and the Minor Ball groups to support amenities and services for the provision of keeping Kids active and healthy. The Township recognizes the importance of exploring opportunities for keeping registration fees low to encourage participation in minor sports. As per the conditions outlined in this policy, the Township of South Frontenac will permit advertising on Township owned ball diamonds so that businesses can be recognized for their financial contribution in supporting minor ball in our community.

Conditions of advertising signage •

Advertising shall meet the standards set out by the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards;

•

All advertising must be approved by the Recreation District Chair and the Supervisor of Recreation prior to final approval; o A ball diamond advertising agreement must be singed to confirm signage

•

The financial arrangement between the businesses and the minor ball group will be the responsibility of the minor sport group; o Donations for signage start at $200 o The term of the contract will be annual with the option for renewal

•

Advertising must not; o have an adverse effect on either public safety or on the Township’s image; o contain or convey messages that might be deemed negative, prejudicial to any group on account of; sex, disability, race, color, natural origin, religious creed, age, marital status, or sexual orientation, or promote one group over another; o contain content that promotes tobacco, alcohol and other addictive substances; o must not impact adversely on the public safety or the amenity of the facility; o must not obstruct any gates, access points, or openings; o must not impact or interfere with the sporting activity or the public’s view of the sporting activity

•

Advertising that that is political must clearly indicate that it is paid for by a party or candidate, so as to avoid any impression that the Township is supporting any particular party, candidate or point of view;

Our strength is our community.

Page 48 of 165

RECREATION DEPARTMENT

•

The costs of all design, production, installation, maintenance and removal costs of the signage will be the responsibility of the advertiser;

•

Signage is to be maintained to a reasonable standard and it is the responsibility of the advertiser to repair, replace or remove damaged or poorly maintained signs.

•

The Township, Recreation Committees and the Minor Sport Groups are not responsible for any repair or replacement of signage due to damage as a result of neglect, vandalism or environmental impacts.

•

The maximum size of the advertising signage is 5’x3’ and be fabricated out of vinyl material containing grommets along the edges so it can withstand weathering and can be easily fastened to a fence; It is the responsibility of the Recreation District and the Minor sports group to communicate the ‘Ball Diamond Advertising Signage Policy’ to the potential business sponsor;

•

It will be the responsibility of the Minor Ball group to store the advertising signage during the off season;

•

The Township has the right to remove the signage without notice.

Our strength is our community.

Page 49 of 165

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERKS DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE: March 21, 2017 SUBJECT:

Lease Extension

RECOMMENDATION That Council authorize the CAO to execute an agreement with Percy Snider to extend the lease for 4264 Stage Coach Road for two months, under the same terms but with an expiry date of June 30, 2017.

BACKGROUND In May 2015 staff were directed to formalize the lease with Mr Snider for the property at 4264 Stage Coach Road with an expiry of April 30, 2017. Mr Snider has since taken the steps to construct a new facility for his business. Unfortunately Mr Snider is facing delays in the completing the project because of delays from Hydro One in making the required connections. Mr Snider estimates that the two month extension will allow sufficient time to finish the project and move his business.

FINANCIAL and STAFFING CONSIDERATIONS The current rent for the facility is $1211 per month plus an additional sum of $1,000 per month as additional rent that is applied and reconciled against property taxes and utilities.

ATTACHMENTS n/a Submitted/approved by:

Prepared by:

Wayne Orr, CAO

Our strength is our community.

Page 50 of 165

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERKS DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE: March 21, 2017 SUBJECT : Allocation of Proceeds from Memorial Endowment RECOMMENDATION That Council authorize the use of the proceeds from the Memorial Endowment for the purchase, permanent installation and wiring of Christmas lights to the tree in the parking lot of the Municipal offices.

BACKGROUND An endowment was established in December 1999. The Township is to administer the endowment and use the proceeds for “community purposes in the Village of Sydenham to improve health, security, cleanliness, comfort and ornament of the village” The proceeds of the endowment may be accumulated year over year, but must be distributed no later than every 5 years. The last allocation was in 2012 and was for the bench, garbage can and planters in the front of the Municipal offices. Currently there is $1,615.42 that is to be disbursed. The original endowment of $25,000 would remain invested to generate funds for future projects. The Corporate Services Committee has recommended that the funds be used for the purposes of lighting the tree in the parking lot of the Municipal offices during the Christmas season. This initiative would further support the 2016 volunteer efforts for a Community Tree Lighting Event and it would add a festive flavour to the village without the need to cut down a tree each year. Once approved by Council the funds will be allocated in accordance with the procurement bylaw.

FINANCIAL and STAFFING CONSIDERATIONS None at this time

ATTACHMENTS N/A

Submitted/approved by:

Prepared by:

Wayne Orr, CAO

Our strength is our community.

Page 51 of 165

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERKS DEPARTMENT

AGENDA DATE: March 21, 2017 SUBJECT Seniors Housing.

RECOMMENDATION That Council receive the Business Plan from SHS Consulting; And That Council confirm its commitment to further pursue a Seniors Housing Project; And That Council strike a committee for the purposes of entering discussions with the Boards of both SFCSC and LHC to develop recommendations on the final project parameters for Council’s consideration.

BACKGROUND The County of Frontenac’s Seniors Housing Task Force has been meeting to assist South Frontenac in exploring a Seniors Housing project for the Township. This works stems from the County’s strategic plan and money they have committed to supporting a seniors housing project in each of the Townships over the course of this term of Council. The Committee has worked through; which area of the Township is most suitable for a project, potential sites and the type of project that would work best for South Frontenac. As part of the process the County has funded the development of a business case for a project based on the parameters established by the task force. On March 15, County Council received and adopted the report and recommendation of the Task Force. The Task Force’s recommendation to County Council was: Be it resolved that a copy of SHS Consulting Business Plan for Seniors Housing – South Frontenac Project (February 2017) attached as Appendix A be forwarded to the Council of South Frontenac Township to confirm its commitment to the project concept, governance and specific Township involvement. The Business Plan is attached for your review. Now that a business case has been demonstrated, Council is now asked to confirm its commitment to further pursue a Seniors Housing project. With this decision made detailed discussions can take place between the Township of South Frontenac, Southern Frontenac Community Services Corporation (SFCSC) and Loughborough Housing Corporation (LHC) to refine the nature of the project so that it meets the particular needs of all parties. It is important to note that the business case analysis has not fully considered all the needs and input of the partners. A customized concept would emerge from joint discussions that may be acceptable to the governing body of each group.

Our strength is our community.

Page 52 of 165

REPORT TO COUNCIL CLERKS DEPARTMENT

By completing the business case with the assistance of the Seniors Hosing Task Force, and giving due consideration to the Next Steps Checklist from the consultant the Township has taken the steps to accessing County funding for this project. County Council now needs to make a final decision about the allocation of reserves for this project. It should be noted that while the business case speaks to $350,000 being available from the County, this will likely be in the range of $335,000 as explained by the County CAO. Staff recommend that a small Committee of Council, supported by staff, be established to now sit down with the Board representatives of both SFCSC and LHC. The recommendations from these discussions would form the basis for further decisions by Council.

FINANCIAL and STAFFING CONSIDERATIONS None at this time

ATTACHMENTS Letter dated March 15, 2017, County of Frontenac – including Checklist of Next Steps Business Plan for Seniors Housing – South Frontenac

Submitted/approved by:

Prepared by:

Wayne Orr, CAO

Our strength is our community.

Page 53 of 165

Page 54 of 165

Page 55 of 165

Page 56 of 165

Page 57 of 165

Page 58 of 165

BUSINESS PLAN FOR SENIORS HOUSING Township of South Frontenac

February 2017

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

re fact consulting

Page 59 of 165

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As communities grow and age, the need for suitable seniors housing options is become more and more prevalent. This is true of Frontenac County where seniors as a share of the overall population will continue to rise over the next 20 years. As a result, County Council has designated seniors housing as a priority and allocated funds to explore the feasibility of developing affordable housing projects to meet these needs and to prepare business plans for such projects. This report for the Township of South Frontenac represents the second such business plan prepared under this initiative. Using a multi‐step process, the need and viability of such a project was investigated for the Seniors Housing Task Force that was established by the County. Based on demonstrated needs, community consultation and business case analysis, the concept for a small scale seniors housing project situated in Sydenham has been developed. This concept has been tested and found to be viable, subject to the assumptions outlined in this report. Based on the proposed concept, the seniors housing project would: 

Be modest in scale – 12 self‐contained apartment units (6 @ one bedroom, 6 @ two bedroom) plus amenity space for a total buildable area of 10,600 sf (GFA)



Include basic amenity space ‐ laundry facilities (2 pair) and a small indoor common area for gathering/socialization would be provided



Accommodate seniors mobility needs – providing a safe, indoor access to apartment units while incorporating visitability and accessibility throughout units and common spaces



Support basic affordability – all units would be rental and offered at or below average market rent level. Rents for the one bedroom units could be lowered to 80% of average market rent if IAH funding is obtained from the City of Kingston.



Be procured as new construction – this approach would enable a single storey slab‐on‐grade building, with a cost‐effective double‐loaded main corridor, wood frame structure and standard sloped roof



Incorporate practical sustainability features that promote energy efficiency



Be situated adjacent to the Grace Centre on land currently owned by South Frontenac Community Services Corporation, plus an adjacent parcel



Be procured through a formal design/tender process (stipulated price contract)



Be financed using a conventional mortgage that is CMHC‐insured, as well as an equity contribution of $350,000 from the County and an additional equity contribution in the order of $350,000 for the IAH‐funded option OR $1,095,000 in the non‐funded option



Be owned by a newly constituted non‐profit housing corporation



Be managed by Loughborough Housing Corporation, should they be agreeable to take on that role.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 60 of 165

As a result of the financial analysis, it has been determined that the project would be viable based on preliminary cost estimates, anticipated revenues and assumed contributions. While a series of land use approvals are required to permit the intended use, there do not appear to be any significant barriers to securing these approvals. Prior to acquiring the project site, due diligence testing would be required to ensure that no environmental concerns or project servicing impediments exist. Based on an initial scan of current conditions and background information, no impediments are anticipated. Viable project governance options exist, the most plausible of which would see the creation of a new non‐profit corporation which would legally own and operate the project.

The Consulting team wishes to thank the Senior Housing Task Force for their insights and guidance in the development of this Business Plan. The team also wishes to express their thanks to County and Township staff who assisted in facilitating various elements of the study and provided valuable feedback.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 61 of 165

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. i INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1 Project background ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1 Context for business plan …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 This report …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2 PROJECT NEED ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4 Local housing needs and market indicators …………………………………………………………………… 4 Summary of analysis ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 17 Community-based Indicators…………………………………………………………………………………………… 18 Housing Task Force Direction ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19 PROJECT CONCEPT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 20 Form and scale……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 20 Unit mix and affordability ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 20 Amenities ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21 Preferred project concept ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 22 DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 24 Potential development opportunities …………………………………………………………………………….. 24 Redevelopment and acquisition/rehabilitation opportunities ……………………………………………………. 24 New Development Opportunities ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 26 Preferred option and procurement ………………………………………………………………………………… 28 Servicing & technical considerations ……………………………………………………………………………… 29 Land use approvals ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 30 Sustainability ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 31 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 33 Project assumptions/parameters ……………………………………………………………………………………. 33 Estimated capital budget …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 34 Soft Costs …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 35 Hard Costs ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 36

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 62 of 165

Estimated operating budget ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 36 Operating Revenue ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 38 Operating Expenses ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 39 Funding/capital requirements …………………………………………………………………………………………. 40 Financial viability ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 41 GOVERNANCE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 41 Project ownership/oversight ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 42 Planned approach to management ………………………………………………………………………………… 42 MOVING FORWARD ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 43 Summary of preferred concept ………………………………………………………………………………………. 43 Process/critical path ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 44 Key elements & critical success factors …………………………………………………………………………. 45 APPENDIX ‘A’ – NEEDS PROFILE ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 47 County-wide Housing Needs and Market Indicators …………………………………………………… 47 Demographic Profile ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 47 Housing Profile ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 53 Profile of Seniors Indicators ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 57 APPENDIX B – PRO FORMA DETAILS ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 62

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 63 of 165

INTRODUCTION With an aging and diversifying population, seniors housing in Frontenac County has become a growing priority. Recent studies have examined this housing need within the context of the broader housing market and have identified potential options for meeting seniors needs throughout the County. As a result of this work, County Council has designated seniors housing as a priority and allocated funds to explore the feasibility of developing affordable housing projects to meet these needs and to prepare business plans for such projects. This report for the Township of South Frontenac represents the second such business plan prepared under this initiative, following completion of the business plan for the Township of Frontenac Islands. Bringing a housing project from initial concept to on‐the‐ground reality involves a number of sequential stages. Each stage involves a progressively more detailed assessment of the project to ensure that it continues to meet the community’s needs, is financially feasible and is operationally sustainable. Key resource commitments and go‐forward decisions are required for sponsor groups to proceed from one stage to the next. The scope of work for this study addresses the beginning of this process; preparing a business plan to determine ‘proof of concept’ for the project. Specifically, the purpose of this study is to:

Produce a business plan for the development of Seniors Housing in the Township of South Frontenac in accordance with the RFP specifications
Engage the Township Council and stakeholder groups in a discussion regarding local needs
Develop a business model that would result in a sustainable seniors housing project serving the needs of the community.

Project background In 2010‐11, the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac undertook development of a Municipal Housing Strategy (MHS). The strategy involved a comprehensive, multi‐phase process which examined housing needs, supply trends and priority gaps within the regional housing market. A detailed review of current policies, programs and local initiatives was also undertaken to determine the degree to which identified gaps were being addressed. As a result of this analysis, a formal stepwise strategy was developed as part of the MHS to address priority issues and housing gaps over the short, mid and long range. One of the emerging priorities identified for Frontenac County through the MHS was the growing seniors population and concerns about the ability to adequately meet their housing needs looking forward. As a result, the County undertook a more detailed review of the local seniors housing situation to better understand the range of needs and potential solutions that could be used to address these needs. As part of the “Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project Study” completed for the County in 2012, a review of priority issues and existing conditions was completed. An assessment of housing options was also undertaken to evaluate potential seniors housing models and opportunity nodes throughout the County.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 64 of 165

Implementation considerations, including generic model costing and a policy framework analysis were also documented to help frame options for moving forward with a potential pilot project. As a result of the study, it was recommended that a task force be created to pursue the establishment of a pilot seniors housing project. The County subsequently struck a Senior’s Housing Task Force to establish a scope for pursuing a pilot project. The Frontenac Senior’s Housing Task Force met in May of 2014 to review possible directions for the proposed project and determined that the most suitable course of action would be to evaluate potential project options and develop a business plan for the proposed project. In accordance with the seniors objectives of the County’s Strategic Plan, Council allocated $1.5M in financial resources that same year to pursue development of up to four small‐scale pilot projects throughout Frontenac County, one in each constituent Township.

Context for business plan In the “Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project Study”, a range of potential housing options were examined and evaluated against opportunity nodes throughout the County. Given the broad geography, settlement patterns and local needs, a range of potential pilot project options were identified. One of the study conclusions was that a preferred option for a seniors rental housing project would be the development of a facility in the Sydenham community within the Township of South Frontenac, either through new construction or redevelopment. Other communities within South Frontenac were also considered, but the availability of municipal water and the presence of a wide range of community services suitable for seniors made Sydenham the most suitable location for a project of this nature. Following the completion of the first Figure 1 ‐ Situating Sydenham within Frontenac County business plan for the Marysville Community within the Township of Frontenac Islands, the decision was made to proceed with preparation of the business plan for South Frontenac, utilizing a similar methodology. A Seniors Housing Task Force for South Frontenac Township was established to guide the process of preparing this plan.

This report This report is the culmination of a multi‐ staged study process. The steps that have led to the development of this business pan report include:

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 65 of 165

Based on project assumptions, this report explores the feasibility of a small‐scale seniors pilot project in the Sydenham community. As a result, this business plan includes:      

An overview of need A defined project concept and discussion of options considered An overview of the development considerations that would influence the project A review of financial feasibility Options for project governance and management Considerations for moving forward with the project

The business plan provides an assessment of the suitability for moving the concept forward and provides recommendations in that regard.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 66 of 165

PROJECT NEED This section of the report provides a summary analysis of housing needs in the Township of South Frontenac that is based primarily on statistical data analysis. In addition to detailing demographic trends and housing characteristics, the summary also provides an assessment of the need for affordable seniors housing. This analysis is augmented with the results of community consultations, undertaken as part of this study to determine local perspectives on a potential seniors project. Collectively, this information provides a profile of current housing needs for seniors and provides the analytical foundation for the development of the business case.

Local housing needs and market indicators Below we provide an assessment of local housing needs and market indicators in the Township of South Frontenac to help determine the need for seniors housing within the area.

Population Trends In the 10 years tracked by the 2001, 2006 and 2011 Censuses, the population of South Frontenac increased by 10.4%, while Frontenac County as a whole increased by 8.0%. The province’s population increased by a faster rate at 12.6%. However, from 2006 to 2011 the population of South Frontenac decreased by 1%. It should be noted that South Frontenac comprised 68.7% of the County’s population in 2011.

Table 1: Population Trends Municipality

2001

2006

2011

% Change 2001‐2011

South Frontenac

16,415

18,220

18,125

10.4%

Frontenac County

24,411

26,658

26,375

8.0%

Ontario

11,410,046 12,160,282 12,851,821

12.6%

Source: Statistics Canada Census Profiles 2001 ‐ 2011

Population by Age The Township of South Frontenac is expected to experience further growth in the next 15 years. It is projected that South Frontenac will still comprise 68.7% of the County’s population until 2031. From 2011 to 2016, the Township’s population is expected to increase by 10%, with the growth of seniors projected at 46% ‐ more than four times the overall population growth rate. From 2016 to 2031, the overall

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 67 of 165

population is expected to grow by 16%, with seniors experiencing a 70% increase. These figures point to the significant need to provide housing options suitable for an aging population. Table 2: Population Projections by Age

2006

2011

% Change 2006‐2011

0 to 15 years

3,345

2,990

‐11%

2,789

‐7%

2,987

15 to 24 years

2,185

2,175

2,497

15%

2,223

‐11%

25 to 34 years

1,705

1,590

‐7%

3,145

98%

3,328

35 to 44 years

2,945

2,415

‐18%

2,334

‐3%

2,640

13%

45 to 54 years

3,260

3,380

2,739

‐19%

2,364

‐14%

55 to 64 years

2,635

3,040

15%

2,757

‐9%

2,978

65 years and over

2,145

2,535

18%

3,694

46%

4,346

18%

Total

18,220 18,125

‐1%

19,955

10%

20,865

2026

% Change 2021‐2026

2031

3,157

3,206

15%

2,216

2,443

10%

‐2%

3,018

‐9%

2,755

‐9%

‐12%

3,062

16%

3,036

‐1%

30%

2,362

2,975

26%

2,780

‐7%

2,419

‐13%

‐12%

5,106

17%

6,277

23%

70%

21,701

23,110

16%

Age

2016

% Change 2011‐2016

2021

% Change 2016‐2021

% Change 2021‐2031 % Change 2016‐2031

Source: Statistics Canada Census Profiles, 2011; Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., Population, Housing and Employment Projections for the Frontenacs, June 2014

Households In terms of household trends, South Frontenac experienced a 14.4% increase in the number of households from 2001 to 2011. Similarly, Frontenac County experienced an 18.6% increase in households, while Ontario experienced a 15.8% increase.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 68 of 165

Table 3: Household Trends Municipality

2001

2006

2011

% Change 2001‐2011

South Frontenac

5,945

6,765

6,800

14.4%

Frontenac County

9,190

10,265

10,900

18.6%

4,219,410 4,555,025 4,887,510

15.8%

Ontario

Source: Statistics Canada Census Profiles 2001 ‐ 2011

It is forecast that from 2016 to 2031, the number of households in the Township will grow by 18.5%, while the County will increase by 16.8%. In total, 8,715 households are expected to be located in South Frontenac by 2031. During the period from 2011 to 2031, an additional 1,750 households are projected to be added in South Frontenac, each of whom will need a place to live. These forecasts point to the need for an expansion of housing supply within the Township during this period.

Table 4: Household Projections Municipality

2011

2016

2021

2026

2031

% Change 2016‐2031

South Frontenac

6,800

7,355

7,855

8,330

8,715

18.5%

Frontenac County 10,900 11,385 12,090 12,735 13,295

16.8%

Source: Statistics Canada Census Profiles, 2011; Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., Population, Housing and Employment Projections for the Frontenacs, June 2014

Tenure In South Frontenac, most individuals own their home. This relationship can be seen in Figure 1. Since 2001, the number of homeowners have increased to 6,315, which indicates a 19% change. However, renters have decreased from 620 in 2001 to 490 in 2011. This represents a 21% decrease over the 10‐ year span. These findings suggest that owning one’s home is the more favoured option, especially for newer households, and that rental units are declining in real terms in the Township. This trend may start to reverse if interest rates rise and seniors seek more affordable housing alternatives.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 69 of 165

Figure 1: Housing Tenure in South Frontenac

The Change in Household Tenure Over the Years 7,000

Households

6,000

6,315

6,190 5,325

5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 620

1,000

575

490

0 2001

2006

2011

Year Owned

Rented

Source: Statistics Canada Census Profiles 2001 ‐ 2011

Income Since 2000, household income has increased for the residents of South Frontenac. In 2000, the median household income was $55,319, which later increased to $81,664 in 2010 and $90,286 in 2016. Between 2000 and 2010, the median household income experienced a 47.6% increase, while by 2016 it experienced a 63.2% increase. From 2010 to 2016, there has been a 10.6% increase. Similarly, the average household income in 2000 ($61,469) grew by 49.1% in 2010 ($91,678) and 64.9% by 2016 ($101,357). In terms of individual income for the residents of the Township, strong growth has been experienced as well. In 2000, the median individual income was $25,525, which later increased to $38,216 in 2010 and $42,251 in 2016. Between 2000 and 2010, median individual incomes experienced a 49.7% increase, while in 2016 they experienced a 65.5% increase. From 2010 to 2016, there has been a further 10.6% increase. Similarly, individual average income in 2000 ($29,786) grew by 45.9% in 2010 ($43,453) and 61.3% in 2016 ($48,041).

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 70 of 165

Table 5: Township of South Frontenac Household Income

Income

2000

2010

2016

% Change 2000‐2010

Median

$55,319 $70,297 $81,664

$90,286

47.6%

63.2%

10.6%

Average $61,469 $74,988 $91,678 $101,357

49.1%

64.9%

10.6%

% Change 2000‐2010

% Change 2000‐2016

% Change 2010‐2016

2005

% Change 2000‐2016

% Change 2010‐2016

Source: Statistics Canada Census Profiles 2001 ‐ 2011

Table 6: Township of South Frontenac Individual Income

Income

2000

2005

2010

2016

Median

$25,525 $31,068 $38,216 $42,251

49.7%

65.5%

10.6%

Average $29,786 $35,786 $43,453 $48,041

45.9%

61.3%

10.6%

Source: Statistics Canada Census Profiles 2001 ‐ 2011

Over the last 16 years, the average household income in South Frontenac has been growing at a faster rate than the County and the Province. Ever since 2000, households in the Township have had a consistently higher average household income than the County. From 2010 to 2016, the average household income in the Township surpassed that of the County and the Province. Thus, it is projected that the average household income of South Frontenac, as well as the median household income, will continue to increase at a faster rate than its comparators in the coming years. This points to a need to ensure that a seniors housing project includes a strong component of units available at full market rent.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 71 of 165

Figure 2: The Growth of Average Household Income (2000‐2016)

Average Household Income Growth Over the Years $120,000

Average Household Income

$101,357 $100,000

$91,678

$80,000 $60,000

$66,836

$61,469 $56,786

$77,967 $74,988 $67,762

$85,772 $77,109

$94,828 $85,250

$40,000 $20,000 $0 2000

2005

2010

2016

Year South Frontenac

Frontenac County

Ontario

Source: Statistics Canada Census Profiles 2001 ‐ 2011

Dwellings In terms of dwelling type, the housing stock in South Frontenac is not very diverse. Single‐detached dwellings comprise 95.2% (6,475) of all dwellings in the Township. In 2011, there were only 50 (0.7%) semi‐detached dwellings and 15 (0.2%) row houses. As for apartments, there were 65 detached duplexes (1.0%) and 140 units in apartment buildings (2.1%) with less than 5 storeys. There were no apartment buildings that had 5 or more storeys. Additionally, there were 55 moveable dwellings (0.8%) and 5 other types of single‐detached houses (0.1%). These statistics show the lack of available housing options that are suitable for seniors in the Township. Similarly, the majority of dwellings in the County are single‐detached dwellings (95.3% or 9,895 dwellings). The remaining 490 dwellings consist of low‐rise apartment units (1.8%), movable dwellings (0.9%), detached duplex apartments (0.9%), semi‐detached dwellings (0.8%), and a few row and other single‐detached dwellings. These counts have not changed much since 2000, since 93.9% of all dwellings were single‐detached dwellings.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 72 of 165

Figure 3: Dwellings by Type

Dwellings by Type in South Frontenac, 2011 Single‐detached house (6,475 dwellings) Semi‐detached house (50 dwellings) Row House (15 dwellings) Apartment (detached duplex) (65 dwellings) Apartment building (5+ storeys) (0 dwellings) Apartment building (less than 5 storeys) (140 dwellings)

95.2%

Other single‐detached house (5 dwellings) Moveable dwelling (55 dwellings)

Source: Statistics Canada Census Profiles 2011

Seasonal Dwellings Traditionally, seasonal dwellings (a non‐permanent form of housing) have accounted for approximately 40% of Frontenac County’s total dwellings. From 2001 to 2011, all of the Townships in the County experienced a decrease in seasonal dwellings due mainly to the conversion of seasonal dwellings to permanent ones (a decrease from 42% in 2001 to 38% in 2011). In 2011, the 3,000 seasonal units in South Frontenac accounted for 37.1% of all seasonal dwellings in the County. However, by 2031 it is expected that fewer seasonal dwellings will be constructed, causing the proportion to drop slightly to 36.2%. In fact, from 2011 to 2031 seasonal dwellings are only expected to grow by 1.5% in the Township and increase by 4.0% in the County, suggesting a higher conversion rate to permanent dwellings within South Frontenac. Table 7: Seasonal Dwellings (Units) Municipality South Frontenac

2011

2016

2021

2026

2031

% Change 2016‐2031

3,000 3,015 3,030 3,040 3,045

1.5%

Frontenac County 8,090 8,190 8,280 8,350 8,410

4.0%

Source: Statistics Canada Census Profiles, 2011; Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., Population, Housing and Employment Projections for the Frontenacs, June 2014

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 73 of 165

Age and Condition of Dwellings In terms of the condition of dwellings in the Township, very few require major repairs. In 2011, only 500 dwellings (7.24%) required major repairs, while 6,300 dwellings (92.6%) only required regular maintenance or minor repairs. This result suggests that the Township’s housing stock is in good shape, as reflected by 2001 statistics where regular maintenance or minor repairs made up 93% of the total share, while major repairs remained stable at 7%. In South Frontenac, the bulk of the housing stock was built from the pre‐1960s to the early 1990s. In fact, dwellings constructed between the pre‐1960s and 1980 make up 54% of the total housing stock seen today. Those constructed from 1981 to 1990 consist of 20.8% of the total share. After 1991, fewer dwellings were constructed in the Township and from 2006 to 2011 only 225 (3.3%) dwellings were added to the stock.

Figure 4: Dwellings by Period of Construction in South Frontenac

Dwellings by Period of Construction

Period of Construction

2006 to 2011

225

2001 to 2005

590

1991 to 2000

885

1981 to 1990

1415

1961 to 1980

1850

1960 or before

1835 0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Dwellings

Source: Statistics Canada Census Profiles 2011

Residential Development Potential Several policy documents and legislation, such as the Provincial Policy Statement and the Official Plans for the Townships within the County, all support new residential development in designated settlement areas. As of June 2014, Watson and Associates (2014) stated that 2,569 hectares of vacant land are designated as areas of settlement. As seen in Table 8, about 1,498 hectares of vacant designated land is available for development in South Frontenac, which comprises 58.3% of all the available land in the

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 74 of 165

entire County. This data tends to correlate with population and dwelling counts, suggesting that most growth in the County will occur in this area. The development of a new seniors facility in Sydenham would be consistent with these growth expectations.

Table 8: Overview of Vacant Lands Designated as Settlement Areas by Municipality Vacant Designated Land (Hectare)

% of Total Land within Settlement Areas

North Frontenac

647

25.2%

Central Frontenac

411

16.0%

South Frontenac

1,498

58.3%

Frontenac Islands

0.5%

Frontenac County

2,569

100.0%

Source: Watson & Associates (June 2014). Population, Housing and Employment Projections for the Frontenacs

Ownership Housing Market As previously stated, 92.8% (or 6,315) dwellings in South Frontenac were owned in 2011, which is an increase of 990 units from 2001. This finding confirms that homeownership is the most dominant form of tenure and that it is growing in demand, although, as noted earlier, this trend could change in future. The Census reported that house prices in South Frontenac increased as well from 2000 to 2010. The average dwelling value in 2010 was $336,568, while in 2000 it was $157,956. During this 10‐year span, house prices have increased by 113%, which may be attributable to the construction of larger homes, the conversion of seasonal dwellings to permanent ones and lower interest rates. Similarly, the County experienced a 95.7% increase in average house prices in the same time, from $155,557 in 2000 to $304,496 in 2010. These housing price trends continued to grow in 2016 as well. Due to the lack of current housing price data for South Frontenac and surrounding municipalities, it is projected that the average house price in the Township was approximately $372,244 in 2016, which is a 10.6% increase since 2010. In a similar fashion, housing prices in Frontenac County are expected to grow by 10.6% as well, causing homes to cost $336,773 on average. Moreover, in 2011 the percentage of homeowners with a mortgage was 55.2%, meaning that a large share of South Frontenac households do not have a mortgage (i.e. 44.8%). These numbers are nearly identical to those found within Frontenac County. Given that many local homeowners are seniors, this figure demonstrates that a large number of them possess significant assets, which means they would have the capacity to afford market rent units in any new seniors housing project.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 75 of 165

Rental Housing Market In Frontenac County, there were a total of 800 rental units (8.7% of dwellings) in 2011, which have decreased over the years. In comparison, in 2011 South Frontenac experienced a loss of 130 renter‐ occupied dwellings, which translates to a decrease of 21% since 2001. These findings suggest that there is a very limited supply of rental units within these areas, and that supply is decreasing, resulting in less housing choice. It also appears that rental units are not affordable for most renters. In 2011, while 5.1% of tenants in the Township are in subsidized housing, approximately 58.8% of renters spend 30% or more of their income on shelter costs. Furthermore, average monthly shelter costs have increased by 31% in the last 10 years, from $627 in 2000 and $821 in 2011. Although average market rent for Frontenac County and South Frontenac are not reported by CMHC due to data suppression, they are however tracked for the Kingston CMA and its surrounding municipalities, which are aggregated as zones. The data in Figure 5 derives from the entire Kingston CMA and Zone 4 of the CMA, where South Frontenac is located. In 2015, average market rents for the Zone 4 area (including South Frontenac) were $593 for bachelor units, $943 for 1‐bedroom units, $1,261 for 2‐bedroom units, and $1,218 for 3‐bedroom units. Overall, from $989 in 2011 to $1,141 in 2015, the average market rent for all unit types has increased by 15.4% for municipalities like South Frontenac. Typically, as unit types grow in size, so too does the cost of rent. In some instances, such as with 1‐bedroom and 2‐bedroom units, the rents found in South Frontenac and others within Zone 4 in 2015 tend to be higher than the CMA averages. For those seniors on fixed pensions and other low income sources, these rents are moving out of reach, demonstrating that there should be some below market rents in any new seniors housing project. Figure 5: Average Market Rents (2011 and 2015)

Average Market Rents for Zone 4 (South Frontenac) and the Kingston CMA $1,600

$1,406 $1,261 $1,218 $1,095 $1,104 $1,091

Average Market Rent

$1,400 $1,200 $943 $915

$1,000 $800 $600

$553 $593

$679

$1,141 $1,033 $989

$769

$400 $200 $0 Bachelor

1‐Bed

2‐Beds

3+ Beds

Total

Unit Type 2011

2015

CMA (2015)

Source: CMHC Market Rent Surveys, 2011 and 2015

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 76 of 165

Overall from 2011 to 2015, vacancy rates for rental units have increased for municipalities like South Frontenac in Zone 4 of the CMA. In 2011 the vacancy rate was at 0.8%, which later grew to 4.9% for all unit types in 2015. In the last four years, the most growth occurred for 1‐bedroom, 2‐bedroom, and 3‐ bedroom units. The vacancy rates for rental units in Zone 4 are higher than those in the rest of the CMA. The CMA vacancy averages are 0.9% for bachelors, 2.5% for 1‐bedrooms, 3.1% for 2‐bedrooms, and 2.9% for 3‐bedrooms. In general, the vacancy rate for all units are 2.8% in the Kingston CMA for 2015. A vacancy rate of 3.0% is considered by CMHC to be a rental market in balance between demand and supply. Table 9: Vacancy Rates for South Frontenac and Surrounding Municipalities in Zone 4 Zone 4 of Kingston CMA* Year

Bachelor

1‐Bed

2‐Beds

3+ Beds

Total

2011

2.2

0.2

0.8

2012

2.1

2.3

2.1

2013

1.3

1.4

0.6

1.3

2014

3.8

3.2

1.9

4.6

2.5

2015

3.4

5.2

2.2

4.9

Source: CMHC Housing Market Portal and Rental Housing Market Report, October of every year *Zone 4 includes South Frontenac and other municipalities outside of Kingston **Data suppressed or not available

Affordability and Shelter Costs A useful approach to understand if there is an affordability problem in a municipality is to analyze how many residents pay 30% or more of their income on shelter costs. CMHC considers any households paying 30% or more of household income on shelter costs to have an affordability problem. In South Frontenac, the number of homeowners that paid 30% or more on shelter decreased by 15.9% from 2001 to 2011. In 2001 there were 860 households (16.6%); that later decreased to 723 (11.9%) in 2011. On the other hand, renters who pay 30% or more have increased by 15.2% in the same time frame. For instance, in 2001 there were 250 rental households (41%) which later increased to 288 (58.8%) in 2011. These results mirror those experienced within Frontenac County. These findings suggest that many renters are struggling with housing costs in the South Frontenac due to increasing rents and diminishing supply. As shown in Table 10, rental housing is affordable for a select few households in South Frontenac. With average market rent in 2010 being $989 and increasing to $1,261 in 2016, those who are unable to afford these rents include many one‐person households, renter households, and renters in core housing need. In order to afford these rents in 2016, most households would need to have incomes of $50,450 or more

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 77 of 165

and this figure has climbed since 2010 ($39,600). Hence, it appears that affordable rental housing is increasingly a challenge for select household groups. Table 10: Average Household Income to Average Market Rent (AMR) in South Frontenac 2010

2016*

Average Household Income of All Households

$91,678

$101,357

Affordable Rent

$2,292

$2,534

Median Household Income of All Households

$81,664

$90,286

Affordable Rent

$2,042

$2,257

Average Household Income of One‐Person Households

$42,988

$47,527

Affordable Rent

$1,075

$1,188

Average Household Income of Renters

$43,349

$47,926

Affordable Rent

$1,084

$1,198

Average Household Income of Renters in Core Need

$21,829

$24,143

Affordable Rent

$546

$604

Average Market Rent (AMR)

$989

$1,261

Required Income to Afford AMR

$39,600

$50,450

Source: Statistics Canada Community Profiles 2011 and 2006 and National Household Survey 2011; CMHC Housing Information Portal; SHS Calculations based on 30% of income spent on rent *2016 household incomes are estimated based growth rate of the Ontario’s CPI

Loughborough Housing Corporation Waiting List Data Loughborough Housing Corporation (LHC) operates a portfolio of 55 social housing units primarily serving senior citizens in the Sydenham area. About half of these units are rented at market rent and the other half are rented on a rent‐geared‐to‐income basis. About three quarters of the units are one bedroom units and one quarter are two bedroom units. The LHC waiting list and related data are additional indicators of the need for seniors housing, as shown in Tables 11‐14. The tables show that the number of applicants on the LHC waiting list has consistently remained in the 75‐80 range for the past five years. By far the majority of applicants are seeking market rent units. About half of the applicants are seeking one bedroom units, a quarter are seeking two bedroom units and the remainder are seeking either. The data show that only a handful of units are turning over annually (approximately 6‐7 on average), which means that it could take 10 years for all current applicants to be housed. Market rents being charged are highly affordable – well below current CMHC market rents for the area. The units are primarily targeted to seniors.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 78 of 165

These observations provide further evidence of the need to expand the supply of affordable rental housing for seniors, as the current waiting period is extremely long and few other options are available to seniors in the area. Table 11 Loughborough Housing Corporation ‐ Waiting List, 2010‐2016

Waiting List Figures RGI low (one bed) high avg.* Market one bed two bed either Total Total Wait List

2010 4 7 6 19 21 0 40

2011 3 10 7 19 17 10 46

2012 14 17 16 27 20 15 62

2013 4 18 11 29 19 12 60

2014 4 6 5 33 22 17 72

2015 1 14 8 33 23 15 71

2016 5 11 8 34 21 13 68

2015 9.6% 90.4% 100% 51.6% 29.3% 19.1% 100%

2016 10.5% 89.5% 100% 55.3% 27.6% 17.1% 100%

Note: *average for RGI units derived from low/high wait list figures

Table 12 Loughborough Housing Corporation ‐ Waiting List Share 2010‐2016 Waiting List Share RGI Market Total one bed two bed either Total

2010 12.1% 87.9% 100% 53.8% 46.2% 0.0% 100%

2011 12.4% 87.6% 100% 48.6% 32.4% 19.0% 100%

2012 20.0% 80.0% 100% 54.8% 25.8% 19.4% 100%

2013 15.5% 84.5% 100% 56.3% 26.8% 16.9% 100%

2014 6.5% 93.5% 100% 49.4% 28.6% 22.1% 100%

Source: Loughborough Housing Corp.

Table 13 Loughborough Housing Corporation ‐ Annual Unit Turnover 2010‐2016 Applicants Housed RGI Market Total Annual turnover rate

4 2 6

2 4 6

2 0 2

6 0 6

3 0 3

6 1 7

0 1 1

10.9%

3.6%

10.9%

5.5%

12.7%

1.8%

Source: Loughborough Housing Corp.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 79 of 165

Table 14 Loughborough Housing Corporation ‐ General Information General Information

4377 William St. (Maple Ridge) 4361 William St. (Meadowbrook) Total

Unit Mix RGI 15 13 28 50.9%

Market 15 12 27 49.1%

Total 30 25 55 100.0%

2017 Market Rents One bed 24 18 42 76.4%

Two bed 6 7 13 23.6%

One’s $ 678 $ 661

Two $ 770 $ 759

Notes: Geared to seniors, primarily 65+ but younger permitted on cascading age policy basis (uncommon) 3 units are considered modified/accessible, have been occupied for 7+ years, no one waiting for them Rents include electricity and water Source: Loughborough Housing Corp.

Summary of analysis As a result of the above analysis, demographic and housing profiles for South Frontenac Township have been established that show: 

More than 18.5% of the of the Township’s population are seniors and this population in expected to grow at a rate faster than any other segment of the population.



An expected growth of 1750 households in the next 20 years demonstrates the need for steady growth in the supply of housing in South Frontenac.



Household income has grown strongly in South Frontenac in recent years. This points to the need to ensure a range of rent levels within a new seniors housing project to enable a wider range of housing choices in South Frontenac for seniors at all points on the income scale.



The majority of dwellings (over 90%) are ownership tenure and trends continue to show senior owners are staying in their homes longer, due in part to the lack of suitable local housing alternatives.



The lack of new rental supply or other housing types aimed at seniors is limiting the choice of options within the South Frontenac market.



In addition to limited housing options, renters face continued increases in rents and as a result, almost half have an affordability problem (i.e. they spend more than 30% of their gross income on housing). As a result, the new seniors housing project should include some units at below market rents.



Waiting list data for Loughborough Housing Corporation shows a strong unmet demand for seniors units, especially at their market rent. At least half the units should be one bedroom units.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 80 of 165

This analysis demonstrates that there is a continued demand for affordable, purpose‐built rental housing and that, as the seniors population continues to grow in the Township, a greater range of options will be required to meet their needs and enable them to remain in the community. Given the commitment of County Council to contribute public dollars towards the project, there needs to be a clear public benefit, particularly in relation to affordability.

Community-based Indicators To augment this analysis and gather local community perspectives on housing needs, a community open house session was held on November 16, 2016 at the Town Hall in Sydenham. At this session, an overview of housing needs in South Frontenac was presented as well as background on the study process. A recap of study work to date was also provided to attendees. A discussion then took place around potential sites for the project, types of amenities and services to be provided, unit mix and rent levels, governance and other key issues. In addition, a questionnaire survey was provided in hard copy to those attending the session and on‐line on the Township web‐site to enable interested respondents to express their views. A total of 15 responses were received. The key themes arising from the open house session and the questionnaire responses are summarized below. An overwhelming majority felt there is a need for more seniors housing in South Frontenac. Most felt the greatest need was for lower end of market rental accommodation. It was felt that the gap was going to continue to grow due to the increasing seniors population in the area. About 20% of respondents would consider moving in right away; others felt they would be interested in a 5‐10 year time frame. Most respondents identified Sydenham as the area of greatest need and indicated that preference should be given to South Frontenac residents. It was emphasized that the site selected for the project should have strong access to seniors support services and good transportation linkages to the core area of Sydenham where most of the shopping, banking, health care offices, pharmacy, post office, town hall and other amenities were located. The preferred form of housing is a one storey apartment building with self‐contained apartment units for independent living. A two storey building would also be acceptable, providing it is highly accessible. Other features of interest included a courtyard, garden, shared yard space and grounds for walking, as well as a common room, common laundry area, guest suite and hobby/project room. Only one respondent felt that meals should be provided. This could potentially be addressed through linking with an external meals on wheels service. Other services that could be provided would include hairdressing and exercise classes. Several respondents emphasized that the building should be designed to enhance socialization.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 81 of 165

In terms of unit type, most respondents favoured a mix of one and two bedroom units, with one bedroom units averaging about 650‐750 sq. ft. and two bedroom units averaging 800‐1000 sq. ft. It was suggested that rents should average $800 ‐ $1000 per month, with a modest number of units at rent‐ geared‐to‐income rents if possible for those seniors on low fixed incomes. It was emphasized that the building should be highly accessible to help seniors live independently. In terms of governance, the majority felt that the facility should be owned and operated by a non‐profit Board/organization. Possible options could include ownership by the Township with property management contracted to an external property management organization; a public/private partnership; or a non‐profit Board with Township backing. It was felt that financial support from all levels of government was highly desirable to ensure the long term sustainability and affordability of the units, although there was some concern about the terms and conditions that might accompany such funding.

Housing Task Force Direction On December 6, 2016, the consultants met with the Township’s Housing Task Force and reviewed the findings arising from the research and consultation. The Committee expressed its support for the concept that was emerging and confirmed the following direction for preparation of the business plan:    



The project should be located in Sydenham A project size of 10‐12 independent rental apartment units is preferred The property adjacent to the Grace Centre appears suitable for the project and should be given highest consideration Partnering in some fashion with the two community‐based non‐profit agencies in the area (South Frontenac Community Services Corporation and Loughborough Housing Corporation) was of interest and would enhance the success of the project The Township was not interested in setting up its own corporation to own or manage the facility. Given their experience in managing senior citizen housing, Loughborough Housing Corporation should be approached to determine its potential interest in managing the facility The preferred unit mix is 60% at market rent and 40% at affordable rent (i.e. lower end of market), although a 50/50 mix should be explored to determine if it could be sustained financially.

The following sections of this report provide a suggested concept plan for the project, based on the above direction.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 82 of 165

PROJECT CONCEPT This section of the business plan defines the project concept, as informed by local needs, stakeholder feedback and Housing Task Force Direction. These parameters establish the form, scale, unit mix and affordability for the prospective project. Associated amenities are also defined, recognizing the small‐scale nature of the project. As a result of these attributes, configuration options for securing them are reviewed and a preferred project concept is identified. This concept is then analyzed in terms of development potential and financial feasibility in subsequent sections.

Form and scale In terms of project form, it is clear that seniors tend to favour low rise forms which are grade‐related. This building configuration is highly supportive of accessibility and eliminates the need for stairs, lifts or elevators. As such, a single storey slab‐on‐grade configuration offers the accessibility and straight‐forward layout suitable for a project of this scale and client type. Likewise, using conventional wood frame construction and a standard slope roof for this building form would be highly economical. At the same time, it is recognized that a single storey building requires more land than a multi‐storey building and that, when combined with the land area required for a septic system, creates a need for a sizeable property. Therefore, a two storey building might also be considered, which is consistent with the seniors buildings owned and operated by LHC in Sydenham. In terms of the units themselves, demand has shown a strong affinity for self‐contained apartments that are geared to seniors capable of independent living. This means that each residential unit would have its own kitchen and washroom facilities, unlike congregate living arrangements where these facilities can be shared. From that perspective, the project would be much like a typical low rise rental building. Aligning these residential units around a double‐loaded corridor would also provide a high degree of efficiency. Given the current level of demand and the stated Task Force preference for smaller scale, the proposed project is being recommended at 12 units.

Unit mix and affordability Traditionally, seniors housing projects tend to have smaller unit sizes – either one or two bedroom units ‐ as compared with family units, reflecting their inherently smaller household size. Furthermore, affordable seniors units tend to be predominantly one bedroom in size rather than two bedroom, a direct reflection of the rental cost of the unit. Where affordability is less of a concern, seniors projects would typically have a higher share of two bedroom units. Given the affordability profile envisioned for the project, a unit mix of 50% one bedroom and 50% two bedroom is proposed. For a project of 12 units in total, this would mean 6 one bedroom units and 6 two bedroom units. As indicated through community feedback, there is a high degree of interest in rental tenure for the project. This is in contrast to seniors housing models that allow for ownership or some form of equity stake (i.e.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 83 of 165

condominium, life lease, etc.). Apart from the affordability that rental accommodation provides, there was a clear sense from consultations that prospective residents who were homeowners and would be downsizing would not be interested in locking up equity in such a project. Instead they would choose to reserve the use of their equity for other retirement purposes. The consultation and income analysis showed that a mix of market rent and affordable rent units was most desirable for the project. Funding may be available through the Investment in Affordable Housing Program administered by the City of Kingston, Service Manager for the area, to help achieve this. As such, two scenarios have been developed – one with the 6 one bedroom units rented at 80% of Average Market Rent for the area and funded under the IAH Program, and one with them at full market rent. All of the 6 two bedroom units are assumed to be rented at lower end of market rent. To encourage energy conservation and to buffer against utility cost impacts, tenants would be responsible for their own heat and hydro costs. To better facilitate this, individual unit heating/cooling systems have been assumed rather than large shared systems. Given the affordability parameters for the project and the senior client group, it is assumed that a modest unit size would be suitable. This reflects the fact that unit size has a direct influence on overall unit cost and as such, has an impact on project financial viability. However, because many units are anticipated to rent at near market rates, they would need to provide comparable value in the market place in order to attract/retain tenants. Small‐scale projects like this do not benefit from scale economies and as such, can be more expensive to build on a per unit basis. It is important therefore to rationalize built floor area with regard for maximum chargeable rent in order to support viability. With this in mind, 1 bedroom units are assumed at a size of about 600 square feet (gross floor area, GFA) while 2 bedroom units have been assumed at about 800 square feet GFA.

Amenities In terms of in‐unit amenities, it is anticipated that standard appliances would be provided (fridge + stove) along with modest storage space. It is also assumed that visitability would be provided interior to the units by maintaining open radius layouts in both the kitchen and bathroom of each suite. Building in options for grab bars in unit bathrooms is also assumed. In terms of building visitability, wider common corridors and open radius layouts in laundry and common areas would be employed. In addition to constructing the building at grade, common entry doors would provide for full accessibility. Two units would also be modified to accommodate tenants with mobility impairment, incorporating additional unit features like a roll‐in shower and accessible kitchen. This would provide the ability to meet changing needs as tenants age in place. Surface parking would also be provided, recognizing that while most tenants would prefer walkability, there would be a need to provide for basic parking as well as visitor parking in accordance with zoning requirements. It is assumed that 14 parking spaces would be provided as part of the project concept. Community consultations identified a wide range of potential amenities/features that could be included within the common area of the project. At the same time, there was a recognition that only modest opportunities for amenity space would exist for a project of this small scale. As above, scale economies for smaller projects make it challenging to add additional GFA due to the limited offsetting income potential

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 84 of 165

of this space. The more amenity space that is added, the more expensive the project is to build and operate on a per unit basis. While there are cost pressures inherent in adding amenity space, creating opportunities for tenants to socialize in a sheltered space was highly valued by stakeholders. To strike a balance in this regard, it has been assumed that a double loaded common corridor would be used to connect all units internally, providing a common access point to the project as well as sheltered access to each unit. Modest coin operated laundry facilities would also be provided (2 pair washer/dryer) for resident convenience. Adjacent or in combination with this space, it is also assumed that a common room would be provided for the benefit of all tenants. This informal space would provide year round indoor shelter and would account for not more than 500 square feet GFA. The size and configuration of this space would be subject to adjustment based on overall building layout. In addition to small individual patio areas for each unit, a common outdoor amenity area would also be provided adjacent to the common interior space. There would also be a small property management office in the building.

Preferred project concept Based on evaluated needs, consultation feedback and with regard for project development experience, a preferred project concept has been developed. The proposed project concept assumes:    

  

 

12 self‐contained rental apartment units configured around a common, double loaded corridor Of these units, 6 would be 1 bedroom units (600 s.f.) and 6 would be 2 bedroom units (800 sq. ft.) – two units would be modified for full accessibility Units would be geared to seniors (65+) who are able to live independently. Rents charged for all units would be equivalent to 10% below CMHC average market rent for the Kingston area and would not include utilities (i.e. heat/hydro paid by tenants), unless IAH funding is obtained for the one bedroom units, which would reduce rents in those units to 80% of AMR Laundry facilities and a common room would be provided to accommodate tenant socialization. Total initial building GFA is estimated to be in the order of 10,600 s.f. (GFA) Building construction is anticipated to be in a single storey, slab‐on‐grade form with conventional wood framing and a standard sloped roof (providing sufficient land area is available for septic system) To facilitate aging in place, the building and the units would be designed to a visitable standard Surface parking for 14 spaces would be included in the project.

While the ultimate design of the project would provide for component space and the overall configuration of the building, a conceptual layout is provided for illustrative purposes in Figure 2.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 85 of 165

Figure 6 ‐ Conceptual Project Layout

Having established the preferred project concept, subsequent sections of this report will assess associated development considerations and evaluate the financial feasibility of the project.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 86 of 165

DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS A number of development considerations were examined as part of the project concept evaluation process. These included a review of possible development opportunities, options for procuring the project, as well as technical/servicing considerations. This section of the report also examines required land use approvals and sustainability features associated with the preferred project.

Potential development opportunities Based on existing needs, community amenities and consultation feedback, a project location within the Village of Sydenham was deemed highly desirable for siting of the project. Two general approaches to development were considered for the project based on identified opportunities in the Village; redevelopment of existing building(s) and new construction. Apart from preliminary technical reviews of each of these options, site visits were also conducted in the late fall of 2016 to assess potential for each prospective location. Given the preliminary nature of this assessment, development opportunities are discussed in general terms to maintain the anonymity of current building/land owners. General site locations as dicussed below are illustrated in Figure 3.

Redevelopment and acquisition/rehabilitation opportunities Proximity to the Village centre and its associated amenities was deemed a high priority by stakeholders, noting the desire to have walkability to the project where possible. As a mature village, the core of Sydenham is substantially developed and there are very few vacant parcels available for development, most of which are insufficient in size to accommodate the required project and its associated parking and septic system requirements. As a result, acquisition and consolidation of existing developed parcels would be required to establish a project site of sufficient size. This would entail the purchase of multiple sites and their existing structures at costs higher than vacant parcels located in the periphery of the Village. The demolition of structures and prospective remediation due to past uses would be further potential costs incurred. William Street and to a lesser extent Mill Street are primary corridors in the Village centre along which a number of amenities are located. In fact, the Loughborough Housing Corporation maintains two affordable apartment buildings with a total of 55 units on William Street, and is well‐positioned to access these amenities. No vacant structures suitable for conversion or acquisition/rehabilitation were identified through scanning with stakeholders. However, two prospective locations in this corridor were identified as having possible redevelopment potential. Upon review, it was confirmed that each would require substantive lot consolidation, re‐zoning and demolition of existing structures to facilitate construction of the new project. Septic system requirements would also impact on required land area, obliging sizable lot area where costs are generally higher due to location. Given the current conditions, the costs for pursuing redevelopment in this general area were deemed higher than average and would require a significant degree of cooperation from multiple parties to facilitate.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 87 of 165

Figure 7 ‐ Development Opportunities Reviewed in Sydenham

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 88 of 165

By contrast, there were a number of vacant parcels identified on the periphery of the central area which offered the potential to more economically address site requirements for the project while still maintaining reasonable proximity to the village centre. As a result, neither redevelopment nor acquisition/rehabilitation options were considered to be suitable for fulfilling the requirements of the preferred development concept. Based on this cursory review, new construction on appropriate vacant lands outside the central area is considered a more appropriate option because it:     

does not require extensive land assembly with multiple parties to effect provides more financial and design flexibility to configure spaces in accordance with the preferred building concept avoids any potential issues associated with adaptive re‐use or demolition of existing structures (i.e., code issues, designated substances, servicing and HVAC constraints, etc.) better suits the visitability/accessibility requirements of the project in a single storey configuration due to larger available site areas allows greater potential for expansion in the future where demand warrants

New Development Opportunities Opportunities to accommodate the building concept via new construction were also considered as part of the review process. As the central part of the Village has been developed over the years, there are limited opportunities to accommodate new construction. In addition, the assumed floor plate of 10,600 square feet and lot requirements for septic system services mean that the minimum lot size for the preferred project concept in a single storey configuration would be in the order of 2+ acres, depending on soils conditions and surrounding uses. There are limited options in terms of vacant parcels within the Village and water servicing boundaries that could meet these requirements. While there are larger sites available beyond, piped water services are not available and extending them would not be cost effective. Locating in these outer locales would also situate the potential project even further from the array of community amenities that are resident in the central area of the Village. As a result, five prospective locations were identified with stakeholders that lie just outside the central area. They are between a 600m and 800m distance walk from the central intersection of Mill and William Streets, and lie within the Village’s piped water boundary. Access to piped municipal water is seen as highly desirable as it reduces site area and well water requirements for the project, enabling higher density and more cost‐effective development. Vacant site review During the site visit to Sydenham in the late fall of 2016, vacant properties in five prospective locations were examined for suitability under a new construction scenario. It should be noted that all sites would require development approvals in order to accommodate the permitted use and from that perspective, were deemed equally impacted. The first two locations are proximal to the intersection of Church Street and Portland Avenue, across the river and northwest of the Village core. While both large in size and in direct proximity to the Cataraqui Trail, the parcel to the east of the intersection has limited usability due to its configuration. The parcel to the west is more useable in terms of configuration and frontage but would require a severance. Both sites

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 89 of 165

are decidedly more rural in character and do not have any adjacent amenities/services. As of this date, it is not known if the respective private owners would be willing to sell a part of their land holdings or under what terms. A third potential site is located south of Rutledge Road off Morgan Drive, south of the Village centre. The site is located in an established subdivision and is long and narrow, with limited frontage. This configuration makes the site more challenging to use, especially in terms of accommodating the proposed unit count in a single storey configuration and providing the necessary space for a large septic bed. While somewhat more proximal to community services in the core, there are few surrounding amenities. The private owner has indicated an interest in selling the land and/or developing seniors housing, provided suitable funding was made available. The fourth site lies farther west on Rutledge Road, in the area south of the Johnston Lane intersection. This large site would have ample room to accommodate the potential project but would require a severance to size the new parcel appropriately. Despite flexibility in parcel sizing and configuration, there are very limited amenities in proximity to these lands and they are more removed from the village core. The site is also situated on higher topography, obliging a more laboured pedestrian access from the Village centre. Inquiries regarding the site determined that the owner was not interested in selling a part of the property. The fifth site reviewed is located on Stage Coach Road, south of Rutledge Road. The 1.7 acre parcel is fairly rectangular and flat, with ample frontage. This configuration makes the site very amenable to accommodating the required project footprint, although residual lands to the west would enhance site size for development. Initial discussions have indicated that an addition 0.7 acre parcel to the west could be secured at a reasonable cost. The primary lands are owned by the South Frontenac Community Services Corporation (SFCSC) whose community services facility (The Grace Centre) is located immediately to the north. Apart from these social services, there is an ambulance and fire station nearby. While situated within walking distance, the site location on higher topography obliges a more laboured pedestrian access from the Village centre. The owner is a community‐minded organization that provides services to residents, including seniors, and has expressed an interest in seeing a seniors housing facility developed. The proximity to their service centre would enhance the attractiveness of the location for seniors. Preferred property The fifth property identified on Stage Coach Road has a number of strategic advantages when weighed against other vacant property options. The subject site is:     

suitable in size and has sufficient frontage to support the proposed concept within the piped water servicing area, thereby not requiring private water servicing proximal to the central area of the Village and the many amenities it offers directly adjacent to a social support agency that already provides services to seniors and has ambulance and fire services nearby owned by an organization interested in seniors housing and a potential partner for the project who could make the property available for the project under favourable conditions

The partnership opportunity with SFCSC makes this site very compelling both locationally and from a financial perspective. Securing the property and the adjacent parcel for a modest consideration would be extremely beneficial to the financial viability of the project. The opportunity to access services offered by

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 90 of 165

SFCSC at the Grace Centre is equally beneficial to the project and would provide a unique housing and service relationship for seniors in the Village. Figure 8 ‐ Preferred site and adjacent lands

For the purposes of this analysis and based on preliminary discussions, it has been assumed that SFCSC would be willing to provide their portion of the subject lands at a modest cost. Negotiations with the adjacent land owner would have to be undertaken to add that parcel. No environmental issues are known to exist in the vicinity of the lands in question but to ensure this, an Environmental Site Assessment would need to be undertaken as part of the due diligence process. As a vacant property, soils investigations would also be required as part of the due diligence process to confirm septic servicing parameters prior to acquisition. These costs have been included within the financial modelling.

Preferred option and procurement With regard to development options available and given the defined project concept, there is a clear benefit to developing the proposed project under a new construction scenario rather than an acquisition/ rehabilitation approach. Based on the range of potential local sites reviewed, there are some suitable development options that could be pursued for a seniors housing project. However, there is a clearly

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 91 of 165

preferred option in the form of the SFCSC site and adjacent parcel on Stage Coach Road, subject to appropriate due diligence investigations and agreement on terms with the property owner. While this preferred site is not immediately adjacent to the central Village area, there is reasonable access to amenities nearby and general walkability. The site can accommodate the building form/size currently envisioned but any potential future expansion would need to accommodate incremental servicing and land use requirements. Typically in a new construction scenario of this type, procurement of the project would be pursued through a formal tender and fixed priced construction contract. To help guide the development process, a proponent would also engage an experienced development consultant. The role of the consultant would be to marshal the proponent through the development process, from initial concept and feasibility testing through to construction and move‐in. As part of this process, the proponent would also engage an architect to undertake project design. Once design drawings and construction documents were developed and approved, the project would be tendered for pricing, either by invitation or by public tender call. This would encourage competitive pricing for the project among qualified local contractors. This is a standard procurement approach and one that is commonly used where public funds are involved. Financial modelling assumptions have assumed a typical design and tender process with conventional construction techniques. As such, pro forma figures include development consultant, architect and contractor estimates. Only 12 units are anticipated under this initial concept but it would be prudent to design allowing for the potential expansion of the project in the future. In that regard, initial project siting should have regard for the requirements of any possible future expansion. The same holds true for the design and siting of the septic system. A wide range of septic technology exists and it would be advisable to design in the potential for future expandability for this system to help make most efficient use of the site area.

Servicing & technical considerations As noted, there are technical and service considerations associated with project development, many of which must be considered as part of the due diligence process prior to property acquisition and configuration. In the case of the proposed project, the most basic of these is the requirement for an Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). A phase 1 ESA would be undertaken as a screen to determine if there are any potential environmental issues associated with the property. This is primarily due to legislation around environmental liability which places obligations on property owners in regards to found contaminants. While no known environmental conditions exist for the property options identified through this study, if any were discovered through the phase 1 process, a determination would need to be made as to whether to proceed with the lands in question. The current financial pro forma has allowed for a phase 1 ESA but has not included any allowance for environmental remediation. A second consideration is soils conditions, particularly as they relate to septic system requirements. It is assumed that a class 4 septic system would be required for the project in order to meet legislated requirements. Given the vacant rural location of the proposed project, it is assumed that this system would be comprised of a distribution tank and filter bed. The size and design of such systems are based on anticipated flow calculations as well as the type/quality of the filter medium used. For that reason, the

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 92 of 165

condition of the soil on site is a key factor in determining septic system requirements. As such, pro forma assumptions have allowed for soils testing that will assist in determining septic system requirements. These same studies could also be used in determining structural bearing requirements for footings and site works. Given the preference for a single storey slab‐on‐grade form with wood frame construction, these requirements are anticipated to be quite minor. It should be noted that emerging technologies are continuing to expand the range of available options to address septic requirements. In many instances, these options serve to enhance efficiency by reducing the area necessary for treatment/filter medium, thereby promoting more efficient use of land. While pro forma assumptions have allowed for a basic tank and distribution system, the result of soils analysis may identify other potential options for consideration. This would include consideration of options that could be expanded in the future to accommodate additional units. Given the siting restrictions for septic systems, it will be important to consider design options early in the development process to help inform site configuration and layout. A sizable allowance has been provided in the pro forma to account for septic design and installation. A third consideration for the project is potable water provision. Within the Village, piped municipal water is provided and would be available at the lot frontage on Stage Coach Road. Discussions with municipal representatives have indicated that there are no service system capacity constraints as it relates to connecting at this site. Where there is consideration for a possible future expansion to the project, associated water requirements should be factored into current design, especially where it may oblige upgrades to service pipe diameter. Hydro servicing would also need to be confirmed as part of the pre‐acquisition checklist. Through the site visit process, a visual check indicated proximity to hydro service for the preferred site. However, capacity and access points for service would need to be confirmed once siting and building location are confirmed. A modest connection fee has been assumed in the pro forma construction figures. Natural gas is not commonly available in Sydenham and as such, residential heating is commonly provided through electric, oil or propane sources. Renewable energy sources are also possible (e.g. solar, wind) but would have to be evaluated on a cost/benefit basis given the small scale of the project.

Land use approvals Land use approvals can play a significant role in project development, depending on prevailing rules and regulations. A review of local land use documents and discussions with officials confirmed that a number of land use approvals may be required to facilitate the proposed project at the preferred site. These include: Severance – the preferred site owned by SFCSC represents the major part of the project site but there is a desire to add an additional remnant piece of land to the rear of the site to help expand the development potential and accommodate the sizeable septic system. To add this remnant piece, a severance and lot consolidation would be required to create one homogenous parcel of about 2.6 acres. It is not anticipated that issues would be encountered in securing this approval.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 93 of 165

Official Plan Amendment (OPA) – the preferred site is designated “Settlement Area” under the Township’s Official Plan. While there are a broad range of permissions under this designation, the Plan goes on to denote Sydenham as Special Study Area and flag servicing provisions regarding minimum lot area and the ability of private septic systems to meet performance standards (e.g., minimum lot size, setbacks and separation distances). Depending on the application of these policies, an OPA may be required for the preferred site if servicing studies identify performance standard issues but these are not anticipated. If a site‐specific OPA is required, additional studies may need to be submitted in support of the OPA (e.g. soils/servicing report) above and beyond the application and planning rationale. Zoning Bylaw Amendment (ZBA) – under the current zoning bylaw, the preferred site and residual lands fall within the “Urban Residential ‐ First Density (UR‐1)” zone which does not allow for the proposed multi‐residential use. As such, a site‐specific ZBA would be required to re‐zone the lands to Urban Multiple Residential (UMR) to permit the development of a seniors multi‐unit housing facility. Through final building and septic system design, it may become evident that relief from other performance standards may be required and these could be handled as part of the same ZBA application. In order to expedite approvals and given the common issues involved, IF an OPA is required it would be prudent to make application for both the OPA and ZBA concurrently. Building Permit – As part of the construction process, a building permit would be required, ensuring that the project was designed in conformity with the Ontario Building Code. While this approval is typically straight forward, the confirmation of septic system design would be required before a permit could be issued. As such, the approach to servicing would have to be confirmed prior to application for a building permit. As a proponent of the seniors housing project and as the approval authority, it is not anticipated that the Township would have issues in supporting the land use approvals for the proposed project. That said, there are mandatory public consultation requirements associated with most of these approval processes and rights of public appeal on municipal decisions. Appeals of decisions could result in delays and add costs to overall project development. Provided that care was taken in addressing the concerns of neighbours through the planning process, it should be possible to secure necessary approvals. Each of the approvals processes also involve the remittance of fees which would add development costs to the project. Given the small scale of the project and given that the Township is a primary proponent of the project, it is assumed in pro forma modelling that application fees would be waived by the Township.

Sustainability An important lens for project development is the County’s sustainability principles, as articulated in “Directions for our Future: County of Frontenac Guide to Sustainability”. A stated objective of this business plan is to ensure that the proposed project concept supports sustainability objectives. In comparing the proposed project concept with “Directions for our Future”, it’s clear that a number of objectives are being promoted across a range of sustainability areas. These include:

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 94 of 165

     

Land use planning/management – the efficient and orderly development of vacant lands in a compact footprint, allowing for future expandability as warranted Energy – the inclusion of energy efficient building features and conservation measures that can be adapted over time (e.g. low voltage lighting, occupancy sensors in common areas, etc.) Water – having safe, effective waste management systems (i.e. septic) that protect groundwater and features that promote conservation (e.g. low flow faucets, toilets) Solid waste management – reduction in solid waste through the use of recycling and composting Transportation – encouraging walkability and pedestrian access to the Village centre Housing – providing more diversity in housing choice, encouraging ‘aging in place’ for area residents and promoting quality, compact design

While pursuing sustainability practices is a prime consideration of the County, it is recognized that utilizing certain green and renewable energy technologies can be cost‐prohibitive for projects of a smaller scale. In these instances, the payback period can be unrealistic for the upfront investment required. For that reason, practical, modest cost features are encouraged to promote energy efficiency. These can include things like:    

Solar orientation of the building Added insulation in roof and walls Efficient thermal windows and doors High efficiency HVAC systems

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 95 of 165

FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY A key part of determining a project’s viability involves assessing its financial feasibility. At the initial concept phase, this feasibility is based on preliminary assumptions, recognizing that a project’s composition can change as the concept is refined. Throughout a project’s development, this feasibility is tested repeatedly at key milestones as estimates, costs and assumptions are refined. This process enables continued viability checks leading up to the point of construction and allows for decision‐making at key milestones as to whether to proceed. For the purposes of this business plan, financial feasibility has been based on preliminary estimates and assumptions that reflect the current project concept. It is fully expected that as this concept evolves, financial parameters would need to be reviewed and re‐tested to ensure continued viability. Two development scenarios have been created for the purposes stated above. Option 1 includes 6 one bedroom units funded through the Investment in Affordable Housing (IAH) capital funding program. In this scenario, rents for funded units are set at 80% of average market rent (AMR), receiving $150,000 per unit. The remaining 6 two bedroom unit rents are set at 90% AMR and do not receive capital funding from this program. The outcome of this scenario requires an estimated additional equity contribution of about $350,000 beyond the County commitment of $350,000 to make it financially feasible. Option 2 does not receive capital funding from the IAH program. Rent amounts for the one bedroom units are set at 100% AMR and for the two bedroom units are set at 90% AMR. The outcome of this scenario requires an estimated equity contribution of about $1,095,000 beyond the County commitment of $350,000 to make it financially feasible and to offset the absence of the capital funding mentioned above.

Project assumptions/parameters As an integral part of the business plan, the project must demonstrate financial self‐sufficiency in order to attract financing commitments. Therefore, the pro forma must clearly show that the operation of the project will generate sufficient revenues to cover debt service (i.e. mortgage), operating costs and funding of a capital reserve, all while achieving a positive debt service ratio. In order to achieve operational viability, capital costs and associated borrowing requirements must be minimized where possible. Contributions to offset capital costs are also used to reduce debt service costs for the project (i.e. mortgage payments) and in that regard, a number of funding sources have been identified to meet these costs. General assumptions utilized in the financial analysis of the project are as follows: 

12 units total – 6 @ 1 bedroom (590 sf/unit) and 6 @ 2 bedroom (805 sf/unit)



Total buildable area – 10,636 sf (GFA), including modest amenity space



Building construction – single storey slab on grade, wood frame with standard sloped roof

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 96 of 165



Servicing – Township water and septic system



Procurement ‐ design/tender (stipulated price contract)



Financing – conventional mortgage via private lender with CMHC insurance



Contributions – fees waivers and capital contributions from County, land at nominal cost, one scenario assumes IAH funding for 6 units ($150,000 x 6 = $900,000) for option 1



Owner status – non‐profit housing corporation

Using these guiding assumptions, a financial plan for the proposed project has been established and tested for feasibility. The following sections identify the estimated capital and operating costs of the proposed project as well as the funding and capital equity requirements. In addition to detailed assumptions that are discussed in the sections following, summary pro forma tables are also provided in Appendix B that help to clarify the basis for the estimates used.

Estimated capital budget Capital costs are those costs associated with establishing the project and include land, construction and associated development costs. The table below is a general summary of the overall estimated capital costs for the proposed seniors housing project. Table 15 ‐ Estimated Capital Budget – Option 1 (6 units funded under IAH Program)

Capital Costs Soft Costs Building Consultant Costs Site Costs Legal and Organizational Costs Financing Costs Fees and Permits Contingency SOFT COSTS TOTAL

$294,828 $30,000 $65,000 $47,761 $103,889 $54,198 $596,178

Hard Costs Construction Costs Land Costs HARD COSTS TOTAL

$1,986,544 $20,100 $2,006,654

HST TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS

$318,807 $2,922,636

The total capital costs for the proposed project under this configuration are estimated to be $2,922,636. This total includes hard costs (land and construction) of $2,006,654 and soft costs of $596,178. It also includes an HST amount of $318,807. Details regarding component capital costs are identified below. Total capital costs would be offset by the financial resources and funding outlined in Section 5.4 below.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 97 of 165

Table 16 ‐ Estimated Capital Budget – Option 2 (no units funded under IAH Program)

Capital Costs Soft Costs Building Consultant Costs Site Costs Legal and Organizational Costs Financing Costs Fees and Permits Contingency SOFT COSTS TOTAL

$294,828 $30,000 $65,000 $58,612 $103,889 $55,283 $608,112

Hard Costs Construction Costs Land Costs HARD COSTS TOTAL

$1,986,544 $20,100 $2,006,654

HST TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS

$321,135 $2.935,900

The total capital costs for the proposed project under this configuration are estimated to be $2,935,900. This total includes hard costs (land and construction) of $2,006,654 and soft costs of $608,112. It also includes an HST amount of $321,135. Details regarding component capital costs are identified below. Total capital costs would be offset by the financial resources and funding outlined in Section 5.4 below.

Soft Costs Soft costs account for the many items/tasks necessary to design and bring the project to the point where construction can occur. Soft costs for the proposed project are assumed to include:  Building consultant costs – includes architect and development consultant costs as well as associated disbursements  Site‐related costs – includes site surveying, technical testing and a phase 1 environmental site assessment  Legals and organizational expenses – includes legal and organizational expenses as well as capital audit, appraisal and property taxes during construction  Financing costs – includes interest during construction as well as lender fees and mortgage insurance premiums (CMHC insured mortgage)  Fees and permits – these include development application fees, development charges and permit fees ( offsets for these costs are identified in Section 5.4)  Contingency ‐ a contingency of 10% has been included to account for unforeseen soft cost variances

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 98 of 165

Hard Costs Hard costs account for land, construction and associated costs for building and fitting up the project. For the proposed project, hard costs are assumed to include the following: 

Construction costs – base costs are assumed at $160/sf (GFA) and reflect build‐on‐site construction



Site servicing – includes costs for water hook‐ups, installation of new septic bed and hydro connection fees



Appliances ‐ includes costs for in‐unit appliances (fridges/stoves) as well as washer/dryer facilities in the common area



Escalation and contingency – assumed at 10% of construction cost + site servicing costs to account for unforeseen costs/charges



Land – cost of $20,000 (based on key informants) + land transfer taxes



Harmonized Sales Tax – assumed as applicable for total capital costs

Estimated operating budget Once built, there are on‐going costs associated with operating and maintaining a project. The table below is a general summary of the overall estimated operating costs for the first year of operation for the proposed seniors housing project. Option 1 The total operating costs for the proposed project under this configuration are estimated to be $106,538. This total includes maintenance and administration costs, as well as mortgage costs and capital reserve contributions. HST payable and associated rebates have also been factored into these costs. Net revenues are projected at $115,992 and include rents, laundry revenues and vacancy loss. As a result, a net annual surplus of $9,001 is projected which translates into a debt coverage ratio of 1.20, which demonstrates financial feasibility. Details regarding component costs and revenues are identified in the section that follows. Option 2 The total operating costs for the proposed project under Option 2 are estimated to be $115,711. This total includes maintenance and administration costs, as well as mortgage costs and capital reserve contributions. HST payable and associated rebates have also been factored into these costs. Net revenues are projected at $126,084 and include rents, laundry revenues and vacancy loss. As a result, a net annual surplus of $10,314 is projected which translates into a debt coverage ratio of 1.20, which demonstrates financial feasibility. Details regarding component costs and revenues are identified in the section that follows.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 99 of 165

Table 17 ‐ Estimated Year One Operating Budget – Option 1 (6 units funded under IAH Program)

Operating Budget Estimated Operating Revenue Rental Income from Tenants Laundry Revenue Vacancy Loss Total Operating Revenue Estimated Operating Expenses Maintenance – Wages, Materials and Services Heat & Water Electricity Property Management Fee Other Administrative Materials & Services Capital Replacement Reserves Contribution Insurance Property Taxes HST HST Rebate Mortgage Payments Total Operating Expenses Net Operating Income Debt Service Debt Coverage Ratio NET OPERATING PROFIT/LOSS

re fact consulting

$115,992 $3,120 ‐$3,573 $115,539 $15,000 $7,200 $1,920 $7,590 $3,000 $5,203 $2,400 $16,200 $3,456 ‐$0 $44,569 $106,538 $53,570 $44,569 1.20 $9,001

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 100 of 165

Table 18 ‐ Estimated Year One Operating Budget – Option 2 (no units funded under IAH Program)

$126,864 $3,120 ‐$3,900 $126,084 $15,000 $7,200 $1,920 $7,570 $3,000 $5,203 $2,400 $18,000 $3,454 ‐$0 $63,747 $115,711 $62,338 $52,024 1.20 $10,314

Operating Revenue The operating revenue refers to the ongoing income for the project and would include such components as rental income, sundry income and funding contributions. The sources of revenue during the operational phase of this seniors housing development are expected to include only rental income from tenants and laundry revenue. Operating revenues in the first year are assumed to include the following: 

Rental income – rents are based on rent levels for CMHC Zone 4 of the Kingston area



Laundry revenue ‐ laundry revenue generated from coin‐operated machines has been estimated at $3,120 annually



Vacancy loss – throughout a typical year, vacancies can occur due to the timing of move‐ins and move‐outs. An allowance of 3% of revenue has been used to account for this loss.

While not defined in first year budget figures, it is anticipated that the annual increase in tenant income will be based on the average rate of change of the Ontario Rent Increase Guideline over the last five years.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 101 of 165

Operating Expenses Operating expenses include regular day‐to‐day costs for running the housing project, such as maintenance and services, utility costs, property taxes, landscaping, property management, insurance, administrative materials and services, HST and contributions to a long‐term capital replacement reserve fund. Estimates for operating expenses for the proposed project have been developed using data from projects of a similar nature. The total operating expenses for the proposed project are estimated for the first year to be $61,969 for option 1 and $63,747 for option 2 and are comprised of the following notable items: 

Maintenance, administration, insurance and property management – Cost estimates are based on average per unit costs in actual projects and assume the use of contract or part time staff for necessary duties, given the small scale of the project.



Utilities – have been assumed for heat and hydro in common areas only as it is expected that heat and hydro for individual units would be paid directly by tenants.



Capital Replacement reserves – in accordance with CMHC mortgage insurance requirements and prudent practice, an annual contribution to the project’s capital reserve fund is assumed in an amount equal to 4% of total operating revenue. This reserve would be used to fund future lifecycle capital repair costs as needs arise.



Property taxes – property taxes are assumed at a reduced rate for funded units, equivalent to the single residential rate, which is consistent with recent projects developed under affordable housing programs. This would require a formal tax reduction by the Township and County. Property taxes for non‐funded units have been assumed at the multiple residential rate.



Harmonized Sales Tax – applicable HST has been assumed as well as an associated rebate. The rebate is equivalent to that permitted by non‐profit housing providers.



Mortgage payment – Option 1: An annual mortgage payment of $44,569 has been assumed based on the projected lending amount ($1,000,397), a 40‐year amortization period and an interest rate of 3.25%. Option 2: An annual mortgage payment of $52,024 has been assumed based on the projected lending amount ($1,167,735), a 40‐year amortization period and an interest rate of 3.25%.



Preferred rates and amortization are assumed as the mortgage would be CMHC insured but held with a private lender. Consideration could also be given for self‐financing by the Township or County as this could result in savings to the project for financing costs.

While not expressed in the first year operating budget, expenses for maintenance, other administrative materials and services, insurance and property taxes are assumed to increase by 2% per year. This is based on the 5 year average rate of increase in the Consumer Price Index. Other expenses, such as heat and hydro, are assumed to increase by 4.34% annually based on the five‐year average rate of increase in the Consumer Price Index for utilities. As part of the analysis, viability was also examined beyond the first year of operation. By applying the above inflationary adjustments, costs and revenues were escalated over a five year period. The analysis showed that the project remains viable over the analysis period.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 102 of 165

Funding/capital requirements As an affordable housing project, there typically are contributions, fee relief and/or funding that is required in order to ensure affordability and maintain financial viability. These contributions provide an important revenue bridge between the lending capacity of the project and total costs. The table below provides a general summary of the sources of funding that have been assumed for the proposed seniors housing project. Table 19 ‐ Anticipated Project Contributions – Option 1 (6 units funded under IAH Program)

Contributions HST Rebate Fees and Charges Waived Capital Grant from the County IAH Funding Equity Contribution TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS

$ 218,350 $103,889 $350,000 $900,000 $350,000 $1,922,239

Table 20 ‐ Anticipated Project Contributions – Option 2 (no units funded under IAH Program)

Contributions HST Rebate Fees and Charges Waived Capital Grant from the County IAH Funding Equity Contribution TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS

$219,277 $103,889 $350,000 $0 $1,095,000 $1,768,165

Many of these contributions involve waivers of municipal fees/charges while others involve eligible tax rebates or cash contributions. Details regarding contributions are identified below. 

HST Rebate – The project has been assumed as sponsored by a non‐profit entity and as such, the project would be entitled to receive an 82% PST rebate and a 50% GST rebate, resulting in a total HST rebate of $218,250 for development option 1 and $219,277 for option 2.



Wavier of Planning/Building Fees and Development Charges – As a County and Township‐supported project, it is assumed that municipal contributions in‐kind that enhance financial viability would be welcome. Accordingly, it has been assumed that municipal fees for required land use planning approvals, building permit fees and development charges, estimated in the order of $103,889, would be waived for both development options of the project.



Capital Grant from the County – In accordance with the terms of reference for the business plan and based on funding allocated for seniors housing by the County, it has been assumed that the project would receive a capital grant of $350,000 from the County of Frontenac



Land Value – Discussions with SFCSC indicate they may be willing to transfer ownership of their portion of the preferred site at a nominal cost.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 103 of 165



Equity Contribution – Based on current estimates of total project costs, potential contributions and assumed debt service capacity, a projected capital shortfall of approximately $350,000 exists for development option 1. In order to achieve financial feasibility, an equity injection of this amount would be required to support the project. This equity could be secured in the form of fund raising, an additional cash contribution, program funding or some combination of the above. Without IAH funding, a larger equity contribution is required. For development option 2, a total equity contribution of $1,095,000 is required to make the project financially viable.

Financial viability The financial plan outlined above presents capital and operating budgets that result in a feasible and self‐ sustaining project based on current assumptions. Based on these estimates, total project costs would be in the order of $2.92M for development option 1 and $2.93M for option 2. Funding for development costs in option 1 would be provided through conventional financing of approximately $1,000,397, and a range of project contributions/rebates totaling $1,922,239. For option 2, these costs include $1,167,735 in mortgage costs and contributions and rebates totalling $1,768,165. Operationally, development option 1 is estimated to have an initial annual operating cost of $106,538 which would be offset by rents and revenues in the order of almost $115,539. This would result in a modest annual operating surplus of approximately $9,001. Calculations show that, based on this operating cost structure, the project would achieve a debt coverage ratio of 1.2, demonstrating that it is financially viable. Development option 2 is estimated to have an initial annual operating cost of $115,771 which would be offset by rents and revenues in the order of almost $126,084. This would result in a modest annual operating surplus of approximately $10,314. Calculations show that, based on this operating cost structure, the project would achieve a debt coverage ratio of 1.2, demonstrating that it is financially viable. That said, viability assumptions do rely on a number of contributions and fee relief to help defray project costs. These contributions would require the support of both the Township and the County in order to be realized. Going forward, it will be critical to re‐test assumptions as cost and revenue estimates are refined. This will help ensure that as the project concept evolves, options to maintain financial viability can be considered and applied as needed.

GOVERNANCE An important consideration in moving forward with the proposed project is understanding how it will be sponsored and operated on an on‐going basis. This has implications not only for basic operations and sustainability but can have an impact the financial assumptions for the project. Following is a review of key governance issues.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 104 of 165

Project ownership/oversight The project sponsor – the owner – has a fundamental role in the development and long term success of the project. Typically for a project of this nature, an established non‐profit housing organization would be a prime sponsor. The experience they have in project operations and property management would be highly beneficial. The one local organization with experience in the ownership and management of affordable seniors rental housing is Loughborough Housing Corporation, which owns and operates two such buildings in Sydenham. Preliminary discussions have been held with the Corporation, who have indicated an interest in some form of involvement in the project. Their expertise and experience in property management of affordable seniors housing make them well suited to be retained as the property managers for the project. This should be strongly considered. Any other form of involvement in the ownership of the building would need to be discussed with their Board and senior staff. The Township of Frontenac has no previous experience in the ownership and operation of seniors housing of this nature and have expressed the view that, while they may be prepared to support the project in various ways, they do not believe they would be suited to be the owners or managers of the building. Similar views were expressed by South Frontenac Community Services Corporation, which is highly interested in providing supports and services to seniors in the building (especially given the proposed location adjacent to their Grace Centre), but has no experience or expertise in the ownership or management of seniors housing. One approach which may be suitable in view of the interest of all three organizations in the project would be the creation of a separate, legally distinct non‐profit housing corporation that has representation from all three organizations on its Board of Directors. This mix of representation on the Board of the corporation would facilitate arm’s length local oversight while at the same time compartmentalizing liability and risks associated with operations. The on‐going involvement of the Township would further help to provide stability and continuity for the project. The stability of this approach is seen as highly desirable in getting the project up and running.

Planned approach to management As noted above, Loughborough Housing Corporation possesses the experience and expertise to undertake the property management and maintenance of a building of this nature. Given the modest size of the project, this involvement would be on a part‐time basis. They could be retained on this basis for an annual property management fee which would be negotiated with the Board of Directors.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 105 of 165

MOVING FORWARD Summary of preferred concept Based on demonstrated needs, community consultation and business case analysis, the concept for a small scale seniors housing project situated in Sydenham has been developed. This concept has been tested and found to be viable, subject to the assumptions outlined in this report. Based on the proposed concept, the seniors housing project would: 

Be modest in scale – 12 self‐contained apartment units (6 @ one bedroom, 6 @ two bedroom) plus amenity space for a total buildable area of 10,600 sf (GFA)



Include basic amenity space ‐ laundry facilities (2 pair) and a small indoor common area for gathering/socialization would be provided



Accommodate seniors mobility needs – providing a safe, indoor access to apartment units while incorporating visitability and accessibility throughout units and common spaces



Incorporate practical sustainability features that promote energy efficiency



Be situated adjacent to the Grace Centre on land currently owned by South Frontenac Community Services Corporation, plus an adjacent parcel



Be procured through a formal design/tender process (stipulated price contract)



Be owned by a newly constituted non‐profit housing corporation



Be managed by Loughborough Housing Corporation, should they be agreeable to take on that role.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 106 of 165

Process/critical path While preliminary feasibility of the project concept has been demonstrated, there are a number of steps necessary to advance the project. Moving forward through these steps, there are a number of decision points where the plausibility of advancing would need to be reconfirmed as the project concept is refined. Initially, this would involve steps confirming the parameters for moving forward from the initial feasibility testing, including the following tasks: 

Confirm decision to move forward – in addition to endorsing the business plan, this task would involve securing development consulting expertise to advance the project



Confirm decisions with regards governance/oversight – this would involve defining the Township role in the project going forward, as well as pursuing incorporation of the sponsor entity (if this approach is confirmed). Discussions would be required with the Boards of Loughborough Housing Corporation and South Frontenac Community Services Corporation about potential representation on the Board of Directors.



Enter into a conditional agreement re property – this would involve meeting the South Frontenac Community Services Corporation to develop an agreement to lease or purchase the preferred property and the adjacent parcel. This agreement would be conditional on all of the requirements of the project being met



Enter into discussions with Loughborough Housing Corporation about property management – this would involve meeting with Loughborough Housing Corporation to determine their interest in assuming the role of property managers of the building



Confirm initial funding commitments – to enable project planning, County and Township contributions would need to be confirmed. Access to financing would also need to be confirmed on a preliminary basis as well as the funding/resources necessary to undertake the next stage of pre‐development work. The City of Kingston would need to be approached regarding the availability of IAH funding.

With these activities completed, a decision regarding proceeding/not would be made in order to move forward to the pre‐development stage. Under this phase, the following activities would be required to advance development of the project to the point of construction commitment: 

Assemble technical/design team – this would involve identifying or recruiting development team members, including a project architect and technical testing specialists



Formalize project design – preliminary design drawings would be developed for comment and subsequent refinement in accordance with the finalized project concept



Complete due diligence for land – in order to finalize site acquisition, environmental and technical testing would need to be conducted to formally confirm that no development constraints existed



Confirm specific service requirements – having confirmed technical parameters and preliminary design, final servicing designs would be developed for septic systems and utilities into the site

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 107 of 165



Re‐confirm costs, funding and mortgage financing – in addition to updated pro forma figures, a conditional financing commitment would be secured to confirm financial parameters prior to tendering

With these activities completed, a decision regarding proceeding/not would be made in order to move forward to the construction stage. Under this phase, the following activities would be required: 

Prepare contract documents for bidding – final design drawings and accompanying specification would be developed for tendering purposes



Tendering for construction pricing – contract documents would be tendered for pricing to qualified bidders and results would be evaluated against budgeted construction costs. Both conventional contractors and modular contractors should be invited.



Reconfirm financing and project commitment – final budget adjustments would be made based on tendered costs to secure final financing approvals, thereby enabling owner approval for project commitment to proceed with construction



Negotiate construction contract and commence construction – with approval in hand, a standard construction contract would be executed with the selected bidder



Construction monitoring – through the construction process, regular progress reviews would be undertaken to track progress against the building schedule as well as costs versus budget.



Pre‐occupancy planning – during the construction phase, planning would be undertaken in order to prepare for tenant move‐in and project operations



Post‐occupancy wrap‐up – with the conclusion of construction and the subsequent certification for project occupancy, capital cost reconciliation, HST self‐assessment, warranty inspections, etc. would be completed in order to close out the capital development phase of the project

Key elements & critical success factors As noted, there are a number of tasks require to move the project forward through successive stages of development. Each stage is punctuated with a decision point on whether to proceed or not to the next stage. While this progressive process lays out a stepwise approach to move from initial viability through to construction, there are some fundamental success factors that are key ingredients for realizing the proposed project. Having these elements in place goes a long way to supporting project viability. Key elements required for a successful project include: 

Allocating sufficient resources – having the funds/resources to undertake pre‐development work and advance through construction is essential to the success of the project



Having a clear governance/accountability framework – during development and after occupancy, having a clear and straight‐forward decision‐making structure for oversight



Acquiring strong technical expertise – through the development process, a range of technical issues must be addressed/overcome and having an experienced team is key to staying on track

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 108 of 165



Firming up an agreement for the preferred property – a fundamental project requirement is reaching agreement on the preferred property, which is currently owned by South Frontenac Community Services Corporation and its neighbour



Securing access to financing – securing financing is a critical component to meeting the financial obligations of development

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 109 of 165

APPENDIX ‘A’ – NEEDS PROFILE The “Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project Study” completed for the County in 2012 contained a comprehensive profile of housing and need indicators for the County and its constituent townships. This profile was based on data available at the time. Since completion of the pilot study, additional Census and market data have been released that serve to provide a more current picture of local conditions. This appendix provides an abbreviated update of the original profile, highlighting key housing and need indicators at the County level. Seniors‐based indicators are also examined at the County level and summarized as part of this update. As a result, relevant local conditions in the Frontenac Islands have been highlighted in the body of the report with regard for the broader analysis provided in this appendix.

County-wide Housing Needs and Market Indicators Demographic Profile Frontenac County The County of Frontenac is rural in character, covering an expansive area of some 4,000 square kilometres. The County has a permanent population of just over 26,000, complimented by a substantial number of seasonal residents who cottage throughout the Frontenacs. The county is comprised of four townships ‐ North, Central and South Frontenac and Frontenac Islands. The majority of dwellings in the County are single‐detached homes, located in one of the many small villages and hamlets or scattered throughout the extensive rural area. As a result, the land use pattern for the County is very low density in nature. Like other jurisdictions in Ontario, the County is experiencing aging in its population. In fact, the share of the senior population in the County of Frontenac is actually increasing more rapidly than that of the province as a whole. General Population Trends In 2011, the County of Frontenac had a permanent population of 26,375. The majority of this population (68.7%) lives in South Frontenac. Central Frontenac accounts for 17.3% of the population while the rest of the population is divided between Frontenac Islands (7.1%) and North Frontenac (7.0%). Table 21. Population Counts, Frontenac County and the Townships of Frontenac Islands, South Frontenac, Central Frontenac and North Frontenac, 1996‐2036

Geography Frontenac County Frontenac Islands South Frontenac Central Frontenac North Frontenac

1996 23,760 1,661 15,711 4,615 1,773

2001 24,411 1,638 16,415 4,557 1,801

2006 26,658 1,862 18,227 4,665 1,904

2011 26,375 1,864 18,113 4,556 1,842

2016 28,605 2,120 19,315 5,120 2,050

2021 29,895 2,225 20,250 5,280 2,140

2026 30,900 2,295 21,025 5,380 2,200

2031 31,705 2,365 21,580 5,530 2,230

2036 32,400 2,435 22,050 5,650 2,265

Source: Statistics Canada 1996‐2011 Community and Census Profiles; Watson & Associates, Population, Housing and Employment Projections for the Frontenacs, June 2014

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 110 of 165

Over the last 15 years the population of the County has increased by 11.0% overall, growing from a population of 23,760 in 1996. From 2006 to 2011, the County’s population declined 1.1%. While the County has experienced a slight decline recently, it is still important to note that the County’s population is expected to grow and that based on projections by Watson and Associates undertaken in 2014, the population is estimated to increase by some 6,000 people from 2011 to 2036 (23%). Locationally, the population distribution is expected to remain the same, with 68.1% still expected to reside in South Frontenac in 2036 (compared to 68.7% in 2011). The other Townships are also expected to maintain their proportions, with Frontenac Islands’ share rising slightly from 7.1% in 2011 to 7.5% in 2036. Figure 9. Population Growth and Decline Trends, Frontenac County and the Townships of Frontenac Islands, South Frontenac, Central Frontenac and North Frontenac, 1996‐2036

Population by Age When broken down by age range, Ministry of Finance data shows that the largest age group in the County of Frontenac (including the City of Kingston)1 in 2011 was persons aged under 25 years, comprising nearly a third (29.5%) of the population. The number of persons in this age group is expected to increase by 4,770 by 2036 (10.8%), but the age group’s proportion will drop to 24.7% of the total population. All age groups are expected to increase in real numbers from 2011 to 2036, but senior age groups will see the most sizable increases, with the 65 to 74 year old age group increasing by over 10,000 persons (76.0% increase) and the 75 years and older group more than doubling (17,000+ persons or a 144.8% increase). This compares to a 32.4% increase for the population as a whole.

Ministry of Finance figures do not disaggregate data for the County and City of Kingston. As such, figures are reported based on County + City totals.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 111 of 165

Also expected to experience notable growth us the 35 to 44 year age group, indicating there will be more persons of working age in the County in a couple of decades. This could lead to an even greater increase in seniors as this population group ages in the future. Table 22. Population Counts and Trends by Age, Frontenac County (including the City of Kingston), 2011 and 2036

2011

2036

% Change 2011‐2036

Age

% % 0 ‐ 24 44,120 29.5% 48,890 24.7% 10.8% 25 ‐ 34 19,125 12.8% 23,910 12.1% 25.0% 35 ‐ 44 18,115 12.1% 26,360 13.3% 45.5% 45 ‐ 54 23,305 15.6% 26,380 13.3% 13.2% 55 ‐ 64 20,155 13.5% 20,720 10.5% 2.8% 65 ‐ 74 13,175 8.8% 23,190 11.7% 76.0% 75+ 11,745 7.8% 28,750 14.5% 144.8% TOTAL 149,740 100.0% 198,200 100.0% 32.4% Source: Statistics Canada, Community Profiles, 2011; Ontario Ministry of Finance, Population Projections Update, 2014

Households In terms of household growth, the number of households in the County has grown 26.0% from 1996 to 2011, from 8,650 households to 10,900 in 2011. This rate of household growth is notably higher than the population growth rate during the same time period, which is due in part to trending towards smaller, more diverse household types. This is reinforced by the fact that even though the County’s population declined 1.1% from 2006 to 2011, households grew 6.2%. Like population trends, the largest proportion of households is situated in South Frontenac, with 66.2% of households. Another 17.5% are located in Central Frontenac with just 8.4% and 7.8% in North Frontenac and Frontenac Islands, respectively. It is projected that households will continue to grow at similar rates over the next 20 years, with an expected increase of 26.6% from 2011 to 2036 for the County. Despite this overall trend, the rate of household growth will be slower in South Frontenac and Frontenac Islands, and faster in North Frontenac and especially in Central Frontenac. Geographical distribution of households amongst the Townships is also expected to remain steady.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 112 of 165

Figure 10. Household Growth Trends, Frontenac County and the Townships of Frontenac Islands, South Frontenac, Central Frontenac and North Frontenac, 1996‐2036

Tenure Along with population and household trends, tenure is also a key indicator for tracking housing trends. Ownership continues to be very prominent throughout the County. As can be seen in the figure below, the share of households with ownership tenure has been on the rise, with the proportion of owners rising from 85.9% in 1996 to 91.3% in 2011. In contrast, there was a decline in the proportion of renter households during this same period to 8.7% in 2011. In real terms, the number of owners rose 33.0% during this time period, while the number of actual renters declined 23.4%, in 2011, indicating that. Figure 11. Tenure Trends, County of Frontenac, 1996 and 2011

Income An important element in determining housing need is the economic capacity of a household. By examining income trends and characteristics, it is possible to better identify the affordability limitations of households and the impact these have on the housing options available to them.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 113 of 165

In 2010, the median individual income in the County of Frontenac (including Kingston2) was $31,814, slightly higher than the Provincial median income of $30,526. However, the County’s 2010 average individual income ($40,983) was lower than the Provincial average ($42,264). Despite this, incomes in the County are rising at rate faster than the Province. The County’s average individual income level increased by 36.2% from 2000, when it was $40,091, a higher rate of increase than that seen for the Province (28.6%). Similarly, median individual income rose 38.6% for the County from 2000 to 2010, compared to just a 23.0% increase for the Province. Figure 12. Median and Average Individual Income, County of Frontenac (including City of Kingston), 2000 and 2010

This trend towards higher average incomes is evident in changes for those with low or moderate incomes. As can be seen in the figure below, the proportion of individuals earning less than $40,000/year has decreased significantly since 2000 – in particular, those earning less than $10,000/year have dropped from 23.8% in proportion to 14.9% and those earning $10,000 to $19,999 have dropped from 22.0% of the population to 16.1%. On the other hand, those earning $60,000 or more have experienced notable increases, with this group’s proportion growing from 8.5% in 2000 to 21.8% in 2010. While upward trending in incomes is encouraging, the fact remains that nearly half (44.3%) of the County’s population earns less than $30,000/year as an individual.

NHS income data for 2010 does not disaggregate figures for the County and the City of Kingston. As such, average and median income figures are reported which include both the County and the City.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 114 of 165

Figure 13. Individual Income Ranges, County of Frontenac (including City of Kingston), 2000 and 2010

In terms of household income, the chart below shows that median and average household incomes have been rising at a rate similar to those of individuals. For the County as a whole (including Kingston3), median household income rose 32.1% from 2000 to 2010 and average household income 35.8%. In comparison, median household income for the Province rose 23.7% to reach $66,358 in 2010, and average household income 28.3% to reach $85,772. Like individual incomes, average and median household incomes for the Province are higher than the County, but growth in household incomes is occurring at a faster rate in the County. Figure 4. Median and Average Household Income, County of Frontenac (including City of Kingston), 2000 and 2010

As previously noted, NHS income data for 2010 agglomerates figures for the County and the City of Kingston.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 115 of 165

Housing Profile Housing supply is typically measured based on the availability of housing options for households within a community. These housing options are then compared to housing demand to identify any gaps that may exist. However, gaps in the market are not simply borne out of demand; they can also be driven by factors which limit choices. Generally speaking, households with higher incomes and the ability to live independently are able to exercise this choice in the housing market. By contrast, those with lower incomes and higher care requirements will have much fewer choices. The private market traditionally supplies the majority of housing in most communities and this is certainly the case in the County of Frontenac. Dwellings The majority of dwellings in the County of Frontenac are single‐detached dwellings (95.3% or 9,895 dwellings). The remaining 4.7% (490 dwellings) are comprised of low‐rise apartment building units (1.8%), movable dwellings (0.9%), detached duplex apartment units (0.9%), semi‐detached dwellings (0.8%), as well as a few row houses and other single‐attached dwellings. These proportions have not changed much since 2001 when there were 8,615 single‐detached dwellings and which comprised 93.9% of the dwelling stock. However, the number and proportion of semi‐detached homes did drop by almost half from 2001 to 2011, and the proportion of low‐rise apartment building units and movable dwellings dropped slightly as well. In real terms, South Frontenac and Central Frontenac have a slightly more diverse range of housing types as compared to North Frontenac and Frontenac Islands where dwelling types are quite limited. This tendency towards low density development in the County is typical for many rural communities. Table 23. Dwellings by Type, Frontenac County and the Townships of Frontenac Islands, South Frontenac, Central Frontenac and North Frontenac, 2011

Frontenac County

% Single‐detached house Semi‐detached house Row house Apartment, detached duplex Apartment, building that has five or more storeys Apartment, building that has fewer than five storeys Other single‐attached house Movable dwelling

Frontenac Islands

South Frontenac

Central Frontenac

North Frontenac

9,895 80 30 90

95.3% 0.8% 0.3% 0.9%

760 5 0 10

96.8% 0.6% 0.0% 1.3%

6475 50 15 65

95.2% 0.7% 0.2% 1.0%

1775 20 10 15

93.9% 1.1% 0.5% 0.8%

885 5 5 0

97.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.0%

0.0%

185 10 95

1.8% 0.1% 0.9%

10 0 0

1.3% 0.0% 0.0%

140 5 55

2.1% 0.1% 0.8%

35 5 30

1.9% 0.3% 1.6%

0 0 10

0.0% 0.0% 1.1%

TOTAL 10,385 100.0% Source: Statistics Canada, Census Profile, 2011

785

100.0%

6,805

100.0%

1,890

100.0%

905

100.0%

Seasonal Dwellings Seasonal dwellings – those used on a non‐permanent basis – have traditionally accounted for roughly 40% of the County’s total dwellings and are located throughout the County. However, the percentage of seasonal households in the County of Frontenac declined from 42% in 2001 to 37% in 2011, to reach 6,068

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 116 of 165

dwellings. All of the townships experienced a decrease in seasonal households during this time period, due in part to conversion to permanent dwellings. In contrast, by 2036 the proportion of seasonal dwellings in the County as a whole is expected to rise slightly to 38% or 8,465 dwellings due to new construction, and this growth is expected to be primarily in South Frontenac and North Frontenac. The Frontenacs are becoming more attractive to empty nesters and seniors (within the 55 to 74 age range) and a growing proportion of this group is choosing to retire / semi‐retire at their seasonal properties, converting these to permanent residences. As a result, more recent projections suggest some upswing in the conversion of seasonal dwellings, albeit at a minor rate. According to Watson and Associates (2011), this trend is expected to continue over the next few years with absorption of converted stock. Over the next 25 years, the influence of seasonal dwelling conversion on housing development will have significant impacts within the County, as it will increase the permanent housing stock if conversions continue to occur in favour of development of permanent dwellings. Figure 15. Seasonal Dwelling Trends, Frontenac County and the Townships of Frontenac Islands, South Frontenac, Central Frontenac and North Frontenac, 2001‐2036

Age and Condition of Dwellings According to 2011 Census data, 28.4% of the County’s dwellings were built prior to 1960, compared to just 11.6% built after 2000, indicating that the County has a somewhat older housing stock. Nearly a third (28.9%) of the dwellings were built between 1961 and 1980. Despite the aging profile of the stock, housing in the County is in reasonably good shape with just 7.8% (805 dwellings) requiring major repairs in 2011, compared to 8.8% in 2001. Residential Development Potential The Provincial Policy Statement as well as the Official Plans for the Townships within the County of Frontenac encourage new residential development in designated settlement areas. A review conducted by Watson and Associates (2014) showed that as of June 2014, the County had a total of 2,569 hectares of vacant land designated as settlement areas in the Township Official plans.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 117 of 165

Table 24. Overview of Vacant Lands Designated as Settlement Areas by Municipality

North Frontenac Central Frontenac South Frontenac Frontenac Islands Total Frontenac County

Vacant Designated Land (Hectare) 647 411 1,498 13

% of Total Vacant Land within Settlement Areas 25.2% 16.0% 58.3% 0.5%

2,569

100.0%

Source: Watson & Associates (June 2014). Population, Housing and Employment Projections for the Frontenacs

The above table shows that the majority of this land (58.3%) is located in South Frontenac while the smallest proportion of vacant land is located in the Township of Frontenac Islands (0.5%). The availability of substantial vacant lands in South Frontenac correlates with population and dwelling counts that show most growth in the County has and will continue to occur there. Ownership Housing Market As mentioned earlier, 91.3%, or 9,495 dwellings in the County, were owned as of 2011, up from 7,140 dwellings in 1996. This indicates that ownership housing is not only by far the most dominant form of tenure, but the County’s preference for ownership housing is growing. Price is also an important consideration in the ownership market. According to Statistics Canada Census data for 2011 the County’s average dwelling value for 2010 was $304,496, which is an increase of 95.7% since 2000, when the average dwelling value was $155,557. This substantial increase is mainly due to the production of larger homes, seasonal conversions and sustained lower interest rates which foster greater buying power for owners. Mortgage status can also provide important information on a housing market. In 2011, 55.8% of the County’s owner households, or 5,067 households, had a mortgage, indicating that a large proportion of the County’s owners (about 45%) do not have a mortgage and have a substantial amount of accumulated equity in their homes. Rental Housing Market As mentioned earlier, just 8.7% of dwellings in the County (800 units), were rented in 2011 and the number of rental dwellings has actually gone down. Since 1996, rental units have decreasing by 275 units (23%) in the County. This suggests that there is a very limited supply within the County and that the supply is diminishing. It should be noted that in 2011, 14.4% of renter households, or 128 households, were in subsidized housing in the County, indicating that a large proportion of renter households struggle to meet housing costs. These trends show that there is a very limited supply of affordable rental housing in the County. Average rents are an important consideration in the rental market. According to Statistics Canada Census data for 2011 the County’s average monthly shelter cost for rented dwellings in 2010 was $895, which is

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 118 of 165

an increase of 32.6% since 2000, when the average monthly shelter cost for rented dwellings was $675. It is presumed that rising utility costs during this period would have had some influence on these increases. Average market rents for the entire County of Frontenac are not reported by CMHC but rents are monitored for the Kingston CMA which includes South Frontenac, Frontenac Islands and Loyalist Township (Zone 4 within the CMA). In the last 9 years, overall average market rents in the CMA have increased by some 34.4%, from $751 in 2005 to $1,009 in 2014. Average market rents vary by unit size, tending to increase as the size of the unit increases. In 2014, average market rents for the Kingston CMA were $662 for bachelor units, $888 for one bedroom units, $1,070 for two bedroom units and $1,411 for 3 bedroom units. Rents in Zone 4 of the CMA tend to be higher than the CMA averages. This was especially true in 2014 for one and two‐bedroom units in Zone 4 which were the highest in the CMA at $963 and $1,271 respectively. Figure 26. Overall Average Rents, Kingston CMA and Zones, 2005 and 2014

Overall, vacancy rates for rental units in the Kingston CMA decreased from 2.1% in 2005 to 1.9% in 2014 for a total of 13,092 units in 2014, compared to 12,381 units in 2006. A healthy vacancy rate is generally considered at about 3.0% so a rate of 1.9% shows a significant tightening of the rental market and when considered with the limited options available, explains the higher average rents being commanded. The vacancy rate of 2.4% for Zone 4 was higher than the Kingston CMA overall in 2014 and up from just 1.3% in 2005. While the rise in vacancy rates could suggest there is more housing stock to meet demand in 2014 compared to nearly a decade ago, vacancy rates are still below the 3.0% level that is considered a balanced market , indicating a slight undersupply of units. While the rental data does not provide a complete picture for the County of Frontenac, it is clear that there is a limited supply of rental housing and that demand for units continues to be strong, based on lower vacancy rates and overall trends. Spending on Housing and Shelter Costs As a standard measure of affordability, where households spend more than 30% of their gross income on shelter costs, they are considered to have an affordability problem. In 2010, 15.7% of owners in the County (1,426 households) were spending more than 30% of their income on housing costs, compared to 16.5% in

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 119 of 165

2000 (1,305 households). While the real number of owners spending more than 30% has increased, their proportion has actually decreased. This is in contrast to renters where both the number and proportion of renters spending more than 30% of their income on housing costs increased from 2000 to 2010. In 2010, 47.9% of renter households (426) were spending more than 30% of their income on housing costs, compared to 38.7% of renter households in (370). This data indicates that renters are increasingly struggling with housing costs in the County due to limited supply and increasing rents.

Profile of Seniors Indicators Population Trends Data on the age of the population shows that in 2011, seniors comprised just over 17% of the population in the County and just over 21% of the population in Frontenac Islands. Both areas had similar increases in the number of seniors, 49.8% for Frontenac County and 43.6% for Frontenac Islands. Table 25. Senior Population, Frontenac County and Frontenac Islands, 1996 and 2011

2001

Frontenac County Frontenac Islands

2011

Total

Seniors 65+

Seniors Proportion

Total

Seniors 65+

Seniors Proportion

% Change 1996‐2011

23,760 1,640

3,050 275

12.8% 16.8%

26,375 1,864

4,570 395

17.3% 21.2%

49.8% 43.6%

Source: Statistics Canada, Census and Community Profiles, 1996 and 2011

When considering sub‐area demographics, it is clear that seniors are not evenly distributed within the County. In real numbers, those 65+ are most prominent in South Frontenac, given the more populace nature of this Township. Proportionally though, seniors make up a much larger share of the current population in both Central Frontenac and Frontenac Islands, and especially North Frontenac where seniors account for one out of every three persons. Table 26. Seniors as a Share of Population, Frontenac County and the Townships of Frontenac Islands, South Frontenac, Central Frontenac and North Frontenac, 2011

Seniors (65+) as share of population

Total Seniors Pop

Total Pop

Frontenac Islands 395 1,864 South Frontenac 2,535 18,113 Central Frontenac 1,040 4,556 North Frontenac 600 1,842 Frontenac County 4,570 26,375 Source: Statistics Canada, Census Profile, 2011

Seniors as % of Total 21.2% 14.0% 22.8% 32.6% 17.3%

The Ontario Ministry of Finance produces an updated set of population projections every year to provide planners and researchers with a demographic outlook reflecting the most up‐to‐date trends and historical

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 120 of 165

data. Based on Ontario Ministry of Finance population projections, the following table illustrates that between 2012 and 2036, Frontenac County’s (including the City of Kingston) senior population will rise 94.5%, compared to an overall population increase of just 27.0%. The proportion of seniors will also increase from 17.1% in 2012 to 26.2% in 2036. Table 27. Overall Population and Senior Growth Trends, Frontenac County, 2012 and 2036

2012

% Change 2012‐ 2036

2036

Frontenac County (inc. Kingston) 156,060 198,190 27.0% Seniors 65+ 26,700 51,940 94.5% Proportion 17.1% 26.2% Source: Ontario Ministry of Finance, Population Projections Update, 2014

The discussion above shows that the County’s population will be aging significantly, and by 2036 a quarter of the total population will be a senior. This suggests that there will be a sustained need for seniors housing options as the proportion of the senior population increases. This will be especially true for the population aged 75 years and older, which will increase 144.8% from 2011 to 2036, compared to a 76% increase for those aged 65 to 74 years. Households Household structure is another factor to be considered in assessing housing needs. Given the population and households characteristics of the County, it is not surprising that a high proportion of households, including senior households, are family‐based, with related individuals in either a marital, common‐law or lone‐parent structure. Non‐family households – those comprised of individuals living alone or together – make up a much smaller share of all households. Table 28. Household Living Arrangements for Seniors in Private Households, Frontenac County and the Townships of Frontenac Islands, South Frontenac, Central Frontenac and North Frontenac 2011

Frontenac County

% Number of persons not in census families aged 65 years and over Living with relatives Living with non‐relatives only Living alone Number of census family persons aged 65 years and over TOTAL

Frontenac Islands

South Frontenac

Central Frontenac

North Frontenac

1,080 160 70 850

23.9% 14.8% 6.5% 78.7%

80 10 0 65

20.3% 12.5% 0.0% 81.3%

575 115 40 420

22.8% 20.0% 7.0% 73.0%

245 30 20 195

24.3% 12.2% 8.2% 79.6%

180 5 10 170

30.5% 2.8% 5.6% 94.4%

3,435

76.1%

315

79.7%

1,945

77.2%

765

75.7%

410

69.5%

4,515 100.0% 395 100.0% 2,520 100.0% 1,010 100.0% Source: Statistics Canada, Census and Community Profiles, 2001 and 2011

590

100.0%

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 121 of 165

The majority of seniors in the County reside in a family structure (76.1%). The majority of the County seniors’ not in a census family (78.7% of seniors not in a census family) were living alone. Proportions are similar across the Townships, and especially for Frontenac Islands. These proportions have not changed notably since 2001 although the proportion of seniors in census family structures has risen slightly for all areas. For the County as a whole, the actual number of seniors in census families has increased as compared to seniors not in census families during this period (40.5% versus 20.0%). Tenure As shown in the figure below, the proportion of ownership tenure has been increasing for all senior and soon‐to‐be senior age groups in the County of Frontenac, and ownership tenure is very prominent among these age groups. Figure 17. Proportion of Households Aged 55+ by Tenure, County of Frontenac, 1996 and 2011

While the tendency towards ownership in senior households is very clear, the increasing ownership proportion in the 75+ age groups in particular suggests that more seniors are staying in their own homes longer as they age. This may be due in part to a lack of other housing alternatives for seniors in the community. This trend may also be influenced by the conversion of seasonal dwellings to permanent dwellings by in‐migrating seniors as they choose to retire and make the County their permanent homes. For senior households who have paid off their mortgage, owning their home provides them with housing stability and built‐up equity. Accessing this equity can be an important factor because while housing costs are reduced with mortgage pay‐down, so too are incomes for retired individuals. Given the typically lower income of seniors in the County, the current pricing and the limited supply of units, rental housing remains a viable but limited option for seniors and it is not always affordable. Increasing the supply of rental units at affordable rates would assist in creating more housing choices for seniors in the County. Income Assistance There are a number of pension benefits available to Canadians when they reach age 65. These include the Old Age Security (OAS) pension, which is a monthly benefit, and the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS), which is available to low‐income seniors receiving OAS benefits. GIS benefits vary from $506.86/month to

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 122 of 165

$764/month depending on if the recipient is single or has a spouse/partner that receives or does not receive OAS pension. In addition, the Guaranteed Annual Income System (GAINS) provides monthly payments to eligible Ontario seniors on top of the OAS and GIS payments. The amount of GAINS benefit is directly linked to the GIS monthly payments and ranges from $2.50 to $83 per month. The following table shows the maximum monthly benefit that a senior living in Ontario can receive. This shows that if a single senior did not have a private pension, they would receive a maximum of $16,934 a year or $1,411 a month. Table 29. Maximum Monthly Benefits for Benefit Period October 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014

Benefit Program

Single

OAS GIS GAINS

Per Month $563.74 $764.40 $83.00

Per Year $6,764.88 $9,172.80 $996.00

Qualified Couple Per Month Per Year $1,127.48 $13,529.76 $1,013.72 $12,164.64 $166.00 $1,992.00

Total

$1,411.14

$16,933.68

$2,307.20

$27,686.40

Source: Ontario Ministry of Finance (2014). GAINS Benefit Rates

The maximum annual income for a person to receive OAS is $114,815, and for GIS it is $17,088. For a couple where one person receives OAS it is $22,650 and for a couple that does not receive OAS it is $40,944. Another benefit for seniors is the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) which provides a monthly taxable benefit to retired seniors who worked and contributed to the plan. Beneficiaries have to be at least 65 years old or between age 60 and 65 and meet the requirements of the work cessation test. The CPP pension is designed to replace about 25% of a senior’s average pre‐retirement employment income. The following table provides a summary of the CPP payment rates and shows that a senior would receive an average of $7,284 a year and a maximum of $12,456 a year when they retire. Table 30. 2014 Canada Pension Plan Rates

Average Benefit (June 2011)

Maximum Amount

Retirement (at age 65)

$607.33

$1,038.33

Post Retirement Benefit (at age 65)

$9.55

$25.96

Disability

$901.40

$1,236.35

Survivor ‐ younger than 65

$409.26

$567.91

Survivor ‐ 65 and older

$311.19

$623.00

Children of disabled contributors

$230.72

Type of Benefit

Children of deceased contributors

$230.72

Death (maximum one‐time payment)

$2,294.07

$2,500.00

Survivor / retirement (at age 65)

$798.82

$1,038.33

Survivor / disability

$1,009.71

$1,236.35

Combined benefits

Source: Service Canada, Canada Pension Plan Payment Rates, January‐December 2014

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 123 of 165

The Ontario Disability Support Program is an income assistance program that provides financial assistance to low‐income persons with disabilities. The amount of Income Support received depends on family size, income, assets and housing costs. The table below provides the most recent ODSP monthly shelter allowance rates. Table 31. Ontario Disability Support Program Maximum Monthly Shelter Allowances, 2013

Benefit Unit Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 or more

Maximum Monthly Shelter Allowance $479 $753 $816 $886 $956 $990

Source: Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services, Shelter Calculation, 2013

ODSP benefits are not automatically terminated once a person reaches the age of 65. Seniors who do not receive Old Age Security (OAS) are eligible for ODSP. Seniors who receive OAS may still be able to keep their ODSP benefits if they are financially eligible, that is, if their income is less than what they would receive from ODSP. Most seniors would have a higher income than what they would receive from ODSP due to the combined benefits from OAS, GIS, and GAINS but some seniors may still qualify for Extended Health Benefits (EHB) if their health care expenses are high.

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 124 of 165

APPENDIX B – PRO FORMA DETAILS  Option 1 – Assisted Model  Option 2 – Market Model

re fact consulting

Township of South Frontenac Business Plan for Seniors Housing (Sydenham)

Page 125 of 165 Option 1 - Assisted Model Project Statistics Sponsor Group: Project Address: Project Type:

South Frontenac Community Services 4295 Stage Coach Rd New Construction 115,851 SF 10,763 m2

Site Area:

Units 1 Bedroom, IAH Funded 1 Bedroom, IAH Funded, Modified 2 Bedroom, IAH Funded 1 Bedroom, Not Funded 2 Bedroom, Not Funded

of Units

6 0 0 0 6

Total # of RGI Units

Total # of Units

Circulation Community Room Office Laundry Total Building Area Total parking spaces Revenue generating parking spaces Number of storage lockers

Capital Budget

Unit Size (SF)

Construction Period: 12 months

Unit Size (m2)

589 54.7 589 54.7 806 74.8 589 54.7 806 74.8 Total Size of Dwelling Units (SF)

(m2)

8,365

777.1

(SF)

(m2) 111 42 29 29 988

1,198 455 310 310 10,636

Rent per Rents as % 100% unit per Comments of AMR AMR month $603 80% $754 2015 Kingston CMA and Zone 4 Data $603 80% $754 2015 Kingston CMA and Zone 4 Data $807 80% $1,009 2015 Kingston CMA and Zone 4 Data $754 100% $754 2015 Kingston CMA and Zone 4 Data $1,008 100% $1,009 2015 Kingston CMA and Zone 4 Data Actual Total Rent Per Total Rent, All Units, Annum from Tenants Total AMR Rent, All Units All Sources ($ and % of AMR) $115,992 91.4% $115,992 $126,950 % of Total Space 11.26% 4.27% 2.91% 2.91%

Comments 1 Storey Double Loaded Hallway Common Room Corner Office Laundry

14 0 0

South Frontenac Community Services 4295 Stage Coach Rd

SOFT COSTS 1 Professional Fees 2 Architect, Engineer, Landscape 3 Cost Consultant (Quantity Surveyor) 4 Development Consultant 5 Planning Consultant 6 Disbursements (Architect/Engineers) 7 Septic design/testing 8 Building Sub-total

Total Cost

Per Unit

$134,828.16 $25,000 $110,000 $10,000 $5,000 $10,000 $294,828

$11,236 $2,083 $9,167 $833 $417 $833 $24,569

9 Site 10 Building and Property Appraisal 11 Topographic Survey 12 Boundary Surveys 13 Geotechnical Assessment 14 Environmental Assessment 15 Other Site Studies 16 Site Sub-total

Total Cost

Per Unit

$5,000 $2,500 $2,500 $7,500 $5,000 $7,500 $30,000

$417 $208 $208 $625 $417 $625 $2,500

17 Legal and Organizational 18 Legal Fees 19 Organizational Expenses 20 Marketing/Rent-up 21 Capital Cost Audit 22 Market Appraisal for HST purposes 23 Property Taxes During Construction 24 Insurance During Construction 25 Legal and Organizational Sub-total

Total Cost

Per Unit

$25,000 $10,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $4,500 $5,000 $65,500

$2,083 $833 $500 $583 $667 $375 $417 $5,458

26 Financing Costs 27 Interest During Construction 28 Lender’s Legal Financing Fee 29 Lender’s Mortgage Advance Fee 30 Lender’s Application Fee

Total Cost

Per Unit

$17,091 $10,000 $1,750 $8,000

$1,424 $833 $146 $667

31 CMHC Mortgage Insurance Application Fee on Residential Units

$2,400

$200

per unit for the first 100 units, $100 thereafter, 0.3% of nonresidential loan amount

CMHC Mortgage Insurance Premium on Non-funded Residential Portion

$3,470

$289

4.50%

residential funded portion: premiums waived; non-funded and commercial portion: 4.5% of Loan Value

$4,000 $1,050 $47,761

$333 $88 $3,980

Total Cost

Per Unit

$1,300 $0 $300

$108 $0 $25

33 Insurance Consultant and Title Insurance 34 CMHC Mortgage Advance Fee 35 Financing Costs Sub-Total

36 Fees and Permits 37 Rezoning Application 38 Official Plan Amendment Application 39 Site Plan Approval Application

17-‐03-‐16

Prepared by SHS Consulting

Comments

6.0% of construction costs plus HST, excludes group’s appliances and furniture and f Based on similar projects 3.8% of total project costs Needed for Rezoning Based on similar projects Based on similar projects

Comments Based on similar projects Based on similar projects Based on similar projects Based on similar projects $5,000 minimum ESA Phase 1 Use for projects where actual studies not known

Comments

Based on similar projects Based on similar projects Use $500 per unit as minimum for non-RGI units Based on similar projects typical cost $8,000, needed if project’s Fair Market Value will be higher than inp 0.00% use vacant land tax rate or multi residential tax rate and apply to land/property Assumes builder’s risk, etc. carried by contractor

Comments 4.80% interest during construction To be confirmed by financing proposal/agreement $350 per cash advance, charged on all advances Varies, to be confirmed by financing proposal/agreement

$350 per cash advance, first 2 draws not charged

Comments Schd. A to By-law No. 2016-79 - UR1 To URM Rezoning Schedule A to By-law No. 2016-79 - Not Need Likely Schedule A to By-law No. 2016-79

1 of 3

Page 126 of 165 40 Building Permit Fees

$27,811.75

$2,318

$74,477

$6,206

$14.000 $14.00 per $1000 of project value( construction costs)

41 Development Charges 42 Local 43 School Board Levy

$6,206 BY-LAW NO. 2014-54 2017 Rate

$103,889

$8,657

Total Cost

Per Unit

$541,978 $54,198 $596,176

$45,165 $4,516 $49,681

Total Cost

Per Unit

$1,701,792 $68,000 $10,000

$141,816 $5,667 $833

54 Fire Safety Plan

$2,200

$183

55 Appliances (Fridge & Stove)

$12,000

$1,000

56 Appliances (Washer/Dryer)

$6,966

$581

$6,966

57 Furniture and Equipment 58 Contingency 59 Construction Costs Sub-total

$5,000 $180,596 $1,986,554

$417 $15,050 $165,546

60 Land / Property Acquisition Costs 61 Purchase Price / Value

Total Cost

Per Unit

$20,000

$1,667

44 Fees and Permits Sub-total 45 Soft Costs Summary 46 Soft Costs Sub-total (8,16,25,35,44) 47 Soft Cost Contingency 48 Soft Costs Total

$0 To be confirmed N/A

Comments 10.0% includes financing costs of

$47,761

49 HARD COSTS 50 Construction Costs 51 Base Construction Cost, Residential 52 Site Servicing 53 Hydro Connection Fee

62 Provincial Land Transfer Tax

Comments

$160 per square foot of construction Site Servicing & Septic only those costs beyond allowance in construction contract, estimated based o Based on similar projects; required for occupancy $1,000 per unit for a fridge and a stove for non-modified units

Commercial washer $2,215, commercial dryer $1,268. Use 1 set per 9 units. Office & Common Room 10.0% of construction costs

Comments SFCSC will transfer their portion of land for a nominal amount First $55,000 at 0.5% + $55,000-$250,000 at 1% + $250,000 and up 1.5%

$100

$20,100

$1,675

64 TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS 65 Hard Cost Total 66 Soft Cost Total 67 HST 68 Total Project Cost

Total Cost

Per Unit

$2,006,654 $596,176 $319,806 $2,922,636

$167,221 $49,681 $26,651 $243,553

69 Contributions 70 Rezoning Application waived 71 Official Plan Amendment Application waived 72 Site Plan Approval Application waived 73 Building Permit Fees waived 74 Development Charges 75 Local Development Charges waived 76 School Board Levy waived

Total Cost

Per Unit

$1,300 $0 $300 $27,812

$108 $0 $25 $2,318

$74,477 $0

$6,206 $0

Waived as per funding agreement Waived as per funding agreement Waived as per funding agreement Waived as per funding agreement Waived as per funding agreement Waived as per funding agreement Must confirm not charged

77 County Equity Contribution

$350,000

$29,167

County Equity Contribution

78 Additional Equity Required

$350,000

$29,167

79 Capital Contribution: Investment in Affordable Housing for Ontario

$900,000

$75,000

63 Land Cost Sub-total

80 Additional Contribution

Comments 13%

Comments

Additional Equity Required for 1.20 DCR per unit or 75% of total capital cost per funded unit, $150,000 whichever is less. For Funded Units Above

81 HST rebate (PST portion)

$158,099

$13,175

82%

rebate applied to the PST portion of HST, residential component only

82 HST rebate (GST portion)

$60,251

$5,021

50%

rebate applied to the GST portion of HST, residential component only

$1,922,239 $1,000,397

$160,187 $83,366

83 Total Contributions 84 Total Project Cost Less Contributions 85 Mortgage

Comments

86 Mortgage Amount

$1,000,397

87 Mortgage Interest Rate 88 Mortgage Amortization 89 Annual Mortgage Payments 89 Operating Budget 89 First Full Year

3.25% 40 years $44,569

South Frontenac Community Services 4295 Stage Coach Rd

90 Estimated Operating Revenue 91 Rental Income from Tenants 92 Rent Supplement/Subsidy Top-Up 93 Commercial Rental Income 94 Utilities Recovery (ie. from commercial tenants) 95 Laundry Revenue 96 Parking Revenue 98 Vacancy Loss 99 Total Operating Revenue

17-‐03-‐16

based on most recent lender quotes

Total $115,992 $0 $0 $0 $3,120 $0 -$3,573 $115,539

Per Unit Comments $9,666 $0 Top-up to 100% AMR on RGI units only $0 $1 per SF of Commercial rental space $0 0% of Heat, Electricity, and Water/Sewer costs $260 Estimated at $5 per unit per week $0 Estimated at $40 per parking space per month -$298 3% of Rental, Parking, Laundry, Locker, Commercial Revenue $9,628

Prepared by SHS Consulting

2 of 3

Page 127 of 165 100 Estimated Operating Expenses 101 Maintenance - Salaries 102 Maintenance - Materials & Services 103 Heat 104 Electricity 105 Water/Sewer 106 Administrative Salaries 107 Property Management Fee 108 Other Administrative Materials & Services 109 Capital Replacement Reserves Contribution 110 Insurance 111 Property Taxes 112 HST 113 HST Rebate

Total $4,800 $10,200 $2,400 $1,920 $4,800 $0 $7,590 $3,000 $5,203 $2,400 $16,200 $3,456

$61,969 $44,569 $106,538

117 Net Operating Income 118 Debt Service

$53,570 $44,569

119 Debt Coverage Ratio

1.20

17-‐03-‐16

$400 Based on $300 Per Unit $850 Based on $650 Per Unit $200 Heat for common areas only $160 Tenant Pays Hydro $400 Building Pays Water $0 Included in Property Management Fee $632 6% of (100% AMR + other revenue) $250 Based on $250 per Unit $434 4% of 100% Average Market Rent and Other Income $200 Minimum of $200 per unit, adjust based on owner’s portfolio average $1,350 Property Tax Rate - Funded & Market $288 Assumes that all Operating expenses are before tax

114 Sub-total 115 Mortgage Payments 116 Total Operating Expenses

120 Net Operating Profit/Loss

Per Unit Comments

$0 Only applicable to groups with municipal status $5,164 $3,714 $8,878

Should be 1.2 for residential building with 100% funded units

$9,001

Prepared by SHS Consulting

3 of 3

Page 128 of 165 Option 2 - Market Model Project Statistics Sponsor Group: Project Address: Project Type:

South Frontenac Community Services 4295 Stage Coach Rd New Construction 115,851 SF 10,763 m2

Site Area:

Units 1 Bedroom, IAH Funded 1 Bedroom, IAH Funded, Modified 2 Bedroom, IAH Funded 1 Bedroom, Not Funded 2 Bedroom, Not Funded

of Units

0 0 0 6 6

Total # of RGI Units

Total # of Units

Circulation Community Room Office Laundry Total Building Area Total parking spaces Revenue generating parking spaces Number of storage lockers

Capital Budget

Unit Size (SF)

Construction Period: 12 months

Unit Size (m2)

589 54.7 589 54.7 806 74.8 589 54.7 806 74.8 Total Size of Dwelling Units (SF)

(m2)

8,365

777.1

(SF)

(m2) 111 42 29 29 988

1,198 455 310 310 10,636

Rent per Rents as % 100% unit per Comments of AMR AMR month $603 80% $754 2015 Kingston CMA and Zone 4 Data $603 80% $754 2015 Kingston CMA and Zone 4 Data $807 80% $1,009 2015 Kingston CMA and Zone 4 Data $754 100% $754 2015 Kingston CMA and Zone 4 Data $1,008 100% $1,009 2015 Kingston CMA and Zone 4 Data Actual Total Rent Per Total Rent, All Units, Annum from Tenants Total AMR Rent, All Units All Sources ($ and % of AMR) $126,864 99.9% $126,864 $126,950 % of Total Space 11.26% 4.27% 2.91% 2.91%

Comments 1 Storey Double Loaded Hallway Common Room Corner Office Laundry

14 0 0

South Frontenac Community Services 4295 Stage Coach Rd

Total Cost

Per Unit

$134,828.16 $25,000 $110,000 $10,000 $5,000 $10,000 $294,828

$11,236 $2,083 $9,167 $833 $417 $833 $24,569

9 Site 10 Building and Property Appraisal 11 Topographic Survey 12 Boundary Surveys 13 Geotechnical Assessment 14 Environmental Assessment 15 Other Site Studies 16 Site Sub-total

Total Cost

Per Unit

$5,000 $2,500 $2,500 $7,500 $5,000 $7,500 $30,000

$417 $208 $208 $625 $417 $625 $2,500

Total Cost

Per Unit

$25,000 $10,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $4,500 $5,000 $65,500

$2,083 $833 $500 $583 $667 $375 $417 $5,458

26 Financing Costs 27 Interest During Construction 28 Lender’s Legal Financing Fee 29 Lender’s Mortgage Advance Fee 30 Lender’s Application Fee

Total Cost

Per Unit

$18,810 $10,000 $1,750 $8,000

$1,568 $833 $146 $667

31 CMHC Mortgage Insurance Application Fee on Residential Units

$2,400

$200

per unit for the first 100 units, $100 thereafter, 0.3% of nonresidential loan amount

CMHC Mortgage Insurance Premium on Non-funded Residential Portion

$12,602

$1,050

4.50%

residential funded portion: premiums waived; non-funded and commercial portion: 4.5% of Loan Value

$4,000 $1,050 $58,612

$333 $88 $4,884

$350 per cash advance, first 2 draws not charged

Total Cost

Per Unit

$1,300 $0 $300

$108 $0 $25

33 Insurance Consultant and Title Insurance 34 CMHC Mortgage Advance Fee 35 Financing Costs Sub-Total

36 Fees and Permits 37 Rezoning Application 38 Official Plan Amendment Application 39 Site Plan Approval Application

17-‐03-‐16

Prepared by SHS Consulting

Comments

6.0% of construction costs plus HST, excludes group’s appliances and furniture and f Based on similar projects 3.7% of total project costs Needed for Rezoning Based on similar projects Based on similar projects

Comments Based on similar projects Based on similar projects Based on similar projects Based on similar projects $5,000 minimum ESA Phase 1 Use for projects where actual studies not known

Comments

Comments 4.80% interest during construction To be confirmed by financing proposal/agreement $350 per cash advance, charged on all advances Varies, to be confirmed by financing proposal/agreement

Comments Schd. A to By-law No. 2016-79 - UR1 To URM Rezoning Schedule A to By-law No. 2016-79 - Not Need Likely Schedule A to By-law No. 2016-79

1 of 3

Page 129 of 165 40 Building Permit Fees

$27,811.75

$2,318

$14.000 $14.00 per $1000 of project value( construction costs)

42 Local

$74,477

$6,206

43 Fees and Permits Sub-total

$103,889

$8,657

Total Cost

Per Unit

$552,829 $55,283 $608,112

$46,069 $4,607 $50,676

Total Cost

Per Unit

$1,701,792 $68,000 $10,000

$141,816 $5,667 $833

53 Fire Safety Plan

$2,200

$183

54 Appliances (Fridge & Stove)

$12,000

$1,000

55 Appliances (Washer/Dryer)

$6,966

$581

$6,966

56 Furniture and Equipment 57 Contingency 58 Construction Costs Sub-total

$5,000 $180,596 $1,986,554

$417 $15,050 $165,546

59 Land / Property Acquisition Costs 60 Purchase Price / Value

Total Cost

Per Unit

$20,000

$1,667

41 Development Charges

44 Soft Costs Summary 45 Soft Costs Sub-total (8,16,25,35,43) 46 Soft Cost Contingency 47 Soft Costs Total

$6,206 BY-LAW NO. 2014-54 2017 Rate

Comments 10.0% includes financing costs of

$58,612

48 HARD COSTS 49 Construction Costs 50 Base Construction Cost, Residential 51 Site Servicing 52 Hydro Connection Fee

61 Provincial Land Transfer Tax

$100

$20,100

$1,675

63 TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS 64 Hard Cost Total 65 Soft Cost Total 66 HST 67 Total Project Cost

Total Cost

Per Unit

$2,006,654 $608,112 $321,135 $2,935,900

$167,221 $50,676 $26,761 $244,658

68 Contributions 69 Rezoning Application waived 70 Official Plan Amendment Application waived 71 Site Plan Approval Application waived 72 Building Permit Fees waived 73 Development Charges 74 Local Development Charges waived

Total Cost

Per Unit

$1,300 $0 $300 $27,812

$108 $0 $25 $2,318

62 Land Cost Sub-total

Comments

Commercial washer $2,215, commercial dryer $1,268. Use 1 set per 9 units. Office & Common Room 10.0% of construction costs

Comments SFCSC will transfer their portion of land for a nominal amount First $55,000 at 0.5% + $55,000-$250,000 at 1% + $250,000 and up 1.5%

Comments 13%

Comments

$74,477

$6,206

Assuming Fee Waived Assuming Fee Waived Assuming Fee Waived Assuming Fee Waived Waived as per funding agreement Assuming Fee Waived

75 County Equity Contribution

$350,000

$29,167

County Equity Contribution

76 Additional Equity Required

$1,095,000

$91,250

77 Capital Contribution: Investment in Affordable Housing for Ontario 78 Additional Contribution

$150,000

Additional Equity Required for 1.20 DCR per unit or 75% of total capital cost per funded unit, whichever is less. For Funded Units Above

79 HST rebate (PST portion)

$158,770

$13,231

82%

rebate applied to the PST portion of HST, residential component only

80 HST rebate (GST portion)

$60,507

$5,042

50%

rebate applied to the GST portion of HST, residential component only

$1,768,165 $1,167,735

$147,347 $97,311

81 Total Contributions 82 Total Project Cost Less Contributions 83 Mortgage

Comments

84 Mortgage Amount

$1,167,735

85 Mortgage Interest Rate 86 Mortgage Amortization 87 Annual Mortgage Payments 87 Operating Budget 87 First Full Year

3.25% 40 years $52,024

South Frontenac Community Services 4295 Stage Coach Rd Total

88 Estimated Operating Revenue 89 Rental Income from Tenants 90 Rent Supplement/Subsidy Top-Up 91 Commercial Rental Income 92 Utilities Recovery (ie. from commercial tenants) 93 Laundry Revenue 94 Parking Revenue 96 Vacancy Loss 97 Total Operating Revenue

$126,864 $0 $0 $0 $3,120 $0 -$3,900 $126,084

98 Estimated Operating Expenses 99 Maintenance - Salaries 100 Maintenance - Materials & Services

$4,800 $10,200

17-‐03-‐16

based on most recent lender quotes

Total

Per Unit Comments $10,572 $0 Top-up to 100% AMR on RGI units only $0 $1 per SF of Commercial rental space $0 0% of Heat, Electricity, and Water/Sewer costs $260 Estimated at $5 per unit per week $0 Estimated at $40 per parking space per month -$325 3% of Rental, Parking, Laundry, Locker, Commercial Revenue $10,507

Per Unit Comments

Prepared by SHS Consulting

$400 Based on $300 Per Unit $850 Based on $650 Per Unit

2 of 3

Page 130 of 165 101 Heat 102 Electricity 103 Water/Sewer 104 Administrative Salaries 105 Property Management Fee 106 Other Administrative Materials & Services 107 Capital Replacement Reserves Contribution 108 Insurance 109 Property Taxes 110 HST 111 HST Rebate

$2,400 $1,920 $4,800 $0 $7,570 $3,000 $5,203 $2,400 $18,000 $3,454 $0

112 Sub-total 113 Mortgage Payments 114 Total Operating Expenses

$63,747 $52,024 $115,771

115 Net Operating Income 116 Debt Service

$62,338 $52,024

117 Debt Coverage Ratio

1.20

118 Net Operating Profit/Loss

17-‐03-‐16

$200 Heat for common areas only $160 Tenant Pays Hydro $400 Building Pays Water $0 Included in Property Management Fee $631 6% of (100% AMR + other revenue) $250 Based on $250 per Unit $434 4% of 100% Average Market Rent and Other Income $200 Minimum of $200 per unit, adjust based on owner’s portfolio average $1,500 Property Tax Rate - Market $288 Assumes that all Operating expenses are before tax $0 Only applicable to groups with municipal status $5,312 $4,335 $9,648

Should be 1.2 for residential building with 100% funded units

$10,314

Prepared by SHS Consulting

3 of 3

Page 131 of 165

Corporate Services Committee

Minutes – February 22, 2017 – 10:30am

Present: Alan Revill, Ross Sutherland, Ron Vandewal, Louise Fragnito, Ryan Arcand, John McDougall Regrets: Brad Barbeau Item Topic Outcome / Recommendation 1 Declaration of Pecuniary None interest 2 Minutes Moved by RS Seconded by AR - Minutes of Jan 20, 2017 – CARRIED. 3 Business Arising A. CofA appointment Deferred process B. Septic Re-inspection Awaiting staff follow up C. Annual Education / website updates Session to be scheduled, vendor to be coordinated D. Skateboard Bylaw Outstanding E. Fact sheet 5.10.2 / 5.11 Outstanding – pending OMB ruling post hearing May 25,26 F. Desert Lake Causeway Outstanding - Staff to follow up with Ontario Archives and order aerial photos. May need to get both eastern and western end on G. Road Closing Fee maps H. Procedural Outstanding Bylaw/Code of Outstanding – waiting for finalization of Bill 68 Conduct I. OPP Lease J. Medical Lease Terms have been reached, contract being drawn up Joint meeting to be scheduled with Medical committee, rent being K. Community Caring received. Committee recommends terms remain the same, lease to be L. Park Model Trailers pursued. outstanding 4 New Business A. Grant Memorial Proceeds from the trust to be disbursed equal $1615.42. Moved distribution by RS seconded by RV that the funds be used for the permanent lighting of the large tree at the Town hall. CARRIED B. Organizational Review Discussed merits of both the Fire and Clerk positions as well as staffing – Next steps the process for advancing the decision and timeline. Debated the need to be cautious. To wait and see the benefits of the Mgr. of Development Services C. Staff demographics Highlights of the current staffing demographics were discussed along with the need to be prepared for potential retirements. Staff asked to prepare a report for Council’s consideration. D. Social Media The merits of having a social media presence were discussed. Direction and policies Staff asked to explore if a current position could have 1/hr. per dedicated to monitoring and maintaining a social media presence. The need for policy was identified before staffing.

Page 132 of 165 5

Other Business A. Vendor of Record

B. Noise Bylaw C. 100 acre wood

D. Cemetery Contracts

E. Committee Advancement F. County Planning Advisory Committee

Next Meeting

Staff explained that the VOR listing is updated bi annually. Concern was raised that some vendors appear to be getting a disproportionate number of jobs. The issue has been raised with the Public Works Manager. Staff asked to clarify the process to get on the VOR listing. A request has been received a for a noise bylaw exemption for the Desert Lake Resort. Staff to invite the owner and the Lake Association to present as delegation before Council. The successful bidder for the 100 acre wood has been refunded his deposit as ownership has been confirmed in the name of a resident form 1892. The tax sale process will now be able to commence. Cemetery contracts for sales and administration as well as grave excavation expire April 30, following the exercise of a two year extension of the contracts (for a total of 4 years) Staff recommend that the contracts be extended another 2 years at the same rates. Moved by RS seconded by RV to support the contract extension. CARRIED Staff were asked to pursue having meeting dates for CSC and PSC published as well as having the agendas on line. All of Council should be made aware of meetings and agendas The committee was briefed on the new process for sub divisions. The PAC will call and host the public meeting. Councillors can individually attend and speak to the issue. The Township will need to speak with a single voice if it has recommendations or comment. The Township will have to hold a separate public meeting for any required zoning bylaws Tuesday March 14 at 8:30 am – Council Chambers. Regular schedule to be 2nd Tuesday of every month.

Page 133 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW 2017-10 A BY-LAW TO PROVIDE FOR AN INTERIM TAX LEVY; PAYMENT OF TAXES; TO PROVIDE FOR PENALTY AND INTEREST OF 1.25% ON TAX ARREARS PER MONTH

WHEREAS Section 317(1) and (2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, as amended, provides that: 1.

The Council of a local municipality, before the adoption of the estimates for the year under section 290 of the Municipal Act, 2001, may pass a by-law levying amounts on the assessment of the property in the local municipality rateable for local municipality purposes.

A by-law for levying amounts under subsection (1) shall be passed in the year that the amounts are to be levied or may be passed in December of the previous year if it provides that it does not come into force until a specified day in the following year.

AND WHEREAS sub-section 317(3) of the Municipal Act, 2001, contains the following additional rules: 1.

The amounts levied on a property shall not exceed the prescribed percentage, or 50 percent if no percentage is prescribed, of the total amount of taxes for municipal and school purposes levied on the property for the previous year.

The percentage under paragraph 1 may be different for different property classes but shall be the same for all properties in a property class.

For the purposes of calculating the total amount of taxes for the previous year under paragraph 1, if any taxes for municipal and school purposes were levied on a property for only part of the previous year because assessment was added to the collector’s roll during the year, an amount shall be added equal to the additional taxes that would have been levied on the property if the taxes for municipal and school purposes had been levied for the entire year.

AND WHEREAS sub-section 317(5) of the Municipal Act, 2001, contains the following additional rule: 1.

The amounts may be levied on assessment added to the tax roll for the current year that was not on the assessment roll upon which the amounts are levied.

AND WHEREAS Section 342 (1)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, as amended, provides that the Council of a local municipality may pass by-laws providing for the payment of taxes in one amount or by installments and the date or dates in the year for which the taxes are imposed on which the taxes or installments are due. AND WHEREAS Section 345(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, as amended, provides that the Council of a local municipality may pass by-laws to impose late payment charges for the non-payment of taxes or any installment by the due date. AND WHEREAS sub-sections 345(2) and (3) of the Municipal Act, 2001, contains the following additional rules: 1.

A percentage charge, not to exceed 1 ¼ per cent of the amount of taxes due and unpaid, may be imposed as a penalty for the non-payment of taxes on the first day of default or such later date as the by-law specifies.

Interest charges, not to exceed 1 ¼ per cent each month of the amount of taxes due and unpaid, may be imposed for the non-payment of taxes in the manner

Page 134 of 165 …2

specified in the by-law but interest may not start to accrue before the first day of default. AND WHEREAS Section 346(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, as amended, provides that the Council of a local municipality may pass by-laws to provide for the payment of taxes by any person into a financial institution to the credit of the treasurer of the municipality and, in that case, the person making the payment shall be entitled to be issued a receipt by the institution for the amount paid. AND WHEREAS Council deems it expedient to pass a by-law for such purposes. NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac enacts as follows: 1.

For all property classes, that an interim tax levy hereby be imposed and levied in the amount of 35% of the total annualized taxes for municipal and school purposes levied on the property in the previous year.

For the purposes of calculating the total amount of taxes for the prior year under paragraph 1, the following rules shall also apply: a. Taxes for municipal and school purposes levied on a property for only part of the previous year because assessment was added to the collector’s roll during the year, shall have an amount added equal to the additional taxes that would have been levied on the property if the taxes for municipal and school purposes had been levied for the entire year. b. In the event that assessment has been added to the tax roll for the current year that was not on the assessment roll in the prior year, the related properties shall have an interim levy imposed and collected.

The said interim tax levy shall become due and payable on the 31st day of March 2017.

On all taxes of the interim tax levy which are in default on the first day of default, a penalty of 1.25% shall be added and thereafter a penalty of 1.25% per month (15% per annum) shall be added on the first day of each and every month in which the default continues.

On all other taxes in default on January 1st, 2017, interest shall be added at the rate of 1.25% per month (15% per annum) or fraction thereof.

Penalties and interest on all taxes of the interim tax levy in default shall become due and payable and shall be collected forthwith as if the same had originally been imposed and formed part of such unpaid interim tax levy.

The collector shall send a tax bill to the taxpayer’s residence or place of business or to the premises in respect of which the taxes are payable unless the taxpayer directs the treasurer in writing to send the bill to another address, in which case it shall be sent to that address.

The taxes are payable at the following: a)

Township of South Frontenac municipal offices located at: 4432 George Street, Sydenham, Ontario

At any financial institution or payment processor having payment arrangements with the Township of South Frontenac.

By filing an application for voluntary pre-authorized payment for automatic debit of installment from bank account, in accordance with the Township’s standard practice.

Page 135 of 165 …3

By credit card through a third party processor. The link is available on the Township website www.southfrontenac.net and can be found under living here/property taxes/how to pay

The Treasurer is hereby empowered to accept partial payments from time to time on account of taxes due and shall credit such payment first on account of the interest and percentage charges, if any, added to such taxes and shall credit the remainder of such payment against that part of the taxes that has been in arrears for the greatest period of time but no such payment shall be received after a tax arrears certificate has been registered under section 378 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, as amended.

This by-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of passing.

Dated at the Township of South Frontenac this 21st day of March, 2017. Read a first and second time this 21st day of March, 2017. Read a third time and finally passed this 21st day of March, 2017. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Wayne Orr, Clerk-Administrator

Page 136 of 165 TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW NUMBER 2017-1 1

BEING A BY-LAW TO STOP UP, CLOSE AND SELL A PORTION OF AN UNOPENED ROAD ALLOWANCE IN PART LOT 25, CONCESSION Vll, LOUGHBOROUGH D?STIRICT: SPENCER

WHEREAS, the Municipal Council of the Township of South Frontenac may pass a by-law to stop up, close and transfer ownership of any highway or part thereof pursuant to the Municipal Act, section 34(1): AND WHEREAS ownership of a section of road allowance is proposed to be transferred to the Iand owner abutting both sides of the road allowance: AND WHEREAS the said road allowance is not used as a publically travelled road:

AND WHEREAS no objections have been received to the road closing: NOW THEREFORE THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH

FRONTENAC, BY ITS COUNCIL, HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

THAT the portion of road allowance in Part of Lot 25, Concession Vll, being Part 2 on Plan 13R-21498, in the District of Loughborough, shown on Schedule 1, attached hereto and forming part of this by-law, shall be

stopped up and closed and ownership transferred to the abutting propertyowner on the east and west sides in Part of Lot 25, Concession Vll;

THAT the Township shall receive as compensation for the conveyance of Part 2 on Plan 13R-21498 a conveyance of Parts 1 and 4 on Plan 13R21498 from the owner of the said Iands, which parts 1 and 4 shall be dedicated as part of the road allowance;
THAT the Mayor and Clerk/Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to execute such documents as are required; and
THAT this By-Iaw shall come into force and take effect upon registration of this By-law.

Dated at the Township of South Frontenac this twenty first day of March, 2017.

Read a first and second time this twenty first day of March, 2017.

Read a third time and finally passed this twenty first day of March, 2017.

THE CORPORATION OF THE

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Wayne Orr, Clerk-Administrator

Page 137 of 165

Page 138 of 165 TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW NUMBER 2017-12

BEING A BY-LAW TO AMEND BY-LAW NUMBER 2003-75, AS

AMENDED, TO REZONE LANDS FROM URBAN RESIDENTIALFIRST DENSITY (UR1) ZONE TO COMMUNITY FACILITY (CF-H) ZONE; PART LOT 3, CONCESSION IV, DISTRICT OF LOUGHBOROUGH: S.F.C.S. WHEREAS, the Municipal Council of the Township of South Frontenac deems it

expedient to amend By-law Number 2003-75 as amended, as it relates to a parcel of land located in Part of Lot 3, Concession IV, of the District of Loughborough, NOW THEREFORE THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH

FRONTENAC BY ITS COUNCIL, HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

THAT Schedule ‘F’ to Zoning By-law Number 2003-75 as amended, is

hereby further amended by changing the zoning from Urban ResidentialFirst Density (UR1) Zone to Community Facility (CF-H) Zone for those lands shown on the attached map designated as Schedule “1”. 2. THAT the uses permitted in the CF zone be subject to a site plan agreement to be entered into between the owner and the municipality and registered on the title of the property, specifying locations of all buildings and structures; well; septic system, parking, loading and manoeuvring areas, access aisles and entrances prior to the holding (h) symbol being removed by by-law. 3. THIS BY-LAW shall come into force in accordance with sections 34 and

41 of the Planning Act, 1990, either on the date of passage or as otherwise provided by sections 34 and 41 .

Dated at the Township of South Frontenac this twenty-first day of March, 2017. Read a first and second time this twenty-first day of March, 2017. Read a third time and finally passed this twenty-first day of March, 2017.

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Wayne Orr, Clerk-Administrator

Page 139 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC SCHEDULE ‘1’ BY-LAW No. 2017-12

Th ch?1 s(i?>

sO?l

AREA REZONED FROM ‘UR1’ TO ‘CF-H’

‘iXi -J .

=.i

‘-

-”—–

–

g -,-

< o Z .. lo I

…. … …. -. - - l

,,,— eo, z

…….. ……………. … ,,, -5 i ..

… (!}

< o 01 Wl

0 15 30 ao 90 tzo

Me!eys

l '

gal….,,………i.i..i.-i’ ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,…… – ‘JJ-ep oirriFF)GEROAD ,,,….. , ,…..-…., …. - – ‘-’ l

THIS 15 SCHEDULE ‘1’ TO BY-LAW No. 2017-12

PASSED THIS 21?" DAY OF MARCH, 2017 MAYOR

CLERK

……

Page 140 of 165

Payment Listing For the period of March 8, 2017 to March 21, 2017

Accounts Payable Payment Listing: For the period of March 8, 2017 to March 21, 2017

3,199,448.07

Payroll Payment Listing: Pay Period #6

Pay date March 15, 2017

80,753.92

For the period of February 26, 2017 to March 11, 2017 Council Reimbursement

Pay date March 15, 2017

6,670.21

For the period of February 26, 2017 to March 11, 2017

$ Total Payments

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that Council receive for information the listing of the Accounts Payable and Payroll for the period ending March 21, 2017 in the amount of

3,286,872.20

Submitted/approved by: Suzanne Quenneville - Deputy-Treasurer Louise Fragnito - Treasurer

3,286,872.20

System:

16/03/2017

User ID:

srummell

Ranges: Cheque Date:

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

1:14:07 PM

From: 08/03/2017

To: 21/03/2017

Page:

Page 141 of 165

Distribution Types Included: PURCH, MISC

10 GG 0000 Gen Cheque EFT000000007057

Date

Inv #

21/03/2017

Vendor

Description

48813

COUNTY OF FRONTENAC SYM ENDPOINT PROTECTION

63437 63456

THE FRONTENAC NEWS AD MARCH 2 AD - MARCH 9

IN-57400-01

ZYCOM TECHNOLOGY INC. 1 YEAR BARRACUDA SERVICES

Total EFT000000007057 EFT000000007068 21/03/2017

Total EFT000000007068 EFT000000007105 21/03/2017 Total EFT000000007105

Total Gen

Amount $1,108.17 $1,108.17 $372.01 $368.15 $740.16 $6,430.21 $6,430.21

$8,278.54

0020 TaxC Cheque EFT000000007057

Date

Inv #

21/03/2017 48804

Vendor

Description

COUNTY OF FRONTENAC 1ST QTR LEVY 2017

Total EFT000000007057

Total TaxC

Amount $1,297,583.75 $1,297,583.75

$1,297,583.75

0035 TaxSB-EP Cheque EFT000000007039

Date 15/03/2017

Inv #

Vendor

Description

LIMESTONE DISTRICT SCHOOL MARCH 2017 LEVY MARCH 2017 LEVY

Total EFT000000007039

Total TaxSB-EP

Amount $1,408,554.64 $1,408,554.64

$1,408,554.64

0036 TaxSB-ES Cheque EFT000000007040

Date 15/03/2017

Inv #

Vendor

Description

ALGONQUIN AND LAKESHORE MARCH 2017 LEVY MARCH 2017 LEVY

Total EFT000000007040

Total TaxSB-ES

Amount $121,848.08 $121,848.08

$121,848.08

0037 TaxSB-FP Cheque EFT000000007041

Date 15/03/2017

Inv #

Vendor

Description

CONSEIL DES ECOLES PUBLIQUES MARCH 2017 LEVY MARCH 2017 LEVY

Total EFT000000007041

Total TaxSB-FP

Amount $5,777.20 $5,777.20

$5,777.20

0038 TaxSB-FS Cheque EFT000000007042

Date 15/03/2017

Inv #

Vendor

Description

CONSEIL SCOLAIRE CATHOLIQUE DU MARCH 2017 LEVY MARCH 2017 LEVY

Total EFT000000007042

Total TaxSB-FS

Amount $8,370.34 $8,370.34

$8,370.34

1000 Cheque 068320

Date

Inv #

21/03/2017

Description

Amount

SNIDER, PERCY 17/01/28-02

Total 068320

Vendor

PLOW 17/01 x 8

$569.86 $569.86

System:

16/03/2017

User ID:

srummell

EFT000000007058

1:14:07 PM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

21/03/2017

Page 142 of 165

CULLIGAN 0945132

Total EFT000000007058 EFT000000007088 21/03/2017

Page:

water

R&D NELSON GENERAL MAINTENANCE 17/02-MEDICAL JAN & FEB GEN MAINTENANCE 17/02-MEDICAL JAN & FEB CLEANING SUPPLIES

Total EFT000000007088 EFT000000007096 21/03/2017 67693

TROUSDALE’S HOME HARDWARE TAPE AND DOOR SWEEP

Total EFT000000007096

Total

$79.17 $79.17 $508.80 $90.75 $599.55 $33.55 $33.55

$1,282.13

1100 Counc Cheque 068318

Date

Inv #

21/03/2017

Vendor

Description

THE ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION ADVERTISMENT

Amount

Total 068318

$292.67 $292.67

Total Counc

$292.67

2017 AD

1250 Clk Cheque EFT000000007057

Date

Inv #

21/03/2017

Vendor

Description

48806

COUNTY OF FRONTENAC 17/03 EAP

143424

CUNNINGHAM SWAN CARTY 100 ACRE PARCEL

N100355

PRINTFUSION INC. CANADA 150 BANNER

266 7686 6943 4374 5136

TROUSDALE’S FOODLAND COFFEE / CREAM CREAM COFFEE & CREAM CREAM COFFEE/CREAM

Total EFT000000007057 EFT000000007059 21/03/2017 Total EFT000000007059 EFT000000007085 21/03/2017 Total EFT000000007085 EFT000000007095 21/03/2017

Total EFT000000007095

Total Clk

Amount $234.08 $234.08 $203.52 $203.52 $124.45 $124.45 $26.91 $8.07 $24.37 $8.07 $42.34 $109.76

$671.81

1275 Fin Cheque 068314

Date

Inv #

21/03/2017 2017*1110

Total 068314 068319 Total 068319 EFT000000007050

21/03/2017

Description 2017 MEMBERSHIP S.Q.

8100116260

SHRED-IT INTERNATIONAL ULC PAPER SHREDDING

20895

BAYRIDGE PRINTER PROS TONER X 2

D29269

DIAMOND MUNICIPAL SOLUTIONS INC. VCH & E-SEND IMPLEMENTATION

41983

INDEPENDENT TELEPHONE SERVICES TELEPHONE EXTENSION CHANGES

42345

VERSUS BUSINESS FORMS & LABELS TAX BILL ENVELOPES

21/03/2017

Total EFT000000007050 EFT000000007062 21/03/2017 Total EFT000000007062 EFT000000007072 21/03/2017 Total EFT000000007072 EFT000000007102 21/03/2017 Total EFT000000007102

Vendor

Amount

OMTRA $213.70 $213.70 $144.54 $144.54 $518.98 $518.98 $87.00 $87.00 $45.79 $45.79 $3,253.83 $3,253.83

Total Fin

$4,263.84

Total GG

$2,856,923.00

20 PP&P

System:

16/03/2017

User ID:

srummell

1:14:07 PM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

Page:

Page 143 of 165

2100 Fire Cheque 068302 Total 068302 068303 Total 068303 068316

Total 068316 068322

Total 068322 068324 Total 068324 EFT000000007043

Date

Inv #

21/03/2017

Description

1-239040

BELL MOBILITY (RADIO DIVISION) 17/03 SITE RENTAL

4476

BRAITHWAITE UPHOLSTERY AND PATCH TWO HOLES

20170006109 20170005706

RECEIVER GENERAL RADIO LICENCES RADIO RENEWALS RADIO LICENCE RENEWAL

17/03/01-28 17/03/01-36

VOTARY, RICHARD PLOW FIREHALL 17/02 PLOW FIREHALL 17/02

21/03/2017

Vendor

WILLIAMS, KATHY 17/02/25-CLEANING CLEANING X 8

21/03/2017 24168 24169 24167

BOULTON SEPTIC/LARMON’S PLOWING 17/02 PLOWING 17/02 PUMP HOLDING TANK

A0040874 A0159113 A0040277

ABELL PEST CONTROL INC. 17/02 PEST CONTROL 17/02 PEST CONTROL 17/02 PEST CONTROL

132217

AJ STONE COMPANY LIMITED CASE OF 2 OUNCE BOTTLES

3883

ASSELSTINE HARDWARE PAINTING SUPPLIES

Total EFT000000007043 EFT000000007045 21/03/2017

Total EFT000000007045 EFT000000007046 21/03/2017 Total EFT000000007046 EFT000000007047 21/03/2017 Total EFT000000007047 EFT000000007054 21/03/2017

Amount $295.38 $295.38 $109.90 $109.90 $2,305.00 $82.00 $2,387.00 $325.00 $260.00 $585.00 $280.00 $280.00 $559.68 $559.68 $244.22 $1,363.58 $44.51 $36.08 $42.53 $123.12 $99.72 $99.72 $34.15 $34.15

CANADIAN TIRE 119006 119707 119728

Total EFT000000007054 EFT000000007060 21/03/2017

MULTI-GAS ALARMS TAPE 8 BULBS

$188.20 $96.80 $34.58 $319.58

REPAIRS TO DOOR

$1,000.86 $1,000.86

DARCH FIRE 62254

Total EFT000000007060 EFT000000007063 21/03/2017 7368

D.MARTIN WELDING & FABRICATING WELD FITTING ON TANKER

435707 435665

FIRE SERVICE MANAGEMENT WASH & REPAIR SUIT WASH AND REPAIR SUIT

17/02/28-19

GREENSLADE, DONALD PLOWING 17/02

Total EFT000000007063 EFT000000007065 21/03/2017

Total EFT000000007065 EFT000000007070 21/03/2017 Total EFT000000007070 EFT000000007071 21/03/2017

$132.29 $132.29 $145.90 $66.34 $212.24 $800.00 $800.00

HUGHSON, KENT 0416

Total EFT000000007071 EFT000000007073 21/03/2017 KS18735 KS18875 KS18504 Total EFT000000007073 EFT000000007077 21/03/2017

PLOWING 17/02 KENWORTH ONTARIO - KINGSTON FIX EXHAUST SAFETY INSPECTION SAFETY INSPECTION AND REPAIRS

$793.73 $793.73 $908.42 $544.27 $1,712.79 $3,165.48

LEONARD FUELS 2706-764152 2706-769883 2706-59000C 2706-58999C 1060-763858 1057-770472

630.6 L @ $0.785 537.3 L @ $0.782 FURNACE SERVICE & REPAIR FURNACE SERVICE & REPAIR 492.6 L @ $0.782 56 L @ $0.9991

$503.73 $427.56 $229.47 $178.59 $391.99 $55.80

System:

16/03/2017

User ID:

srummell

1:14:07 PM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 1057-771088 1057-768253 1057-768254 1057-771955 1057-60053C 1057-771523 1057-771522 4896-768251 4896-60057C 4896-60074C 3935-766390 3935-770122 3935-60055C 1687-767325 1687-60056C 0647-768252 0647-60064C 0647-60065C

Total EFT000000007077 EFT000000007078 21/03/2017

71.84 L @ $0.9991 79.7 L @ $0.797 858.8 L @ $0.797 99.18 L @ $0.9549 SERVICE AND REPAIRS 72.4 L @ $0.801 354.1 L @ $0.801 847.8 L @ $0.793 ANNUAL SERVICE AND REPAIRS SERVICE CALL - NO HEAT 412.1 L @ $0.785 346.6 L @ $0.787 ANNUAL SERVICE AND REPAIRS 547.1 L @ $0.793 ANNUAL SERVICE & REPAIRS 1039.9 L @ $0.783 ANNUAL SERVICE & REPAIRS ANNUAL SERVICE & REPAIRS

17/02/15-14

LEONARD, ELIZABETH 17/02 CLEANING

55870065 55951071

LINDE CANADA LIMITED 15687 OXYGEN OXYGEN

16507

NORTHWAY HARDWARE 2 NOZZLES

Total EFT000000007078 EFT000000007079 21/03/2017

Total EFT000000007079 EFT000000007083 21/03/2017 Total EFT000000007083 EFT000000007087 21/03/2017

Page 144 of 165 $71.57 $64.64 $696.51 $94.35 $229.47 $59.01 $288.62 $684.14 $178.59 $217.35 $329.19 $277.57 $212.35 $441.49 $229.47 $828.57 $229.47 $229.47 $7,148.97 $60.00 $60.00 $360.50 $187.45 $547.95 $17.27 $17.27

PUROLATOR INC. 433902229 433971550

Total EFT000000007087 EFT000000007091 21/03/2017 607345 607198 Total EFT000000007091 EFT000000007094 21/03/2017

Page:

SHIPPING CHARGES SHIPPING CHARGES ROSEN ENERGY GROUP 755.1 L GAS @ $.9500 113.2 CLR @ $0.8860

SNIDER, LISA 17/02/24-CLEANING

Total EFT000000007094 EFT000000007098 21/03/2017 TCL-179653 TCL-179654 TCL-1607978 TCL-1607981

CLEANING X 6

TURRIS COMMUNICATIONS LTD REPLACE BELT CLIP REPROGRAMMED AND ADJUSTMENTS SPEAKER REPAIR RADIO REPAIRS

Total EFT000000007098

Total Fire

$58.39 $32.40 $90.79 $729.98 $102.06 $832.04 $210.00 $210.00 $317.94 $290.02 $228.96 $307.19 $1,144.11

$21,753.16

2605 Build Cheque EFT000000007044

Date

Inv #

21/03/2017 893475

Vendor

Description

4 OFFICE AUTOMATION LTD BLACK & COLOUR COPIES

Total EFT000000007044

Total Build

Amount $425.00 $425.00

$425.00

2620 Anml Ctl Cheque 068326 Total 068326 EFT000000007067

Date 21/03/2017

21/03/2017

Inv #

Vendor

Description

SAGER, CHRISTINE 2016 DOG TAG REFUND REFUND 2016 DOG TAG PURCH X 2 FRONTENAC MUNICIPAL LAW SF-AC-2017-MARCH 17/03 ANIMAL CONTROL

Total EFT000000007067

Total Anml Ctl

Amount $30.00 $30.00 $3,256.19 $3,256.19

$3,286.19

2640 Bylaw enf Cheque

Date

Inv #

Vendor

Description

Amount

System:

16/03/2017

User ID:

srummell

EFT000000007067

1:14:07 PM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

21/03/2017

FRONTENAC MUNICIPAL LAW SF-P-2017-MARCH 17/03 PARKING BYLAW SF-P-2017-MARCH 17/03 PARKING - 1200 KM @0.55

Total EFT000000007067

Page:

Page 145 of 165 $634.98 $457.92 $1,092.90

Total Bylaw enf

$1,092.90

Total PP&P

$26,557.25

30 Trans 3000 PW OH Cheque EFT000000007072

Date

Inv #

21/03/2017

Vendor

Description

41937

INDEPENDENT TELEPHONE SERVICES ASSIGN PHONE EXTENSIONS

308029

UPPER CANADA OFFICE SYSTEMS BLACK COPIES

Total EFT000000007072 EFT000000007099 21/03/2017 Total EFT000000007099

Total PW OH

Amount $45.79 $45.79 $82.48 $82.48

$128.27

3005 RdAdmOH Cheque 068302

Date

Inv #

21/03/2017 1-239040

Total 068302 068317

21/03/2017

Vendor

Description

BELL MOBILITY (RADIO DIVISION) 17/03 SITE RENTAL

Amount $295.38 $295.38

REVEDUP 140317001

SERVICE CALL 17/03/14

Total 068317

Total RdAdmOH

$66.14 $66.14

$361.52

3010 Cheque EFT000000007054

Date

Inv #

21/03/2017

Vendor

Description

Amount

CANADIAN TIRE 119892

Total EFT000000007054 EFT000000007055 21/03/2017

PLIERS & SCREWDRIVER SETS

$289.84 $289.84

HAND SOAP UNIFORM C.G. CLEANING SUPPLIES UNIFORM W.S. HAND SOAP UNIFORM C.G. HAND SOAP UNIFORMS C.G. CLEANING SUPPLIES UNIFORMS W.S.

$26.10 $9.51 $104.88 $10.07 $30.72 $9.51 $26.10 $9.51 $206.69 $10.07 $443.16

CINTAS 884797924 884797924 884797925 884797925 884796297 884796297 884794628 884794628 884796298 884796298

Total EFT000000007055 EFT000000007069 21/03/2017 K761125 Total EFT000000007069 EFT000000007077 21/03/2017

GRAND & TOY LIMITED OFFICE SUPPLIES

$21.31 $21.31

LEONARD FUELS 1058-768766 1058-768945 1058-769767 1058-769840 1058-771500 1058-770287 1058-770762 1058-771033 1058-771195 1058-767397 1058-772263 1058-773255 1058-773461 1058-773681 1058-774501 1058-771520

79.40 L GAS @ $0.9549 79 L GAS @ $0.9549 80.53 L @ $0.9549 100.04 L @ $0.9195 41.04 L GAS @ $0.9195 105.01 L GAS @ $0.9195 70 L GAS @ $0.9195 62.71 L GAS @ $0.9195 79 L GAS @ $0.9549 1503.6 L @ $0.797 67 L GAS @ $0.9549 78.3 L GAS @ $0.9549 10.01 L GAS @ $1.0965 77.08 L GAS @ $0.9549 68 L GAS @ $0.9549 659.9 L @ $0.797

$75.54 $75.16 $76.61 $91.57 $37.56 $96.11 $64.08 $57.40 $75.16 $1,219.46 $63.74 $74.49 $10.96 $73.33 $64.68 $535.19

System:

16/03/2017

User ID:

srummell

1:14:07 PM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

Total EFT000000007077 EFT000000007078 21/03/2017

Page:

Page 146 of 165 $2,691.04

17/02/24-15 17/02/24-15

LEONARD, ELIZABETH CLENAING CLENAING SUPPLIES

TROUSDALE’S FOODLAND COFFEE / CREAM

67855

TROUSDALE’S HOME HARDWARE BROOM & 4 SHOVELS

Total EFT000000007078 EFT000000007095 21/03/2017 Total EFT000000007095 EFT000000007096 21/03/2017 Total EFT000000007096 EFT000000007097 21/03/2017

$300.00 $15.14 $315.14 $14.68 $14.68 $121.04 $121.04

TRUE ELECTRIC 6755.

Total EFT000000007097 EFT000000007101 21/03/2017 34943 34898 35055

INSTALL NEW LIGHTS VERONA HARDWARE LIMITED TOOLS SHOVEL FLASHLIGHT, AIR FRESHENER

Total EFT000000007101

Total

$3,341.41 $3,341.41 $20.32 $29.50 $33.25 $83.07

$7,320.69

3210 Brushing Cheque 068304

Date

Inv #

21/03/2017 84816

Total 068304 068321

21/03/2017

Vendor

CANADIAN SMALL ENGINES BAND / OIL

Amount $49.30 $49.30

TODD, JIM 730049

Total 068321 EFT000000007049

Description

21/03/2017

REPAIRS AND TUNE UP

24203304

BATTLEFIELD EQUIPMENT RENTALS PRUNER, BLOWER

34285 34286

L.D. POWER SPORTS FUEL FILTER, SPARK PLUG FUEL FILTER

Total EFT000000007049 EFT000000007076 21/03/2017

Total EFT000000007076

Total Brushing

$156.50 $156.50 $1,119.36 $1,119.36 $10.96 $2.75 $13.71

$1,338.87

3310 Hardtop Patching Cheque 068320

Date

Inv #

21/03/2017

Vendor

Description

Amount

SNIDER, PERCY 17/01/20-32

FLAGGING 17/01 - 19 & 20

Total 068320

Total Hardtop Patching

$1,446.26 $1,446.26

$1,446.26

3505 Snw Plwng Cheque 068320

Date

Inv #

21/03/2017

Description

Amount

SNIDER, PERCY 17/02/16-17 17/02/12-15 17/03/09-19 17/03/09-18 17/03/09-20

Total 068320 EFT000000007043

Vendor

21/03/2017

SCRAPE ROAD FEB 16 SCRAPE ROAD FEB 12 PLOW x 1 PLOW x 1 PLOW x 1

24156 24173 24172 24171

BOULTON SEPTIC/LARMON’S PLOWING 17/02 - PLOWING 17/02 PLOWING 17/02 PLOWING

2017-19786 2017-19904 2017-19789 2017-19902 2017-19787

K MULROONEY TRUCKING LIMITED PLOW 41.75 @ $154 PLOW 3 @ $154 PLOW 39 @ $159 PLOW 3.5 @ $159 PLOW 82 @ $147

Total EFT000000007043 EFT000000007074 21/03/2017

$78.86 $78.86 $146.53 $318.51 $195.38 $818.14 $81.41 $3,358.08 $3,358.08 $3,917.76 $10,715.33 $4,882.18 $470.13 $6,310.14 $566.29 $12,266.15

System:

16/03/2017

User ID:

srummell

1:14:07 PM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 2017-19899 2017-19785 2017-19898 2017-19788 2017-19901 2017-19774 2017-19900 2017-19773 2017-19903 2017-19790

Total EFT000000007074 EFT000000007081 21/03/2017 17/02- RTE 12 17/02 - RTE 11

PLOW 12.5 @ $147 PLOW 53 @ $154 PLOW 6.5 @ $154 PLOW 87.5 @ $147 PLOW 9.75 @ $147 PLOW 55.75 @ $154 PLOW 13.25 @ $154 PLOW 9 @ $610.20 PLOW 1 @ $610.20 PLOW 6 @ $197.64 MCNICHOLS CONSTRUCTION LTD 17/02 PLOWING & SANDING 17/02 PLOWING & SANDING

Total EFT000000007081

Total Snw Plwng

Page:

Page 147 of 165 $1,869.84 $8,305.65 $1,018.62 $13,088.88 $1,458.47 $8,736.60 $2,076.41 $5,588.45 $620.94 $1,206.71 $68,465.46 $2,116.61 $4,884.48 $7,001.09

$87,000.02

3506 Snow Clearing Sidewalks Cheque EFT000000007043

Date

Inv #

21/03/2017 24174

Vendor

Description

BOULTON SEPTIC/LARMON’S 17/02 - SIDEWALK PLOW

Total EFT000000007043

Total Snow Clearing Sidewalks

Amount $2,136.96 $2,136.96

$2,136.96

3525 Snw Remvl Cheque EFT000000007043

Date

Inv #

21/03/2017 24076

Vendor

Description

BOULTON SEPTIC/LARMON’S FLAGGING/TRUCK

Total EFT000000007043

Total Snw Remvl

Amount $320.54 $320.54

$320.54

3625 RR cross mnt Cheque EFT000000007053

Date

Inv #

21/03/2017 11090842

Vendor

Description

CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY 17/02 RAILWAY CROSSING

Amount

Total EFT000000007053

$831.00 $831.00

Total RR cross mnt

$831.00

Total Trans

$100,884.13

40 Env 4110 Water Treat Cheque 068301

Date

Inv #

21/03/2017 7631-17/02

Vendor

Description

BELL CANADA-WATER TOWER PHONE LINE 17/02 - TELEPHONE

Total 068301

Total Water Treat

Amount $74.28 $74.28

$74.28

5005 SW & Fac OH Cheque EFT000000007069

Date

Inv #

21/03/2017

Vendor

Description

K761125

GRAND & TOY LIMITED OFFICE SUPPLIES

S2ST6569

S2S ENVIRONMENTAL INC. ASBESTOS ASSESSMENT

Total EFT000000007069 EFT000000007092 21/03/2017

Amount $244.73 $244.73

Total EFT000000007092

$28,156.99 $28,156.99

Total SW & Fac OH

$28,401.72

5110 Gab disp Cheque 068320

Date

Inv #

21/03/2017

Vendor

Description

Amount

SNIDER, PERCY 17/02/21-39

PORTLAND DUMP/DOZER FEB 21

$325.63

System:

16/03/2017

User ID:

srummell

1:14:07 PM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 17/02/23-38

Total 068320 EFT000000007045

21/03/2017 A0190049

Total EFT000000007045 EFT000000007086 21/03/2017

PORTLAND DUMP WASTE FEB 14,23 ABELL PEST CONTROL INC. 17/03 PEST CONTROL

PROGRESSIVE WASTE SOLUTIONS CAN INC 7150-0000224131 6.06 MT WASTE

Total EFT000000007086 EFT000000007103 21/03/2017 511083

WHALEY, GEORGE 17/02 LOUGH LANDFILL

Total EFT000000007103

Page:

Page 148 of 165 $356.16 $681.79 $97.44 $97.44 $666.60 $666.60 $2,371.01 $2,371.01

Total Gab disp

$3,816.84

Total Env

$32,292.84

70 Cem 7000 Health Cheque EFT000000007061

Date

Inv #

21/03/2017 1458 1458

Vendor

Description

D G YOUNGE CONCRETE BURIAL VAULTS 17/02 INTERNMENTS 17/02 INTERNMENTS

Total EFT000000007061

Amount $529.15 $188.26 $717.41

Total Health

$717.41

Total Cem

$717.41

80 Rec 8000 Rec Cheque 068308 Total 068308 068310

Total 068310 068311

Total 068311 068312

Total 068312 068313

Total 068313 068315

Total 068315 068323

Total 068323 EFT000000007039

Date 21/03/2017

21/03/2017

Inv #

FISHER, DAVE 17/01/23-STORR REC

17/01/23-STORR REC

Amount $31.21 $31.21 $31.21 $3.41 $34.62

HOWE, MIKE 17/02/27 - SF REC 17/02/27 - SF REC

17/02/27 - SF REC 17/02/27 - SF REC MILEAGE

$31.21 $5.50 $36.71

MOREY, DOUG 17/01/30 - PORT REC 17/01/30 - PORT REC

17/01/30 - PORT REC 16/10/24 - CA INCREASE TOP UP

$31.21 $0.30 $31.51

O’CONNOR, BETTY 17/02/15 - BED REC 17/02/15 - BED REC SECRETARY 17/01/09- BED REC 17/01/09- BED REC SECRETARY PRESTON, CHERYL 17/01/30 - PORT REC 17/01/30 - PORT REC 17/01/30 - PORT REC 16/10/24 - CA INCREASE TOP UP WEBSTER, LOIS 17/02/15 - BED REC 17/01/09- BED REC

102254

Total EFT000000007048 EFT000000007051 21/03/2017

Description

HOLLAND, TRACY 17/02/27 - SF REC 17/02/27 - SF REC 17/02/27 - SF REC 17/02/27 - SF REC MILEAGE

15/03/2017

Total EFT000000007039 EFT000000007048 21/03/2017

Vendor

17/02/15 - BED REC 17/01/09- BED REC

LIMESTONE DISTRICT SCHOOL Point field

BATES, LINDA 17/01/30 - PORT REC 17/01/30 - PORT REC

17/01/30 - PORT REC 16/10/24 - CA INCREASE TOP UP

BROWN, DONNA 17/02/27 - SF REC 17/02/27 - SF REC 17/02/27 - SF REC 17/02/27 - SF REC MILEAGE

$65.00 $65.00 $130.00 $31.21 $0.30 $31.51 $31.21 $31.21 $62.42 $137,045.79 $137,045.79 $31.21 $0.30 $31.51 $31.21 $49.50

System:

16/03/2017

User ID:

srummell

1:14:07 PM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 17/02/15 - BED REC 17/01/09- BED REC

Total EFT000000007051 EFT000000007052 21/03/2017 Total EFT000000007052 EFT000000007064 21/03/2017

Total EFT000000007064 EFT000000007066 21/03/2017

Total EFT000000007066 EFT000000007075 21/03/2017

CAMPBELL, ANNIE 17/01/23-STORR REC 17/01/23-STORR REC ERLICHMAN, WOLFE 17/02/27 - SF REC 17/02/27 - SF REC 17/02/27 - SF REC 17/02/27 - SF REC MILEAGE 17/01/09- BED REC 17/01/09- BED REC

Total EFT000000007082 EFT000000007084 21/03/2017 Total EFT000000007084 EFT000000007090 21/03/2017 Total EFT000000007090 EFT000000007093 21/03/2017

$31.21 $31.21 $143.13 $31.21 $31.21 $31.21 $41.25 $31.21 $103.67 $31.21 $35.20 $31.21 $97.62

KOT, JOHN 17/01/23-STORR REC

17/01/23-STORR REC

$31.21 $31.21

187928 187928

17/03 ALARM SYSTEMS 17/03 ALARM SYSTEMS

$26.46 $26.46 $52.92

MOREY, PAM 17/01/30 - PORT REC

17/01/30 - PORT REC SECRETARY

$65.00 $65.00

LONDRY ALARMS

PANTREY, AMANDA 17/01/23-STORR REC 17/01/23-STORR REC SECRETARY ROLLINS, ELLWOOD 17/01/23-STORR REC 17/01/23-STORR REC SMITH, ROBERTA 17/01/23-STORR REC 17/01/23-STORR REC

67875

Total EFT000000007100 EFT000000007104 21/03/2017

Page 149 of 165

17/02/27 - SF REC 17/02/27 - SF REC MILEAGE 17/01/23-STORR REC

Total EFT000000007093 EFT000000007096 21/03/2017 Total EFT000000007096 EFT000000007100 21/03/2017

FOX, KEVIN 17/02/27 - SF REC 17/02/27 - SF REC 17/01/23-STORR REC

Total EFT000000007075 EFT000000007080 21/03/2017

Total EFT000000007080 EFT000000007082 21/03/2017

17/02/15 - BED REC 17/01/09- BED REC

Page:

TROUSDALE’S HOME HARDWARE CEILING TILES

VANDEWAL, SARAH 17/02/27 - SF REC 17/02/27 - SF REC - SECRETARY 17/02/27 - SF REC 17/02/27 - SF REC MILEAGE WOOD, ALVIN 17/02/27 - SF REC 17/02/27 - SF REC 17/01/23-STORR REC

17/02/27 - SF REC 17/02/27 - SF REC 17/01/23-STORR REC

Total EFT000000007104

Total Rec

$65.00 $65.00 $31.21 $31.21 $31.21 $31.21 $51.20 $51.20 $65.00 $4.29 $69.29 $31.21 $24.20 $31.21 $86.62

$138,294.57

8210 VCA Cheque 068305 Total 068305 068306 Total 068306 EFT000000007048

Date

Inv #

21/03/2017

Vendor

2017012

CASEMENT, JOYCE GIFT CERT. FOR WAYNE CONWAY

2017013

COLEMAN, DONALD MEETING REFRESHMENTS

21/03/2017

Amount $25.00 $25.00 $39.99 $39.99

BATES, LINDA 2017010

Total EFT000000007048 EFT000000007056 21/03/2017

FABRIC FOR CASH APRONS

$174.48 $174.48

REPLACEMENT TRAP FOR STAGE

$101.76 $101.76

CONWAY, WAYNE 2017011

Total EFT000000007056

Description

Total VCA

$341.23

Total Rec

$138,635.80

90 Plan

System:

16/03/2017

User ID:

srummell

1:14:07 PM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

Page:

Page 150 of 165

9000 Plan Cheque 068309 Total 068309 EFT000000007059

Date

Inv #

21/03/2017

Vendor

Description

GOODREID PLANNING GROUP OMB HEARING - T.GRANT

143429 143425 143426 143427 143428 143423 143395

CUNNINGHAM SWAN CARTY PLANNING GENERAL ADVICE PLANNING GENERAL ADVICE PLANNING GENERAL ADVICE PLANNING GENERAL ADVICE PLANNING GENERAL ADVICE PLANNING DISBURSEMENT ACCOUNT OMB APPEAL - T. GRANT

21/03/2017

Total EFT000000007059

Amount $6,868.80 $6,868.80 $127.20 $127.20 $101.76 $50.88 $101.76 $151.78 $2,806.29 $3,466.87

Total Plan

$10,335.67

Total Plan

$10,335.67

99 9999 Cheque 068300 Total 068300 EFT000000007089

Date 21/03/2017

Inv #

Vendor

Description

ARSENAULT, ALAN 2017-TAX-REFUND TAX REFUND 060-020-12910

21/03/2017

Amount $458.36 $458.36

REALTAX INC 60218 60219 60220 60221 60222 60223 60224 60225 60226 60227 60228 60229 60230 60231 60232 60233 60234 60235 60236 60237 60239 60240 60243 60245 60246 60247 60248 60249 60250 60251 60252 60253

NEW FILE NEW FILE NEW FILE NEW FILE NEW FILE NEW FILE NEW FILE NEW FILE NEW FILE NEW FILE NEW FILE NEW FILE NEW FILE NEW FILE NEW FILE NEW FILE NEW FILE NEW FILE NEW FILE NEW FILE NEW FILE NEW FILE NEW FILE NEW FILE NEW FILE NEW FILE NEW FILE NEW FILE NEW FILE NEW FILE NEW FILE NEW FILE

607334 607193 607195 607194 607196 607197 607200 607201 607199

ROSEN ENERGY GROUP SUN 1870.7 L CLR @ $0.8925 F 1681.4 L GAS @ $0.8820 F 952.2 L MKD @ $0.7630 F 595.3 L CLR @ $0.8960 P 2002.1 L CLR @ $08960 P 834 L MKD @ $0.7630 B 65.6 L CLR @ $0.8960 B 408.4 L MKD @ $0.7630 B 631.1 L GAS @ $0.8820

Total EFT000000007089 EFT000000007091 21/03/2017

$565.00 $565.00 $565.00 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $565.00 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $508.50 $565.00 $508.50 $565.00 $565.00 $565.00 $16,724.00 $1,698.98 $1,509.09 $739.32 $542.78 $1,825.45 $647.53 $59.81 $317.09 $566.43

System:

16/03/2017

User ID:

srummell

1:14:07 PM

Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 607814 607813 607812 607810 607807 607808 607809 607816 607815

Total EFT000000007091

F 1798.2 L MKD @ $0.7320 F 999.2 L CLR @ $0.8650 F 3007.6 L GAS @ $0.8920 SUN 632 L CLR @ .8650 B 641.1 L GAS @ $0.8920 B 282.9 L CLR @ $0.8650 B 828.9 L MKD @ $0.7320 P 484 L MKD @ $0.7320 P 794.1 L CLR @ $.8650

Page:

Page 151 of 165 $1,339.44 $879.52 $2,730.00 $556.30 $581.92 $249.01 $617.43 $360.52 $698.99 $15,919.61

Total

$33,101.97

Total

$33,101.97

Total

$3,199,448.07

Page 152 of 165

REPORT TO COUNCIL Treasury Department

AGENDA DATE:

March 21, 2017

SUBJECT:

2016 Development Charges Reporting

RECOMMENDATION This report is for information only.

BACKGROUND Bill 73 (Smart Growth for our Communities Act, 2015) amendments to the Development Charges Act (DCA), 1997 came into force on January 1, 2016. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) states that the legislation aims to “help municipalities recover more costs for growth-related infrastructure and enhance transparency and accountability”. The recent changes incorporate several new requirements including additional reporting to Council in relation to the year-end development charges reserve. Attached is the 2016 Development Charges reporting which meets the legislated reporting requirements. The 2016 development charges reserves had an opening balance of $1,992,176.03. Revenues from residential development charges were $418,455.20 and commercial/industrial revenues were $69,949.50. The percentage allocation of these revenues is based on by-law 2014-54. This bylaw was passed in September of 2014 and sets out the fees and allocation breakdown for 5 years based on a study by Ainley & Associates. Interest of $29,563.08 was allocated to the reserve and $239,688.23 was spent on Capital projects bringing the year-end balance to 2,270,455.58. The Capital projects where Development charges were allocated were: Harrowsmith intersection $180,000 Steele Road $ 20,000 Perth Road Fire Hall $ 39,688

ATTACHMENTS 2016 Development Charges Reporting Submitted/approved by:

Prepared by:

Louise Fragnito

Our strength is our community.

SOUTH FRONTENAC TOWNSHIP DECEMBER 31 2016

Development Charge Reserve Fund allocated per provisions of former & current by-laws BALANCE AT BEGINNING OF YEAR

General Government Fire Services Recreation Landfill Public Works-Roads, Bridges and Equipment Library Police Sub-total

New By-Law Developer Contributions %

Commercial & Industrial Developer Contributions %

Subtotal

7,329.95 277,318.82 192,254.46 6,351.13

2.160% 8.100% 1.400%

9,038.63 33,894.87 5,858.37

2.28% 8.810%

1,594.85 6,162.55 0.00

17,963.43 317,376.24 198,112.83 6,351.13

1,393,016.36 52,630.03 63,275.28 1,992,176.03

82.020% 0.780% 5.540% 100.000%

343,216.96 3,263.95 23,182.42 418,455.20

83.550%

58,442.81 0.00 3,749.29 69,949.50

1,794,676.13 55,893.98 90,206.99 2,480,580.73

5.360% 100.000%

Interest

214.08 3,782.44 2,361.07 75.69

Transfers to Revenue & Capital Fund

-39,688.23

BALANCE AT END OF YEAR

18,177.51 281,470.45 200,473.90 6,426.82

21,388.60 -200,000.00 1,616,064.73 666.13 56,560.11 1,075.07 91,282.06 29,563.08 -239,688.23 2,270,455.58

Breakdown of asset(s) funded from Development Charges

Harrowsmith Intersection Steele Road Fire Station 6

Project Cost 700,000 282,330 93,382

Development Charges 180,000 20,000 39,688

County FGT 0 0 0

OCIF Grant 0 0 0

Reserves 0 0 53,694

Taxation 520,000 262,330 0

Page 153 of 165

Page 154 of 165

REPORT TO COUNCIL Treasury Department

AGENDA DATE:

March 21, 2017

SUBJECT: 2016 Statement of Remuneration and Expenses Paid to Council Members

RECOMMENDATION This report is for information only.

BACKGROUND The Municipal Act, 284 (1), states that the treasurer of a municipality shall in each year on or before March 31 provide to the council of the municipality an itemized statement on remuneration and expenses paid in the previous year to “each member of council in respect of his or her services as a member of the council or any other body, including a local board, to which the member has been appointed by council or on which the member holds office by virtue of being a member of council”. The Municipal Act also states that the statement will identify the by-law under which the remuneration or expenses were authorized to be paid and that, despite the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, this statement is a public record. Remuneration is paid based on by-law 2007-15, “A By-Law to Provide for the Remuneration for Members of Council”. The breakdown of Remuneration and Expenses paid to Council Members for the Year Ended December 31, 2016 is provided below. Payments under “Other” consist primarily of communication and travel expenses. The communication allowance is paid at the same time as the honorarium at a rate of $50 per month.

Patricia Barr Meetings Honorarium Conference Per Diem Mileage Other Total Alan Revill Meetings Honorarium Conference Per Diem Mileage Other Total

3,400.00 12,128.94 1,000.00 2,185.15 807.65 19,521.74

John McDougall Meetings Honorarium Conference Per Diem Mileage Other Total

4,307.60 1,494.51 24,381.05

Norman Roberts Meetings Honorarium Conference Per Diem Mileage Other Total

Late William Robinson Meetings 0.00 Honorarium 9,570.28 Conference Per 0.00 Diem Mileage 0.00

Mark Schjerning Meetings Honorarium Conference Per Diem Mileage

5,450.00 12,128.94 1,000.00

4,300.00 12,128.94 0.00 1,730.85 600.00 18,759.79

3,685.00 12,306.36 1,000.00 1,484.70 600.00 18,674.06

2,800.00 12,128.94 1,000.00 292.05

Our strength is our community.

Page 155 of 165

REPORT TO COUNCIL Treasury Department

Other Total

Ron Sleeth Meetings Honorarium Conference Per Diem Mileage Other Total Ron Vandewal Meetings Honorarium Conference Per Diem Mileage Other Total

475.00 10,045.28

3,750.00 12,128.94 0.00 1,543.85 600.00 18,022.79

Other Total

911.73 17,132.72

Ross Sutherland Meetings Honorarium Conference Per Diem Mileage Other Total

3,150.00 14,061.42 750.00 1,796.30 1,836.22 21,593.94

0.00 26,315.79 1,700.00 2,497.55 631.00 31,144.34

ATTACHMENTS None Submitted/approved by:

Prepared by:

Louise Fragnito

Our strength is our community.

Page 156 of 165

REPORT TO COUNCIL Treasury Department

AGENDA DATE:

March 21, 2017

SUBJECT 2016 Draft Financials

RECOMMENDATION This report is for information.

BACKGROUND Attached are the year to date financials to December 31st with a comparison to the total 2016 budget. This includes the majority of the anticipated year end adjusting entries to be presented for audit. The financials have been separated under two reports to reflect operating versus capital. Under operating, all departments were under budget and there is an overall surplus of $223,545 which, once finalized, would be transferred to the Working Funds reserve. Further background on some budget lines include: 

  



Transfer from Reserves/Reserve funds under revenues: the variance is driven from the required transfer from reserves to fund the Winter Control Expenses which were over budget by $249,654. Winter Control is budgeted on a 5 year rolling average and has this dedicated reserve to smooth out yearly fluctuations. Under Conservation Authorities, the levy from Quinte Conservation was over budget as was previously reported in the quarterly financials to Council. Although the building department appears to be over budget, this includes a transfer to reserves in the amount $152,887 Under transportation, a line for revenue reserve transfers has been added to separate it from roadway maintenance. This line reflects unbudgeted transfers to reserves related to the trade-in/sale of equipment and hydro one rebates received in relation to the replacement of streetlights. Solid Waste Management looks over budget which is driven from KARC expenses however, under revenues, we also received additional revenues from KARC which partially offset the expenses. Further we also received additional provincial funding for recycling compared to what had been budgeted. Parks, Recreation and Cemeteries looks over budget however, this line includes expenses for all committees of Council that flow through the Township. There is no budget reflected for these expense lines and the same is true under revenues primarily under Donation and Other. Parks and Recreation were under budget by $9,900 and Cemeteries were $3,400 over budget.

Under Capital, expenditures were under budget. $2,824,589 is being carried over to the 2017 Capital budget with a surplus of $394,822 remaining for 2016. The expenses from this surplus were primarily funded from various reserves and these funds will remain within their original reserves. One project which was significantly over budget is the Point Park project which included the upgrade to the field, the fencing and the track. At the August 2nd, 2016 meeting, Council was briefed on the current status and challenges of the project in August of 2016. Our portion was budgeted at $210,000 but final actuals are $271,878. The budgeted and additional component of this expense

Our strength is our community.

Page 157 of 165

REPORT TO COUNCIL Treasury Department

has been funded from the Parkland reserve. The total project cost which was shared with the school board was $526,403.

ATTACHMENTS  

Draft 2016 Operating financials Draft 2016 Capital financials

Submitted/approved by:

Prepared by:

Louise Fragnito, Treasurer

Our strength is our community.

INC STATEMENT BvA-Council

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC For the Twelve Months Ending December-31-16

Page 158 of 165

2016 Year Budget

2016 YTD Actuals

YTD Actual vs YTD Budget Variance

16,722,642 2,248,104 723,705 1,653,600 14,000 151,600 360,000 4,500 2,065 138,505 22,018,720

16,649,004 2,380,186 774,861 1,700,517 500 168,244 367,919 93,977 119,419 332,935 22,587,561

(73,638) 132,082 51,156 46,917 (13,500) 16,644 7,919 89,477 117,354 194,430 568,841

3,372,999

3,361,000

(11,999)

1,357,794 2,958,010 207,670 117,350 1,960 457,955

1,321,974 2,947,094 254,527 96,263 694 463,377

(35,819) (10,916) 46,857 (21,087) (1,266) 5,422

3,861,783 0 1,979,819

3,838,814 101,000 2,229,473

(22,969) 101,000 249,654

363,547 2,287,650 709,534 327,312 18,003,384 (4,015,336)

351,252 2,298,725 784,521 299,965 18,348,680 (4,238,881)

(12,295) 11,075 74,987 (27,346) 345,296 (223,545)

REVENUE Property Taxation User Charges Licenses, Permits and Rents Government Grants Grants from Other Municipalities Investment Income Penalties and Interest on taxes Donations Other Transfer from Reserves/Reserve Funds Total Revenues

OPERATING EXPENSE General Government Protection to Persons and Property Fire Police Conservation Authorities Protective Inspections and Control Emergency Measures Building Department Transportation Services Roadway Maintenance Revenue Reserves Transfers Winter Control Environmental Services Water System Solid Waste Management Parks, Recreation and Cemeteries Planning and Development Total Expenses TOTAL

31/12/2016 1 of 1

Page 159 of 165 2016 CAPITAL BUDGET with Draft Year End Financials BUDGETED

ACTUAL

EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURE

GENERAL GOVERNMENT Corporate Services Carried Forward from 2015 Meeting Room Renovation New Projects Server Migration Parks and Recreation Software Asset Management customizations/document update Total PROTECTIVE SERVICES Building Pick up Truck/SUV (replacing 2007) Sub-total Fire New Projects Pagers New-Commercial bunker gear washer/dryer-Station 8 Replacement extrication equipment - Station 4 1/2 ton truck - Replace 2003-Unit 27 Sub-total Total TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Carried Forward from 2015 Hartington renovations OPP mobile sign ArcGIS desktop Reshingle Sand Dome/Doors - Hartington Reshingle Sand Dome/Doors - Bedford Office Renovations: Keeley Keeley- Paint Booth Conversion to service bay New Projects

Radio Communication (Fire and PW) Street Lights - New LED Installation Bedford Patrol Yard Improvements Picadilly Patrol Yard Decommissioning Storrington Salt Storage & Site works Keeley Patrol yard - Garage Door replacements Keeley Patrol yard - Generator replacement Keeley Patrol yard - Front power gate Half ton - 4 X 4 - Replace 2010 F49 Half ton - 4 X 4 - Replace 2005 F35 3/4 ton 4 X 4 with Plow/Sander-replace 2010 F2 3/4 ton 4 X 4 with Plow/Sander- replace 2008 F41 Tanden Truck - replace 2000 F16 Water tank for dump truck Backhoe - replace 1993 BT91 (only 1 in 2015) Thompson Steamer - replace 1989 BT88 & ST88 Thompson Steamer - replace 1990 LT88 Keeley Garage - hoists (resubmitted) AVL system - New equipment Linear Asset Construction-Villages/Local Roads/Arterial Roads

Total ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Waste Diversion

Baler

Sub-total Sanitation-Disposal Replacement Bins Sub-total Total

VARIANCE

COMMENTS

35,830

18,729

-17,101

7,500 15,000 10,000 68,330

6,678 7,123 32,530

-822 -7,877 -10,000 Carryover 2017 -35,800

35,000 35,000

0 0

-35,000 Carryover 2017 -35,000

15,000

-15,000

30,000 35,000 45,000 125,000 160,000

0 0 0 0 0

-30,000 Carryover 2017 -35,000 Carryover 2017 -45,000 Carryover 2017 -125,000 -160,000

1,000 10,000

509 15,818

5,500 50,000 50,000

0 0 0

20,000

33,933

13,933

10,000

7,546

-2,454 Carryover 2017

300,000 50,000 16,000 10,000 820,000 24,000 60,000 10,000 35,000 35,000 55,000 55,000 250,000 30,000 150,000 15,000 15,000 50,000 100,000

0 43,114 0 0 730,316 24,422 0 0 33,215 34,611 57,187 57,187 263,714 24,074 137,175 14,755 14,755 51,716 1,116

-300,000 Carryover 2017 -6,886 Carryover 2017 -16,000 Carryover 2017 -10,000 Carryover 2017 -89,684 Carryover 2017 422 -60,000 Carryover 2017 -10,000 Carryover 2017 -1,785 -389 2,187 2,187 13,714 -5,926 -12,825 -245 -245 1,716 -98,884

5,350,000

4,693,169

-656,831 Carryover 2017

7,576,500

6,238,333

-1,338,167

160,000 160,000

0 0

-160,000 -160,000

50,000 50,000 210,000

27,092 27,092 27,092

-22,908 -22,908 -182,908

-491 5,818 -5,500 -50,000 Cancelled with 2017 Budget -50,000 Cancelled with 2017 Budget

Page 160 of 165 2016 CAPITAL BUDGET with Draft Year End Financials BUDGETED

ACTUAL

EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURE

VARIANCE

COMMENTS

TOWNSHIP FACILITIES MANAGEMENT Carried Forward from 2013 Asbestos Assessment

45,000

1,125

-43,875 Carryover 2017

Building Condition Assessment Energy Audit

74,000 32,500

33,734 0

-40,266 Carryover 2017 -32,500 Carryover 2017

Accessibility Standard Carried Forward from 2014 OPP Building -Garage Floor Drains

15,000

New Hall-Perth Rd- Station 6 (Land/ Architect) Bradshaw- Station 1 repairs as per study Verona-Station 3 repairs as per study Carried Forward from 2015 Facilty Signage New Hall - Perth Road-Station 6 Windows/insulation - Station 5 New Projects Verona Medical - Heat pump replacement Paving - Station 7 Total

-15,000

20,000

-20,000 Carryover 2017

211,615 25,000 5,000

93,382 0 0

-118,233 Carryover 2017 -25,000 Carryover 2017 -5,000 Carryover 2017

18,800

1,014

-17,786 Carryover 2017

1,000,000 14,000

0 0

-1,000,000 Carryover 2017 -14,000 Carryover 2017

10,000 10,000 1,480,915

7,327 0 136,581

-2,673 -10,000 Carryover 2017 -1,344,334

5,707

11,000

210,000

271,878

10,000 4,000

7,378 0

-2,622 -4,000 Carryover 2017

36,000 8,000 0 5,000

28,782 5,237

-7,218 -2,763 0 -2,089

15,000

8,977

5,000

2,025

-6,023 -2,975

RECREATION Museum furnace Carried Forward from 2013 Recreation buildings - re-keying Carried Forward from 2014 Point Park-Football Field Upgrades/Protection Carried Forward from 2015 Gilmour Point - Hydro installation Museum - Window Replacement New Projects

Playground Equipment- Bowes Wilmer Ball Park - Metal Roof Replacement Gilmour Point - Site Access Road Gerald Ball Park - Horseshoe Pits Upgrade Battersea Ball Park - Resurface basketball court (nets & posts), upgrade washrooms and model train area fencing Inverary Ball Park - Washroom Upgrades

2,911

5,707 From 2017 Budget -11,000 Carryover 2017 0 61,878 Funded from Parkland

Storrington Centre - Roof top unit guards/sliding partion wall/new kitchen shuttle door/covered walkway

20,000

-20,000

Fermoy Hall - Building upgrades, well, paint insulation, septic system

30,000

-30,000

Glendower Hall - Front Step Replacement

40,000

-40,000 Carryover 2017

8,500 19,000

8,582 0

82 -19,000 Carryover 2017

7,000

6,555

15,000 10,000 60,000 513,500

10,047 0 2,926 355,298

10,009,245

6,789,834

Centennial Park - re-shingle washroom/canteen building, tennis court multi-use conversion Centennial Park - Upper Ball Diamond Repair Museum - AC unit, New electrical service and replace rear exit & furnace room doors McMullen Park - replace docks Sydenham Library - rear deck Boat Launch upgrades (Buck Lake & Knowlton) Total TOTALS

Carryover 2017 Carryover 2017

-445 -4,953 -10,000 Carryover 2017 -57,074 Carryover 2017 -158,202 -3,219,411 2,824,589 Total Carryover 2017

Page 161 of 165 ABUNDANT Solar Energy Inc. Suite 900, 2235 Sheppard Ave E, Toronto, ON M2J 5B5 Tel: 1 416 494 9559 www.abundantsolarenergy.com

March 14, 2017 Mayor Vandewal and Council, I am writing on behalf of Abundant Solar Energy with respect to our FIT contract at 116 Wolfe Lake Road. As you may be aware, in the last two weeks, in an effort to conform to the Ministry of the Environment EASR requirements, Abundant has sent out 42 registered letters to the adjacent neighbors of our 4 awarded contracts in South Frontenac. The packages consisted of a letter of introduction and overview of the project, the required EASR form, and a proposed site map. We received feedback almost immediately from a number of people, all concerning the site at 116 Wolfe Lake Road. We responded to all within a business day. It was drawn to our attention that we had erred and sent out an incorrect site map, the error being due to a severance to the property in mid-2016, in between our application and the present. We acknowledged the error and were preparing a revision to resend when we discovered that there was another pending severance request that would be addressed at the March 9th Committee of Adjustment meeting. Although the severence request had nothing to do with the solar array, the outcome of the request could allow us to offer options that might help alleviate some neighbours’ concerns. I circled with Wayne Orr and discussed the timing of the meeting, and decided to await the outcome of the Committee of Adjustment meeting before publishing a new site plan, as there might be a new set of boundaries identified. I informed the neighbours of this timeline. Having verified the new property boundaries on Friday March 10th, we have worked to create 2 siteplan options in our best efforts to address the concerns expressed to us by neighbours. These two options press the array back to the edges of the soil classification boundaries, while conforming to all setback requirements, both property borders (20 meters), as well as wetland or water bodies (30 meters). We have forwarded the two options to the soon to be owner of the newly enlarged property at 116 Wolfe Lake Road, Chris Hagan, and are awaiting his input. We are constrained by the relatively thin strip of class 4-7 soil that runs east-west through the bottom section of the property, but within that framework we have defined two options, both of which allow for over 100m setbacks from the closest neighbour’s house. We want to assure you that we have heard the concerns of the neighbours and remain committed to working with the community to find the most suitable solution for the site plan placement. Please find attached options A & B. Ultimately , the choice will be the property owners, but dialogue is usually a good thing and we welcome the community’s feedback. Please note, on option A we have pressed the array back to the edge of the soil classification restriction thereby creating a buffer of 100m to the nearest house. To the best of my understanding, there is a naturally occurring treeline in between the neighbours and the array and we would encourage the owner to maintain this along with the previously committed to visual screening. Thus the array will be shielded from the lot to the immediate

Page 162 of 165 ABUNDANT Solar Energy Inc. Suite 900, 2235 Sheppard Ave E, Toronto, ON M2J 5B5 Tel: 1 416 494 9559 www.abundantsolarenergy.com

south. Option B has the array moved over to the western edge of the new property border, clearing the southern neighbour’s rear view almost entirely. This plan also allows over 100m in setback from the closest house. Many of the concerns raised have been frequently asked questions and part of informing oneself of the nature of a 500 kW solar array. Questions pertaining to noise propagation, scale of the array, can the array become enlarged, how secure will it be, and what will it look like. We have endeavored to answer all questions brought forward to us. The more concerning feedback has been that Abundant in some way, circumvented process, snuck the array in, failed to consult, or intentionally mislead council. We truly believe that we did none of these things. Abundant has appeared before council in both FIT4 and FIT5. We have appeared with a complete presentation with respect to both our company and our proposed sites. We have done our best to inform and respond to questions pertaining to the ever changing and sometimes frustrating platform that has been the Small FIT program. We have used the resources available to us to create maps, both government software and business resources. We have presented our assessments of sites to council and looked for feedback.We continue to use best efforts to be both good citizens and professional business people in our interractions with our Landlords, the municipalities in which we build, and with the neighbours of our Landlords. Personally, I have spent many hours speaking to constituents with whom I have no business relationship, with the ultimate goal of bringing them to an objective and balanced understanding of the pros and cons of the system we have in place in Ontario. As a business leader at Abundant, I work every day to improve our communication strategy and to hear the feedback that we receive from the marketplace. I sincerely hope that our efforts with respect to the site at 116 Wolfe Lake road will allow us to bridge the gap with the community and bring the project to fruition for the benefit of all. Once again, I welcome any questions or feedback you may have. Sincerely, Melissa Clark

VP Business Development Abundant Solar Energy Inc. melissa.clark@abundantsolarenergy.com

#250

116 WOLFE LAKE RD PIN: 362400491 (Subject to Change) GPS: 44.657290, -76.460376 LEGEND Property Boundary post March 9th comm of adjustment

Wolfe Lake

Wolf Lake Rd (Public Rd)

Structure

Hanna Rd (Public Rd)

Area of Project Site (See Detail on Site Plan) ~5.0 Acre Solar Facility Area ~3.5 Acre

Soil Class: 1-3

Structure

Visual Screening

Soil Class: 4-7

Visual Screening

lem Sa ) , 2 d y 1 lic R w b H u (P

PV Panel Array Inverters (Under panel) Pole mounted transformer

Structure

PCC

~ 131 m

SITE ACCESS RD

Setback from Structure

Structure

Visual Screening

Westport Rd (Public Rd)

Minimum setback of ~30m from wetland to Solar Facility Area
Minimum setback of ~100m from residential cluster to Solar Facility Area
Location of project, dimensions and setback are subjected to final design of PV Solar Systems.
PCC: Point of Common Coupling (Connection point to Hydro One distribution system)

Page 163 of 165

Note:

Visual Screening: Natural vegetation, trees and shrubs in a staggered pattern.
Minimum setback of ~10m from Project Site Perimeter to Solar Facility Area

This map source is come from The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA)

#250

116 WOLFE LAKE RD PIN: 362400491 (Subject to Change) GPS: 44.657290, -76.460376 LEGEND

Property Boundary post March 9th comm of adjustment

Wolfe Lake

Wolf Lake Rd (Public Rd)

Structure

Hanna Rd (Public Rd)

Area of Project Site (See Detail on Site Plan) ~5.0 Acre Solar Facility Area ~3.5 Acre

Visual Screening

Soil Class: 1-3 ~ 30 m

Structure

Setback from Water Front

Soil Class: 4-7

Visual Screening

PV Panel Array Inverters (Under panel)

~ 30 m Setback from Water Front

~ 25 m Setback from Property Boundary

~ 110 m

Setback from Structure

Pole mounted transformer

m ale S 2, d) y 1 lic R w H ub (P

Structure

Structure PCC

SITE ACCESS RD Visual Screening

Westport Rd (Public Rd)

Minimum setback of ~30m from wetland to Solar Facility Area
Minimum setback of ~100m from residential cluster to Solar Facility Area
Location of project, dimensions and setback are subjected to final design of PV Solar Systems.
PCC: Point of Common Coupling (Connection point to Hydro One distribution system)

Page 164 of 165

Note:

Visual Screening: Natural vegetation, trees and shrubs in a staggered pattern.
Minimum setback of ~10m from Project Site Perimeter to Solar Facility Area

This map source is come from The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA)

Page 165 of 165

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW 2017-13

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 March 21, 2017 be confirmed.

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

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

Ron Vandewal, Mayor

Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer

Help support independent journalism

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