Body: Council Type: Agenda Meeting: Regular Date: May 17, 2016 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: South Frontenac
[View Document (PDF)](/docs/south-frontenac/Agendas/Council/2016/Council Meeting - 17 May 2016 - Agenda.pdf)
Document Text
Page 1 of 203
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA TIME: DATE: PLACE:
7:00 PM, Tuesday, May 17, 2016 Council Chambers.
Call to Order
a)
Resolution
Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof
Scheduled Closed Session - n/a
***Recess *** - n/a
Delegations
a)
Suspension of Procedural Bylaw - Re: Delegations at Council Resolution only
b)
Allan and Partners, LLP, Charters Professional Accountants, re: 2015 Financial Statements
Public Meeting
a)
Resolution
b)
Review of Application for Zoning By-law Amendment - Concession XIII, Part of Lots 1 & 2, Bedford District
45 - 48
c)
Closing of Road Allowance in Part of Lot 19, Concessions V and VI, Loughborough
49 - 54
Approval of Minutes
a)
Council Meeting of April 19, 2016
55 - 64
b)
Committee of the Whole meeting of April 26, 2016
65 - 70
c)
Council Meeting of May 3, 2016
71 - 77
d)
Committee of the Whole Meeting held May 4, 2016
78 - 87
Business Arising from the Minutes
a)
Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Notice of Motion Changes to Procedural By-law
88
b)
Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Notice of Motion Development Activity on Johnston Point
89
c)
Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer,re: Support for Fort McMurray
90
5 - 44
Page 2 of 203
Reports Requiring Action
a)
Accounts Payable and Payroll Listing
91 104
b)
Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Councillor Absence
105
Committee Meeting Minutes
a)
Verona Community Association meeting of February 10, 2016
106 107
b)
South Frontenac Recreation Committee meeting of April 18, 2016
108 109
c)
Portland District and Area Heritage Society meeting held April 20, 2016
110 111
By-Laws
a)
By-law 2016-31 - Tax Rate By-law
112 120
b)
By-law 2016-32 - Rezone Concession XIII, Pt Lots 1 & 2, Bedford District
121 122
c)
By-law 2016-33 - Road Allowance Closure - Concessions V and VI, Pt Lot 19, Loughborough
123 124
Reports for Information
a)
Louise Fragnito, Treasurer, re: Community Projects Grants Awarded.
125
b)
Louise Fragnito, Treasurer, re: Year to Date Financials to March 31, 2016
126 127
c)
Louise Fragnito, Treasurer, re: Overall tax rate and functional breakdown
128 129
d)
Angela Maddocks, Executive Assistant, re: Town Hall Meeting Schedule
130
Information Items
a)
Tim Ross, re: Proposed Zoning Changes
131 147
b)
Marg & Greg Allen, re: Proposed Zoning Changes
148
c)
Walter & Monica St. Pierre, re: Proposed Zoning Changes
149
d)
Jan Cunningham Rae & Derek Ray, re: Proposed Zoning Changes
150
e)
Tim Upton, re: Proposed Zoning Changes
151
Page 3 of 203
f)
Jill Baker, re: Proposed Zoning Changes
152
g)
Kaye MacInnes, re: Proposed Zoning Changes
153 154
h)
Bruce Myers, re: Proposed Zoning Changes
155
i)
Barry & Rene Grant, re: Proposed Zoning Changes
156
j)
Joan Irwin, re: Proposed Zoning Changes
157
k)
G. Burton Harbison, President, West Devil Lake Property Owners Group, re: Proposed Zoning Changes
158
l)
Doug Acton, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes
159
m)
John St. Aubin & Cindy Benoit, re: Proposed Zoning Changes
160 162
n)
Don Smith, re: Proposed Zoning Changes
163 164
o)
Jeff and Barbara Canton, re: Proposed Zoning Changes (from May 10)
165 166
p)
Greg Fisher, re: Proposed Zoning Changes (from May 10)
167
q)
Rob Pasch, re: Proposed Zoning Changes (from May 10)
168 169
r)
Gord Rodgers, re: Proposed Zoning Changes (from May 10)
170 172
s)
Fran Willes, re: Proposed Zoning Changes (form May 10)
173 174
t)
Gerald Gabriel, re: Proposed Zoning Changes (from May 10)
175 180
u)
Rachael Smith-Tryon, re: Proposed Zoning Changes (from May 10)
181
v)
Petition - Proposed Zoning Changes (from May 10)
182 185
w)
Suzanne & John Billings, re: Proposed Zoning Changes (from May 10)
186 187
x)
Premier Kathleen Wynne, re: Council Resolution on large renewable initiatives
188
y)
Municipality of Central Huron, re: Support for Large Renewable Procurement Initiatives resolution
189 190
Page 4 of 203
z)
Municipality of Tweed, re: Support for Large Renewable Procurement Initiatives resolution
191
aa)
Township of Zorra, re: Support for Large Renewable Procurement Initiative resolution
192
ab)
Township of Carling, re: Support for Large Renewable Procurement Initiative resolution
193 195
ac)
Norfolk County, re: Support for Large Renewable Procurement Initiatives resolution
196 197
ad)
MMAH, re; Proclamation of the Infrastructure for Jobs & Prosperity Act, 2015
198 201
ae)
Sydenham High School Bus Drivers, re: Concerns with traffic congestion at High School
202
Notice of Motions
Announcements
Question of Clarity (from the public on outcome of agenda items)
Closed Session (if requested)
Confirmatory By-law
a)
By-law 2016-34
Adjournment
a)
Resolution
203
Page 5 of 203
Township of South Frontenac Consolidated Statement of Operations For the year ended December 31
(Note 22) Budget
2015
$
$
$
16,934,868 964,345 830,458 1,788,041 825,169 157,412 400,000 117,600 2,242
16,943,997 1,078,360 864,359 1,984,208 742,038 165,022 358,510 53,048 69,777
15,893,739 1,114,936 735,509 2,268,142 842,683 159,266 390,661 47,161 110,913
22,020,135
22,259,319
21,563,010
1 890 866 1,317,447 2,921,791
1,753,653 2,904,416
201575 533257
550,753
1 474 138 1,335,015 2,744,753 1962,63 437,501 134 10,910,652 82,317 371,032 2,512,606
REVENUES Property taxation User charges Licences and permits Government grants Grants from other municipalities Investment income Penalties and interest on taxes
Donations Other
TOTAL REVENUES
EXPENDITURES Genera‘ 9°“9’”m°”‘
Fl“? Police
,
,
Conservation authority Protective inspections and control Emergency measures Roadways and winter control Street lighting Waterworks Garbage collection and disposal Landfillclosure and post-closure costs
1,950 11,542,728 88,417 365,495 2,818,445
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
195133
…
75,836 969,084 328,131
10,567,174 71,820 387,821 2,467,632 (69,560) 76,206 1,111,054 275,998
23,060,032
21,564,452
-—~
Cemeteries Parks, recreation and cultural services Planning and development
1.272.297
89,366 74,326 844,077 253,794
21,331,174 I
NET REVENUES ‘FROM OPERATIONS
(1,039,897)
694,867
231,836
OTHER Grants and transfers related to capital Deferred revenues earned (note 8) Contributed assets Write down of tangible capital assets
447,993
1,990,320
2.025.215
609.179
(180,224)
(53,914)
1,124,500
2,292,989
2,545,585
84,603
2,987,856
2,777,421
MUNICIPAL EQUITY, BEGINNING OF YEAR
92,923,758
92,923,758
90,146,337
MUNICIPAL EQUITY, END OF YEAR
93,008,361
95,911,614
92,923,758
1,124,500
‘
V
ANNUAL SURPLUS
The accompanying notes arean integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
7
Page 6 of 203
Township of South Frontenac Statement of Changes in Net Assets
Consolidated
(Note 22) Budget
2015
$
$
84,603
2,987,856
2,777,421
5,493,654 (7,829,000)
5,572,349 (10,230,320) 180,224 12,427 63,574
6,008,922 (7,279,870) 53,914 (25,338) (98,672)
(1,330,346)
(4,401 ,746)
(1,341,044)
(DECREASE) INCREASE IN NET FINANCIALASSETS
(1,245,743)
(1,413,890)
1,436,377
NET FINANCIALASSETS, BEGINNING OF YEAR
9,615,580
9,615,580
8,179,203
NET FINANCIAL ASSETS, END OF YEAR
8,369,837
8,201,690
9,615,580
For the year ended December 31
ANNUAL SURPLUS Amortization of tangible capital assets Acquisition of tangible capital assets Disposal of tangible capital assets Acquisition of prepaid expenses Acquisition of supplies inventories
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated ?nancial statements.
8
Page 7 of 203
Consolidated
Township of South Frontenac Statement of Financial Position 2015
December 31
ASSETS Financial Assets Cash and short term deposits Taxes receivable (net of allowance $236,048) Accounts receivable Long term investments (note 5) Tile drainage loan receivable (note 18) Sydenham Water Works debenture receivable (note 19) Long term receivables (note 6)
141759.505 1.845.548 723.111 538.216 1.943
12-047555 2.281.833 1.325.737 551.745
325,840 42,685
3,786 342,322 75,002
18,236,854
16,639,131
4.443.209 206.717
1.924.506 194.467
LIABILITIES
Financial Liabilities Accounts payable and accrued liabilities Other current liabilities Employee future benefit obligations (note 9) Deferred revenues (note 8) Tile drainage loan payable (note 18) Sydenham Water Works debenture payable (note 19) Accrued landfill closure and post closure (note 11)
NET FINANCIALASSETS
113,900
97,917
3.570.230
3.017.673
1,948 325,840 1,373,320
3,786 342,322 1,442,880
10,035,164
7,023,551
8,201,690
9,615,580
87,243,549 248,389 217,986
82,765,802 311,963 230,413
87,709,924
83,308,178
95,911,614
92,923,758
«
NON-FINANICIAL ASSETS Tangible capital assets (note 20)
inventories Prepaid expenses 1
Contingent Liabilities (note 13)
MUNICIPAL EQUITY (note 12)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
6
3
Page 8 of 203
Township of South Frontenac Five Year Financial Review (notsubject to audit) 2011
December 31
2015
2014
2013
Population (Statistics Canada)
18,100
18,100
18,100
18,100
18,100
Number of Households (MPAC)
10,297
10,215
10,149
10,054
9,684
2,959,495 30,369
2,730,315 29,141
2,560,405 27,814
2,389,855 27,775
2,205,581 26,470
2,989,864
2,759,456
2,588,219
2,417,630
2,232,051
1.02%
1.06%
1.07%
1.15%
1.19%
0-527039 0.170059 0.195000
0.522137 0.171918 0.203000
0.495363 0.178401 0.212000
0.499931 0.193135 0.221000
0.485812 0.212540 0.231000
0.892098
0.897055
0.885764
0.914066
0.929352
0-892093 2.127098
0.897055 2.154055
0.885764
0.914066 2.183066
0.929352
2.227098
2.254055
2.163764 2.263764
6.58%
8.55%
5,038 6,072
Taxable Assessment (000’s) Residential and farm Commercial and industrial Total Commercial, industrial as % of assessment
Rates of Taxation
for general municipal purposes for county purposes for school board purposes Total (total) Commercial (total) Industrial (total) Multi~Residentia|
Tax Arrears
percentage of current levy (<10%)**
Taxes Transferred
County
School Boards
Revenues
.
2.283066
2.306790 2.496493
10.64%
9.82%
10.77%
4,802 5,982
4,759 5,996
4,848 5,869
4,886 5,654
$ 16,944 2,726 1,078 1,511 2,293
$ 15,894 3,111 1,115 1,443 2,546
$ 14,461 3,272 951 1,432 (354)
$ 13,953 3,442 646 1,621
$ 12,563 4,284 1,192 1,529
24,552
24,109
19,762
19,662
19,568
21,564 5,572
21,331 6,009
19,573 6,082
20,155 6,360
20,384 7,297
36.85% 45.51%
44.59% 56.94%
40.66% 53.07%
41.64% 56.08%
45.39% 64.57%
(000’s)
(0O0’s)
, property taxation Government grants User charges other
Revenues related to capital assets » »
Total
Expenditures
(000‘s) Operations r Amortization »
Net Financial Assets
(Net Debt)
% of Operating Revenue (>(20%)) ** (>(50%)) **
% of Taxation and User Charges
Represents the Provincial Low Risk Indicator. (Note: All dollar amounts are in thousands of dollars.) **
1
Page 9 of 203
Township of South Frontenac Five Year Financial Review ((1tsubjecttpaudit) December 31
2015
2014
2013
$
$
$
$
$
Long Term Debt
Long term debt (000’s)
326
342
358
373
387
Long term debt charges (000‘s)
35
35
35
35
35
Total annual repayment limit (0003)
4.744
4.204
4,035
3.729
3,737
Long term debt per household
32
33
35
37
40
Debt charges (O00’s)
user charges
36
36
36
30
36
Municipal Equity (000’s)
Surplus and Reserves
11,257
10,630
9,084
9,670
10,182
r
invested in capital assets
86,794
82,294
81,062
80,288
80269
Asset consumption ratio
52.74%
52.66%
51.53%
50.75%
48.96%
Reserves as % of operating expenses (> 20%)
47.92%
55.90%
54.80%
54.12%
57.65%
financial assets to liabilities
1.82
2.37
1.95
1.95
2.00
financial assets to liabilities excluding long term debt
1.88
2.49
2.03
2,04
2,10
long term debt to tangible capital assets
0.37%
0.41%
0.44%
0_4s%
0,43%
capital reserves to accumulated amortization
9.00%
8.98%
9.44%
9.35%
11.30%
0.16%
0.17%
0.18%
0.18%
0.18%
0.74
0.78
0.78
0.81
0.88
39.54%
46.68%
41.79%
40.62%
43.58%
Vulnerability
Operating government transfers to operating revenue
8.91%
10.52%
11.56%
13.98%
17.08%
Total government transfers
to total revenues
9.78%
13.98%
11.39%
13.98%
17.08%
**
Financial Indicators
Sustainability
1
‘
Flexibility (<5%)** revenue
Debtcharges to total operating
Total operating revenue to taxable assessment
Working capital to
operating expenses (>10%)
.
*“
Page 10 of 203
Draft CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2015
CONTENTS
Five Year Financial Review.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 Management’s Responsibility for the Consolidated Financial Statements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Independent Auditor’s Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 5 Consolidated Statement of Financial Position. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Consolidated Statement of Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Consolidated Statement of Changes in Net Financial Assets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 24 Schedule 1 < Continuity of Reserves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Schedule 2 < Tangible Capital Assets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 - 27 Independent Auditor’s Report < Trust Funds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 - 29 Trust Funds < Statement of Financial Position and Statement of Financial Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Trust Funds < Notes to the Financial Statements.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Township of South Frontenac Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2015
Page 11 of 203
Township of South Frontenac Five Year Financial Review (not subject to audit) December 31
2015
2014
2013
Population (Statistics Canada)
18,100
18,100
Number of Households (MPAC)
10,297
Draft 2012
2011
18,100
18,100
18,100
10,215
10,149
10,054
9,684
2,959,495 30,369
2,730,315 29,141
2,560,405 27,814
2,389,855 27,775
2,205,581 26,470
2,989,864
2,759,456
2,588,219
2,417,630
2,232,051
1.02%
1.06%
1.07%
1.15%
1.19%
0.527039 0.170059 0.195000
0.522137 0.171918 0.203000
0.495363 0.178401 0.212000
0.499931 0.193135 0.221000
0.485812 0.212540 0.231000
0.892098
0.897055
0.885764
0.914066
0.929352
0.892098 2.127098 2.227098
0.897055 2.154055 2.254055
0.885764 2.163764 2.263764
0.914066 2.183066 2.283066
0.929352 2.306790 2.496493
6.58%
8.55%
10.84%
9.82%
10.77%
< County < School Boards
5,038 6,072
4,802 5,982
4,759 5,996
4,848 5,869
4,886 5,654
Revenues (000’s)
$ 16,944 2,726 1,078 1,511 2,293
$ 15,894 3,111 1,115 1,443 2,546
$ 14,461 3,272 951 1,432 (354)
$ 13,953 3,442 646 1,621
$ 12,563 4,284 1,192 1,529
24,552
24,109
19,762
19,662
19,568
21,564 5,572
21,331 6,009
19,573 6,082
20,155 6,360
20,384 7,297
36.85% 45.51%
44.59% 56.94%
40.66% 53.07%
41.64% 56.08%
45.39% 64.57%
Taxable Assessment (000’s) Residential and farm Commercial and industrial
Total Commercial, industrial as % of assessment
Rates of Taxation < for general municipal purposes < for county purposes < for school board purposes
Total Multi-Residential (total) Commercial (total) Industrial (total)
Tax Arrears < percentage of current levy (‹10%)** Taxes Transferred (000’s)
< Property taxation < Government grants < User charges < Other < Revenues related to capital assets
Total Expenditures (000’s) < Operations < Amortization
Net Financial Assets (Net Debt) < % of Operating Revenue (>(20%)) ** < % of Taxation and User Charges (>(50%)) **
** Represents the Provincial Low Risk Indicator. (Note: All dollar amounts are in thousands of dollars.)
1
Page 12 of 203
Township of South Frontenac Five Year Financial Review (not subject to audit) 2015
2014
2013
$
$
< Long term debt (000’s)
326
< Long term debt charges (000’s)
Draft 2012
2011
$
$
$
342
358
373
387
36
36
36
36
36
4,744
4,204
4,035
3,729
3,737
< Long term debt per household
32
33
35
37
40
< Debt charges (000’s) < user charges
36
36
36
30
36
< Surplus and Reserves
11,257
10,630
9,084
9,670
10,182
< Invested in capital assets
86,794
82,294
81,062
80,288
80,269
< Asset consumption ratio
52.74%
52.66%
51.53%
50.75%
48.96%
< Reserves as % of operating expenses (> 20%) **
47.92%
55.90%
54.80%
54.12%
57.65%
< Sustainability < financial assets to liabilities
1.82
2.37
1.95
1.95
2.00
< financial assets to liabilities excluding long term debt
1.88
2.49
2.03
2.04
2.10
< long term debt to tangible capital assets
0.37%
0.41%
0.44%
0.46%
0.48%
< capital reserves to accumulated amortization
9.00%
8.98%
9.44%
9.35%
11.30%
< Flexibility < Debt charges to total operating revenue (<5%)**
0.16%
0.17%
0.18%
0.18%
0.18%
< Total operating revenue to taxable assessment
0.74
0.78
0.78
0.81
0.88
< Working capital to operating expenses (>10%) **
39.54%
46.68%
41.79%
40.62%
43.58%
< Vulnerability < Operating government transfers < to operating revenue
8.91%
10.52%
11.56%
13.98%
17.08%
< Total government transfers < to total revenues
9.78%
13.98%
11.39%
13.98%
17.08%
December 31
Long Term Debt
< Total annual repayment limit (000’s)
Municipal Equity (000’s)
Financial Indicators
2
Page 13 of 203
Draft
Management’s Responsibility for the Consolidated Financial Statements
The accompanying consolidated financial statements of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac are the responsibility of the Township’s management and have been prepared in compliance with legislation, and in accordance with Canadian Public Sector Accounting Standards. A summary of significant accounting policies are described in note 2 to the consolidated financial statements. The preparation of consolidated financial statements necessarily involves the use of estimates based on management’s judgement, particularly when transactions affecting the current accounting period cannot be finalized with certainty until future periods. The Township’s management maintains a system of internal controls designed to provide reasonable assurance that assets are safeguarded, transactions are properly authorized and recorded in compliance with legislative and regulatory requirements, and reliable financial information is available on a timely basis for preparation of consolidated financial statements. These systems are monitored and evaluated by management. Management meets with the external auditors to review the consolidated financial statements and discuss any significant financial reporting or internal control matters prior to Council approval of the consolidated financial statements. The consolidated financial statements have been audited by Allan and Partners LLP, independent external auditors appointed by the Township. The accompanying Auditor’s Report outlines their responsibilities, the scope of their examination and their opinion on the Township’s consolidated financial statements.
Wayne Orr Chief Administrative Officer
Louise Fragnito, CPA, CGA Treasurer
3
Page 14 of 203
Draft
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT
To the Members of Council, Inhabitants and Ratepayers of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac:
We have audited the accompanying consolidated financial statements of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac which comprise the consolidated statement of financial position as at December 31, 2015 and the consolidated statement of operations, changes in net financial assets and cash flows for the year then ended and a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory information. Management’s Responsibility for the Consolidated Financial Statements The Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac’s management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these consolidated financial statements in accordance with Canadian Public Sector Accounting Standards and for such internal control as management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of consolidated financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. Auditor’s Responsibility Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we comply with ethical requirements and plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgment, including assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the consolidated financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditors consider internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation and fair presentation of the consolidated financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the consolidated financial statements.
4
Page 15 of 203
Draft We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion. Opinion In our opinion, these consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac as at December 31, 2015 and its consolidated results of operations, changes in net financial assets and its consolidated cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian Public Sector Accounting Standards.
Allan and Partners LLP Chartered Professional Accountants Licensed Public Accountants
Perth, Ontario, May 17, 2016.
5
Page 16 of 203
Township of South Frontenac Consolidated Statement of Financial Position December 31
2015
Draft 2014
$
$
14,759,506 1,845,548 723,111 538,216 1,948 325,840 42,685
12,047,656 2,281,833 1,326,787 561,745 3,786 342,322 75,002
18,236,854
16,639,131
4,443,209 206,717 113,900 3,570,230 1,948 325,840 1,373,320
1,924,506 194,467 97,917 3,017,673 3,786 342,322 1,442,880
10,035,164
7,023,551
8,201,690
9,615,580
87,243,549 248,389 217,986
82,765,802 311,963 230,413
87,709,924
83,308,178
95,911,614
92,923,758
ASSETS Financial Assets Cash and short term deposits Taxes receivable (net of allowance $236,048) Accounts receivable Long term investments (note 5) Tile drainage loan receivable (note 18) Sydenham Water Works debenture receivable (note 19) Long term receivables (note 6)
LIABILITIES Financial Liabilities Accounts payable and accrued liabilities Other current liabilities Employee future benefit obligations (note 9) Deferred revenues (note 8) Tile drainage loan payable (note 18) Sydenham Water Works debenture payable (note 19) Accrued landfill closure and post closure (note 11)
NET FINANCIAL ASSETS
NON-FINANCIAL ASSETS Tangible capital assets (note 20) Inventories Prepaid expenses
Contingent Liabilities (note 13)
MUNICIPAL EQUITY (note 12)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
6
Page 17 of 203
Township of South Frontenac Consolidated Statement of Operations (Note 22) Budget
2015
$
$
$
16,934,868 964,345 830,458 1,788,041 825,169 157,412 400,000 117,600 2,242
16,943,997 1,078,360 864,359 1,984,208 742,038 165,022 358,510 53,048 69,777
15,893,739 1,114,936 735,509 2,268,142 842,683 159,266 390,661 47,161 110,913
22,020,135
22,259,319
21,563,010
1,890,866 1,317,447 2,921,791 201,575 538,257 1,960 11,542,728 88,417 365,495 2,818,445 –75,836 969,084 328,131
1,753,653 1,272,297 2,904,416 195,188 550,753 –10,567,174 71,820 387,821 2,467,632 (69,560) 76,206 1,111,054 275,998
1,474,138 1,335,015 2,744,753 196,463 437,501 134 10,910,652 82,317 371,032 2,512,606 89,366 74,326 844,077 258,794
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
23,060,032
21,564,452
21,331,174
NET REVENUES FROM OPERATIONS
(1,039,897)
694,867
231,836
1,124,500
447,998 2,025,215 (180,224)
1,990,320 609,179 (53,914)
1,124,500
2,292,989
2,545,585
84,603
2,987,856
2,777,421
MUNICIPAL EQUITY, BEGINNING OF YEAR
92,923,758
92,923,758
90,146,337
MUNICIPAL EQUITY, END OF YEAR
93,008,361
95,911,614
92,923,758
For the year ended December 31
Draft 2014
REVENUES Property taxation User charges Licences and permits Government grants Grants from other municipalities Investment income Penalties and interest on taxes Donations Other
TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES General government Fire Police Conservation authority Protective inspections and control Emergency measures Roadways and winter control Street lighting Waterworks Garbage collection and disposal Landfill closure and post-closure costs Cemeteries Parks, recreation and cultural services Planning and development
OTHER Grants and transfers related to capital Deferred revenues earned (note 8) Contributed assets Write down of tangible capital assets
ANNUAL SURPLUS
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
7
Page 18 of 203
Township of South Frontenac Consolidated Statement of Changes in Net Assets (Note 22) Budget
2015
$
$
$
84,603
2,987,856
2,777,421
6,498,654 (7,829,000)
5,572,349 (10,230,320) 180,224 12,427 63,574
6,008,922 (7,279,870) 53,914 (25,338) (98,672)
(1,330,346)
(4,401,746)
(1,341,044)
(DECREASE) INCREASE IN NET FINANCIAL ASSETS
(1,245,743)
(1,413,890)
1,436,377
NET FINANCIAL ASSETS, BEGINNING OF YEAR
9,615,580
9,615,580
8,179,203
NET FINANCIAL ASSETS, END OF YEAR
8,369,837
8,201,690
9,615,580
For the year ended December 31
ANNUAL SURPLUS Amortization of tangible capital assets Acquisition of tangible capital assets Disposal of tangible capital assets Acquisition of prepaid expenses Acquisition of supplies inventories
Draft
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
8
2014
Page 19 of 203
Township of South Frontenac Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows For the year ended December 31
2015
Draft 2014
$
$
2,987,856 5,572,349 180,224 (69,560) 15,983
2,777,421 6,008,922 53,914 89,366 (5,623)
8,686,852
8,924,000
436,285 603,676 2,518,703 12,250 552,557 12,427 63,574
450,819 (362,366) (213,189) 74,163 (1,511,261) (25,338) (98,672)
4,199,472
(1,685,844)
12,886,324
7,238,156
Acquisition of tangible capital assets
(10,230,320)
(7,279,870)
Net investment in tangible capital assets
(10,230,320)
(7,279,870)
Decrease (increase) in long term investments Decrease in long term receivables
23,529 32,317
(12,786) 22,780
Net decrease in cash from investing activities
55,846
9,994
NET INCREASE (DECREASE) IN CASH
2,711,850
(31,720)
CASH, BEGINNING OF YEAR
12,047,656
12,079,376
CASH, END OF YEAR
14,759,506
12,047,656
OPERATING ACTIVITIES Annual surplus for the year Amortization Loss on sale of tangible capital assets Change in landfill liability Change in employee benefit obligations
Net Change in Non-Cash Working Capital Balances Taxes receivable Accounts receivable Accounts payable and accrued liabilities Other current liabilities Deferred revenues Prepaid expenses Inventory not for resale
Working Capital from Operations CAPITAL ACTIVITIES
INVESTING ACTIVITIES
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
9
Page 20 of 203
Township of South Frontenac Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
Draft
December 31, 2015
Status of the Township of South Frontenac The Township of South Frontenac (the ‘Township’) was incorporated January 1, 1998 (being an amalgamation of the former Township of Bedford, Loughborough, Portland and Storrington) and assumed its responsibilities under the authority of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Municipal Act. The Township operates as a lower tier government in the County of Frontenac, in the Province of Ontario, Canada and provides municipal services such as police, fire, public works, planning, parks and recreation, library and other general government operations.
Significant Accounting Policies The consolidated financial statements of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac are the representations of management and have been prepared in all material respects in accordance with Canadian Public Sector Accounting Standards. Significant aspects of the accounting policies by the Township are as follows: Reporting Entity (i)
The consolidated financial statements reflect financial assets, liabilities, operating revenues and expenditures, reserves, reserve funds and changes in investment in tangible capital assets of the Township. The reporting entity is comprised of all organizations, committees and local boards accountable for the administration of their financial affairs and resources to the Township and which are owned or controlled by the Township. Interdepartmental and inter-organizational transactions and balances between these organizations are eliminated. These consolidated financial statements include: < Sydenham Cemetery < Sandhill Cemetery < Portland Cemetery < Frontenac Community Arena (proportionately consolidated) Proportionate consolidation: The Frontenac Community Arena is accounted for using the proportionate consolidation method of accounting and reporting, whereby the municipality’s pro-rata share of each of the assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses is combined on a line-by-line basis in the consolidated financial statements.
(ii)
The charges for long term liabilities assumed by consolidated entities or by individuals in the case of the drainage and shoreline property assistance loans are reflected in the consolidated financial statements.
(iii) The taxation, other revenues, expenditures, assets and liabilities with respect to the operations of the school boards and county are not reflected in the municipal fund balances of these consolidated financial statements.
10
Page 21 of 203
Township of South Frontenac Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
Draft
December 31, 2015
Significant Accounting Policies / continued Basis of Consolidation (i)
The consolidated financial statements are prepared using the accrual basis of accounting. The accrual basis of accounting records revenue as it is earned and measurable. Expenditures are recognized as they are incurred and measurable based on receipt of goods and services and/or the creation of a legal obligation to pay.
(ii)
Non-financial assets are not available to discharge existing liabilities and are held for use in the provision of services. They have useful lives extending beyond the current year, and are not intended for sale in the ordinary course of operations. The change in non-financial assets during the year, together with the excess of revenues over expenses, provides the change in net financial assets for the year.
(iii) Trust funds and their related operations administered by the Township are not included in these consolidated financial statements but are reported separately on the Trust Funds Statement of Financial Activities and Financial Position. Tangible Capital Assets Tangible capital assets are recorded at cost, which include all amounts that are directly attributable to acquisition, construction, development or betterment of the asset. The cost, less residual value, of the tangible capital assets are amortized on a straight line basis over their estimated useful lives as follows:
Land Land Improvements Buildings and Building Improvements Vehicles, Machinery and Equipment Linear Assets Roads Bridges Sidewalks Water Infrastructure
15 - 20 years 20 - 50 years 3 - 25 years 7 - 50 years 7 - 50 years 20 years 50 - 70 years
Amortization is charged from the year of acquisition. Assets under construction are not amortized until the asset is available for productive use, at which time they are capitalized. The Township has a capitalization threshold of $5,000 for vehicles and equipment and $10,000 for buildings and $15,000 for linear assets so that individual capital assets of lesser value are expensed, unless they are pooled because, collectively, they have significant value, or for operations reasons. Tangible capital assets received as contributions are recorded at their fair value at the date of receipt, and that fair value is also recorded as revenue. Similarly, transfers of assets to third parties are recorded as an expense equal to the net book value of other asset as of the date of transfer. When tangible capital assets are disposed of, either by way of a sale, destruction or loss, or abandonment of the asset, the asset’s net book value, historical cost less accumulated amortization, is written off. Any resulting gain or loss, equal to the proceeds on disposal less the asset’s net book value, is reported on the consolidated statement of operations in the year of disposal. Transfers of assets to third parties are recorded as an expense equal to the net book value of the asset as of the date of transfer.
11
Page 22 of 203
Township of South Frontenac Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
Draft
December 31, 2015
Significant Accounting Policies / continued Tangible Capital Assets / continued When conditions indicate that a tangible capital asset no longer contributes to the Township’s ability to provide services or the value of the future economic benefits associated with the tangible capital asset are less than its net book value, and the decline is expected to be permanent, the cost and accumulated amortization of the asset are reduced to reflect the revised estimate of the value of the asset’s remaining service potential. The resulting net adjustment is reported as an expense on the consolidated statement of operations. (i)
Natural Resources Natural resources that have not been purchased are not recognized as assets in the consolidated financial statements.
(ii)
Works of Art and Cultural and Historic Assets Works of art and cultural and historic assets are not recorded as assets in these consolidated financial statements.
Leases Leases are classified as capital or operating leases. Leases which transfer substantially all of the benefits and risks incidental to ownership of property are accounted for as capital leases. All other leases are accounted for as operating leases and the related lease payments are charged to expenses as incurred. Inventories and Prepaid Expenses Inventories and prepaid expenses held for consumption are recorded at the lower of cost or replacement cost. Pension and Employee Benefits The Township accounts for its participation in the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (‘OMERS’), a multi-employer public sector pension fund, as a defined benefit plan. The OMERS plan specifies the retirement benefits to be received by employees based on length of service and pay rates. Employee benefits include vacation entitlement and sick leave benefits. Vacation entitlements are accrued as entitlements are earned. Sick leave benefits are accrued in accordance with the Township’s policy. Employee Future Benefit Obligations The Township accrues its obligation for employee benefit plans. The cost of post-retirement benefits earned by employees is actuarially determined using the projected benefit method pro-rated on services and management’s best estimate of salary escalation, retirement ages of employees and expected health care costs. Actual gains (losses) which can arise from changes in the actuarial assumptions used to determine the accrued benefit obligation will be amortized over the average remaining service period of active employees.
12
Page 23 of 203
Township of South Frontenac Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2015
Draft
Significant Accounting Policies / continued Cash and Cash Equivalents The Township considers cash and cash equivalents to be highly liquid investments with original maturities of three months or less. Government Transfers Government transfers are recognized in the consolidated financial statements as revenues in the period in which events giving rise to the transfer occur, providing the transfers are authorized, any eligibility criteria have been met, and reasonable estimates of the amounts can be made. Deferred Revenues < Obligatory Reserve Funds The Township defers recognition of user charges and fees which have been collected but for which the related services have yet to be performed. Government transfers of gas taxes, development charges collected under the Development Charges Act, 1997, and recreational land collected under the Planning Act are reported as deferred revenues in the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position. These amounts will be recognized as revenues in the fiscal year the services are performed. The Township receives restricted contributions under the authority of provincial legislation and Township bylaws. These funds by their nature are restricted in their use and until applied to applicable costs are recorded as deferred revenue. Amounts applied to qualifying expenses are recorded as revenue in the fiscal period they are expended. The Township receives restricted contributions under the authority of Federal and Provincial legislation and Township by-laws. These funds by their nature are restricted in their use and until applied to applicable costs are recorded as deferred revenue. Amounts applied to qualifying expenses are recorded as revenue in the fiscal period they are expended. Deferred revenue represents certain user charges and fees which have been collected but for which the related services have yet to be performed. Deferred revenue also represents contributions that the Township has received pursuant to legislation, regulation or agreement that may only be used for certain programs or in the completion of specific work. These amounts are recognized as revenue in the fiscal year the services are performed or related expenses incurred. Investments Short-term and long-term investments are recorded at cost plus accrual interest. If the market value of investments become lower than cost and the decline in value is considered to be other than temporary, the investments are written down to market value. Investment income earned on surplus, current funds, capital funds, reserves and reserve funds (other than obligatory reserve funds) are reported as revenue in the period earned. Investment income earned on development charges and parkland obligatory reserve funds is added to the fund balance and forms part of respective deferred revenue balances. Landfill Closure and Post-Closure Liabilities The Township accrues landfill closure and post-closure care requirements that have been defined in accordance with industry standards and include final covering and landscaping of the landfill, pumping of ground water and leachates from the site, and ongoing environmental monitoring, site inspection and maintenance. The reported liability is based on estimates and assumptions with respect to events extending over a fifty year period using the best information available to management.
13
Page 24 of 203
Township of South Frontenac Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2015
Draft
Significant Accounting Policies / continued Landfill Closure and Post-Closure Liabilities / continued Future events may result in significant changes to the estimated total expenditures, capacity used or total capacity and the estimated liability, and would be recognized prospectively, as a change in estimate, when applicable. Financial Instruments All financial instruments are initially recognized at fair value on the consolidated statement of financial position. The Township has classified each financial instrument into one of the following categories: held-for-trading financial assets and liabilities, loans and receivables, held-to-maturity financial assets and other financial liabilities. Subsequent measurement of financial instruments is based on their classification. Held-for-trading financial assets and liabilities are subsequently measured at fair value with changes in those fair values recognized in net revenues. Loans and receivables, held-to-maturity financial assets and other financial liabilities are subsequently measured at amortized cost using the effective interest method. The Township classifies cash and cash equivalents as held-for-trading financial assets, accounts receivable as loans and receivables, and accounts payable and accrued liabilities as other financial liabilities. Measurement Uncertainty The preparation of consolidated financial statements requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenditures during the period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. These estimates are reviewed periodically and as adjustments become necessary, they are recorded in the consolidated financial statements in the period in which they become known.
Operations of the School Boards and County of Frontenac During 2015, the Township collected and made property tax transfers including payments in lieu of property taxes, to the County of Frontenac and School Boards as follows:
Amounts requisitioned and paid
14
School Boards $
County $
6,071,802
5,038,375
Page 25 of 203
Township of South Frontenac Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2015
Draft
Contributions to Consolidated Joint Board The following contributions were made by the Township to the Board:
Frontenac Community Arena
2015
2014
$
$
67,287
64,967
The Township is contingently liable for its share, which is approximately 59% of any accumulated deficits as at the end of the year for this Board. The Township’s share of the accumulated surpluses (or deficits) of this joint board are as follows:
Frontenac Community Arena
2015
2014
$
$
645,956
662,718
Long Term Investments Total long term investments of $538,216 (2014 $561,745) reported on the ‘Consolidated Statement of Financial Position’ at cost plus accrued interest, have a market value of $540,271 (2014 $565,651) at the end of the year.
Long Term Receivable The long term receivable is from the sale of Township property. The loan is secured by a mortgage on the property. The mortgage is repayable in blended monthly payments of $1,502.73 and is due December 2016.
Trust Funds Trust funds administered by the Township amounting to $627,540 (2014 $613,519) are presented in a separate financial statement of trust fund balances and operations. As such balances are held in trust by the Township for the benefit of others, they are not presented as part of the Township’s financial position or financial activities.
15
Page 26 of 203
Township of South Frontenac Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
Draft
December 31, 2015
Deferred Revenues A requirement of the public sector accounting standards of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada is that obligatory reserve funds be reported as deferred revenue. This requirement is in place as provincial legislation restricts how these funds may be used and under certain circumstances these funds may possibly be refunded. The balances in the obligatory reserve funds of the Township are summarized below: 2015
2014
$
$
Balance, Beginning of Year Development contributions Subdivider contributions Investment income Federal Gas Tax funding Transfers to reserve funds Grant utilized Other revenue utilized
3,017,673 331,487 108,318 36,280 406,326 —-(329,854)
4,528,934 288,889 139,965 50,205 (797,344) (509,171) (304,469) (379,336)
Balance, End of Year
3,570,230
3,017,673
2015
2014
$
$
566,508 1,992,176 837,013 174,533
157,722 1,837,970 848,198 173,783
3,570,230
3,017,673
Analyzed as follows: Federal Gas Tax funding Development charges Cash in lieu of parkland Subdivider contributions
Employee Post Employment Benefit Liability Employee non-pension retirement benefits (extended health care for early retirees): Effective January 1, 2008, the Township began to provide extended health care to its employees. Extended health care continues to be available to early retirees up to the age of 65, with the retiree generally being responsible for paying 50% of the benefit premiums. An independent actuarial study of the employee non-pension retirement benefit has been undertaken. The most recent valuation of the employee future benefits was completed for 2015 and will be applied effective January 1, 2015. The accrued benefit obligation relating to the employee non-pension retirement benefits has been actuarially determined using the projected benefit method pro-rated on services. At December 31, 2015, based on an actuarial update, the accrued benefit obligation was $113,900 (2014 $97,917).
16
Page 27 of 203
Township of South Frontenac Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2015
Draft
Employee Post Employment Benefit Liability / continued The significant actuarial assumptions adopted in estimating the Township’s accrued benefit obligation are as follows: Discount Rate Health Benefits Escalation
2.80% per annum 7.50% per annum, scaling down over 15 years to 4.50% thereafter
Information with respect to the Township’s non-pension retirement obligations are as follows: 2015
2014
$
$
Accrued benefit obligation at beginning of year Expense recognized for the year Interest cost Benefits paid for the year
97,917 21,183 5,000 (10,200)
103,540 4,444 4,488 (14,555)
Accrued benefit obligation at end of year
113,900
97,917
The accrued benefit liability at December 31, includes the following components:
2015
2014
$
$
Accrued benefit obligation end of year Unamortized actuarial loss
181,200 (67,300)
103,540 (5,623)
Accrued benefit obligation end of year
113,900
97,917
Pension Contributions The Township makes contributions to the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (“OMERS”), which is a multi-employer plan, on behalf of all permanent members of its staff. The plan is a defined benefit plan which specifies the amount of the retirement benefit to be received by the employees based on the length of service and rates of pay. Employers and employees contribute to the plan. Since any surpluses or deficits are a joint responsibility of all Ontario municipalities and their employees, the Village does not recognize any share of the OMERS pension surplus or deficit in these consolidated financial statements. The amount contributed to OMERS was $274,555 (2014 $255,719) for current services and is included as an expenditure on the Consolidated Statement of Operations classified under the appropriate functional expenditure. Contributions by employees were a similar amount.
17
Page 28 of 203
Township of South Frontenac Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2015
Draft
Landfill Closure and Post Closure Liability The Environmental Protection Act sets out the regulatory requirements to properly close and maintain all active and inactive landfill sites. Closure and post closure cost requirements are to be provided over the estimated remaining life of the landfill sites based on usage. Landfill closure and post-closure care requirements have been defined in accordance with industry standards and include final covering and landscaping of the landfill, pumping of ground water and leachates from the site, and ongoing environmental monitoring, site inspection and maintenance. The reported liabilities are based on estimates and assumptions with respect to events extending over a period of up to fifty years using the best information available to management. Future events may result in significant changes to the estimated total expenditures, capacity used or total capacity and the estimated liability, and would be recognized prospectively, as a change in estimate, when applicable. The Township currently has five active and five inactive landfill sites. The estimated remaining capacity of the active landfill sites ranges from 19% to 46% of the total estimated capacity and the estimated remaining life of the active landfill sites ranges from ten years to twenty-nine years. The period for post-closure care for all sites is estimated to be fifteen years. Estimated total expenses represent the sum of the discounted future cash flows for closure and postclosure care activities using an estimated inflation rate of 2% and discounted at the Township’s average long term borrowing rate of 6% (2014 6%). The estimated total landfill closure and postclosure care expense are calculated at approximately $1,823,489 (2014 $1,891,672). For sites that are still active, the estimated liability for these expenses is recognized as the landfill site’s capacity is used. For sites that are inactive, the estimated liability for these expenses is recognized immediately. Included in liabilities at December 31, 2015 is an amount of $1,373,320 (2014 $1,442,880) with respect to landfill closure and post-closure liabilities recognized to date.
Municipal Equity Municipal equity consists of: 2015
2014
$
$
87,243,549 (449,100)
82,765,802 (471,455)
86,794,449
82,294,347
–156,932
(28,427) 176,295
156,932
147,868
Landfill Closure and Post-Closure To Be Recovered
(1,373,320)
(1,442,880)
Reserves
10,333,553
11,924,423
Total Municipal Equity
95,911,614
92,923,758
Invested in Tangible Capital Assets Tangible capital assets Unfinanced capital expense
Unrestricted Surplus Cemetery Boards Frontenac Community Arena
18
Page 29 of 203
Township of South Frontenac Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2015
Draft
Contingent Liabilities The nature of municipal activities is such that there may be litigation pending or in prospect at any time. With respect to claims as at December 31, 2015, management believes that the Township has valid defences and appropriate insurance coverages in place. In the event any claims are successful, management believes that such claims are not expected to have a material effect on the Township’s financial position. As a result, no provision has been made in these consolidated financial statements for any settlement which may arise as a result of these claims.
Contractual Obligations (a)
The Township has entered into an agreement with the Ontario Provincial Police for the provision of police services. The term of the agreement is five years, commencing December 2019 at an annual cost of approximately $2.9 million.
(b)
The Township entered into an Agreement with 1425445 Ontario Limited operating as Utilities Kingston for the operation and maintenance of the water system. The term of the Agreement expires December 31, 2016. The annual cost as at December 31, 2015 was $116,114 (2014 $107,950).
(c)
The Township has entered into road construction contracts with approximately $555,000 of work to be completed in 2016. The expenditure will be funded from reserves, grants and taxation.
Supplementary Information
Expenses by Object Salaries, wages and employee benefits Materials, services, rents and financial expenses Transfers to others Amortization
19
2015
2014
$
$
4,834,178 10,821,155 356,159 5,552,960
4,178,444 10,821,981 321,827 6,008,922
21,564,452
21,331,174
Page 30 of 203
Township of South Frontenac Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2015
Draft
Risk Management In the normal course of operations, the Township is exposed to a variety of financial risks which are actively managed by the Township. The Township’s financial instruments consist of cash, investments, accounts receivable and accounts payable and accrued liabilities. The fair values of cash, accounts receivable, investments and accounts payable and accrued liabilities approximate their carrying values because of their expected short term maturity and treatment on normal trade terms. The Township’s exposure to and management of risk has not changed materially from December 31, 2014. Credit Risk Credit risk arises from the possibility that the entities to which the Township provides services to may experience difficulty and be unable to fulfill their obligations. The Township is exposed to financial risk that arises from the credit quality of the entities to which it provides services. The Township does not have a significant exposure to any individual customer or counter party. As a result, the requirement for credit risk related reserves for accounts receivable is minimal. Interest Rate Risk Interest rate risk arises from the possibility that the value of, or cash flows related to, a financial instrument will fluctuate as a result of changes in market interest rates. The Township is exposed to financial risk that arises from the interest rate differentials between the market interest rate and the rates on its cash and cash equivalents and operating loan. Changes in variable interest rates could cause unanticipated fluctuations in the Township’s operating results. Liquidity Risk Liquidity risk is the risk that the Township will not be able to meet its obligations as they fall due. The Township requires working capital to meet day-to-day operating activities. Management expects that the Township’s cash flows from operating activities will be sufficient to meet these requirements.
Fair Value of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities The carrying value of taxes receivable, accounts receivable and accounts payable approximate their fair values due to the relatively short periods to maturity of these items or because they are receivable or payable on demand. The market value of long term investments is disclosed in note 5.
Tile Drainage Loan Receivable and Payable The loan payable bears annual interest at 6% and is repayable in 10 equal instalments of principal and interest of $2,065 commencing December 1, 2006. The responsibility for payment of principal and interest for the loan has been assumed by individuals and therefore has been shown in the consolidated financial statements as both a loan receivable and payable.
20
Page 31 of 203
Township of South Frontenac Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2015
Draft
Sydenham Water Works Debenture Receivable and Payable The debenture was issued on December 1, 2008, bears annual interest at 5.75% and is repayable in forty equal bi-annual instalments of blended principal and interest at $17,966 commencing June 1, 2009. The responsibility of principal and interest for the loan has been assumed by individuals and therefore has been shown in the consolidated financial statements as both a loan receivable and payable.
Tangible Capital Assets
Land Land improvements Buildings and building improvements Vehicles, machinery and equipment Linear Assets Roads Bridges Sidewalks Water infrastructure Construction in progress Frontenac Community Arena
2015
2014
$
$
3,163,307 704,829 8,782,152 6,816,764
3,171,270 650,715 5,378,088 6,421,997
51,163,896 6,538,755 171,173 7,961,993 1,451,656 489,024
49,054,554 5,461,548 176,502 8,124,592 3,837,112 486,424
87,243,549
82,765,802
For additional information, see Schedule 2 < Tangible Capital Assets. Assets under construction having a value of $1,451,656 (2014 $3,837,112) have not been amortized. Amortization of these assets will commence when the asset is put into service.
Segmented Information The Township is a diversified municipal government that provides a wide range of services to its citizens, including police, fire, transportation, recreational and environmental. For management reporting purposes the Township’s operations and activities are organized and reported by department. Funds were created for the purpose of recording specific activities to attain certain objectives in accordance with special regulations, restrictions or limitations. Municipal services are provided by departments and their activities are reported in these funds. Certain departments that have been separately disclosed in the segmented information, along with the services they provide are as follows:
21
Page 32 of 203
Township of South Frontenac Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2015
Draft
Segmented Information / continued (a) Administration Includes corporate services and governance of the Township. Administration as a segment includes human resource management, support to Council for policy development, by-law development in compliance with the Municipal Act, tax billing and collection responsibilities, financial management reporting, monitoring and overall budget status as well as frontline reception and customer service. (b) Protection Services Includes policing, fire protection, conservation authority, protective inspection and control and emergency measures. The mandate of the police services contract is to ensure the safety of the lives and property of citizens; preserve peace and good order; prevent crimes from occurring; detect offenders; and enforce the law. Fire protection includes inspection, extinguishing and suppression services; emergency medical first response; and prevention education and training programs. Inspection and control includes building inspection, by-law enforcement and dog control services. (c) Transportation Services This department provides the winter and summer maintenance, the repair and the construction of the municipal roads system including bridges and culverts. (d) Environmental Services Includes the management and maintenance of water treatment and distribution and solid waste management. (e) Cemetery Boards Includes the management and maintenance of municipal cemeteries. (f)
Parks, Recreation and Culture Provides services that contribute to neighbourhood development and sustainability through the provision of recreation and leisure programs and facilities including community halls, libraries, parks, recreation fields and the proportionate share of Frontenac Community Arena.
(g) Planning and Development Manages development for business interest, environmental concerns, heritage matters, local neighbourhoods and community development. It facilitates economic development by providing services for the approval of all land development plans, the application and enforcement of the zoning by-law and official plan, and the provision for geomatics services. For each segment separately reported, the segment revenue and expense represent both amounts that are directly attributable to the segment and amounts that are allocated on a reasonable basis. Therefore, certain allocation methodologies are employed in the preparation of segmented financial information. These municipal services are funded primarily by property tax revenue. Taxation is apportioned to these services based on the funding requirement. Certain government transfers, transfer from other funds, and other revenue have been apportioned based on a percentage of budgeted expenses.
22
Page 33 of 203
Township of South Frontenac Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
Draft
December 31, 2015
Segmented Information / continued The accounting policies used in these segments are consistent with those followed in the preparation of the consolidated financial statements as disclosed in note 2.
2015
Revenues Taxation Penalties & interest Government Grants < unconditional < conditional Other municipalities Licenses, permits & rents User fees & service charges Other
Expenses Salaries, wages & employee benefits Interest on long term debt Materials Contracted services Rents & financial expenses External transfers Amortization
Excess of Revenues Over Expenses
Adminis -tration
Protective Services
Transport -ation Services
Environmen -tal Services
Health Services
$
$
$
$
$
15,671,739 358,510
1,272,258
1,465,600 –11,000
–35,223
–115,039 723,082
248,680 3,598
225,109
441,080
66,349
70,945 2,169,235
82,794 3,039
19,972,138
Parks, Recreation & Culture
Planning & Development
Total
$
$
16,943,997 358,510
10,246 68,821 7,956
–37,000
1,724,526 259,681 742,038
2,400
129,421
864,359
42,053 183,886
654,251 31,573
61,452 6,789
45,026 185,338
122,589 227
1,079,110 2,580,087
562,136
1,130,409
2,212,760
68,241
446,808
159,816
24,552,308
840,592
793,437
2,373,612
395,281
909
272,021
158,326
4,834,178
–496,395 180,003
–262,542 3,330,032
–3,241,299 138,364
19,450 149,310 2,031,241
–4,137 71,160
–168,524 600,279
227 29,222 88,224
19,677 4,351,429 6,439,303
10,746 133,798 91,368
–222,361 314,282
—-4,887,034
—-190,046
—-70,230
10,746 356,159 5,552,960
1,752,902
4,922,654
10,640,309
2,785,328
76,206
1,111,054
275,999
21,564,452
18,219,236
(4,360,518)
(9,509,900)
(572,568)
(7,965)
(664,246)
(116,183)
2,987,856
23
Page 34 of 203
Township of South Frontenac Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
Draft
December 31, 2015
Segmented Information / continued
2014
Revenues Taxation Penalties & interest Government Grants < unconditional < conditional Other municipalities Licenses, permits & rents User fees & service charges Other
Expenses Salaries, wages & employee benefits Interest on long term debt Materials Contracted services Rents & financial expenses External transfers Amortization
Excess of Revenues Over Expenses
Adminis -tration
Protective Services
Transport -ation Services
Environmen -tal Services
Health Services
$
$
$
$
$
14,643,489 390,661
1,250,250
1,457,043 800 7,100
–28,565 19,500
–1,341,064 816,433
207,065
217,390
435,293
66,695
24,556 729,816
94,872 215,314
17,470,855
Parks, Recreation & Culture
Planning & Development
Total
$
$
15,893,739 390,661
7,005 13,233 (350)
–10,708
1,671,113 1,394,370 842,683
2,400
134,618
856,396
60,375 534,802
574,891 359,756
70,408 7,527
48,080 217,967
120,868 401
994,050 2,065,583
793,544
2,819,369
2,394,362
77,935
420,553
131,977
24,108,595
800,474
700,448
1,967,585
382,834
48
170,069
156,986
4,178,444
–255,082 206,363
–310,207 3,168,739
–2,855,344 832,351
20,358 72,090 2,315,476
–2,385 71,893
–100,586 499,497
331 49,519 51,958
20,689 3,645,213 7,146,277
9,802 106,715 92,697
–215,112 319,361
—-5,337,689
—-185,250
—-73,925
9,802 321,827 6,008,922
1,471,133
4,713,867
10,992,969
2,976,008
74,326
844,077
258,794
21,331,174
15,999,722
(3,920,323)
(8,173,600)
(581,646)
3,609
(423,524)
(126,817)
2,777,421
Budget Figures The operating budget approved by Township Council, for 2015 is reflected on the Consolidated Statement of Operations. The Township does not budget activity within Reserves and Reserve Funds, with the exception being those transactions, which affect either operations or capital investments. Budget figures have been reclassified for the purposes of these consolidated financial statements to comply with PSAB reporting requirements.
24
Page 35 of 203
Township of South Frontenac Schedule 1 < Continuity of Reserves and Reserve Funds
Draft
(Note 22) Budget
2015
$
$
$
2,423,396 (3,437,968)
2,555,403 (4,146,273)
3,302,601 (1,653,827)
Total Net Transfers
(1,014,572)
(1,590,870)
1,648,774
Reserves and Reserve Fund Balances, Change in Year
(1,014,572)
(1,590,870)
1,648,774
Reserves and Reserve Fund Balances, Beginning of Year
11,924,423
11,924,423
10,275,649
Reserves and Reserve Fund Balances, End of Year
10,909,851
10,333,553
11,924,423
For the year ended December 31
2014
Net Transfers From / (To) Other Funds Transfers from operations Transfers to capital acquisitions
Composition of Reserves and Reserve Funds For the year ended December 31
2015
2014
$
$
1,291,662 33,165 241,811
3,651,222 7,787 246,234
2,781,465 1,360,107 729,314 254,209 469,147 683,463 451,920 2,037,290
1,961,000 1,277,261 720,999 342,487 567,486 880,588 333,344 1,936,015
10,333,553
11,924,423
Reserves set aside for specific purposes by Council: Fiscal < for working capital < for election < for building inspection Equipment and Infrastructure < for global < for vertical < for roadways < for linear < for rolling stock < for future landfill closing < for water infrastructure < for stabilization
Total Reserves
The accompany notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
25
Page 36 of 203
Township of South Frontenac Schedule 2 < 2015 Tangible Capital Assets
Draft
Cost 01/01/15
Additions
(Disposals)
Cost 31/12/15
$
$
$
$
3,171,270
157,897
(165,860)
3,163,307
Land Improvements
748,737
89,638
838,375
Buildings & Building Improvements
8,049,289
3,620,142
11,669,431
Vehicles, Machinery & Equipment
12,661,553
1,193,751
(285,150)
13,570,154
Linear Assets Roads Bridges Sidewalks Water infrastructure
125,899,850 10,232,690 248,500 9,253,960
6,295,504 1,234,031 –2,824
132,195,354 11,466,721 248,500 9,256,784
Construction in Progress
3,837,112
(2,385,456)
1,451,656
727,415
21,989
749,404
174,830,376
10,230,320
(451,010)
184,609,686
Net Book Value 31/12/15
Asset Class
Land
Frontenac Community Arena
Accumulated Amortization 01/01/15
Amortization
(Disposals)
Accumulated Amortization 31/12/15
$
$
$
$
$
3,163,307
Land Improvements
98,022
35,524
133,546
704,829
Buildings & Building Improvements
2,671,201
216,078
2,887,279
8,782,152
Vehicles, Machinery & Equipment
6,239,556
784,620
(270,786)
6,753,390
6,816,764
Linear Assets Roads Bridges Sidewalks Water infrastructure
76,842,296 4,771,142 71,998 1,129,368
4,189,162 156,824 5,329 165,423
81,031,458 4,927,966 77,327 1,294,791
51,163,896 6,538,755 171,173 7,961,993
Construction in Progress
1,451,656
240,991
19,389
260,380
489,024
92,064,574
5,572,349
(270,786)
97,366,137
87,243,549
Asset Class
Land
Frontenac Community Arena
The accompany notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
26
Page 37 of 203
Township of South Frontenac Schedule 2 < 2014 Tangible Capital Assets
Draft
Cost 01/01/14
Additions
(Disposals)
Cost 31/12/14
$
$
$
$
3,092,261
79,009
3,171,270
Land Improvements
647,828
100,909
748,737
Buildings & Building Improvements
7,926,295
122,994
8,049,289
Vehicles, Machinery & Equipment
12,415,546
943,513
(697,506)
12,661,553
Linear Assets Roads Bridges Sidewalks Water infrastructure
123,200,972 10,222,090 248,500 9,253,960
2,698,878 10,600
125,899,850 10,232,690 248,500 9,253,960
Construction in Progress
513,145
3,323,967
3,837,112
Frontenac Community Arena
727,415
727,415
168,248,012
7,279,870
(697,506)
174,830,376
Net Book Value 31/12/14
Asset Class
Land
Accumulated Amortization 01/01/14
Amortization
(Disposals)
Accumulated Amortization 31/12/14
$
$
$
$
$
3,171,270
Land Improvements
67,295
30,727
98,022
650,715
Buildings & Building Improvements
2,501,042
170,159
2,671,201
5,378,088
Vehicles, Machinery & Equipment
6,104,984
778,164
(643,592)
6,239,556
6,421,997
Linear Assets Roads Bridges Sidewalks Water infrastructure
72,163,256 4,609,905 66,669 963,945
4,679,040 161,237 5,329 165,423
76,842,296 4,771,142 71,998 1,129,368
49,057,554 5,461,548 176,502 8,124,592
Construction in Progress
3,837,112
222,148
18,843
240,991
486,424
86,699,244
6,008,922
(643,592)
92,064,574
82,765,802
Asset Class
Land
Frontenac Community Arena
The accompany notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
27
Page 38 of 203
Draft
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT
To the Members of Council, Inhabitants and Ratepayers of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac:
We have audited the accompanying statement of financial position of the trust funds of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac as at December 31, 2015 and the statement of financial activities of the trust funds for the year then ended and a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory information. Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements The Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac’s management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with Canadian Public Sector Accounting Standards and for such internal control as management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. Auditor’s Responsibility Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we comply with ethical requirements and plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgment, including assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.
28
Page 39 of 203
Draft We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion. Opinion In our opinion, these financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the trust funds of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac as at December 31, 2015 and the financial activities for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian Public Sector Accounting Standards.
Allan and Partners LLP Chartered Professional Accountants Licensed Public Accountants Perth, Ontario, May 17, 2016.
29
Page 40 of 203
Township of South Frontenac Trust Funds Statement of Financial Position Portland Histor -ical Society
Draft
OHRP
Grant Family Memorial Endowment
2015
2014
$
$
$
$
$
76,305
–25,000
11,110
26,337
563,793 63,747
538,713 63,696
11,110
14,142
454,456
76,305
25,000
11,110
26,337
627,540
613,519
20,190
14,142
454,456
76,305
25,000
11,110
26,337
627,540
613,519
20,190
14,142
454,456
76,305
25,000
11,110
26,337
627,540
613,519
Fire
Cemetery Perpetual Care
Monument Perpetual Care
Muriel Burns
$
$
$
$
13,943 6,247
14,142
421,956 32,500
20,190
LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL Capital (note 3)
December 31
ASSETS Cash Term deposits Long term notes receivable
Statement of Financial Activities Portland Histor -ical Society
OHRP
Grant Family Memorial Endowment
2015
2014
$
$
$
$
$
2,100 –914
—-306
12,100 741 6,701
15,900 1,660 7,179
15,099
3,014
306
19,542
24,739
5,099
422
5,521
16,360
212
911
10,000
3,014
(422)
306
14,021
8,379
BALANCE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR
19,978
13,231
444,456
73,291
25,000
11,532
26,031
613,519
605,140
BALANCE AT THE END OF THE YEAR
20,190
14,142
454,456
76,305
25,000
11,110
26,337
627,540
613,519
Fire
Cemetery Perpetual Care
Monument Perpetual Care
Muriel Burns
$
$
$
$
—-212
–741 170
10,000 –5,099
212
911
Transfer to Operating Fund
NET REVENUES (EXPENDITURES) FOR THE YEAR
For the year ended December 31
REVENUES Sales of Perpetual Care Donations Interest earned
EXPENDITURES
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
30
Page 41 of 203
Township of South Frontenac Trust Funds Notes to the Financial Statements
Draft
December 31, 2015 1.
Significant Accounting Policies The financial statements of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac Trust Funds are prepared by management in accordance with Canadian Public Sector Accounting Standards. Basis of Accounting These statements reflect the assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses of the Trusts. Revenue Recognition Revenues and expenses are recorded on an accrual basis. The accrual basis recognizes revenue as they become available and measurable; expenses are recognized as they are incurred and measurable as a result of the receipt of goods or services and the creation of a legal obligation to pay. Measurement Uncertainty The preparation of financial statements in conformity with Canadian Public Sector Accounting Standards requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. These estimates are reviewed periodically and as adjustments become necessary, they are recorded in the financial statements in the period in which they become known.
Ontario Home Renewal Program (O.H.R.P.) The Ontario Home Renewal Program was established by the Ontario Ministry of Housing in 1973 to provide grants for municipalities to make loans to assist owner occupants to repair, rehabilitate and improve their homes to local property standards. Individual loans are limited to $7,500 of which the maximum forgivable portion is $4,000. Ontario Home Renewal Program loans receivable at December 31, 2015 are comprised of repayable loans of $11,110 (2014 $22,400) and forgiveable loans of $Nil (2014 $Nil). Loan forgiveness is earned and recorded at a rate of up to $600 per year of continued ownership and occupancy. In the event of the sale or lease of the home or in the event of the homeowner ceasing to occupy the home, the balances of the repayable loan and the unearned forgiveable loan immediately become due and payable by the homeowner. The OHRP program was discontinued by the Ontario Ministry of Housing in July 1993. At that time the Ministry requested the repayment of all trust funds held by the Township. The cash accumulated in the trust fund is being repaid to the Ministry on an annual basis.
Monument Perpetual Care Perpetual care receipts are reported on the cash basis of accounting and interest income is reported on the accrual basis of accounting. The capital balance of monument perpetual care includes the original capital contributions received as well as accumulated unspent income on the capital contributions received. The unspent income of $17,397 (2014 $16,482) is available for future expenses related to monument perpetual care.
31
Page 42 of 203
Page 43 of 203
Page 44 of 203
Page 45 of 203 STAFF REPORT: PUBLIC MEETING Township of South Frontenac Planning Department Prepared for Council Agenda Date: May 17, 2016 File No. Z-16/06 Date of Report: May 11, 2016 Applicant: Scouts Canada Subject: Review of Application for Zoning By-law Amendment in Part of Lots 1 & 2, Concession XIII, Bedford District, Township of South Frontenac
Summary of Recommendation: The recommendation is that Council consider passage of a zoning by-law amendment that would rezone an existing 30 acre rural lot to permit it to be used for residential purposes. Purpose of the Report: The purpose of this report is to bring to Council an application for a zoning bylaw amendment and to hold a public meeting on the application as required under section 34 of the Planning Act. The report includes a location attachment, a depiction of the lot and an amending by-law. Background An application has been submitted to amend the Township of South Frontenac Comprehensive Zoning By-law to rezone an existing 12 hectare (30 ac.) rural waterfront parcel of land from Open Space-Private Zone (OS) to Limited Service Residential-Waterfront Zone (RLSW) to permit it to be used for residential purposes. The land is owned by the Provincial Council for Ontario: Boy Scouts of Canada and, until recently has operated as a boy scouts camp – “Camp Oskenonton”. The land is presently zoned as ‘OS’ to permit this use. The owners are looking to sell the lot and wish to rezone to a residential zone to increase its potential value on the market. Analysis The subject land is shown on Attachment #1. It is developed with a scout camp “clubhouse/mess hall” at its southernmost point near Buck Lake along with a number of small outbuildings but the land is otherwise vacant. Attachment #2 shows the main building. As indicated, the lot is situated at the terminus of Massassauga Road with waterfrontage on Buck Lake. It has frontage on Seapoint Lane along its north boundary and on Massassauga Lane along its south boundary. Many seasonal residential lots and cottages exist further along both lanes. The land is designated Rural in the Official Plan. The Plan permits rural residential waterfront development on private lanes consistent with the owners’ plans. The amending by-law would change the zone on the land from Open SpacePrivate (OS) to Limited Service-Residential (RLSW) to recognize the proposed residential use. Agency Comments At time of preparation of this report no comments had been received from the public.
Page 46 of 203 Conclusion The proposed residential use of the land is supported by the provisions of the Official Plan. The proposal is therefore supported.
Recommendation It is recommended that the attached zoning amending By-law No. 2016-32 to rezone the subject land from Open Space-Private (OS) to Limited Service Residential-Waterfront (RLSW), be considered for passage. Submitted/Approved by: Lindsay Mills attachments ScoutsCanadaZoningReport
Page 47 of 203
Attachment #1 N
W*E s
4
Subject Property
-a .+=6
e,%/4
4!
.v
4’P
/'
Meters
0 105210 420 630 840
,Th %) e7
‘@
Page 48 of 203
g ;l
Attachment #2
ffi W
W
l
l
i
I
!.@
l
l
l
I
l
l
l
a
N
/ S!’?
t
N Scout Camp Building ]
l
r
l l
l
l l l
l
11
!
r
l r,
t l
l
l l
l
1 l
?i -d
l
‘y
?
/
:x
?
N sfi
-?
?
/
I
,J
i /
/
(
/
/
M
/
i
/ }
pte@ v
I I.
I
/jr’
l
;e,>
!,'
§
Page 49 of 203
PLANNING REPORT: PUBLIC MEETING Township of South Frontenac Prepared for Council
Planning Department
Agenda Date: May 17, 2016 Date of Report: May 10, 2016 Subject: Closing of Road Allowance in, Part of Lot 19, Between Concessions V and VI, Loughborough District, Township of South Frontenac: Ritchie
Summary of Recommendation: The recommendation is that Committee receive the Planning Report dated May 10, 2016 and consider passage of a by-law for the closing and transferring of ownership of a portion of unopened road allowance in the District of Loughborough. Purpose of Report: The purpose of this report is to bring to Council an application for a road closure and transfer of ownership to an abutting property-owner and to hold a public meeting on the proposal as required under the Municipal Act. This report includes a location attachment, a map illustrating the portion of road allowance to be closed and a by-law to close and sell the land. Background & Discussion: Property owners Mr. and Mrs. Ritchie, at 4819 North Shore Crescent have requested to know whether Council would agree to the closure and sale of a portion of unopened road allowance that runs east and west between Perth Road and North Shore Crescent. The property owners would like to buy the portion of road allowance to add to their property abutting to the north. Council may recall that this matter came to the Committee of the Whole on January 26, 2016 where the Committee was favourable to the closure and sale of the land. However, originally, this came to the Committee on November 10, 2015 where Dr. Ryan, the property owner on the south, requested to buy the land. The Committee agreed in principle to selling the land and to divide it equally between the owners on the north and the south. However, the owner Dr. Ryan later asked that it be sold to the north property owner. Attachment #1 is a copy of the letter from Dr. Ryan stating that he now wishes that the Ritchie’s take the whole portion. Attachment #2 shows the location of Ryan’s property. Attachment #3 shows the Ritchie property and the portion of unopened road allowance requested to be closed. The subject portion of road allowance is approximately 52 metres (170 ft.) long and is 0.24 of an acre in size. As seen on the attachment, the road allowance has already been closed east and west of the subject portion so it is highly unlikely that this portion would ever be required by the Township for use as a public road. In addition, Rutledge Road and North Shore Road now exist forming an east/west connection through this area making this former alignment redundant. Conclusion: The air photo (Attachment #4) shows that the Ritchie property on the north already has been using the road allowance and has buildings located on the road
Page 50 of 203
allowance. Also, the Ritchie property is small at only 0.75 acres in size. The addition of 0.24 acres of land, with his buildings already located on it, would appear to be very beneficial to them. Recommendation It is recommended that Council consider the passage of By-law No. 2016-33 to close and sell a portion of unopened road allowance in Part of Lot 19 between Concessions V and VI, Loughborough District. Submitted/Approved by: Lindsay Mills attachments RoadClosureReportRitchie2
Dec. (39 2B15 %:5?PM Pl51 of 203 Page
FQX NO. :1G313512923
ATTACHMENT #1 EDWARD P. RYAN, M.D., p.c. 7 HIGT:! OAK COUrll'
TT!’.1,: 63’t-423Ji:’!86
iffT.NTJNGTON, N.pw vonx ‘i n43
FA,Xi 60'3 1-351-2923
NEtTROlOGt(:AL StJRGFRY
p,- 9 ,=oi.s-
,4, € s: 4-J-”.= ai- L?.i. 444 :7.g it ,ha=-z4
C-!
Psz,?* b.ci-st.o,’,i wxy SL A? ea.g Is?"?’- hw-7, Npzm.r try J’ qxz ?i. .
7,
‘y4:4,aie/t-?q$ ll-+.@JL4.]?,ac.
v t
)w,a? Ap ?i ?,va.,c,-
f&.=? -a-roct-sx -!-!?. ?.c-ri t=. & i J i y =.Q Aa-s- t-aJa- tq>,
Q-4;=..-,d,, < /2a? t-,b,‘7.L.,H .,t Ya -a’, ,L-.
,S2-. ?? y, t.-ta-I-. 47 ? .,n.c->.,i?-d -
,4,%
,.,sl
:‘Q-> ,i4 i;q,l> ,>6i [4,?
Page 52 of 203
‘?H’p
9
!.1
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC
W .,
ATTACHMENT #2 W
1
t
t
N
-I-
W
‘21
W?
p
t
s l s l
?
J
t
l 4
h
Lacey L,ake
L q
a
J l
I
K
l
a
P
)
t
t
l
s
l
l l
l
J
11%
F l i
l
t
n
/"’ 4
%eros property (
r
-ti ,-?=r 1
@ l
ll?’l,
l t
@
r
t
u
%
11
y’
j
r
7
r
d t ?
?
?
r
A w
I
‘?
/E
i6
I
p
?
r
N
t
%m
r
s i 11
l
L o u g h b o r o u gLF L a k e Ji
?
/i
/i /i /1 li /l
-?
C
/. /
r
ga
Page 53 of 203
7’? ?
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC
? W
ATTACHMENT #3
7 Az ? W?
S
l
l I
S
}
I J
}
,[’
/
u
l
m-a
’l
ffr?
y
‘,
IU
S
l
s
t
l
i
X
l l
%
l
l
I
/ -’l1
}
! S
/-1
RlTCHtE PROPERTY
.-?
e
l.?
<-
€ < I
l l
/
‘1 }
l
l
l,,,.1
l l
S
n
S-?
l I
l
l
l l i
J
,]
t
l
l
l
L
i
l
1
l
l
l
l
/
j
r l I
l
j j
U l
’l %l J
J
{oughborough Lake
I
l
l l l
Loughborough Lake
j
j
r
/
Page 54 of 203
#SH/7 A,(??’—a’%s ‘sl?
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC
KO&????’?7
ATTACHMENT #4
6-
J[l
s S
l
1
1
7
aj 91
1
j
1
1
1
‘r )
‘w
1
1
}
1 1
)k
’s
x
1
l
‘<
s
1 r
i
k
s
d
‘SS,’. % 1
1
1 1
A l 1
U!
S!
%
%
!
i
‘S
/
IJ l/
p
‘J
l
/
/
7/i
V
%.
‘( .1
m,,=a+4*a?‘aaM’a’a’
j
k
7 ?
v ‘12
s 11
Fence
:S,
‘<
1
l
(
l
rj
’d
Buildings on Road Allowance
r’b
/
p d
k
t
:l
1
S
11
1’
Page 55 of 203 Minutes of Council April, 19, 2016 Time: 7:00 PM Location: Council Chambers Meeting # 12 Present: Mayor Ron Vandewal, Pat Barr, John McDougall, Alan Revill, Norm Roberts, Mark Schjerning, Ron Sleeth, Ross Sutherland Staff: Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, Lindsay Mills, Planner, Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, Angela Maddocks, Executive Assistant. 1.
Call to Order
a)
Resolution Resolution No. 2016-12-1 Moved by Councillor Sleeth Seconded by Deputy Mayor Sutherland THAT the Council meeting of April 19, 2016 be called to order at 7:00 p.m. Carried
Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof
a)
Councillor Roberts declared a pecuniary interest with respect to agenda item 7(f) as an abutting property owner. Councillor Sleeth declared a pecuniary interest with respect to agenda item 5(a) as an abutting property owner
Scheduled Closed Session - n/a
***Recess *** - n/a
Public Meeting
a)
Resolution Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, announced the procedures for the public meeting that is held on behalf of the County of Frontenac. Resolution No. 2016-12-2 Moved by Councillor Revill Seconded by Deputy Mayor Sutherland THAT a public meeting be held to discuss planning matters related to: Applications for Plan of Condominium and Associated Zoning By-law Amendment, Part Lot 15, 16 & 17, Concession IX, Storrington: Shield Shores Carried
b)
Review of Applications for Plan of Condominium and Associated Zoning By-law Amendment, Part Lot 15, 16 & 17 , Concession IX, Storrington-Shield ShoresDog Lake Subdivision Mr. Mills presented his report on the proposed 18 unit residential plan of vacant land condominium at Dog Lake in Storrington District. The application is also for a zoning by-law amendment to rezone the land for the new residential uses proposed.He noted that Block 19 and 21 would be for water access but would not be intended to include docks or boat launches and the Planning Department is concerned that the proposed access into the narrow bay area
Page Page 562ofof203 10 Minutes of Council April, 19, 2016 from Block 19 would introduce too much boating activity in this constricted water-space. Units 10, 11, and 12 have extreme topography and steep drop offs. Mr. Mills confirmed that the hydrogeological peer review report has not been received yet. There is an existing right of way for access which will require an agreement with the existing property owner(s) if it is to become part of Road 1 identified in the plan. Mary Bird has expressed her concern with her access and the right of way, this will have to be addressed by the developer. Councillor Schjerning questioned the impact if no agreement could be reached with respect to the right of way. Mr. Mills replied that the existing right of way can only be removed if the owner agrees to it, thus the easement over these properties may need to remain. Councillor Schjerning was supportive of the 76 metre road frontages and questioned the reduction 91 metres for Unit 1.Mr. Mills explained that this is due to the fact that 2 properties already exist on either side of the 91 metre gap and this situation (the gap) already exists. Deputy Mayor Sutherland asked if Unit 1 currently exists. Mr. Mills replied no, it does not exist however the gap exists and the development is not creating the situation of insufficient frontage, this can’t be changed. He further noted that the frontage would actually decrease as it is measured from point to point with respect to narrow waterbodies. Deputy Mayor Sutherland questioned access from Unit 5 and 7 to the water and if we are creating access to the water and making waterfrontage that is not 150 metres. He was concerned that this sets a bad precedent and would provide easy access to the water. Mr. Mills noted that the Badour Farm subdivision has the same scenario. Deputy Mayor Sutherland and Councillor Revill questioned the “no cut zone” and FoTenn’s reference to 8" cuttings. Mr. Mills explained that this is part of the environmental assessment and the development agreement would use the same language as the site plan which requires the units remain in their natural state near the water. Mayor Vandewal felt Block 19 shouldn’t be there due to the existing narrow waterbody. He noted that there is existing public access to Dog Lake nearby. With respect to the road impact study, he suggested that sidewalks could be considered on Wellington Street for pedestrian traffic into the village of Battersea. Mike Keene of Fotenn, referred to the pictures depicting rugged, steep lots. He stated that they have recommended to the existing property owner to abandon the right of way for a better access road. He noted that there are some revisions to be made with respect to Block 19 and 21, they are fairly flat locations and divided at 1/3 and 2/3 into the development but he agreed that we do not want to overwhelm the narrow water body. Units 15 and 16 may have different lots lines but mostly the development meets and exceeds the contents of the zoning by-law. With respect to trespassing concerns, fencing and/or signage are options depending on the topography. Easements for Units 5 and 7 need to be further discussed with the developer. Mr. Keene noted that Parks Canada like larger parcels of land for common docks and that definitely you would not want a dock on Lot 17. Although there are no docks proposed, this does not mean there will never be any. At this point, there is both good quality and quantity of water and test results should be available in a few days. Mayor Vandewal questioned whether the property is in the hamlet of Battersea as the Official Plan directs development. He noted that there is active farming in the area, noting that good fences make good neighbours. Mr. Mills confirmed that it is 700 metres outside of the hamlet area.
Page Page 573ofof203 10 Minutes of Council April, 19, 2016 Councillor Revill questioned the predisinfection of the water supply. Mr. Keene explained that this is a precautionary measure that is putting in a protection for the developer and the property owner. While there is calcium and hard water evident, these are not health issues. Councillor Revill questioned item 7.3 (g) with regard to the removal of trees. Mr. Keene stated that the ecological report should be echoed in this regard. He also noted that in this area of Dog Lake, it is very shallow flooded land. Jeff Peters stated that he is not pro-development. He stated that it seems like there has been lots of subdivision and condominium developments in the last two years. He noted that there are farmers using the roads for access and that these developments increase the road usage and create road safety concerns. He stated that the next steps in the Clean Water Act will be to look at land around pods of houses and that agricultural uses will be infringing upon these regulations. He stated that the Official Plan is to be the bible for planning, however he felt that for the last 15- 20 years there has been strip development along roads, and hasn’t been concentrated to the hamlets. He felt there is a cumulative approval to development and that peer reviews are being used until you get the answer you want. He has studied soil science and that it is impossible for this development not to affect soil and erosion. Dog Lake doesn’t need more negative impact as there is already the blue/green algae on the Rideau Canal. With reference to the watershed studies, he felt it would be impossible for this development not to have a significant impact, Dog Lake is too shallow for this kind of development. He asked Council to consider regard for the constituents long term vision for growth in South Frontenac. Sharon Freeman is not against development but the degradation of property during the process of possible development. She felt that 2 or 3 good storms will wash away what little soil is evident which is a risk for fire. There is no protection in place for world heritage sites and that South Frontenac has no protection in place for the two sites within the municipality. She felt there should be a better balance between development and the environment and to recognize the biodiversity, flora and fauna and to build healthier relationships between human and land. She felt we have failed as a community to be better stewards and that the developer is only doing what he is allowed to do. Mary Bird, one of the existing property owners, is concerned about the septic systems, water,endangered species, less and less wildlife in the area. The brush and trees that have already been cleared has changed her property and privacy as now she can hear and see traffic on Wellington St. It is no longer the same natural environment and the area is now disturbed by traffic and noise. She is worried about the type of septic systems that will be used as there is very little soil depth in the area. She felt there would be better uses for this land. Matt Rennie voiced his concern about agency comments, the possible severances, and information that is not yet available to the public. With respect to vacant land condominiums, he noted that not one has come to life yet. The plan appears to have 2-3 layers of development, is this back lot development? There is a large consensus from the public to protect our lakes and the value they have to the township. He felt the lake impact study is more important than the road impact study. He questioned Section 7.1.1 of the Official Plan and if narrow waterbodies is applicable in this development. He proposed that it is a a shallow water body and felt all the lots should have 150 metres of water frontage. If addressed in the Environmental Impact Study, lots 5 and 7 have a right of way that gives them waterfront access. If the area is truly granite with no soil depth the Official Plan speaks to this with a 90 metre setback requirement.
Page Page 584ofof203 10 Minutes of Council April, 19, 2016 Don Roney who owns the property at the northwest corner of the proposed development indicated that lots 2, 3, 4 and 17 all have wet areas and that these lots will drain into the lake. There is a spawning area near lot 12 for suckers and other fish. There are six wells that have already been drilled and have impacted his own well and he questioned what happens when all the lots are developed. He felt it was odd to have waterfront lots with no docks permitted. He agreed with Ms Bird about the impact on animals and snakes. Mayor Vandewal directed those in attendance to the county website and that all questions and comments will be answered by the staff at the County of Frontenac. Wayne Orr advised that the township hosts the statutory public meeting. Jeff Peters felt there should be another public meeting as not all reports are available yet. Mayor Vandewal advised that this will be up to the County to offer another public meeting. Mike Keene noted that if more land is added into the development there will have to be another public meeting. He also noted that the appeal rights are determined by the Ontario Municipal Board. Fran Willes felt another public meeting should be scheduled as there are more agency comments and reports to come. She felt this application is incomplete. Mayor Vandewal reiterated that it was the request of the County to have the public meeting. Sharon Freeman asked about the cutting of tress and when does this restriction come into affect. Mayor Vandewal explained that currently no control is in place, but once a development is proposed there are restrictions in place and development agreements restrict further cutting of mature trees. Deputy Mayor Sutherland questioned the procedural by-law and the opportunity to ask questions of the speakers. Resolution No. 2016-12-3 Moved by Councillor Revill Seconded by Deputy Mayor Sutherland THAT an opportunity having been provided, the public meeting be closed. Carried Resolution No. 2016-12-4 Moved by Councillor Revill Seconded by Deputy Mayor Sutherland THAT Council receive the comments and attachments contained in the Planning Report dated April 11, 2016, defer any decision on the subdivision or rezoning of the property until the comments resulting from the pubic meeting are reviewed and forward the Planning Report dated April 11, 2016 including all attachments and comments from the public meeting to the County of Frontenac. Carried 6.
Approval of Minutes
a)
Minutes of April 5, 2016 Council Meeting Resolution No. 2016-12-5 Moved by Councillor Sleeth Seconded by Deputy Mayor Sutherland
Page Page 595ofof203 10 Minutes of Council April, 19, 2016 THAT Council approves the minutes of the April 5, 2016 Council meeting. Carried 7.
Business Arising from the Minutes
a)
Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Communications Standards Policy Resolution No. 2016-12-6 Moved by Councillor Revill Seconded by Deputy Mayor Sutherland THAT Council adopt the Communications Standards Policy as presented in the April 19 agenda package. Carried
b)
Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Township of Georgian Bay - “No Wake” Zone Resolution Resolution No. 2016-12-7 Moved by Deputy Mayor Sutherland Seconded by Councillor Revill THAT Council endorses the resolution passed by the Township of Georgian Bay on March 14, 2016 requesting the implementation of legislation that would provide authorities with the ability to enforce a “No Wake” restriction in Ontario’s navigable waters. Carried
c)
Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Official Plan and Zoning Matters Resolution No. 2016-12-8 Moved by Councillor Revill Seconded by Deputy Mayor Sutherland THAT Council confirm the 3 priorities and associated challenges identified in the Councillor Report dated March 21, 2016 and tabled April 12 AND THAT the CAO be directed to bring forward a report which outlines a potential process to address these issues by no later than the end of June 2016. AND THAT the CAO’s report include estimates of the fiscal and time implications Carried
d)
Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Organizational Review - Joint Meeting Resolution No. 2016-12-9 Moved by Deputy Mayor Sutherland Seconded by Councillor Revill THAT Council proceed with a May 4 joint meeting of Council and the management team for the purpose of hearing directly from the managers with a focus on solutions to the challenges faced. AND THAT the framework proposed for the meeting by the CAO be accepted. Carried
e)
Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Notice of Motion-Large Renewable
Page Page 606ofof203 10 Minutes of Council April, 19, 2016 Procurement Initiatives Mayor Vandewal relinquished the Chair to Deputy Mayor Sutherland. Resolution No. 2016-12-10 Moved by Mayor Vandewal Seconded by Councillor Sleeth THAT Council endorse the resolution as outlined in the report dated April 13, 2016 regarding future large renewable procurement initiatives. Carried f)
After the resolution was passed Mayor Vandewal resumed the chair. Councillor Roberts removed himself from the table with respect to the next agenda item.
g)
Lindsay Mills, Planner, re: Applications for Plan of Subdivision and Associated Zoning By-law Amendment, Part of Lots 28 to 30, Concession VII, Collins Lake Estates Resolution No. 2016-12-11 Moved by Councillor Revill Seconded by Deputy Mayor Sutherland THAT Council forward the Planning Report dated March 29, 2016, including attachments and comments from the public meeting to the County of Frontenac. Carried
Reports Requiring Action
a)
Accounts Payable and Payroll Listing Resolution No. 2016-12-12 Moved by Councillor McDougall Seconded by Councillor Schjerning THAT Council receives for information the Accounts Payable and Payroll Voucher dated April 19, 2016 in the amount of $300,350.64 Carried
b)
Lindsay Mills, Planner, re: Application for Road Closure, Part of Lot 24, Concession VI and VII, Loughborough District- Johnston Point See By-law 2016-28
c)
Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, re: Tender No. PW-2016-14 New Tires and Repairs Resolution No. 2016-12-13 Moved by Councillor Schjerning Seconded by Councillor McDougall THAT Council approves the bid of Black Dog Tire for the supply and service of the Township’s tire and repair needs. Carried
d)
Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, re: RFP # PW-P02-2016-Supply of Diesel Fuel and Gasoline
Page Page 617ofof203 10 Minutes of Council April, 19, 2016 Resolution No. 2016-12-14 Moved by Councillor McDougall Seconded by Councillor Schjerning THAT Council approves the bid of Rosen Energy Group for the supply and delivery of the Township’s Diesel Fuel and Gasoline for a period of five years. Carried e)
Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, re; Road and Lane Standards Resolution No. 2016-12-15 Moved by Councillor Schjerning Seconded by Councillor McDougall THAT Council adopt the Roads and Lane Standard Cross-Section Policy dated March 17, 2016. Carried
f)
Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Chief Building Official Resolution No. 2016-12-16 Moved by Councillor McDougall Seconded by Councillor Schjerning THAT Council direct staff to proceed with the recruitment of a Chief Building Official. Carried
Committee Meeting Minutes
a)
Portland District & Area Heritage Society - General Meeting held March 24, 2016
b)
Portland District Recreation Meeting held March 29, 2016
c)
South Frontenac Recreation Meeting held March 21, 2016
d)
Verona and District Health Services Committee Meeting of March 21, 2016 Resolution No. 2016-12-17 Moved by Councillor Schjerning Seconded by Councillor McDougall THAT Council receives for information the minutes of the following committee meetings: Portland District and Area Heritage Society meeting of March 24, 2016 Portland District Recreation Committee meeting of March 29, 2016 South Frontenac Recreation Committee meeting of March 21, 2016 Verona and District Health Services Committee meeting of March 21, 2016 Carried
By-Laws
a)
By-law 2016-27 - Committee Appointment Resolution No. 2016-12-18
Page Page 628ofof203 10 Minutes of Council April, 19, 2016 Moved by Councillor Roberts Seconded by Councillor Barr THAT the following by-laws be given first and second reading: By-law 2016-27 By-law 2016-28 Carried Resolution No. 2016-12-19 Moved by Councillor Seconded by Councillor THAT By-law 2016-27, being a by-law to amend By-law 2014-71, appointing Council members to various boards, committees and associations, be given third reading, signed and sealed. Carried b)
By-law 2016-28 - Close Unopened Road Allowance Resolution No. 2016-12-20 Moved by Councillor Roberts Seconded by Councillor Barr THAT By-law 2016-28, being a by-law to stop up, close and sell a portion of an unopened road allowance between Concession VI and VIII, Part Lot 24, Loughborough District, be given third reading signed and sealed. Carried
Reports for Information - n/a
Information Items
a)
Around the Rideau Newsletter
b)
Robert Charest, Trail Committee Member Report - April 2016
c)
John Johnston, Broker, Manager, Bowes & Cocks Ltd, re: Road 38 Intersections in Harrowsmith
d)
Douglas Farquhar, re: Collins Lake Proposed Subdivision
e)
Kathryn & Norman Dobney, re: Collins Lake Proposal
f)
Nick and Christine Adams, re: Collins Lake Subdivision Proposal
g)
Kasia Staszak, re: Collins Lake Proposed Subdivision
h)
Rebecca Creasy-Buchner, re: Collins Lake Proposed Subdivision
i)
Ted & Elizabeth Lang, re: Collins Lake Proposed Subdivision
j)
Walt Sepic, re: Collins Lake Proposed Subdivision
k)
Karyn McLean, re: Collins Lake Proposed Subdivision
l)
John & Martina Wright, re: Collins Lake Proposed Subdivision
m)
Jack Staszak, re: Collins Lake Proposed Subdivision
Page Page 639ofof203 10 Minutes of Council April, 19, 2016 n)
Bruce Pritchard, re: Collins Lake Proposed Subdivision
o)
Micki Mulima, Sharon Titley and family, re: Collins Lake Proposed Subdivision
p)
Councillor Sutherland, re: Collins Lake Proposed Subdivision
q)
Gerry & Bonnie Henderson, Herman & Mady Schafer, re: Collins Lake Subdivision Proposal
Notice of Motions
a)
Deputy Mayor Sutherland served notice of motion regarding the procedural bylaw and the opportunity for Council to ask deputants questions of clarification.
Announcements
a)
Councillor Sleeth advised Council of an offer to donate land to the township. It was agreed that a meeting with the property owner to view the parcel should be arranged. Wayne Orr agreed to consult with the Treasurer on how to evaluate the land and the potential for a donation tax receipt.
Question of Clarity (from the public on outcome of agenda items) - n/a
Closed Session - n/a
Confirmatory By-law
a)
By-law 2016-29 Resolution No. 2016-12-21 Moved by Councillor Barr Seconded by Councillor Roberts THAT By-law 2016-29, 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 19 day of April 2016. Carried Resolution No. 2016-12-22 Moved by Councillor Roberts Seconded by Councillor Barr THAT By-law 2016-29, 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 19 day of April 2016. Carried
Adjournment
a)
Resolution Resolution No. 2016-12-23 Moved by Councillor Barr Seconded by Councillor Roberts THAT the Council meeting of April 19, 2016 be adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Carried
Page Page64 10ofof203 10 Minutes of Council April, 19, 2016
Ron Vandewal, Mayor
Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 65 of 203
Minutes of Committee of the Whole April 26, 2016 Time: 7:00 pm Location: Council Chambers Meeting # 13 Present: Mayor Ron Vandewal, Pat Barr, John McDougall, Alan Revill, Norm Roberts, Mark Schjerning, Ron Sleeth, Ross Sutherland Staff: Lindsay Mills, Planner/Deputy Clerk, Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, Jamie Brash, Area Supervisor, Angela Maddocks, Executive Assistant 1.
Call to Order
a)
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
a)
David Bucholtz, Cambium Inc, re: Waste Disposal Site Update David Bucholtz, Cambian Inc, presented the annual update on the township waste disposal sites included ground water flows, remaining volumes and life expectancy of each site and the frequency of sampling for each site.
b)
Lindsay Mills, Planner, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes Mr. Mills referred to his report and outlined the rationale behind the proposed changes to Section 5.10.2 and 5.11. He reviewed the interpretation of 5.10.2 by the Planning and Building Departments and that the township’s position has been that when the walls of the building located within the 30 metre setback are removed, the building is considered to be gone and it cannot be reconstructed at its present location without a minor variance and that this interpretation should be built into Section 5.10.2 so that the meaning is more clear. With respect to Section 5.11, Mr. Mills explained that this section is intended to permit any building within the 30 metre setback to be reconstructed if it is destroyed by fire or storm or if it is dilapidated to the point where the Township orders it to be removed for safety reasons. This section is meant to permit property owners to rebuild after destruction that is beyond their control. This is an item of controversy because some property-owners argue that they should be allowed to reconstruct because their structure has deteriorated to the point where it is unsafe and unusable. However, this state of disrepair is often the result of neglect where the building has been allowed to deteriorate. While the proposal is to remove Section 5.11 completely and deal with each proposed reconstruction through the minor variance process. Mr. Mills proposed that Council might consider changing the wording to simply say that when a building or structure is damaged or destroyed due to forces “beyond the owner’s control” then it may be rebuilt or to leave Section 5.11 the way it is. Mr. Mills referenced the legal opinion and noted that there is confusion with the interpretation of legal-non-conforming structure and legal non-complying uses. Councillor Sleeth felt that if an act of God happens, there should not be any need for Committee of Adjustment approval and nothing more than a building permit should be required.
Page 66 of 203 Committee of the Whole April 26, 2016 Councillor Revill spoke to this experience as the CBO, and noted that there is no change to Section 5.10.2, this continues the approach that has always been taken and clarifies the wall structure clause. With respect to Section 5.11, the current by-law allows rebuilding if the damage is beyond the control of the owner and is unsafe etc. He stated that climate change affects/creates wind damage, fire etc. He conducted research on accessing insurance funds for total loss claims and insurance policies may not be granted if the setback is changed. He stated that true neglect of property is not the same, rebuilding is allowed but not on the same footprint. The township can’t meet everyone’s needs under every circumstance. Councillor Schjerning supported not adding layers of bureaucracy if the loss is due to circumstances outside the owners control, rebuilding on the existing footprint or smaller should be permitted however outside of those parameters, then a variance would be required. He noted that clarification of the number of walls needs to be specified with regard to Section 5.10.2. Deputy Mayor Sutherland supported Councillor Revill’s position. c)
Jeff Peck, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes Mr. Peck applauded Lindsay Mills and Council for the opportunity to share views on Sections 5.10.2 and 5.11 of the Zoning By-law recognizing that everybody wants the same thing which is to protect our lakes. While he is a member of the Sydenham Lake Association and a military lawyer he confirmed he is only speaking for himself. He appreciated the opportunities he has had in the past few weeks to discuss with the planner and Council members his concerns. He originally had misconceptions about the proposal and the 50% of load bearing walls still puts the township at risk he is not opposed to. He was concerned about the notification of the proposed amendment as there are 1500 non-complying structures in South Frontenac and the landowners should be part of the decision making process.
d)
Larry Arpaia, President, GBCLA, re: Housekeeping Changes to the 30 metre setback. Mr. Arpaia spoke to his presentation included in the agenda package which outlines concerns about the proposed housekeeping amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law.
e)
Graeme Watson, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes Mr. Watson spoke to his submission included in the agenda package that outlined his concerns with respect to the process of giving notice, legal aspects of Council’s decision, costs to the property owner and the intent of the amendment and sought clarity of the amendments. He felt the township would be expropriating land if these changes are approved.
f)
Bev Mahon, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes Bev Mahon felt this was not just a housekeeping amendment to the zoning bylaw. She recognized that the aim is to protect the environment and lakes but is hoping for a compromise between environmental concerns and property owner rights. She provided a history of the property she owns with her sister on Partridge Island on Bob’s Lake which has been owned by her family for 104 years. She has a huge emotional attachment to the property and the enjoyment of the property is now extended to the fifth generation. The property
Page 2 of 6
Page 67 of 203 Committee of the Whole April 26, 2016 is less than on acre and it would be impossible to rebuild anywhere on the island and achieve the 30 metre setback, it is not possible in any direction. Each spring her family is faced with the concern of damage due to nature or vandalism. She is concerned with the suggestion in Section 5.10.2 that all buildings will be required to be setback 30 metres and that Committee of adjustment approval would be required in the event of extreme damage. She felt Section 5.11 and the right to rebuild muddies the water. She acknowledged that the current structure is substandard and that she hopes that future generations of her family can continue to enjoy the island property. g)
Donald Vogan, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes Mr. Vogan was not in attendance.
h)
Don Stricelj, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes Mr. Stricelj spoke to his concerns that were included as part of the agenda package. He felt the changes are not minor in nature and an infringement on property rights and that changes will have an negative impact on property value. Other comments included the process for notification, other areas that impact the quality of water and the environment, the application process for Committee of Adjustment decisions and that the proposed changes does not represent what residents want and does nothing to protect lakes.
i)
Timothy Ross, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes Mr. Ross spoke to his presentation that was included in the agenda package. He referred to an Ottawa based legal issue that attempted to bring nonconforming uses into conformity with the “push them back” idea. He commented that the OMB stated you can’t do that and provided his interpretation of Mr. Fleming’s legal opinion. He circulated copies of the Ontario Planning Journal that referenced an article about the aftermath of the Ottawa vs TDL group and reiterated that municipalities can’t push property owners into conformity, this sets a precedent. He felt there should be a distinction between renovating and rebuilding. His opinion was non-conforming uses only lose their rights when the property is abandoned.
j)
Carol Sparling, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes Ms. Sparling spoke to her correspondence that was included in the agenda package. Her concerns included the number of property owners affected by the proposed changes, the elimination of “grandfathered rights”, notification of the proposed amendments and that many seasonal and permanent property owners not being notified and having an opportunity for input. She felt that clear definitions for “reconstruction” and “renovation” are necessary.
k)
Todd Colbourne, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes Mr. Colbourne spoke to his letter submitted as part of the agenda package. He pointed out that the case law referenced is only an “opinion”. He referenced Section 34 (9)(a) of the Planning Act and noted that the municipality seems to be trying to subvert a simple rule of law that a lower level of government cannot pass a law that overrides or alters a law by a higher level of government; OMB case law has held that municipalities may not restrict or eliminate a property owner’s non-conforming or non-complying right behind the narrow constraints permitted by the Planning Act.
Page 3 of 6
Page 68 of 203 Committee of the Whole April 26, 2016
Reports Requiring Action
a)
Lindsay Mills, Planner, re; Closing of Road Allowance in Part of Lot 10, Concessions XII and XIII, Loughborough District Council was supportive of the closure but requested staff to report back on options for fees as some of the land is within 300 metres of the water. It was recognized that the existing policy does not address fees for non-profit organizations.
Reports for Information - n/a
Rise & Report
a)
Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority Deputy Mayor Sutherland thanked the Public Works Department for fixing the trail. There is a follow-up meeting next week with Leeds and Thousand Islands on fee structure.
b)
Quinte Region Conservation Authority Councillor Roberts has not received anything from the authority since his appointment.
c)
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority Councillor Barr reported their meeting is next Thursday night. The authority is celebrating their 50th anniversary with some special events.
d)
Portland Heritage Nothing to report.
Information Items
a)
Premier Kathleen Wynne, re: response to letter regarding Solar Energy Projects
b)
Laurie Scott, MPP Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock,re: Human Trafficking
c)
Tara Mieske, Clerk/Planner Manager, Township of North Frontenac, re: IESO Review of Request for Proposal for the Award of Renewable Energy Contracts
d)
Kevin Flynn, Minister of Labour, re: Bill 163 Supporting Ontario’s First Responder’s Act, 2016
e)
Jamie Curragh, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes
f)
Edwin P. Wilson, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes
Page 4 of 6
Page 69 of 203 Committee of the Whole April 26, 2016
g)
Ed Wilson Jr, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes
h)
Alan & Mary Pearson, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes
i)
Tiffany Langille, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes
j)
Norm & Nancy Hart, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes
k)
Ed Koster & Joanne Irvine, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes
l)
Mary Smeaton, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes
m)
Jessie Cronister, re: Proposed Zoning By-law changes
n)
Trevor Owen, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes
o)
Austin & Frances Young, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes
p)
Andrew Robb, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes
q)
Susan O’Brien Mactaggart, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes
r)
Stan and Donna Brown, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes
s)
Gary Kielo, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes
t)
Barry Black, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes
u)
Mac Prescott, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes
v)
Lisa & Andrew Parker, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes
w)
Norm Mole, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes
x)
John Seidenspinner, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes
y)
Carol Whyman, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes
z)
Mark Cooke, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes
aa)
Tim Edge, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes
ab)
R. Bruce Pritchard, re: Collins Lake Subdivision Proposal
ac)
Peggy Boucher, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes
Page 5 of 6
Page 70 of 203 Committee of the Whole April 26, 2016 ad)
Troy Buchanan, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes
ae)
Lyle Turner, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes
Notice of Motions
a)
Deputy Mayor Sutherland served notice of motion to allow for questions of deputants.
b)
Mayor Vandewal requested the request from the Township of North Frontenac be brought forward for consideration.
Announcements
a)
Mayor Vandewal provided an update on Councillor Robinson who will soon be discharged from the hospital and is doing quite well.
b)
Councillor Sleeth thanked those Council members who joined the April 23 tour of agricultural businesses and local agriculture.
Question of Clarity (from the public on outcome of agenda items)
Closed Session (if requested) - n/a
Adjournment
a)
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 pm.
Page 6 of 6
Page 71 of 203 Minutes of Council May, 3, 2016 Time: 7:00 PM Location: Council Chambers Meeting # 14 Present: Mayor Ron Vandewal, Pat Barr, John McDougall, Alan Revill, Norm Roberts, Mark Schjerning, Ron Sleeth, Ross Sutherland Staff: Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, Lindsay Mills, Planner, Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, Angela Maddocks, Executive Assistant. 1.
Call to Order
a)
Resolution Resolution No. 2016-14-1 Moved by Councillor Sleeth Seconded by Councillor Revill THAT the Council meeting of May 3, 2016 be called to order at 7:00 p.m. Carried
Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof
a)
Mayor Vandewal declared a pecuniary interest with respect to page 16 of the Accounts Payable and Payroll Listing.
Scheduled Closed Session -n/a
Recess - n/a
Public Meeting
a)
Resolution Resolution No. 2016-14-2 Moved by Councillor Sleeth Seconded by Councillor Revill THAT a public meeting be held to discuss planning matters related to: Request for Road Closure between Lots 6 & 7, Concession XII, Storrington District Carried
b)
Request for Road Closure between Lots 6 & 7, Concession XII, Storrington Ulrich Resolution No. 2016-14-3 Moved by Councillor Sleeth Seconded by Councillor Revill THAT an opportunity having been provided, the public meeting be closed. Carried
c)
Lindsay Mills reviewed his report with regard to the request for road closure between lots 6 & 7, Concession XII, Storrington District. He noted that the addition of the road allowance would make the owner’s land more usable and valuable. A small cabin is located at least partially on the township owned road allowance. He reviewed the Council policy to not close road allowances that lead to any lake, however this road allowance covers very challenging and
Page 72 of 203 Minutes of Council May, 3, 2016 steep topography with a drainage ditch aligned partially through it. The draft survey completed by the applicant indicated that the road allowance continues through the subject land taking in the waterfront area of the abutting private land to the south.The abutting property owner would like to buy a portion of the road allowance. Mr. Mills recommended that the road allowance be closed and sold to the abutting property owners and that a revised survey that includes the road allowance extending to the south be provided. Councillor Sleeth asked if one public meeting was sufficient and is the proper process being followed. Mr. Mills stated that there is no significant change and the notice was general enough to include this area as well. Councillor McDougall was concerned with precedent as this road allowance does lead to water. Councillor Revill commented that in practical terms, how do we know there is a road allowance there. He felt the township should do something with the road allowance if they are going to keep it, otherwise he was supportive of closing it. Mayor Vandewal stated that the township has closed road allowances leading to water more times than we think and that based on the topography and a rough terrain, he was supportive of the closing. With respect to the abutting property owner only recently showing interest in the road allowance, he felt the township has still gone through the proper process. Lindsay Mills stated that the abutting property owner learned of the request for closing the road allowance through the required advertising process. Deputy Mayor Sutherland felt that separate advertising should be done when there is interest from other parties. Wilma Kenny questioned the possibility of there being two more properties to the south that would also abut the road allowance. Mr. Mills indicated that the survey would determine other properties. Mayor Vandewal asked if the whole road allowance is being sold and could a condition be included that requires the abutting property owner to pay the same amount for a portion of the road allowance. Mr. Peter Radley, lawyer and agent for the applicant noted the patience of his client in this process and suggested that selling the rest of the road allowance is a separate issue. His client has already invested time in having the survey done and the same investment should be made by other interested property owners. The closing of this particular road allowance does not impede access to the water as there is a boat ramp nearby and existing parking. 6.
Approval of Minutes
a)
Minutes of the April 12, 2016 Committee of the Whole meeting Resolution No. 2016-14-4 Moved by Councillor Sleeth Seconded by Councillor Revill THAT Council approves the minutes of the April 12, 2016 Committee of the Whole meeting. Carried
Page 2 of 7
Page 73 of 203 Minutes of Council May, 3, 2016 7.
Business Arising from the Minutes
a)
Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Supporting Local Business Resolution No. 2016-14-5 Moved by Deputy Mayor Sutherland Seconded by Councillor Revill THAT Council adopt the recommendations of the Corporate Services Committee and NOT support the motion on supporting local businesses, tabled on April 5, 2016; AND THAT staff be instructed to hold an annual educational session on the Township’s procurement process for local businesses: AND THAT staff explore and cost out changes to the Township’s website to include a procurement newsfeed where vendors could subscribe for alerts on upcoming opportunities. Carried
b)
Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Notice of Motion, Questions of Deputants Resolution No. 2016-14-6 Moved by Deputy Mayor Sutherland Seconded by Councillor Revill WHEREAS one of the purposes of delegations, including delegations to public meetings under the Planning Act, is to inform Council of the public’s opinions prior to Council making a decision, and WHEREAS presentations often raise questions that need some explanation to make the delegates intention clear, and WHEREAS many community members who present have significant local knowledge and other expertise that my be able to provide added information to Council, THEREFORE be it resolved that following a delegation Council members shall be limited to asking questions of clarification or additional relevant information, and may not express opinions or enter into debate or discussion. Defeated
c)
Lindsay Mills, Planner, re: Closing of Road Allowance, Part Lot 10, Concessions XII and XIII, Loughborough - Scouts Canada Resolution No. 2016-14-7 Moved by Councillor Revill Seconded by Deputy Mayor Sutherland THAT Council receive the Planning Report dated April 28, 2016 and consider the closing and transferring ownership of a portion of unopened road allowance based on the fee of $0.21 per square foot. Carried
d)
Annual Reports for Waste Disposal Sites Resolution No. 2016-14-8 Moved by Councillor Revill Seconded by Deputy Mayor Sutherland
Page 3 of 7
Page 74 of 203 Minutes of Council May, 3, 2016 THAT Council authorize Cambian Inc to submit annual reports for Loughborough, Portland and Bedford Waste Disposal Sites to the Ministry of the Environment as required by the sites Certificate of Approval. Carried e)
Angela Maddocks, Executive Assistant re: Notice of Motion - IESO Review of RFP for Renewable Energy Contracts. Resolution No. 2016-14-9 Moved by Councillor McDougall Seconded by Councillor Schjerning THAT Council support the resolution endorsed by the Township of North Frontenac regarding the review of the Request for Proposal process for the award of Renewable Energy Contracts. Defeated
Reports Requiring Action
a)
Accounts Payable and Payroll Listing Resolution No. 2016-14-10 Moved by Councillor McDougall Seconded by Councillor Schjerning THAT Council receive for information the Accounts Payable and Payroll Listing dated May 3, 2016 in the amount of $798,483.99. Carried
b)
Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, re: Property Acquisition from the County of Frontenac Resolution No. 2016-14-11 Moved by Councillor Schjerning Seconded by Councillor McDougall THAT Council enter into negotiations with the County of Frontenac for the acquisition of the property between Colebrook Road and Wilton Road for the purpose of undertaking intersection improvements in the Hamlet of Harrowsmith. Carried
c)
Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, re: Spring Roads Assessment Resolution No. 2016-14-12 Moved by Councillor Schjerning Seconded by Councillor McDougall THAT Council approve an amount of up to $25,000.00 for pulverizing various sections of Township roads that cannot be effectively patched any longer, to be financed from the Working Fund Reserve. Carried
d)
Rick Chesebrough, Fire Chief, re: Fire Coordinator Appointment Resolution No. 2016-14-13 Moved by Councillor Barr Seconded by Councillor Roberts
Page 4 of 7
Page 75 of 203 Minutes of Council May, 3, 2016 THAT Council endorse the appointment of Rick Chesebrough as Fire Coordinator for KFL&A. Carried 9.
Committee Meeting Minutes
a)
Loughborough District Recreation - Canada Day Meeting held April 13, 2016
b)
Loughborough District Recreation Committee Meeting held February 22, 2016
c)
South Frontenac Rides Meeting held March 21, 2016
d)
Public Services Committee Meeting held March 17, 2016
e)
Corporate Services Committee Meeting held March 18, 2016 Resolution No. 2016-14-14 Moved by Councillor Roberts Seconded by Councillor Barr THAT Council receives for information the minutes of the following committee meetings: Loughborough Canada Day meeting held April 15, 2016 Loughborough Recreation meeting held February 22, 2016 South Frontenac Rides meeting held March 21 2016 Public Services Committee meeting held March 17, 2016 Corporate Services Committee meeting held March 18, 2016 Carried
By-Laws - n/a
Reports for Information
a)
Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, re: Styrofoam Recycling
b)
Invitation to Council-Long Service Luncheon & Awards Presentation
Information Items
a)
South Frontenac letter in support of LCBO/Beer Store in Inverary.
b)
South Frontenac Letter, re: Request for resolution endorsement regarding large renewable initiatives
c)
Doug Good, Chair, Cataraqui Trail Management Board, re: Appreciation Emergency Repair of Trail
d)
Sue Shikaze, Chair, Share the Road Cycling Coalition, re: 2016 Wheels of Change Award
e)
Jean Guy & Anne Marie Leger, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes
f)
Petition from residents, re; Proposed Zoning By-law Changes
g)
Don Avant, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes
h)
Robert Gillett, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes
i)
Joanne Stricker, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes
Page 5 of 7
Page 76 of 203 Minutes of Council May, 3, 2016 j)
Tim Ross, re: April 26 reference - Ontario Planning Journal
k)
Christine Ludorf, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Changes
l)
Sharon Freeman, re: Comments from April 19 - Shield Shores
Notice of Motions
a)
Decision on Housekeeping Amendments (with the consent of Council) Resolution No. 2016-14-15 Moved by Councillor Roberts Seconded by Councillor Schjerning THAT no decision be made on the zoning by-law until June 7, 2016. Carried
Announcements
Question of Clarity (from the public on outcome of agenda items)
Closed Session (if requested)
Confirmatory By-law
a)
By-law 2016-30 Resolution No. 2016-14-16 Moved by Councillor Barr Seconded by Councillor Roberts THAT By-law 2016-30, 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 3 day of May, 2016. Carried Resolution No. 2016-14-17 Moved by Councillor Roberts Seconded by Councillor Barr THAT By-law 2016-30, 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 3 day of May, 2016. Carried
Adjournment
a)
Resolution Resolution No. 2016-14-18 Moved by Councillor Barr Seconded by Councillor Roberts THAT the Council meeting of May 3, 2016 be adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Carried
Page 6 of 7
Page 77 of 203 Minutes of Council May, 3, 2016
Ron Vandewal, Mayor
Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 7 of 7
Page 78 of 203
Minutes of Committee of the Whole May 4, 2016 Time: 9:00 am Location: Community Room - Sydenham Library Meeting # 15 Present: Mayor Ron Vandewal, Pat Barr, John McDougall, Alan Revill, Norm Roberts, Mark Schjerning, Ron Sleeth, Ross Sutherland Staff: Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, Tim Laprade, Arena/Recreation Supervisor, Lindsay Mills, Planner, Louise Fragnito, Treasurer, Rick Chesebrough, Fire Chief, Mark Segsworth, Public Works Manager, Angela Maddocks, Executive Assistant
Call to Order
a)
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 9:00 am and welcomed a member of the public in attendance.
Declaration of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof - n/a
Focused Group Discussion
a)
Confirmation from Council of Priorities Identified in the Strategic Plan Council was asked if the items identified in the Strategic Plan remain priorities. Comments included the following: Councillor Revill - indicated that it is not fully fleshed out and questioned what is the combined vision for economic development? Councillor McDougall - okay with the items however an implementation plan has not been done, we have been diverted from our Strategic Plan by other issues. Should we focus on specific items or deal with one at a time? Councillor Sleeth indicated that we have been silent on economic development. We need to plan jointly with the county Mayor Vandewal felt that the role of the county needs to be dealt with Mark Segsworth questioned what reasonable growth was, as it means different things to different people. Deputy Mayor Sutherland felt it was still relatively good, it still works but now we need to do the “work” of the strategic plan Mayor Vandewal felt there were current road blocks in the development process and questions if it is any better elsewhere. Councillor Revill felt there was not enough clarity with the plan and that it was premature to run with it Councillor Sleeth felt there was merit in meeting like this every 6 months to work together. We only come together in a crisis. Rick Chesebrough -not clear on the expectations of Council; what are the priorities. We need to identify what has been accomplished. Staff aren’t connected to the plan. Louise Fragnito - we have a reactive approach instead of a planning approach, we’re not looking out beyond the day to day. Councillor Roberts - we are going around in circles with strategic planning, we need to narrow the focus and get it done. Lindsay Mills - with increased customer service and community engagement there needs to be more staff time Mark Segsworth - strategic plan needs to be intertwined with day to day operations, in front of us. He questioned if we are doing things that are contradictory to the plan. How are we measuring progress. It is hard to argue against the plan Mayor Vandewal - the Planning Advisory Committee at the County level is
Page 79 of 203 Committee of the Whole May 4, 2016 going to happen - is it time to let go of subdivisions, we’ve slowed the process down Deputy Mayor Sutherland - the township isn’t clear on how we want to develop, there is a shift in what we want. There is a changing culture, we have access to information and expertise. People expect more. We need to change and adopt. Councillor Revill - If we have to become a commenting agency, Councillor’s role is still going to be the same. Need a relationship between Council and the County Councillor McDougall - everyone is so busy day to day with no time to focus on the long term. Our best successes are when issues are directed to Committees. We often give no direction. We get too involved. We would be nowhere without our staff. Louise Fragnito - we need to map out an implementation plan Councillor Roberts - that is what we need to do Councillor Barr - we need to work with the County, to be at the table, otherwise why would they bother Wayne Orr - there is culture of County bashing that is ingrained. We have to move past this. Mark Segsworth - there needs to be clarity in roles Councillor Revill - What is the forum to deal with the County Deputy Mayor Sutherland - Delegation of subdivisions to us, but we would need to question if we are paying twice. If so we should have County Planning Staff on site. Councillor McDougall - Economic development is not part of our Agenda. With Planning need to recognize that Politics is local. Lindsay Mills - Bill 73 changes are complex Councillor Schjerning - is there any desire to take on subdivisions. It can be delegated as in Lennox and Addington. Councillor Roberts recommended the formation of a committee, with Councillors, Staff and Community to look at Economic Development and Planning and to report back in 6 months. b)
Confirmation of Challenges Identified in Organizational Review Strategic Plan It is important to note that this was an organizational review and not an operational review. The purpose of reviewing the challenges is to validate them The general consensus was that all these are valid issues that need to be addressed. Councillor Revill felt items 1 and 4 are a “disconnect”. Mark Segsworth asked how these challenges were identified. He felt that lots of the challenges were operational and not organizational. Wayne Orr referenced the “tools” used by the consultants to assist in the review. The strategic plan, organizational chart, the township website etc. were supplied to the consultant for their consideration plus the input from the interview process. Mayor Vandewal stated that his number one focus is residential development, the rest will be a spin off from that. Lindsay Mills confirmed that he does not evaluate the strategic plan daily but agrees with adding to staff reports how the strategic plan is addressed as it
Page 2 of 10
Page 80 of 203 Committee of the Whole May 4, 2016 relates to specific matters. Council Deputy Mayor Sutherland noted that a key point of Council is access for public input. He felt the system works well as is. Councillor Sleeth felt there may be one too many meetings per month Councillor McDougall noted the provision in the procedural by-law to cancel meetings if there are not enough items on the agenda and felt it should be left to the CAO based on agenda items. Councillor Schjerning stated that he agrees with all points, however we won’t know if it works until we try. There could be quicker recommendations from committees Councillor Revill felt there are areas to be streamlined. Councillor Barr supported a change in the committee structure Mayor Vandewal questioned if it would increase demands. Deputy Mayor Sutherland felt that COW was not efficient Councillor Roberts was not supportive of extending meetings as he felt it was unfair to staff and should be left as is. Mark Segsworth felt that every Tuesday was not too frequent, sees it as part of his job. Lindsay Mills supported two Committee of the Whole meetings and one Council meeting per month. Wayne Orr questioned whether Council is ready to put their trust in other Council members on committees, noting that formalizing the committees would increase workload for reports etc. Councillor Revill felt it is difficult to achieve good discussions with developers. Staff reports could include greater options and a compromise in the number of meetings may allow staff to have more time to focus on reports. Mayor Vandewal stated that everyone knew as a candidate what was involved in becoming a Council member and the meeting commitments. Angela Maddocks indicated that taking away form one end and adding to the other doesn’t make a difference. Organizationally Discussions on the “working manager” and what that means took place. Mark Segsworth felt that a working manager was part of connecting with the public, looking forward and building relationships. Sherry Corneil stated that she struggles as the HR person with the impact of the strategic process. She felt the CAO has a lot on his plate with the responsibility for the organization.
Page 3 of 10
Page 81 of 203 Committee of the Whole May 4, 2016 Councillor Revill referred to his working experience and asked how much time is needed for strategic planning within a department. Wayne Orr stated that the present Council has established higher expectations than in the past and there is not the staffing resources to get things done. Mark Segsworth was frustrated with the fact that South Frontenac hasn’t been successful with getting grants. He felt that the lack of a financial need was the cause and it had nothing to do with the Asset Management Plan. Louise Fragnito felt the asset management plan is a good and valuable tool that needs work on a continual basis. Deputy Mayor Sutherland suggested using Council more, complaints could go through the local politician and writing grant proposals as examples. Councillor McDougall disagreed with this and felt Council’s position should be the exact opposite. It is not Council’s role to get involved and it would be cutting staff off at the knees to get involved. Mark Segsworth referred to the concerns about customer service and felt residents are getting answers just not the ones they want to hear. Staffing Councillor Barr recognized that some departments are understaffed and suggested delegating responsibilities to others within the department. Wayne Orr pointed out that many departments are too small or have no one to delegate to and that at times things are delegated up. Sherry Corneil referred to the County Shared Services model and asked if there is an expectation for more shared services. The CAO’s, Public Works Managers and Treasurers groups are all looking at efficiencies. Communications Tim Laprade asked if we are talking about public engagement. There are other avenues besides website, advertising etc. He felt this was not clearly resourced however there is not justification for a full time position. He suggested this could be centralized and include procurement and funding applications. Councillor Schjerning cautioned the use of social media, we are not at the point for Facebook and Twitter with only 118 subscribers for the news and public notices on the website. He felt the township is not there yet for full time communications position. Deputy Mayor Sutherland suggested the use of press releases to the public. The public expect to have messages pushed to them rather than having to seek them out. Economic Development The consensus was that we do not do a good job at promoting the township. We need to ask more of the County. Mark Segsworth commented that we are not an island but part of a bigger region. We should promote the larger area i.e. Rideau Canal and try and bring
Page 4 of 10
Page 82 of 203 Committee of the Whole May 4, 2016 people to the region not just South Frontenac. Councillor McDougall noted the EOWC initiative for broadband growth and the success of that project. He noted the “branding” initiative that North Frontenac is working on. Councillor Barr spoke to the recent bus tour of agricultural related businesses. She felt the township could do more to help out farmers. She felt economic development needs clarification noting there are no little corner stores in some of the hamlets any more. Administration Wayne Orr noted that staff are ultimately responsible for managing and responding to Council expectations. A breakdown on the role of the CAO and the Clerk as separate positions would be helpful to Council to understand the responsibilities. Councillor McDougall spoke to the Clerk’s role at the County and the additional projects that have been taken on. He felt there is merit in looking at splitting this role. He recognized that job descriptions are a staff function. It was recognized that the role of the Clerk would evolve into other opportunities to incorporate and manage Council functions. Building and Planning Discussion took place with respect to various issues that are believed to be stumbling blocks. While historically Building Inspectors have interpreted the zoning by-law, this is currently being questioned. There are some operational and policy issues that need to be looked at. Lindsay Mills indicated that there was no relationship issues with him and the County or the former CBO. Mayor Vandewal felt there is a need for clarification of roles and that there should not be a division of responsibilities for inspectors. He referenced his own experience with constructing a new home and felt there needs to be an easier process in place. He noted a recent inquiry about storage units on a commercial property but the development charges would have been $14,000 and this was a deterrent for moving forward. Lindsay Mills suggested identifying employment areas and prezoning as a great idea to stimulate the economy and development. Fire Rick Chesebrough felt that generally speaking the organizational review was satisfactory, they were not asked to look at efficiencies. He noted that only his input was included and not those of the volunteer firefighters. He disagreed with police and fire at 22% and that this was not a true reflection as he felt police should be separated. He spoke to the difficulty province wide with retention, this is not just a problem for Bedford District. He spoke to inspections and other areas of concerns that are required to be done by the Fire Department. Inspections of chip wagons, home inspections for the CAS and complaints about burning are examples. He noted that you can only rely on volunteers to a certain extent and there is no succession planning in place for any department. He noted that emergency management needs more attention.
Page 5 of 10
Page 83 of 203 Committee of the Whole May 4, 2016 There was general discussion about the training requirements and legislative compliance. Rick confirmed that standards were being met. Council requested a breakdown on the Fire Chief’s day to day functions and what items consume most of his time. A job description of the Fire Prevention Officer position was requested as well. Council also questioned the amount of time that will be involved in the Chief’s recent appointment as Deputy Fire Coordinator. Public Works Mark Segsworth spoke to the organizational review and the comparators used. He noted that South Frontenac has a different mix of outsourcing and in house and that we have utilized the old MTO cost accounting. He stated that no two areas can be compared as there are slight nuances to each comparison. South Frontenac has a single tier road system that is not comparable with other townships. With respect to strategic planning, he felt it is not good to separate this from day to day planning. He felt there is lots of planning laid out with the multi year construction plan and the Public Works Department has exhibited thinking beyond today. It was recognized that South Frontenac has a high standard for roads and it was questioned if the spending is optimal. Mayor Vandewal noted the struggle with being over budget and that we always find the money. He questioned if there is money there that we don’t know about. Councillor Sleeth stated that South Frontenac may have to move to the debenture system in a few years noting that we will still not be financing to meet the current plans. Deputy Mayor Sutherland questioned if the overbuilding of roads is affecting increased speed limits. Recreation Tim Laprade questioned the Arena/Recreation Supervisor being moved under Public Services, noting it generally falls under community services. He noted that only one other comparator has the same set up as South Frontenac. He spoke to operational issues and ongoing challenges with respect to facility bookings and user fees. Treasury Louise Fragnito spoke to the need to establish the optimal mix of reserves and debt necessary to lever capital funding. c)
Identification of further challenges from Council and Managers Tim Laprade felt we are falling short on grants and sponsorships, he questioned if this could be associated with a specific role. He also noted the need for long term capital planning. Lindsay Mills noted that the following items remain challenging: civic addressing stricter MDS calculations coming forward by-law enforcement issues
Page 6 of 10
Page 84 of 203 Committee of the Whole May 4, 2016 Louise Fragnito identified customer service, long term planning and benchmarks on reporting as a continual challenge. Rick Chesebrough identified the mutual aid arrangements and radio communications as a challenge while recognizing that the CAO group is dealing with the radio issue. Mark Segsworth identified increased development as a challenge, it is not going away. he suggested that we are the new Muskoka. He noted the significant changes in the past 28 years and that we need to look at issues in a broader scale and beyond our borders. Solid waste is undergoing significant changes. Sherry Corneil raised the issue of succession planning, given the potential retirements and ages of our staff. Wayne Orr commented that development doesn’t end with Council approval, there is a ripple effect to each department that requires people and processes. He noted the enforcement of subdivision agreements as an existing challenge. d)
Comment from managers on adequacy of current resources to address the priorities and challenges identified in a timely manager
e)
Are there other barriers beside resources to addressing the challenges? Mark Segsworth felt there is confusion with who does what with respect to the role of the County. Councillor Schjerning noted that a barrier would be the potential for physical space if other positions are added. Deputy Mayor Sutherland felt one of the barriers is the Official Plan review and the resourcing of time to accomplish this. Tim Laprade noted that resistance to change is a barrier. Any changes need to be sold on the basis of what benefits there are to the change. Mayor Vandewal stated that trust is a barrier. We need to put more trust in our committees and trust the County to work on our behalf. South Frontenac will be duplicating services if we resist what the county is capable of doing. Wayne Orr noted the reluctance of Council to be decisive as a barrier. Rick Chesebrough spoke to the level of service and are we over providing service. Whose expectations are we living up to? How far do we want to go? Mayor Vandewal commented that staff and Council need to recognize we are responsible for tough decisions. Lindsay Mills also felt the lack of physical space for additional personnel would be a challenge.
f)
Did the Organizational Review address the challenges? Not addressed
g)
What are the barriers to the proposed solution besides money?
Page 7 of 10
Page 85 of 203 Committee of the Whole May 4, 2016 Not addressed. h)
What other options are proposed and how do they meet the challenges? Councillor Revill not supportive of an ED position but felt we could be relying on the County and CFDC for economic development No structural problem with building and planning but rather just deal with County to clarify things. No director needed felt there is merit in dividing the CAO/Clerk position. Cost and space are a concern evaluate over time could support fire with greater clarity on the role Councillor Schjerning felt there was no need to implement all the positions. supported the CAO/Clerk being split into two positions and including communications functions supported a fire services position. Councillor Roberts requested clarification of the CAO and Clerk roles and responsibilities. felt there is a public perception of being overstaffed unsure of the monetary implications. Angela Maddocks development services needs resources, possibly at the administrative level Councillor McDougall supports Councillor Roberts’ suggestion of a committee and emphasized the importance of ensuring that South Frontenac doesn’t pay for anyone else’s share. supportive of splitting the CAO/Clerk role agreed to a fire services position provided there is clarification on the job description and roles. Sherry Corneil cautioned the reporting relationships suggested splitting the CAO and Clerk role to start with. noted this would add another role to report to the CAO Mark Segsworth not convinced of the challenges and recommendations. questioned whether they were a direct result of the interview process with the consultants or from the comparators used. He felt there is still work to be done internally with “who does what” noting that the GIS position from the County has not yet been utilized to the fullest. could see the need to split the CAO /Clerk felt all gaps had not been identified Councillor Barr supported the splitting of the CAO/Clerk role suggested transitioning other positions over the next few years. upcoming retirements may allow for change in roles and responsibilities. new CBO needs to be customer service focused address the County and planning process
Page 8 of 10
Page 86 of 203 Committee of the Whole May 4, 2016 Deputy Mayor Sutherland supportive of the CAO and Clerk role being separate but suggested a report on clarification of the roles be provided. suggested that external communications could be part of the Clerk role. With respect to planning he felt the township/county relationship needs to be resolved, but noted the end goal has not been defined agreed to the need for another position in fire services with clarification of the role. Louise Fragnito the end result is appropriate over time supported the separating of the CAO/Clerk role to two positions including communications Councillor Sleeth supports the committee that Councillor Roberts spoke of referred to the CBO recruitment and the importance of both technical and personable skills; we don’t want to fill the role just to put a body there. sort out the county issues Lindsay Mills the report acknowledges “bare bones” staffing and reflects efficiencies. the Planning Department needs administrative support. the proposed organizational chart is pretty standard in structure but felt South Frontenac is just not there yet. Wayne Orr expressed disappointment that the biggest issue (Development Services) before Council has not been supported He appreciated the support for the CAO Clerk split, however he did not feel this was the biggest issue The driving factor appears to be money and he noted that with the County and Education tax rates, the overall tax increase is .65% overall, thus there are options available to finance new positions. Mayor Vandewal he struggles with increases for upper management positions. if the issues with county planning is resolved then there will no longer be the same internal planning pressures. he has never seen any request for staffing from the Fire Department. the report generally shows the township is doing a good job, the structure is not top heavy and that he does not necessarily agree with the entire report. Councillor Schjerning spoke to the financial component and the 2% increase option. He would support more positions if we looked at sustainability. Deputy Mayor Sutherland we do not have a strategy on planning and we need to know where we are going. is there clear direction There was general support for further meetings like this The CAO was asked to compile the information from the day and report back to Council including recommendations and options on May 24.
Page 9 of 10
Page 87 of 203 Committee of the Whole May 4, 2016
Adjournment
a)
The meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m.
Page 10 of 10
Page 88 of 203
STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT PREPARED FOR COUNCIL:
May 10, 2016
AGENDA DATE:
May 17, 2016
SUBJECT: Notice of Motion – Changes to Procedural Bylaw RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Procedural Guidelines be amended to clarify that delegations that are required by SFT or have been requested by Council shall not be subject to the 10 minute presentation time limit; and, THAT members of Council shall be able to ask questions related to the presentation.
BACKGROUND: Council’s Procedural By-Law 2007-83 establishes the process for Notice of Motion as outlined below. At the May 3, 2016 Council meeting, Councillor Schjerning served Notice of Motion to clarify that delegations appearing at the request of Council not be restricted to a 10 minute time limit. A notice of motion requires a seconder at the next regular Council meeting. If seconded, the motion is debated and then voted upon. If passed, procedural bylaw changes would be prepared and brought forward to a subsequent Council meeting.
Submitted/approved by: Wayne Orr, CAO
Prepared by: Wayne Orr, CAO
Page 89 of 203
STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT PREPARED FOR COUNCIL:
May 11, 2016
AGENDA DATE:
May 17, 2016
SUBJECT: Notice of Motion – Development Activity at Johnston Point RECOMMENDATION: Whereas work is currently being done on the Johnston Point property, and Whereas the Conditions of Approval require an MNRF evaluation of species at risk on the property, Therefore, be it resolved that Council submit to the MNRF our concern that work being done on Johnston’s Point may harm species at risk habitat, and Further be it resolved that Township and County planners be asked to comment on whether the Conditions of Approval for the Johnston’s Point condominium permit work to commence on the Point before a species at risk evaluation has been completed by the MNRF, who has approved the work being done on the Point, and what actions can be taken to ensure that the MNRF evaluation is done in a timely manner.
BACKGROUND: Council’s Procedural By-Law 2015-56 establishes the process for Notice of Motion as outlined below. At the Committee of the Whole meeting on May 10, 2016, Deputy Mayor Sutherland served Notice of Motion to follow up on development activity at Johnston Point. A notice of motion requires a seconder at the next regular Council meeting. If seconded, the motion is debated and then voted upon.
Submitted/approved by: Wayne Orr, CAO
Prepared by: Wayne Orr, CAO
Page 90 of 203
STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT PREPARED FOR COUNCIL:
May 11, 2016
AGENDA DATE:
May 17, 2016
SUBJECT: Support for Fort McMurray RECOMMENDATION: Whereas Fort McMurray has suffered a devastating loss due to wildfire and; Whereas AMO has challenged Ontario Municipalities to donate and: Whereas AMO is coordinating and accepting donations with a commitment to processing them in time to ensure matching support from the Canadian and Alberta Governments Now Therefore South Frontenac commits $___________ to be donated through AMO to support Fort McMurray
BACKGROUND: In response to general support from Council to the email from AMO that was circulated with the May 10 agenda the above resolution has been prepared as directed for Council’s consideration.
Submitted/approved by: Wayne Orr, CAO
Prepared by: Wayne Orr, CAO
Page 91 of 203
Payment Listing For the period of May 4, 2016 to May 17, 2016
Accounts Payable Payment Listing: For the period of May 4, 2016 to May 17, 2016
475,221.31
Payroll Payment Listing: Pay Period #10
Pay date may 11, 2016 For the period of April 10, 2016 to April 23, 2016
Council Reimbursement
Pay date May 11, 2016
Total Payments
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council receive for information the listing of the Accounts Payable and Payroll for the period ending May 17, 2016 in the amount of
$
553,113.58
Submitted/approved by: Suzanne Quenneville - Deputy-Treasurer Louise Fragnito - Treasurer
75,248.15 2,644.12
$
553,113.58
System:
5/12/2016
User ID:
srummell
Ranges: Cheque Date:
Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
1:26:14 PM
From: 5/4/2016
To: 5/17/2016
Page:
1
Page 92 of 203
Distribution Types Included: PURCH, MISC
10 GG 0000 Gen Cheque EFT000000005465
Date
Inv #
5/17/2016 60805 60943 61009
Vendor
Description
THE FRONTENAC NEWS APR 28TH ADVERTISING MAY 5TH ADVERTISING MAY 12TH ADVERTISING
Total EFT000000005465
Total Gen
Amount $699.56 $675.05 $635.73 $2,010.34
$2,010.34
1000 Cheque 067472
Date
Inv #
5/17/2016 040343
Total 067472 EFT000000005441
5/17/2016
Vendor
ATKINSON HOME BUILDING CENTRE WATER SOFTENER SALT
Amount $26.53 $26.53
BAY ELECTRIC 10789
Total EFT000000005441 EFT000000005494 5/17/2016
Description
REPAIR LIGHT
R&D NELSON GENERAL MAINTENANCE 16/03 SYDENHAM 45 HRS @ $15 - MARCH 16/04 SYDENHAM 49 HRS @ $15 - APRIL 16/04 SUPPLIES SYD MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 2016005 MARCH/APRIL MAINTENANCE 2016005 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
Total EFT000000005494
Total
$565.94 $565.94 $686.88 $747.94 $255.81 $782.53 $71.94 $2,545.10
$3,137.57
1100 Counc Cheque 067480 Total 067480 067482 Total 067482 067492 Total 067492 067494
Date 5/17/2016
5/17/2016
5/17/2016
Inv #
Vendor
FRONTENAC SOCIETY OF MODEL ENGINEERS 2016 COMM GRANT 2016 COMMUNITY GRANT FRONTENAC FURY 2016 COMM GRANT 2016 COMMUNITY GRANT SYDENHAM LAKE CANOE CLUB 2016 COMM GRANT 2016 COMMUNITY GRANT
5/17/2016
Total 067496 067497 Total 067497 EFT000000005501
5/17/2016
5/17/2016
5/17/2016
Amount $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $497.96 $497.96
TERRYBERRY C50414
Total 067494 067496
Description
2 WATCHES
VERONA LIONS CLUB 2016 COMM GRANT 2016 COMMUNITY GRANT VERONA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION 2016 COMM GRANT 2016 COMMUNITY GRANT SOUTHERN FRONTENAC COMMUNITY 2016 COMM GRANT 2016 COMMUNITY GRANT
Total EFT000000005501 EFT000000005504 5/17/2016 3531 3531 5305 5305
TROUSDALE’S FOODLAND WATER MEETING EXPENSES OJ & CREAM MEETING EXPENSES
Total EFT000000005504
Total Counc
$960.85 $960.85 $1,885.00 $1,885.00 $1,885.00 $1,885.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $3.99 $186.67 $5.68 $11.57 $207.91
$11,436.72
1250 Clk Cheque 067491
Date 5/17/2016
Inv #
Vendor
Description
STRATEGY CORP INC.
Amount
System:
5/12/2016
User ID:
srummell
1:26:14 PM
Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 6440
Total 067491 EFT000000005450
5/17/2016
ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW
COUNTY OF FRONTENAC IVC00000000045948 APRIL EAP
Total EFT000000005450 EFT000000005454 5/17/2016 138186 138187
CUNNINGHAM SWAN CARTY RE: SUPPORTING LOCAL BUSINESS ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION
4032 2088 5416 6078 4771
TROUSDALE’S FOODLAND CREAM COFFEE COFFEE CREAM COFFEE, CREAM, SUGAR TWIN
195016
UPPER CANADA OFFICE SYSTEMS 16/04/15-16/07/15 LEASE
Total EFT000000005454 EFT000000005504 5/17/2016
Total EFT000000005504 EFT000000005509 5/17/2016 Total EFT000000005509
Total Clk
Page:
2
Page 93 of 203 $5,512.73 $5,512.73 $251.55 $251.55 $356.16 $793.14 $1,149.30 $8.07 $21.98 $25.98 $4.39 $43.32 $103.74 $90.53 $90.53
$7,107.85
1275 Fin Cheque EFT000000005436
Date 5/17/2016
Inv #
Vendor
Description
ALLAN & PARTNERS LLP IAA-SOUFRO-35971 2ND INTERIM BILLING
Total EFT000000005436 EFT000000005454 5/17/2016 137905 137989
CUNNINGHAM SWAN CARTY DISCHARGE HOUSING LIEN AUDIT LEGAL FEES
D24346
DIAMOND MUNICIPAL SOLUTIONS INC. 1 HR @ $190
41094 41169
INDEPENDENT TELEPHONE SERVICES PHONE SYSTEM PROGRAMMING PHONE SYSTEM PROGRAMMING
41035
VERSUS BUSINESS FORMS & LABELS 15M FINAL TAX BILLS @ $53.47
Total EFT000000005454 EFT000000005457 5/17/2016 Total EFT000000005457 EFT000000005469 5/17/2016
Total EFT000000005469 EFT000000005510 5/17/2016 Total EFT000000005510
Amount $6,105.60 $6,105.60 $359.47 $159.61 $519.08 $193.34 $193.34 $45.79 $45.79 $91.58 $816.17 $816.17
Total Fin
$7,725.77
Total GG
$31,418.25
20 PP&P 2100 Fire Cheque 067474 Total 067474 067476 Total 067476 067489
Date
Inv #
5/17/2016
BELL MOBILITY (RADIO DIVISION) MAY TOWER RENTAL
67666
CARLETON UNIFORMS INC. UNIFORMS
5/17/2016
5/17/2016
Amount $295.38 $295.38 $449.66 $449.66
SNIDER, PERCY
5/17/2016
SANDING FIREHALL
04437679
ABELL PEST CONTROL INC. APRIL PEST CONTROL
16570
BATTERSEA AUTO SERVICE OIL CHANGE
433675 433637
FIRE SERVICE MANAGEMENT BUNKER GEAR MAINTENANCE BUNKER GEAR MAINTENANCE
31490
FISHER’S REGALIA & UNIFORM LONG SERVICE AWARD PIN
Total EFT000000005432 EFT000000005440 5/17/2016 Total EFT000000005440 EFT000000005462 5/17/2016
Total EFT000000005462 EFT000000005464 5/17/2016 Total EFT000000005464
Description
V01616
16/03/24-17 Total 067489 EFT000000005432
Vendor
$66.14 $66.14 $34.53 $34.53 $72.50 $72.50 $150.47 $138.25 $288.72 $9.92 $9.92
System:
5/12/2016
User ID:
srummell
EFT000000005474
1:26:14 PM
Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
5/17/2016 KS16552
KENWORTH ONTARIO - KINGSTON CHECK VALVE LEAKING
193989
KINGSTON MOTOSPORT PLUS SERVICE PUMP
Total EFT000000005474 EFT000000005475 5/17/2016 Total EFT000000005475 EFT000000005478 5/17/2016
LEONARD FUELS 4896-693311-BALANCE INV. SHORTPAID 2706-690322 451.2L @ $.584 1055-699599 297.7L @ $.719 0647-697465 1372.3L @ $.9451 0647-693309 996.0L @ $.616 0647-700916 744.3L @ $.9551 1057-695135 31.66L @ $.8664 1057-695136 61.29L @ $.8664 1057-695694 35.54L @ $.8221 1057-695893 19.0L @ $1.0080 1057-695893 47.0L @ $.8664 1057-694594 216.8L @ $.584 1057-699337 99.0L @ $.8221
Total EFT000000005478 EFT000000005479 5/17/2016 16/04/15-42
LEONARD, ELIZABETH 1 CLEAN @ $60
54109307 54107135 54168825
LINDE CANADA LIMITED T4070 OXYGEN OXYGEN OXYGEN
34158
NELLIE’S GAS BAR GAS
11285
NORTHWAY HARDWARE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
10715 10718 10720
R. THURSTON TECHNOLOGIES BI-ANNUAL TOWER INSPECTION RADIO REPAIR REPEATER INTERFERENCE
58266 500359
TROUSDALE’S HOME HARDWARE MAGNETS CO2 DETECTOR, DOOR HANDLE
154853
TYROUTE COMMUNICATIONS BATTERY
Total EFT000000005479 EFT000000005481 5/17/2016
Total EFT000000005481 EFT000000005486 5/17/2016 Total EFT000000005486 EFT000000005487 5/17/2016 Total EFT000000005487 EFT000000005497 5/17/2016
Total EFT000000005497 EFT000000005505 5/17/2016
Total EFT000000005505 EFT000000005507 5/17/2016 Total EFT000000005507
Total Fire
Page:
3
Page 94 of 203 $215.10 $215.10 $50.95 $50.95 $5.40 $268.14 $217.83 $1,319.78 $624.34 $723.39 $27.27 $52.78 $29.00 $19.10 $40.48 $128.84 $80.81 $3,537.16 $60.00 $60.00 $17.90 $330.00 $221.30 $569.20 $55.95 $55.95 $82.24 $82.24 $129.74 $86.50 $1,816.42 $2,032.66 $5.79 $152.57 $158.36 $35.61 $35.61
$8,014.08
2110 Cvc# Cheque EFT000000005500
Date
Inv #
5/17/2016
Vendor
Description
Amount
SIGNS PLUS 2932 2931
11 CIVIC BLADES 7 CIVIC BLADES
Total EFT000000005500
Total Cvc#
$100.74 $64.11 $164.85
$164.85
2505 CRCA Cheque EFT000000005453
Date 5/17/2016
Inv #
Vendor
Description
CATARAQUI REGION CONSERVATION 2016 LEVY 2ND INSTL 2ND LEVY INSTALLMENT
Total EFT000000005453
Total CRCA
Amount $66,980.05 $66,980.05
$66,980.05
2605 Build Cheque EFT000000005472
Date
Inv #
5/17/2016 847116516
Vendor
Description
KAL TIRE ONTARIO OIL CHANGE
Amount $52.63
System:
5/12/2016
User ID:
srummell
1:26:14 PM
Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Total EFT000000005472 EFT000000005504 5/17/2016
Page:
4
Page 95 of 203 $52.63
1431
TROUSDALE’S FOODLAND COFFEE, CREAM
Total EFT000000005504
Total Build
$13.98 $13.98
$66.61
2625 Lvstck Cheque EFT000000005496
Date 5/17/2016
Inv #
Vendor
Description
REDDEN, JOSEPH 16/04/24-J KNAPP 16/04/24-JAMES KNAPP-CALF KILL 16/04/24-J KNAPP 83.8 KMS @ $.55
Total EFT000000005496
Total Lvstck
Amount $50.00 $41.51 $91.51
$91.51
Total PP&P
$75,317.10
30 Trans 3000 PW OH Cheque EFT000000005434
Date
Inv #
5/17/2016
Vendor
Description
38238264
AECOM CANADA LTD MAR 5 - APR 16 Perth Rd Corrid
C14258-0516
ALLIANCE WIRELESS CALL FORWARDING
DEAL #22332 DEAL #22333
GANANOQUE CHEVROLET BUICK GMC (FT03) 2010 FORD # 02692 (FT41) 2008 FORD # 61872
Total EFT000000005434 EFT000000005437 5/17/2016 Total EFT000000005437 EFT000000005466 5/17/2016
Total EFT000000005466
Total PW OH
Amount $1,526.40 $1,526.40 $180.61 $180.61 -$9,158.40 -$6,614.40 -$15,772.80
-$14,065.79
3005 RdAdmOH Cheque 067474 Total 067474 EFT000000005497
Date
Inv #
5/17/2016
Vendor
Description
V01616
BELL MOBILITY (RADIO DIVISION) MAY TOWER RENTAL
10715
R. THURSTON TECHNOLOGIES BI-ANNUAL TOWER INSPECTION
5/17/2016
Total EFT000000005497
Total RdAdmOH
Amount $295.38 $295.38 $129.74 $129.74
$425.12
3010 Cap/Equip/Ptrl Cheque 067475 Total 067475 067478 Total 067478 067479 Total 067479 067487 Total 067487 067489
Date
Inv #
5/17/2016
BOB MARK NEW HOLLAND SALES LTD CHANGE BOTH AXLE & DRIVE OIL
RDS2016-39
COUNTY OF LENNOX & ADDINGTON 50% ENGINEERING CTY RD#1
3071
FOSTER EQUIPMENT LTD. HIGH LIFT SEALS & BEARINGS
5/17/2016
REVELL FORD LINCOLN 503176-BALANCE SHORT PAID INVOICE
5/17/2016
5/17/2016
Amount $585.22 $585.22 $7,748.01 $7,748.01 $5,540.58 $5,540.58 $92.03 $92.03
SNIDER, PERCY 16/04/26-05 16/04/27-06 16/04/28-07 16/05/05-15 16/05/03-14 16/05/03-14 16/05/05-13 16/04/30-27
Total 067489 067493
Description
10010B 5/17/2016
5/17/2016
Vendor
43 HRS TRI-AXLE @ $80 33 HRS FLAGGING @ $39.50 8.5 HRS FLAGGING @ $39.50 17 HRS FLAGGING @ $39.50 8 HRS FLAGGING @ $19.75 25 HRS FLAGGING @ $39.50 34 HRS TRIAXLE @ $80 APRIL GARBAGE PICKUP TAYLOR AUTOMALL
$3,500.54 $1,326.44 $341.66 $683.32 $160.78 $1,004.88 $2,767.87 $127.20 $9,912.69
System:
5/12/2016
User ID:
srummell
1:26:14 PM
Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT GMCS600126
Total 067493 067495
Total 067495 EFT000000005433
5/17/2016
OIL CHANGE, BRAKE REPAIRS
WO040638226 PS040640813 PS040640814
TOROMONT INDUSTRIES LTD. REPLACE STARTER SEAL TUBE ASSY
9095403979
ACKLANDS - GRAINGER INC. SAFETY SUPPLIES
38238377 38238447
AECOM CANADA LTD 16/03/05 - 16/04/08 16/03/23 - 16/04/08
64615328
AIR LIQUIDE CANADA INC. CYLINDER RENTAL
P05701
AMACO EQUIPMENT SUPER CUTTERS
90542306
ARMTEC LIMITED PARTNERSHIP CULVERTS
789836
BLACK DOG TIRE & LUBRICANTS TIRE REPAIRS
025052 025066
CHAMPION INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT IMPLEMENTATION/SETUP/CONNECT TRAVEL EXPENSE
5/17/2016
Total EFT000000005433 EFT000000005434 5/17/2016
Total EFT000000005434 EFT000000005435 5/17/2016 Total EFT000000005435 EFT000000005438 5/17/2016 Total EFT000000005438 EFT000000005439 5/17/2016 Total EFT000000005439 EFT000000005442 5/17/2016 Total EFT000000005442 EFT000000005444 5/17/2016
Total EFT000000005444 EFT000000005445 5/17/2016
5
Page 96 of 203 $253.11 $253.11 $1,673.90 $3.21 $96.49 $1,773.60 $169.49 $169.49 $1,214.76 $3,537.41 $4,752.17 $26.97 $26.97 $773.38 $773.38 $689.52 $689.52 $180.62 $180.62 $2,544.00 $39.69 $2,583.69
CINTAS 884729046 884727429 884725801 884729035 884729035 884729035 884730633 884730633 884730633
Total EFT000000005445 EFT000000005451 5/17/2016
MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES COVERALLS COVERALLS MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES COVERALLS COVERALLS
612350
CPL SYSTEMS CANADA INC GREENLUBE, FILLER PUMP KIT
7198 7190 7205
D.MARTIN WELDING & FABRICATING REPAIR TONGUE ON FORK MOUNTING FUEL TANK ON TRUCK REPAIR GATE AT KEELEY ROAD
Total EFT000000005451 EFT000000005459 5/17/2016
Total EFT000000005459 EFT000000005461 5/17/2016
$56.57 $35.62 $71.42 $186.22 $13.29 $9.51 $116.51 $13.29 $9.51 $511.94 $306.80 $306.80 $132.29 $567.61 $208.61 $908.51
EVERTEMP INC 28791
Total EFT000000005461 EFT000000005463 5/17/2016
INSTL FIRE DAMPER ACCESS DOOR
$313.02 $313.02
5 CLEANS @ $75
$375.00 $375.00
FISH, DOROTHY 5920
Total EFT000000005463 EFT000000005466 5/17/2016 DEAL #22332 DEAL #22333
GANANOQUE CHEVROLET BUICK GMC (16-03) 2016 CHEV SILVERADO (16-41) 2016 CHEV SILVERADO
IV42306 IV42490
HARTINGTON EQUIPMENT LIMITED FILTERS, OIL GASKET
6998
JODY CAMPBELL’S SEPTIC SERVICE PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL
P22002
JOE JOHNSON EQUIPMENT INC. FILTER
847116423
KAL TIRE ONTARIO OIL CHANGE
Total EFT000000005466 EFT000000005468 5/17/2016
Total EFT000000005468 EFT000000005470 5/17/2016 Total EFT000000005470 EFT000000005471 5/17/2016 Total EFT000000005471 EFT000000005472 5/17/2016 Total EFT000000005472
Page:
$57,187.17 $57,187.17 $114,374.34 $245.07 $6.27 $251.34 $122.11 $122.11 $22.98 $22.98 $52.63 $52.63
System:
5/12/2016
User ID:
srummell
EFT000000005473
1:26:14 PM
Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
5/17/2016 9304019203 9304019201
KENT AUTOMOTIVE GARAGE SUPPLIES CAP/PLUG
193581
KINGSTON MOTOSPORT PLUS COIL ASSY, CARBURETOR, SPKPLG
Total EFT000000005473 EFT000000005475 5/17/2016 Total EFT000000005475 EFT000000005478 5/17/2016
61.26L @ $.8664 105.0L @ $.8664 85.50L @ $.8664 109.01L @ $.8664 90.0L @ $.8664 91.34L @ $.8664 100.01L @ $.9018 94.0L @ $.9018 104.01L @ $.8841 91.0L @ $.8841 107.38L @ $.8841 109.0L @ $.616
16/04/29-43
LEONARD, ELIZABETH 4 CLEANS @ $75
54109540 54098609
LINDE CANADA LIMITED T4070 WELDING SUPPLIES CYLINDER RENTAL
16/04/19 16/04/19 16/04/19 16/04/19 16/04/19
MCNICHOLS CONSTRUCTION LTD 95 HRS @ $130 - HI HOE 49 HRS @ $285 - HOE RAM 92.5 HRS @ $85 - TRI-AXLE 1 HR FLOAT @ $130 5 YDS PEASTONE
40469
MONTGOMERY FLEET SERVICES INC. SPINNER & MTR ASSY KIT
Total EFT000000005479 EFT000000005481 5/17/2016
Total EFT000000005481 EFT000000005483 5/17/2016
Total EFT000000005483 EFT000000005484 5/17/2016 Total EFT000000005484 EFT000000005488 5/17/2016 Total EFT000000005488 EFT000000005489 5/17/2016
500HR SERVICE
$82.87 $18.91 $101.78 $187.41 $187.41 $55.34 $92.58 $75.38 $96.10 $79.35 $80.52 $91.77 $86.26 $93.56 $81.87 $96.60 $75.87 $1,005.20 $300.00 $300.00 $204.13 $23.00 $227.13 $12,567.36 $14,210.78 $8,000.88 $132.29 $203.52 $35,114.83 $658.79 $658.79 $1,882.77 $1,882.77
PETRIE FORD 211135 211135
Total EFT000000005489 EFT000000005490 5/17/2016
WIPER BLADES, BULB, HORN TAIL LITE
$37.05 $36.59 $73.64
DESIGNATED SUBSTANCES ASSESSMN
$864.96 $864.96
TACOMETER LASER & BATTERIES
$80.37 $80.37
PINCHIN LTD. 333457
Total EFT000000005490 EFT000000005491 5/17/2016
PRINCESS AUTO 27-1-152922
PROGRESSIVE WASTE SOLUTIONS CAN INC 647-0000216244 3.47T GARBAGE
Total EFT000000005492 EFT000000005493 5/17/2016 IN000024102
QUINTE CONSERVATION PERMIT APPLICATION FEE
R&D NELSON GENERAL MAINTENANCE 16/04 BED GARAGE 9 HRS @ $18 16/04 BED GARAGE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 16/04 PTLD GARAGE 8 HRS @ $18 16/04 PTLD GARAGE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
Total EFT000000005494 EFT000000005497 5/17/2016 10704 10704 10719
R. THURSTON TECHNOLOGIES RADIO REPAIRS RADIO REPAIRS RADIO REPAIRS
69970147
SAFETY-KLEEN CANADA, INC. PARTS WASHER SOLVENT
Total EFT000000005497 EFT000000005499 5/17/2016 Total EFT000000005499 EFT000000005500 5/17/2016
Page 97 of 203
NORTRAX 514997
Total EFT000000005493 EFT000000005494 5/17/2016
6
LEONARD FUELS 1058-694797 1058-697187 1058-695674 1058-695771 1058-696137 1058-696978 1058-697724 1058-698808 1058-699612 1058-700747 1058-700802 0646-693310
Total EFT000000005478 EFT000000005479 5/17/2016
Total EFT000000005491 EFT000000005492 5/17/2016
Page:
SIGNS PLUS
$435.76 $435.76 $313.00 $313.00 $164.85 $53.29 $146.53 $53.29 $417.96 $149.84 $43.25 $286.25 $479.34 $379.25 $379.25
System:
5/12/2016
User ID:
srummell
1:26:14 PM
Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 2931
Total EFT000000005500 EFT000000005502 5/17/2016
4 TRUCK NUMBERS
428771 428852
TALLMAN TRUCK CENTRE LIMITED SAFETY/REPAIRS SAFETY/REPAIRS
9646 4759 4759
TROUSDALE’S FOODLAND WATER WATER WATER
59207
TROUSDALE’S HOME HARDWARE PROPANE
Total EFT000000005502 EFT000000005504 5/17/2016
Total EFT000000005504 EFT000000005505 5/17/2016 Total EFT000000005505 EFT000000005506 5/17/2016
Page:
7
Page 98 of 203 $28.49 $28.49 $4,332.86 $3,942.61 $8,275.47 $79.80 $24.95 $24.95 $129.70 $18.01 $18.01
TRUE ELECTRIC 6699 6704
Total EFT000000005506 EFT000000005508 5/17/2016
ELECTRICAL WORK ON RENO REPAIR LIGHT/BALLAST
173-113664 173-114535 173-115846
UNIVERSAL SUPPLY GROUP AIR BRAKE PARTS FUSE BEARINGS, SEALS
0000123711 0000123711
WHITE’S WEARPARTS LTD GRADER BLADES GRADER BLADES
Total EFT000000005508 EFT000000005512 5/17/2016
$1,115.87 $965.05 $2,080.92 $75.15 $15.57 $53.81 $144.53
Total EFT000000005512
$1,273.02 $1,273.02 $2,546.04
Total Cap/Equip/Ptrl
$208,065.10
3105 Structures Cheque EFT000000005460
Date
Inv #
5/17/2016 09825
Vendor
Description
D.M. WILLS ASSOCIATES LIMITED OSIM INSPECTION PROGRAM
Total EFT000000005460
Total Structures
Amount $1,348.83 $1,348.83
$1,348.83
3115 Bvr Dms Cheque 067488 Total 067488 EFT000000005505
Date
Inv #
5/17/2016
Vendor
Description
360682
SLOAN-LATIMER, JOANNE NUISANCE TRAPPING
201738
TROUSDALE’S HOME HARDWARE MANURE FORKS & HANDLES
5/17/2016
Total EFT000000005505
Total Bvr Dms
Amount $662.34 $662.34 $485.99 $485.99
$1,148.33
3215 Drainage Cheque 067486
Date
Inv #
5/17/2016
Vendor
5/17/2016
35.55T @ $7.90
5/17/2016
67 HRS TANDEM @ $75 7.5 HRS TANDEM @ $75
22162
1622411 ONTARIO LTD. FLAGGING FOR DITCHING
3959
COMPTON PROPANE SOLUTIONS PROPANE
Total EFT000000005431 EFT000000005448 5/17/2016 Total EFT000000005448 EFT000000005458 5/17/2016
$5,113.44 $572.40 $5,685.84 $3,767.92 $3,767.92 $162.10 $162.10
DIG’N DIRT LTD. 0000104564 0000104568 0000104568 0000104574 0000104574
Total EFT000000005458
$285.78 $285.78
SNIDER, PERCY 16/04/28-09 16/04/29-10
Total 067489 EFT000000005431
Amount
O. BETTSCHEN 36784
Total 067486 067489
Description
24 HRS @ $120 & FLOAT-EXCAVATR 16 HRS HOE RAM @ $265 50 HRS EXCAVATOR @ $120 1 HR HOE RAM @ $265 22.5 HRS EXCAVATOR @ $120
$3,185.09 $4,314.62 $6,105.60 $269.66 $2,747.52 $16,622.49
System:
5/12/2016
User ID:
srummell
1:26:14 PM
Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Total Drainage
Page:
8
Page 99 of 203 $26,524.13
3310 Hardtop Patching Cheque 067489
Date
Inv #
5/17/2016
Vendor
Amount
SNIDER, PERCY 16/04/12-39 16/05/05-11 16/05/05-11 16/04/28-04
Total 067489 EFT000000005448
Description
5/17/2016 3959
Total EFT000000005448 EFT000000005503 5/17/2016
29.5 HRS @ $75 17 HRS @ $75 21.5 HRS @ $75 13 HRS @ $75 COMPTON PROPANE SOLUTIONS PROPANE
$2,251.44 $1,297.44 $1,640.88 $992.16 $6,181.92 $162.10 $162.10
TEM ROADWORK 282452 282452
14.5 HRS @ $80 38.5 HRS @ $80
Total EFT000000005503
Total Hardtop Patching
$1,180.42 $3,134.21 $4,314.63
$10,658.65
3320 should maint Cheque 067486
Date
Inv #
5/17/2016
Vendor
Description
Amount
O. BETTSCHEN 36784
33.19T @ $7.90
Total 067486
Total should maint
$266.82 $266.82
$266.82
3505 Snw Plwng Cheque 067489
Date
Inv #
5/17/2016
Vendor
Amount
SNIDER, PERCY 16/04/04-16
Total 067489 EFT000000005477
Description
5/17/2016 2016-42150 2016-42151 2016-42152
SAND VILLAGE K MULROONEY TRUCKING LIMITED 9 HRS @ $147 8.5 HRS @ $147 5.5 HRS @ $154
Total EFT000000005477
Total Snw Plwng
$213.70 $213.70 $1,346.28 $1,271.49 $861.91 $3,479.68
$3,693.38
3506 Snow Clearing Sidewalks Cheque 067489
Date
Inv #
5/17/2016
Vendor
Description
Amount
SNIDER, PERCY 16/03/25-03
2.5 HRS @ $43
Total 067489
Total Snow Clearing Sidewalks
$109.39 $109.39
$109.39
3601 Barricds & Sfty Matls Cheque EFT000000005505
Date
Inv #
5/17/2016 58832 59060
Vendor
Description
TROUSDALE’S HOME HARDWARE INSECT REPELLENT & SUNBLOCK BATTERIES
Total EFT000000005505
Total Barricds & Sfty Matls
Amount $561.23 $17.22 $578.45
$578.45
3620 Reg signs Cheque EFT000000005473
Date
Inv #
5/17/2016 9304019202
Vendor
Description
KENT AUTOMOTIVE NUTS & WASHERS
Total EFT000000005473
Total Reg signs
Amount $86.97 $86.97
$86.97
3625 RR cross mnt Cheque EFT000000005443
Date
Inv #
5/17/2016 11083921
Vendor
Description
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY 04/01/16-04/30/16
Amount $831.00
System:
5/12/2016
User ID:
srummell
1:26:14 PM
Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Page:
9
Page 100 of 203
Total EFT000000005443
$831.00
Total RR cross mnt
$831.00
3638 Locates Cheque EFT000000005498
Date
Inv #
5/17/2016
Vendor
Description
Amount
R.W. ELECTRIC 31567
LOCATE STREETLIGHTS & HYDRO
Total EFT000000005498
Total Locates
$203.52 $203.52
$203.52
3640 Warning Sgns Cheque EFT000000005500
Date
Inv #
5/17/2016
Vendor
Description
Amount
SIGNS PLUS
Total EFT000000005500
$75.20 $75.20
Total Warning Sgns
$75.20
2931
STREET SIGNS
Total Trans
$239,949.10
40 Env 4110 Water Treat Cheque 067473
Date
Inv #
5/17/2016 N6027631-1604
Vendor
Description
BELL CANADA-WATER TOWER PHONE LINE WATER TOWER CIRCUIT LINE
Total 067473
Total Water Treat
Amount $74.28 $74.28
$74.28
5005 SW & Fac OH Cheque EFT000000005466
Date
Inv #
5/17/2016 220403
Vendor
Description
GANANOQUE CHEVROLET BUICK GMC OIL CHANGE, ROTATE TIRES
Amount
Total EFT000000005466
$20.29 $20.29
Total SW & Fac OH
$20.29
5105 Garb coll Cheque EFT000000005476
Date
Inv #
5/17/2016 19757 19758
Total EFT000000005476 EFT000000005489 5/17/2016
Vendor
Description
KINGSTON DIESEL SERVICES EXHAUST TEMP SENSOR SCAN CODES FOR TRANSMISSION
Amount $363.79 $100.74 $464.53
PETRIE FORD 706241
Total EFT000000005489 EFT000000005505 5/17/2016 58508
CHECK STEERING, ALIGNMENT TROUSDALE’S HOME HARDWARE GARBAGE BAGS
Total EFT000000005505
Total Garb coll
$227.88 $227.88 $21.34 $21.34
$713.75
5110 Gab disp Cheque 067489
Date
Inv #
5/17/2016
5/17/2016 7197
Total EFT000000005459 EFT000000005492 5/17/2016
Description
Amount
SNIDER, PERCY 16/04/16-25 16/04/30-24 16/04/30-24 16/04/30-24 16/04/27-08 16/05/02-17 16/05/02-18 16/05/02-12
Total 067489 EFT000000005459
Vendor
2 GARBAGE BINS BIN RENTAL BIN RENTAL BIN RENTAL 1 LOAD GARBAGE 3 LOADS GARBAGE 1 LOAD HHW - PORTLAND 19.5 HRS @ $80 D.MARTIN WELDING & FABRICATING REPAIR GARBAGE BIN PROGRESSIVE WASTE SOLUTIONS CAN INC
$305.28 $76.32 $228.96 $76.32 $178.08 $534.24 $178.08 $1,587.46 $3,164.74 $477.51 $477.51
System:
5/12/2016
User ID:
srummell
1:26:14 PM
Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 647-0000021758 647-0000216244 647-0000021722
Total EFT000000005492 EFT000000005505 5/17/2016
20.27T GARBAGE 12.92T GARBAGE 70.48T GARBAGE
58607
TROUSDALE’S HOME HARDWARE 2 X 4 X 8 BOARDS
511057 511057
WHALEY, GEORGE 38 HRS @ $100 52 HRS @ $10.65
Total EFT000000005505 EFT000000005511 5/17/2016
Total EFT000000005511
Total Gab disp
Page:
10
Page 101 of 203 $1,783.70 $1,385.71 $6,514.96 $9,684.37 $11.78 $11.78 $3,866.88 $563.56 $4,430.44
$17,768.84
5200 Recyc Cheque EFT000000005505
Date
Inv #
5/17/2016 58291
Vendor
Description
TROUSDALE’S HOME HARDWARE BOARDS, SHINGLES, FASCIA, CAP
Total EFT000000005505
Total Recyc
Amount $58.02 $58.02
$58.02
5210 Rec Disp/Prc Cheque 067489
Date
Inv #
5/17/2016
Vendor
Amount
SNIDER, PERCY 16/04/29-21 16/04/29-19
Total 067489 EFT000000005446
Description
5/17/2016
1 LOAD OCC - PORTLAND 1 LOAD OCC - GREEN BAY CITY OF KINGSTON 1ST QUARTER RECONCILIATION 1ST QUARTER RECONCILIATION 1ST QUARTER RECONCILIATION 1ST QUARTER RECONCILIATION
$178.08 $330.72 $508.80
Total EFT000000005446
$649.83 $5,509.06 $40,119.32 -$38,000.00 $8,278.21
Total Rec Disp/Prc
$8,787.01
31537 31537 31537 31537
5305 HHW Cheque EFT000000005433
Date
Inv #
5/17/2016 9095403979
Vendor
Description
ACKLANDS - GRAINGER INC. EYEWASH SUPPLIES
Total EFT000000005433
Total HHW
Amount $27.39 $27.39
$27.39
Total Env
$27,449.58
70 Cem 7000 Health Cheque 067489
Date
Inv #
5/17/2016
Vendor
Amount
SNIDER, PERCY 16/01/02-02
Total 067489 EFT000000005456
Description
5/17/2016 1138 1138 1138 1138 1138 1138
PLOW SYDENHAM CEMETERY D G YOUNGE CONCRETE BURIAL VAULTS APRIL SERVICES APRIL SERVICES APRIL SERVICES APRIL SERVICES APRIL SERVICES APRIL SERVICES
Total EFT000000005456
$76.32 $76.32 $305.28 $305.28 $407.04 $457.92 $228.96 $407.04 $2,111.52
Total Health
$2,187.84
Total Cem
$2,187.84
80 Rec 0000 Gen Cheque EFT000000005482
Date 5/17/2016
Inv #
Vendor LONDRY ALARMS
Description
Amount
System:
5/12/2016
User ID:
srummell
1:26:14 PM
Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 184288
ALARM MONITORING
Total EFT000000005482
Total Gen
Page:
11
Page 102 of 203 $52.91 $52.91
$52.91
8000 Rec Cheque 067481 Total 067481 067482 Total 067482 067489
Date 5/17/2016
5/17/2016
Inv #
Vendor
FRONTENAC BALL HOCKEY ASSOCIATION 2016 HEALTHY KIDS 2016-HEALTHY KIDS DAY FRONTENAC FURY 2016 HEALTHY KIDS 2016-HEALTHY KIDS DAY
5/17/2016
5/17/2016
$750.00 $750.00
4 HRS @ $30 MOWING
$122.11 $122.11
ESA PERMIT-HYDRO ONE
$178.08 $178.08
CRAINS’ CONSTRUCTION LTD. 14944 - CERT #1 CERT #1
Total EFT000000005452 EFT000000005470 5/17/2016 7144 7056 7009
JODY CAMPBELL’S SEPTIC SERVICE PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL
201546 201546 201546 201546 201546
LIMELAKE FENCING REPAIR BALL DIAMOND FENCING REPAIR BALL DIAMOND FENCING REPAIR BALL DIAMOND FENCING REPAIR BALL DIAMOND FENCING REPAIR BALL DIAMOND FENCING
953656
N.C.D.D. WOODWORKING HORSESHOE PITS
Total EFT000000005470 EFT000000005480 5/17/2016
Total EFT000000005480 EFT000000005485 5/17/2016 Total EFT000000005485 EFT000000005494 5/17/2016
$750.00 $750.00
BAY ELECTRIC 10788
Total EFT000000005441 EFT000000005452 5/17/2016
Amount
SNIDER, PERCY 16/04/30-26
Total 067489 EFT000000005441
Description
R&D NELSON GENERAL MAINTENANCE 16/03 16/04 GLENDWR 8 HRS @ $18 - MARCH CLEANING 16/03 16/04 GLENDWR 8 HRS @ $18 - APRIL CLEANING 16/03 16/04 GLENDWR MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 16/03 LIBRARY 36 HRS @ $15.00 - MARCH 16/04 LIBRARY 36 HRS @ $15 - APRIL 16/04 SUPPLIES LIB MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
Total EFT000000005494 EFT000000005505 5/17/2016 59129 59016 59088
TROUSDALE’S HOME HARDWARE LINE MARKING POWDER MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
Total EFT000000005505
Total Rec
$75,620.50 $75,620.50 $101.76 $101.76 $117.02 $320.54 $763.20 $737.76 $661.44 $457.92 $254.40 $2,874.72 $534.24 $534.24 $146.53 $146.53 $47.98 $549.50 $549.50 $214.84 $1,654.88 $83.90 $63.03 $21.35 $168.28
$82,973.35
8025 Day Cmps Cheque 067483
Date 5/17/2016
Inv #
Vendor
Description
HAMMER, KARL G. 16/05/03-MINI-STOCKS MINI-STOCKS FOR SPORTS CAMP
Total 067483
Total Day Cmps
Amount $585.34 $585.34
$585.34
8030 Cda Day Cheque 067490
Date 5/17/2016
Inv #
Vendor
Description
SNIDER, MONICA 16/04/27 CANADA DAY ENTERTAINMENT
Total 067490
Total Cda Day
Amount $160.00 $160.00
$160.00
8220 VMC Cheque
Date
Inv #
Vendor
Description
Amount
System:
5/12/2016
User ID:
srummell
067477 Total 067477 067484
1:26:14 PM
5/17/2016
Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT COLEMAN, DONALD 16/03/21 - HSC 16/03/21 - HSC
5/17/2016
Total 067485 EFT000000005447
12
Page 103 of 203 $30.30 $30.30
HANSEN, KARL 16/03/21 - HSC 16/04/18 - HSC
$30.30 $30.30 $60.60
16/02/18 - HSC 16/03/21 - HSC 16/04/18 - HSC
16/02/18 - HSC 16/03/21 - HSC 16/04/18 - HSC
$30.30 $30.30 $30.30 $90.90
16/04/18 - HSC
COLEMAN EQUIPMENT INC 16/04/18 - HSC
16/03/21 - HSC 16/04/18 - HSC Total 067484 067485
Page:
5/17/2016
LANSDELL, JIM
5/17/2016
Total EFT000000005447 EFT000000005449 5/17/2016
$30.30 $30.30
CONWAY, WAYNE 16/02/18 - HSC 16/03/21 - HSC 16/04/18 - HSC
Total EFT000000005449 EFT000000005455 5/17/2016
16/02/18 - HSC 16/03/21 - HSC 16/04/18 - HSC
$30.30 $30.30 $30.30 $90.90
16/02/18 - HSC 16/03/21 - HSC 16/04/18 - HSC
$30.30 $30.30 $30.30 $90.90
DAY, LOUISE 16/02/18 - HSC 16/03/21 - HSC 16/04/18 - HSC
Total EFT000000005455
Total VMC
$393.90
Total Rec
$84,165.50
90 Plan 9000 Plan Cheque EFT000000005469
Date
Inv #
5/17/2016 41237
Vendor
Description
INDEPENDENT TELEPHONE SERVICES PHONE SYSTEM PROGRAMMING
Total EFT000000005469
Amount $45.79 $45.79
Total Plan
$45.79
Total Plan
$45.79
99 9999 Cheque EFT000000005467
Date 5/17/2016
Inv #
Vendor
GORDON, DALE 6-8-18000 REFUND
Total EFT000000005467 EFT000000005495 5/17/2016
Description
06001018000 REFUND
Amount $3,100.00 $3,100.00
REALTAX INC 55934 55935 55936 55937 55938 55939 55940 55941 55942 55943 55944 55945 55946 55947 55948 55949 55950 55951 55952 55953 55954 55955 55956
1-PROCEED WITH REG’N 1-PROCEED WITH REG’N 1-PROCEED WITH REG’N 1-PROCEED WITH REG’N 2-PROCEED WITH REG’N 4-PROCEED WITH REG’N 4-PROCEED WITH REG’N 4-PROCEED WITH REG’N 4-PROCEED WITH REG’N 4-PROCEED WITH REG’N 5-PROCEED WITH REG’N 5-PROCEED WITH REG’N 6-PROCEED WITH REG’N 6-PROCEED WITH REG’N 6-PROCEED WITH REG’N 6-PROCEED WITH REG’N 8-PROCEED WITH REG’N 8-PROCEED WITH REG’N 8-PROCEED WITH REG’N 8-PROCEED WITH REG’N 8-PROCEED WITH REG’N 8-PROCEED WITH REG’N 8-PROCEED WITH REG’N
$548.05 $548.05 $491.55 $548.05 $491.55 $491.55 $491.55 $491.55 $491.55 $491.55 $491.55 $491.55 $491.55 $491.55 $548.05 $491.55 $491.55 $548.05 $491.55 $491.55 $491.55 $491.55 $491.55
System:
5/12/2016
User ID:
srummell
1:26:14 PM
Total EFT000000005495
Township of South Frontenac CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Page:
13
Page 104 of 203 $11,588.15
Total
$14,688.15
Total
$14,688.15
Total
$475,221.31
Page 105 of 203
STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT PREPARED FOR COUNCIL:
May 10, 2016
AGENDA DATE:
May 17, 2016
SUBJECT: Councillor Absence RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council authorize the absence of Councillor Robinson indefinitely and continue to pay the Councillor. BACKGROUND: Councillor Robinson has been absent from Council since Feb. 19, 2016 when he fell and broke his hip. Councillors and the Mayor have provided Council with updates on his condition through this period. In accordance with the Municipal Act Section 259(1): The office of a member of council of a municipality becomes vacant if the member, (c) is absent from the meetings of council for three successive months without being authorized to do so by a resolution of council; Furthermore Section 262(1) states: If the office of member of council becomes vacant under section 259, the council shall at its next meeting declare the office to be vacant, except if a vacancy occurs as a result of the death of a member, the declaration may be made at either of its next two meetings. Council has a number of options to consider:
- Council may authorize the Councillor’s absence indefinitely and continue to pay the Councillor
- Council may choose to authorize the absence and limit the length of the extension
- Council may choose to authorize the absence and limit or alter the compensation paid, given that there is no policy established on how much or how long compensation is extended for absences
- Council may choose to authorize the absence for a limited time and adjust the compensation
- Council may choose not to authorize the absence, thus triggering the process to declare the seat vacant. A decision has to be reached at the May 17 meeting as this is the last possible date for Council to exercise a choice. Should Council take no action the Clerk will have no choice but to proceed to put before Council motions to declare the seat vacant in accordance with the Municipal Act.
Submitted by: Wayne Orr, CAO
Page 106 of 203
VCA 10 Feb 2016 Directors Present: Chet Babcock, Linda Bates, Don Coleman, Wayne Conway, Debbie Lingen, Tabitha Morton, Bill Robinson, Rhonda Storring Regrets: Joyce Casement Minutes from last meeting: Minutes approved as presented. Discussion of Items arising from the Jan Minutes: Trinity Breakfast Report: The breakfasts made a profit of $1708.00 to be shared between Trinity Church and VCA. Our portion, $853.43 will go toward purchasing street benches. Linda made a suggestion to get more produce donated next year so the profits would be greater. The matter will be discussed at the planning meeting with Trinity next Oct/ Nov. Don Coleman will let Linda know when the meeting is scheduled in the fall. Cattail Festival Update: We had a meeting in Jan and had 11 people attend but 12 are needed to vote on the final fate of the festival. One have one more meeting this month and have issued one last call for volunteers and for the Cattail Festival to remain in its’ original format. Wayne and Ron and Don visited Moscow to talk with John Nizman about the Classic Car Show. They explained that the event should stay under the umbrella of the VCA and be covered by insurance. The website is up and running but the VCA should own the website and will absorb the cost of the site. John said he has already set it up and that is his donation. We will run the canteen and a food court in the pavilion as well as the waste management and parking. There will be music played under the pavilion but no entertainment. VCA Phone Setup: Not set up yet but will be ready soon then the number can be promoted on the website etc. Financial Report: The report was reviewed. Don moved for the adoption of the report. Seconded by Debbie Lingen. Committee Reports: Village Ambassador: Chad Neville took over the Village Computer Shop and sent a thank you letter to us for his welcome gift. Pending Business: Electronic sign: Wayne is rolling out his plans for the sign, selecting the appropriate number of pixels and setting up an agreement with the Township and the County. He has spoken Andy Mills about pursuing a grant for the sign and hopes that it will be a go for this summer. New Business: Budget 2016/2017: We drew up a proposal for a new budget for 2016/2017.
Page 107 of 203
Summer Ideas: Debbie would like to pick a day in the summer for a community event similar to Christmas in the Village, on a Sat in the summer. She suggested a community picnic with fun activities to draw people out to the park or beach for a few hours. Instead of 2-3 Music in the Park concerts we could have one in July (16 or 23) and have a community picnic the Sat Sep 17 (tentative) from 4 to 7 pm, with train rides and music. Note to VCA, we will have to check with the Township to ensure that the portable toilets will still be on site at that time. Linda stated that there will not be a Fishing Derby this year. A Thank you card will be sent to the gentleman who repaired the shingles on the Kiosk. Don will give Rhonda his name and address. Motion: Don moved a motion, seconded by Linda for Wayne to transfer $12,000.00 to the electronic sign fund. All in favour, the motion is carried. Upcoming AGM will be on the regular Cattail night Tues 15 March. All reports are due and Rhonda will bring a copy of the minutes from last year. Next VCA meeting on 9 Mar. Meeting Adjourned at 8:52
Page 108 of 203
South Frontenac Recreation Committee Minutes Monday, April 18, 2016 Attendance: Chair Mike Howe, Vice-Chair Dan Bell, Councillor Pat Barr, Councillor Mark Schjerning, Councillor Norm Roberts, Kevin Fox, Donna Brown, Pam Morey, Alvin Wood Regrets: Tim Laprade
- Call to Order
- Approval of Minutes – Monday, March 21, 2016 Motion to approve the minutes from Monday, March 21, 2016 Moved by: Vice-Chair Dan Bell Seconded by: Councillor Pat Barr Carried
- Business Arising from the Minutes
- No new information to discuss at this time.
- New Business a. Delegation from South Frontenac Ice Stock (Karl Hammer)
- The group is currently named Kingston and Area but they are wanting to change it to South Frontenac as many of their members are from this area and they play typically at Centennial Park.
- A brief history and culture of the game was given to the committee as well as how the game is played.
- The game can be adapted to play on other surfaces other than ice.
- The group would like to be set up like other organized sports by having a defined season with a specific night that they play on. The group often plays on Thursdays from 6-8 p.m. Members are more than willing to pay user fees and fundraise in some capacity.
- Karl provided the following link via email for members to watch a video as to how the game is played. https://youtu.be/4hDxWK28zdM
- Updates a. 5 Year Recreation Plan Survey
- Tim Laprade has composed a draft survey and would like any additional questions sent to him as soon as possible.
Page 109 of 203
b. Standardization of Recreation Committee Secretaries Payments
- Council approved the recommendation to standardize payments of secretaries at the rate of $65 per meeting retroactive to January 1, 2016. Payment adjustments will be made where necessary. c. District Committee Updates i. Portland
- 7 Capital Items will be forwarded to Tim Laprade to include into the 5 Year Recreation Plan
- A meeting will be held next week to discuss possibly building a skateboard park at Centennial Park. ii. Storrington
- The 5 Year Recreation Plan will be discussed next week at their district recreation meeting. iii. Bedford
- 5 Year Recreation Plan items have been forwarded to Tim Laprade and mostly concern buildings. iv. Loughborough
- The 5 Year Recreation Plan will be discussed next week at their district recreation meeting.
- Chair Mike Howe met with Jamie Brash and Mark Segsworth regarding fencing at The Point. A more traditional style of fencing will be needed to ensure that the field is kept safe from vandalism.
- Tim Laprade is waiting to hear from Tracy Holland regarding the preferred grass cutting schedule at Bowes Park. Other schedules have been arranged for the remaining fields.
- Chair to sign off on meeting attendance
- A completed attendance sheet will be submitted to Tim Laprade by Chair Mike Howe at a later time.
- Next Meeting: Monday, May 16, 2016
- Adjournment: 7:45 p.m. Recording Secretary: Sarah Vandewal
Page 2
Page 110 of 203
Portland District & Area Heritage Society General Meeting April 20, 2016 – 7 p.m. South Frontenac Museum Attendees; Barbara Stewart, Irene Bauder, David Babcock, Wilhelmine Card, Homer Card, Doug Lovegrove, Jane Adamson, Darlene Nicol, Karen Stinson, Doug McIntye, Ron Paul, John McDougall, Ron Moir, Val Ruttan, Lois Grant, Nancy Jenkins, (guest) Financial Report – October 21, 2015 to April 20, 2016 – Attached Moved by Doug Lovegrove, seconded by Doug McIntyre , the financial statement be approved, Carried. Correspondence – None Old Business Karen and Jim Stinson filled the bin with junk from the basement and Karen reported a large cupboard with a rotten bottom down there, everybody agreed it be thrown out, also 8 old desks and a turnstyle, and the little fridge which stopped running plus all the old chairs. New Business We discussed having our annual fundraisers – Everybody agreed on – a. Strawberry Social – June 25th b. Potluck in Bellrock in September c. Bakeless Bake Sale in November – donations instead d. Garlic Festival – September 3rd Plaques for windows will be ordered as soon as we have lists complete. “In Memory of” and “Friends of the Museum” Val agreed to be our Card Convenor, all were in favour. Doug McIntyre made a suggestion that Irene make a list of members names to enclose with the cards. Barb explained to the members about the key for the Princess Anne and that it must be open when the museum is open in order to use washrooms and locked when the museum closes unless the library or clothing depot is open and in that case they will see that it is locked when they leave. Barb made a calendar for volunteers to sign for the OPEN hours of the museum. John McDougall explained that someone will be coming , a ‘Public Education Museum Co-Ordinator” to be at the museum most times when it is open to
Page 111 of 203
welcome people, etc. John also explained that Dr. Dempsey is retiring on June 30th . There will be an ‘OPEN HOUSE’ on Saturday, May 28th at the Verona Lions Hall from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. and dinner is at 7 p.m. - $25 a ticket. John suggested we give her one of our ‘Portland My Home’ books, signed by our members. John also told us the new Doctor, Sabra Gibbons lives on Potspoon Lake and that Dr. Oglazia will not be there for a period of time. He accepted a position with the Health Unit for a while. Doug Lovegrove presented us with a picture that he had given to him from some people who live in Mount Hope, Ontario. This picture is of the ‘146th Battalion Brass Band and will be a great addition to our Military Display. Meeting adjourned at 9 p.m.
Page 112 of 203
SOUTH FRONTENAC TOWNSHIP BY-LAW 2016-31
A BY-LAW TO LEVY TAXES IN THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC FOR THE YEAR 2016
WHEREAS it is necessary for the Council of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac, pursuant to the Municipal Act, 2001, the Fair Municipal Finance Act, 1997, the
Falr Municipal Finance Act, 1997 (No.2) and the Small Business and Charities Protection Act, 1998 to establish tax rates for 2016;and,
WHEREAS the tax ratios and tax rate reductions for prescribed property subclasses have been established by the County ofFrontenac, by its By-law 2015-0052 and,
WHEREAS it is necessary for the Council of the Corporation of the Township of South
Frontenac, pursuant to Ac Municipal Act, 2001 to levy on the whole rateable property according to the last revised assessment roll for the Corporation of the Township of South
Frontenac the sums set forth for various purposes in Schedule “C” hereto attached for the current year; and
WHEREAS an interim levy was made before the adoption of the estimates for the current year;
NOW THEREFORE THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SO FRONTENAC, BY ITS COUNCIL, HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
The 2016 estimates for the current year as set forth in Schedule “C” attached hereto and fanning part of this by-law are hereby adopted.
For the year 2016, the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac shall levy upon
the Residential and Farm Residential Assessment, Multi-Residential Assessment, Commercial Assessment including new construction, Industrial Assessment including new construction, Parking Lot Assessment, Farmland Assessment and Managed Forest Assessment the rates of taxation per current value assessment as set out in Schedule “A”
attached hereto and forming part of this by-law.
The levy provided for in Schedule “A” attached to this by-law shall be reduced by the amount of the interim levy for 2016.
For payments-in-lieu of taxes due to the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac, the actual amount due to the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac shall be based on the assessment roll and the tax rates for the year 2016.
For railway rights of way taxes due to the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac in accordance with the Regulations as established by the Minister of Finance,
pursuant to the Municipal Act, the actual amount due to the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac shall be based on the assessment roll and the tax rates for the year 2016.
- The Treasurer is hereby authorized to collect fhe Special Area Charges and Rates as set out in Schedule “B” which is attached hereto and forms part of this by-law and these Special Area Charges and Rates shall be added to and form part of the Collector’s Roll. 7
The levy for municipal, county, education and special area charges shall become due and payable as follows:
Non-capped Classes (Residential, Managed Forest and Farmland) . .
50% of the final bill and any outstanding arrears shall be due on June 30th, 2016 The balance of the final bill shall be due on September 30th, 2016.
Page 113 of 203
Capped Classes (Commercial, Industrial, Multi-Residential, Parking lot) or a combination of Capped and Uncapped .
50% of the final bill and any outstanding arrears shall be due on August 31st, 2016
.
The balance of the final bill shall be due on September 30th, 2016.
As provided under Section 345(2) of the Municipal Act 2001, there shall be imposed a penalty of one and one-quarter percent (1.25%) per month on the first day of each month following default of payment on all taxes of the current year remaining unpaid after the due date of said taxes.
There shall be imposed additional interest of one and one-quarter percent (1.25%) per month on all taxes outstanding at the end of the year for which the taxes were levied as provided in Section 345(3) of the Municipal Act, 2001.
Penalty and interest charges at the prevailing rate will be added in the same manner as taxes to those non-levy items added to the Collector’s Roll for collection.
All supplementary taxes levied under the Assessment Act will be due in two installments
with the second installment due one monfh after the first instalhnent due date., and penalties and interest will be added in the same manner as the ordinary tax bills.
The Treasurer of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac is hereby empowered to accept part payment from time to time on account of any taxes due.
Pursuant to the provisions of the 2016 Municipal Budget, transfers budgeted as a “Contribution from Revenue Fund to Reserves” shall be unplemented by the Treasurer in the amount budgeted. Transfers budgeted as a “Contribution from Reserves and/or
Reserve Funds to Revenue Fund and/ or Capital Fund” shall be implemented by the Treasurer in the exact amount required to finance the actual expenditures of the particular project net of other applicable revenues, even should said amount exceed the
transfer/ contribution from Reserves and/or Reserve Fund originally budgeted for. 14. Any surplus/deficit resulting from the 2016 operations of the General Revenue Fund
as of December 31, 2016 shall be transferred to/financed from the reserve for Working
Funds_ except for Winter Control, Building, Volunteer Firefighters wages. Water and Recycling which have dedicated reserves for stabilization.
- Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, the Treasurer is hereby authorized to accept payments made on the current Pre-Aufhorized Payment Plan on the first day of the month following the due date for payment of taxes without adding penalty and/ or interest charges to the outstanding taxes and tax arrears.
^^y/.TC^^L??r?,c?^f^is 1?y-!aw.or.1?1^ s<;hedules attached hereto is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, it is the intent of fhe Council of the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac that all remaining sections and portions
of this by-law and the schedules continue in force and effect.
Page 114 of 203 3.
- This by-law shall come into force and take effect on the date of its passage. Dated at the Township of South Frontenac this 17th day of May, 2016. Read a first and second time this 17th day of May, 2016. Read a third time and finally passed this 17th day of May, 2016. Municipal Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac
Ron Vandewal, Mayor
Wayne Orr, Clerk-Administrator
Page 115 of 203
Schedule “A” to By-Law No. 2016-31
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC - 2016 TAX RATE SCHEDULE
South
Current
South
Frontenac
Value Assessment
Frontenac
Assessment Class
RTC
Tax Rate
Residential and Farm Residential
RT MT CH CT ex cu XT xu GT IH IK IT IU IX JT JU FT TT
0.531548% 0.531548% 0.531548% 0.531548% 0.372084% 0.372084% 0.531548% 0.372084% 0.531548% 0.531548% 0.345506% 0.531548% 0.345506% 0.345506% 0.531548% 0.345506% 0.132887% 0.132887%
Multi-Residential
Commercial-Full, Shared PIL
Commercial Occupied Commercial Vacant Land Commercial Excess Land
New Const-Full-No Support New Const-Excess Land-No Support Parking Lot Industrial -Full, Shared PIL Industrial -Excess Land, Shared PIL
Industrial Occupied Industrial Excess Land Industrial Vacant Land
Industrial-NewConstruction-Taxable Industrial-NewConstruction-Excess Farmlands
Managed Forest Total
Levy
3,059,403,810 16,262,200.00 4,679,000 24,872.00 24,500
130.00
23,948,267 252,900 269,620 2,829,400
127,298.00
21,500 34,500
80.00 183.00
483,000
2,567.00
102.000 1,224,000
6,506.00
0
0.00
387,400
1,338.00
1,396,920
7,425.00
941.00
1,003.00 15,040.00
352.00
21,080
75.00
56,699,902
75.347.50 12,323.00 16,537,681
9,273,467
3,161,051,266
Page 116 of 203
Schedule “B” to By-Law No. 2016-31 TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC SPECIAL AREA CHARGES AND RATES
WASTE MANAGEMENT CHARGE ON AN ANNUAL BASIS PER UNIT Charge per assessed unit
Residential Dwelling
$120.00
Residential Seasonal Dwelling
$120.00
Commercial
$120.00
Page 117 of 203
Schedule “C” to By-Law No. 2016-31 TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC
2016 Budget Summary of Revenue and Expense
2015-2016 Budget
2015 Budget 2016 Budget $ $
Variance
$
%
REVENUE Property Taxation
188,000
188,000
0
0.00%
User Charges
2,170,879
2,231,403
60,524
2.79%
Licenses, Permits and Rents Government Grants
Grants from Other Municipalities
711,860
724,405
12,545
1.76%
2,317,510
1,762,879
-554,631
-23.93%
757,882
672.953
-84,929
-11.21%
Investment Income
157,412
151.600
-5,812
-3.69%
Penalties and interest on taxes
400,000
360,000
-40,000
-10.00%
Donations
117,600
154,500
36,900
31.38%
Other
7,065
22,065
15,000
212.31%
Transfers From Reserves/Reserve Funds
4,962,831
5,259,206
296,375
5.97%
TOTAL Revenue
11,791.039
11,527,011
-264,028
-2.24%
3,846,084
3,445,046
-401,038
-10.43%
Fire
2,850,010
2,748,408
-101,602
-3.56%
Police
OPERATING EXPENSE General Government
Protection to Persons and Property 2,921,791
2,958.010
36,219
1.24%
Conservation Authorities
201,575
207,670
6,094
3.02%
Protective Inspections and Control
120,997
117,349
-3,647
-3.01%
1,960
1,960
0
0.00%
461,343
492,955
31,612
6.85%
Roadway Maintenance
10,331,796
11,295.139
963,343
9.32%
Winter Control
1,852.049
1,979,819
127,770
6.90%
297,162
358,547
61,385
20.66%
Solid Waste Management
2,817,996
2,721,951
-96,046
-3.41%
Parfrs, Recreation and Cemeteries
1,257,134
1,407,487
150,353
11.96%
332,931
327,312
-5,619
-1.69%
TOTAL Expense
27,292,828
28,061,653
768,825
2.82%
TO BE RAISED BY TAXATION
15,501,789
16,534,642
1,032,853
6.66%
Emergency Measures Building Department Transportation Services
Environmental Services
Water System
Planning and Development
Page 118 of 203
Schedule “C” to By-Law No. 2016-31 TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONT^NAC
2016 Budget PSAB Presentation 2015 Budget
2016 Budget
$
$
Taxation
27,292,828
28,061,653
Less: Transfer from Reserves
3,730,331
5,259,206
TOTAL Revenue - including to be raised by
Plus: UFCO adjust
91,914
Adjusted Revenues
23,562,497
22,894,361
TOTAL Expenses
27,292.828
28,061,653
Add: Amortization
6,498.654
5,823,509
Less: Transfer to Reserves
3,109,532
3,020,884
Less: Transfer to Tangible Capital Assets
7,829,000
8,508,915
Adjusted Expenses
22,852,950
22,355,363
Net Surplus
709,547
538,998
92,261,039
92,970,586
92,870,586
93,509,584
Tangible Capital Assets
83,609,724
86,295,130
Reserves & Reserve Funds
11,303,625
9,036,875
Accumulated Surplus, beginning of year Accumulated Surplus, end of year Schedule of Accumulated Surplus
UFCO Water Growth Component
-471,455
-449,101
UFCO Landfill
-1,442,880
-1,373,320
Cemetery Deficit
-28,428
0
92,970,586
93,509,584
Accumulated Surplus
Page 119 of 203
Schedule “C” to By-Law No. 2016-31 2016 CAPITAL BUDGET BUDGETED
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Corporate Services New Projects Server Migration Parks and Recreation Software btal
Asset Management custom izations/document update
PROPOSED FINANCING GRANT/
EXPENDITURE TAXLEVY RESERVES OTHER
7,500 15,000 10.000 32,500
35,000 35,000
PROTECTIVE SERVICES
7,500 15,000
Working Funds Working Funds
7,500
10,000 25,000
0
0
35,000 35,000
0
Building
Pick up Truck/SUV (replacing 2007) Sub-total Fire
Building Equipment
New Projects Pagers
15,000
New-Commercial bunker gear washer/dryer-Station 8
30,000 35,000
30,000 35,000
45,000 125,001 16( 100
65,000 65,000
Replacement extrication equipment - Station 4
1/2 ton truck - Replace 2003-Unit 27
ub-total Fatal
0
15,000
45,000 60,000 95.000
FRANSPORTATION DEPARTMEN1 Carried Forward from 2015
ArcGIS desktop
5,500
5,500
Reshingle Sand Dome/Doore - Hartington Reshingle Sand Dome/Doore - Bedford
50,000 50,000
50,000 50,000
Office Renovations: Keetey
20,000
20,000
10,000
10,000
Radio Communication (Firs and PVV)
300,000
300,000
Street Lights - New LED Installation Bedford Patrol Yard Improvemente
50,000 16,000 10,000 500,000 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
50,000 16,000 10,000 500,000 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
Keeley- Paint Booth Conversion to service bay New Projects *
.
Picadilly Patrol Yard Decommissioning Stomngton Salt Storage & Site works Keeley Patrol yard - Garage Door replacements Keeley Patrol yard" Generator replacement Keeley Patrol yard - Front power gate Half ton - 4X4 - Replace 2010 F49 Half ton - 4X4 - Replace 2005 F35 3/4 ton 4 X 4 with Plow/Sander-replace 201 0 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 1 989 BT88 & ST88 Thompson Steamer - replace 1 990 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
5,350,000 3,942,839
Working Funds
Rolling - Fire Reserve 0
0
Fiscal-Working Funds (unspent Capital) Vertical - Facilities Res
Vertical - Facilities Res Vertical - Facilities Res
(10,000 c/o 2012) Vertical - Facilities Res
Working Funds Working Funds Vertical - Facilities Res
Vertical - Facilities Res Federal Gas Tax Vertical - Facilities Res Vertical - Facilities Res Vertical - Facilities Res
Rolling - Capital - Roads
Rolling - Capital - Roads Rolling - Capital - Roads
Rolling - Capital - Roads Rolling - Capital - Roads Rolling - Capital - Roads Rolling - Capital - Roads Rolling - Capital - Roads Rolling - Capital - Roads Rolling - Capital - Roads Rolling - Capital - Roads Dev Chgs 200,000 OCIF 109,279 Linear Rd Const 250,471 826,786 580,375 AIR 376,315
County FGT 471,096 (City 187,857 to reserve2017 use) 7,245,500 3,942,839 2,722,286 580,375
160,000 160,000
LandfiH Closure
160.000 0
160,000
0
0 0
50,000 50,000 210,000
0 0
Sanitation-Disposal Replacement Bins Sub-total Total
50,000 50,000
210,000
Landfill Closure
Page 120 of 203
Schedule “C” to By-Law No. 2016-31 2016 CAPITAL BUDGET BUDGETED
TOWNSHIP FACIUTIES MANAGEMENT Carried Forward from 2013
PROPOSED FINANCING GRANT/
EXPENDITURE TAX LEVY RESERVES OTHER
Rec Res 10,000 Vert-Fac Res 49,000 Rec Res 30,000 Vert-Fac Res 64,000
Asbestos Assessment
59,000
59,000
Building Condition Assessment
Energy Audit
94,000 32,500
94,000 32,500
Accessibility Standard Carried Forward from 2014
15,000
15,000
Vert-Fac Res 10,000
OPP Building -Garage Floor Drains
20,000
20,000
New Hall-Perth Rd- Station 6 (Land/Architect)
211,615
211,615
Vertical - Facilities Res DCF 136,615 Vert-Fac Res 75,000
Bradshaw- Station 1 repairs as per study
25,000
25,000
Verona-Station 3 repairs as per study
5,000
5,000
New Hall - Perth Road-Station 6
18,800 1,000,000
18,800 1,000,000
Windows/insulation - Station 5
14,000
14,000
10,000
10,000
10.000 1,514,915
10,000 0 1,514,915
Recreation buildings - re-keying
11,000
11,000
(8,000 from 2013)
Point Park-Football Field Upgrades/Protection
360,000
210,000 150,000
Parkland 210,000
10,000 8,000
10,000 4,000
36 000 8,000 40,000 5,000
36.000
Parkland
8,000 40,000 5,000
Parkl and Parkland Parkland
& posts), upgrade washrooms and model train area fencing
15,000
15,000
Inverary Ball Park - Washroom Upgrades Stomngton Centre" Roof top unit guards/sliding
5,000
5,000
Parkland Parkland
20.000
20,000
Parkland
30.000
30.000
Parkland
40,000
40,000
Parkland
8,500 19,000
8,500 19,000
Parkland Parkland
7,000
7,000
15,000 10,000 60,000
15,000 10,000
Carried Forward from 2015
Facilty Signage
New Projects Verona Medical - Heat pump replacement Paving - Station 7 Fatal
Federal Gas Tax
Rec Res 5,000
Fiscal-Working Funds (unspent Capital) Fiscal-Working Funds (unspent Capital) Vertical - Facilities Res DCF 87,000 FGT 250,000 Vert-Fac 663,000
Fiscal-Working Funds (unspent Capital) Vertical - Facilities Vertical - Facilities 0
RECREATION
Carried Forward from 2013 Parkland
Carried Forward from 2014
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
partion wall/new kitchen shutHe door/covered walkway * .<t
Fermoy Hall - Building upgrades, well. paint insutation. septic system Glendower Hall - Front Step Rep)s>cement 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 Total
Boat Launch upgrades (Buck Lake & Knowlton)
154,000
9,870,415 4,015,339 5,120,701
734,375
0
Project on hold pending foHaw.up report t6, and approval from, Council In early 2016
Parkland Parkland
Parkland Parkland Vertical - Facilities Res Parkland
60,000 553,500
707,500 TOTALS
4,000
(50k from 2014)
Page 121 of 203 TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW NUMBER 2016-32
BEING A BY-LAW TO AMEND BY-LAW NUMBER 2003-75, AS AMENDED,
TO REZONE LAND FROM OPEN SPACE-PRIVATE ZONE (08) TO LIMITED SERVICE RESIDENTIAL-WATERFRONT ZONE (RLSW), PART LOTS 1 & 2, CONCESSION XIII, DISTRICT OF BEDFORD: SCOTJTS CANADA
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 Lots 1 & 2, Concession XIII of the District of Bedford; NOW THEREFORE THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY ITS COUNCIL, HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
THATSchedule"D",toZoningBy-lawNumber2003-75asamended,ishereby further amended by changing the zoning from Open Space-Private Zone (08) to Limited Service Residential-Waterfront Zone (RLSW) for those lands shown on the attached map designated as Schedule " 1 “.
THIS BY-LAW shall come into force in accordance with section 34 of the
Plaru’iing Act, 1990, as amended, either upon the date of passage or as otherwise provided by said section 34.
Dated at the Township of South Frontenac this seventeenth day of May, 2016.
Read a first and second time this seventeenth day of May, 2016. Read a third time and finally passed this seventeenth day of May, 2016.
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC
Ron Vandewal, Mayor
Wayne Orr, Clerk-Administrator
Page 122 of 203
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC
(BEDFORD DISTRICT) M?, {,C?-o”% SCHEDULE ‘1’ BY-LAW No. 2016-32
lch?’-)r sOu’!:l
sVM . J
- AREA REZONED FROM ‘OS’ TO ‘RLSW’
s
<)
Buck Lake
oTh
… 4g
,Th
%/
A .Y * *
( 14
sJ
= *$
- o+
O
Q %l
,€
'
Buck
Round
Lake
o 60 120 240 360 480
Meteis
THIS SCHEDULE “1” TO BY-LAW No. 2016-32
PASSED THIS 17" DAY OF MAY 2016 MAYOR CLERK
Lake
Page 123 of 203 TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC BY-LAW NUMBER 2016-33
BEING A BY-LAW TO STOP UP, CLOSE AND SELL A PORTION OF AN UNOPENED ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN CONCESSIONS V AND VI, PART LOT 19, LOUGHBOROUGH: RITCHIE
WHEREAS, the Municipal Council of the Township of South Frontenac may pass a bylaw to stop up, close and sell any highway or part thereof pursuant to the Municipal Act, section 34( 1 ):
AND WHEREAS pursuant to the Township of South Frontenac’s Notice By-law No. 2002-92, the Corporation of the Township of South Frontenac caused to be advertised the proposal to close the said 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:
THATtheportionofroadallowanceinLotl9,lyingbetweenConcessionsVand VI, 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 property-owner on the north in Lot 19, Concession VI.
. THAT the Mayor and Clerk/Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to execute such documents as are required; and
THAT this By-law shall come into force and take effect upon registration of this By-law.
Dated at the Township of South Frontenac this seventeenth day of May, 2016.
Read a first and second time this seventeenth day of May, 2016. Read a third time and finally passed this seventeenth day of May, 2016. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC
Ron Vandewal, Mayor
Wayne Orr, Clerk-Administrator
Page 124 of 203
7?
SCHEDULE “1”
v’?-??* ,7fl,
W
TO BY-LAW 2016-33 T
l l
,7
l l }
N
l l)
l
I
1
l
l
W-p
.,!
t
%
l
1 1
t
l I
l l l
I l l
{ l
l
l
I
l
I I
l
l
]
!
i l
l
!
l
l l
l
r—
3::
l l
i l
! l
}
}
ll
Sl
t
l
l
l X i
i
l
‘?
l
l
}
‘x
}
) t
i i
‘(
,f
{
l
i
l
l
l
i } I
i
I &
}
l
1
I
l
1
i I
l
!
l I
‘i
ll
l
I
! /
)
i
]
j
/
k
f
i
,,ffl
l l
11 l !
l
li
{ i i
i
i
i
I
Loughborough Lake j
l
l i
i t
J
J
r
?
Loughborough Lake
J
l
i
r.
r J
/,: A r
I J
l
1
r
7
4
Page 125 of 203
STAFF REPORT TREASURY DEPARTMENT
Prepared for Council:
May 9, 2016
Agenda Date:
May 17, 2016
SUBJECT: Community Project Grants Awarded RECOMMENDATION: This report is for information only BACKGROUND: 2016 is the third year that the Township accepted applications for the Community Project Grant program. 2016 is the first year where grants could be up to $2,000 each. Website and newspaper ads were placed soliciting applications. The CAO and Treasurer reviewed and evaluated the applications against the Community Project Grant Policy in advance of the Corporate Services Committee making the final awards. Nine applications were received and are summarized below. Eight of the requests were approved and awarded. One of the approved applications received did not fully meet the criteria established for the grant, as it was a newly formed organization, however, it was the committee’s assessment that a grant should be provided with funds flowing to the Frontenac Community Arena for this project. All applicants have been informed and contracts have been issued for those receiving grants. Group
Purpose
Applied Amount
Approved Amount
Northern Frontenac Community Services Verona Community Association Frontenac Society of Model Engineers
Youth Engagement Project
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
Street Bench – Road 38 corridor
$1,885.00
$1,885.00
Purchase and building of passenger cars for miniature railway Girls Hockey Development Ride and Refresh-bike racks/picnic tables Street Bench – Road 38 corridor SALT – Seniors & Law Enforcement Together quarterly community sessions Ball Hockey Program
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00 $497.96
$2,000.00 $497.96
$1,885.00 $2,000.00
$1,885.00 $2,000.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$1,000.00
0.00
Frontenac Fury Sydenham Lake Canoe Club Lion’s Club of Verona Southern Frontenac Community Services Frontenac Ball Hockey (to be funded through Front. Comm. Arena) Kingston Field Naturalists TOTAL
2016 Bio Blitz support – held in Roblin, ON
Submitted/approved by: Louise Fragnito, Treasurer
$15,267.96 $14,267.96 Prepared by: Louise Fragnito, Treasurer
Page 126 of 203
STAFF REPORT TREASURY DEPARTMENT
Prepared for Council:
May 12th, 2016
Agenda Date:
May 17th, 2016
SUBJECT: Year to date financials to March 31st, 2016 RECOMMENDATION: This report is for information only. ANALYSIS: Attached are the year to date financials to March 31st with a comparison to year to date budget as well as a column which reflects the total 2016 budget. Year to date revenues totalling $7,033,548 are $48, 896 under budget while year to date expenses $3,956,081 are $458,628 under budget for a net year to date surplus of $409,733. The variances for both revenues and expenses are primarily due to timing. However, conservation authorities are over budget $47,132. This is due to a levy from Quinte conservation that is higher than budgeted. Quinte passed their budget after we did and included an additional one-time capital component. From a study they received, it was assessed that Third Lake dam needed to be stabilized. Further, the share applied to member municipalities was 50% of the total cost as they had funding available this year from the Province to offset the other $200,000. Providing this statement assures council that the direction given from the 2016 budget is being carried out. Managers are receiving detailed financial reports on a monthly basis. ATTACHMENT 2016 Financial report to March 31st Submitted/approved by: Louise Fragnito, Treasurer
Prepared by: Louise Fragnito, Treasurer
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC For the Three Months Ending Thursday, March 31, 2016
INC STATEMENT BvA-Council
2016 Year Budget
2016 YTD Budget
2016 YTD Actuals
YTD Actual vs YTD Budget Variance
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 Fund Total Revenues
16,722,642 2,248,104 723,705 1,762,879 672,953 151,600 360,000 158,500 2,065 5,259,206 28,061,653
5,460,392 639,993 134,814 525,804 0 37,375 90,000 0 2,065 192,000 7,082,443
5,456,042 596,905 145,061 500,063 0 32,133 69,422 6,470 22,821 204,631 7,033,548
(4,351) (43,088) 10,247 (25,741) 0 (5,242) (20,578) 6,470 20,756 12,631 (48,896)
3,435,500
402,679
401,687
(992)
2,748,408 2,958,010 207,670 117,350 1,960 492,955
159,588 739,502 116,940 29,725 490 109,239
125,709 738,319 164,071 19,596 168 81,106
(33,879) (1,183) 47,132 (10,129) (322) (28,133)
3,861,783 7,452,157 1,979,827
781,325 263,075 982,956
636,724 253,079 865,764
(144,601) (9,996) (117,192)
363,547 2,698,151 1,417,032 327,312 28,061,661 8
55,590 503,936 190,337 79,328 4,414,709 (2,667,734)
26,918 416,723 170,737 55,480 3,956,081 (3,077,467)
(28,672) (87,213) (19,600) (23,848) (458,628) (409,733)
OPERATING EXPENSE General Government Protection to Persons and Property Fire Police Conservation Authorities Protective Inspections and Cont Emergency Measures Building Department Transportation Services Roadway Maintenance Capital Projects Winter Control Environmental Services Water System Solid Waste Management Parks, Recreation and Cemeteries Planning and Development Total Expenses TOTAL
Page 127 of 203
3/31/2016 1 of 1
Page 128 of 203
STAFF REPORT TREASURY DEPARTMENT Prepared for Council:
May 10th, 2016
Agenda Date:
May 17th, 2016
SUBJECT: Overall tax rate and functional breakdown RECOMMENDATION: This report is for information. BACKGROUND: The ministry of education recently released their tax rate. Combining their rate, the County’s along with the Township’s, a resident annual property taxes, based on the average phased in assessment, will have an increase of 0.65% or $13.65.
2016 Tax Revenue Allocation County 18.6%
Education 22.2%
Township 59.2%
On a yearly basis after the passing of the budget, the chart below is generated. The chart represents the breakdown of expenses by function along with the respective percentage.
Parks, Recreation and Cemeteries 5% Solid Waste 11%
Transportation Services 48%
Planning and Development 1%
General Government 12% Protection Services 23%
2016 Budget Expenses
Page 129 of 203
STAFF REPORT TREASURY DEPARTMENT
Below is the County’s chart in relation to their 2016 budget. Their chart provides a breakdown by function however it is based on the net tax requisition rather than gross expenses.
Submitted/approved by: Louise Fragnito, Treasurer
Prepared by: Louise Fragnito, Treasurer
Page 130 of 203
STAFF REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT
Prepared for Council:
May 10, 2016
Agenda Date:
May 17, 2016
SUBJECT: Town Hall Meetings RECOMMENDATION: This report is for information only. BACKGROUND: Council has scheduled Town Hall meetings during the month of July. This is an opportunity for residents to speak directly with District Councillor’s and share their concerns and suggestions. This information will be included in the newsletter that is mailed with the Final Tax Notices, on the advertising banner and on the website. The schedule for these meetings is as follows: DISTRICT Bedford Loughborough Portland Storrington
DATE July 12 July 18 July 19 July 21
Submitted by: Angela Maddocks Executive Assistant
TIME 7:00 pm-9:00 pm 7:00 pm-9:00 pm 7:00 pm-9:00 pm 7:00 pm-9:00 pm
PLACE Bedford Hall-1381 Westport Rd Council Chambers-4432 George St S & A Hall–4041 Colebrook Rd Storrington Centre-3910 Battersea Rd
Page 131 of 203
Timothy N. Ross 1026 Anker Lane, RR#1 Sydenham, Ontario KOH 2T0 May 6, 2016 Township of South Frontenac 4432 George Street, Box 100 Sydenham, Ontario KOH 2T0 Sent by email to: Mayor Ron Vandewal: Councillor Ross Sutherland: Councillor Mark Schjerning: Mr. Wayne Orr, CAO: Mr. Lindsay Mills, Planner:
rvanewal@southfrontenac.net 7846e1be@gmail.com markschjerning@outlook.com worr@southfrontenac.net lmills@southfrontenac.net
Dear Mayor Vandewal, Councillors Sutherland and Schjerning, Mr. Orr and Mr. Mills Proposed Amendments to Zoning By-Laws 5.10.2 and 5.11 Thank you for receiving our submissions at the meeting on April 26th. As you have recommended, we are providing further input in this letter for your consideration at the May 10th Committee ofthe Whole meeting, and generally as you and Council consider the proposed amendments.
- Summary and Conclusions The proposal has been revised and it now contains only one change: forbidding the voluntary reconstruction of structures within 30 meters of water. This one change has caused a great deal of alarm and consternation in the community. The change would inflict real and negative impacts on a lot of people. And yet it is extremely unlikely to deliver any benefit at all. If voluntarily reconstruction is forbidden, land-owners will find other ways to ensure that their structures survive. They will complete their repairs and renovations in a piece-meal fashion. The change will not result in structures being moved back 30 m. It will result in the adoption of poor building practices. We can expect these structures to look worse over time — but they won’t go away. They are too valuable to their owners — both in money terms and emotionally. As Mayor Vandewal pointed out at the meeting, it is just not realistic to expect that all of these structures will be moved back.
Page 132 of 203
Mr. Mills explained his concern about an abandoned and derelict structure, and showed us all a picture of it. I expect that there are very few examples ofthis in the Township. It does not make sense to change the rules for everyone in order to handle just a few such cases. It’s an unfair burden for the vast majority of property owners, who do not have derelict and abandoned structures. Also, we need make sure that the example shown by Mr. Mills doesn’t distract us from the serious and broad-ranging impacts the change would have. A large number of community members would suffer:
a decrease in property value
more red tape
increased costs of maintaining their properties (patching and re-patching structures back into shape is not efficient)
the uncertainty and related anxiety of not knowing how the rules will be applied in the future
the uncertainty and related anxiety of not knowing whether treasured and long-standing family traditions will be able to continue
The Planning Department is asking a lot of people to suffer a lot. Its too much to ask, particularly when the supposed benefits are at best completely unclear, and at worst nonexistent. There needs to be a balance between community interests and the interests of property owners. Mr. Mills’ proposal suggests that the continued existence ofthe cottages and other lake-side structures are somehow a threat to the community, its environment and its economy. As Council has heard loud and clear, the people who have structures within 30 m are saying: Please don’t do this. We are not a threat to the lakes. We are not a threat to the livelihood and future ofthe Township. To the contrary, we are good stewards. We have invested a lot in the community. We care about the community. We want to continue to do these same things. Its unfair. It singles us out for harsh treatment. We have, and have always had, real and natural expectations that we are allowed to continue indefinitely into the future with the current uses and structures, including our ability to fix-up and renovate the structures when needed. We are perfectly happy to comply with the requirements ofthe Building Code if we want to do major repairs or renovations. We have to do this as it is. So no changes are needed.
2
Page 133 of 203
We do not feel that it is fair to try to push us and our properties into conformity with new rules. These rules came along after our structures were built, and after we purchased our properties. The structures complied at the time they were built, and that’s all that should be necessary. As I described on April 26th, Ottawa tried to do exactly what is now being proposed for South Frontenac. The OMB and the Courts said that Ottawa’s by-law is illegal — because it infringes upon property rights that are protected under the Planning Act. Municipalities are not allowed to infringe upon those rights — by passing by-laws like these. This letter is not a legal opinion - but it does contain legal information. I believe that each and every member of Council can make their own conclusions based on that information. Our conclusion is that Mr. Mills and Mr. Fleming are proposing an aggressive and inappropriate legal path for Council to follow. We have no doubt that the OMB and the courts would find the new rules to be illegal, and throw them out. That’s exactly what they did with Ottawa’s version of exactly the same by-law. Trying to split hairs(between “use” concepts and “structure” concepts) won’t help anyone. The OMB and the Courts will see right through it. And they’ll throw out the by-law. All ofthat would cost our community a lot of money — for the legal fees and other resources that would be required for the OMB hearings and court challenges. That’s wasting the community’s money. And the individual people who are forced to go to court to protect their rights would have to pay a lot of money to do so. It has been suggested to me by a number of experts in this field that Mr. Mills and Mr. Fleming might want to force people to go to the OMB and the Courts - because most people can’t afford to do so, or are simply not willing to do so. Therefore they would have to live with the new rules, even though they are illegal. Obviously that is an underhanded and inappropriate way to deal with these things. I’m not saying that’s what Mr. Mills and Mr. Fleming are trying to do. I haven’t had an opportunity to speak with either ofthem. I’m just passing on to you what experts have consistently mentioned to me. If there is any doubt in Council’s mind as to whether people are playing games here, Council should take steps to resolve that doubt.
3
Page 134 of 203
- The Current Proposals before Council We understand from the April 26th meeting that Council no longer proposes to delete by-law 5.11. If by-law 5.11 is retained, there is only one change left to consider: the insertion ofthe new “no reconstruction” text in 5.10.2. As we understand it, the current proposal is that the words in bold text(see below) be added to 5.10.2. We also understand that the underlined text, regarding 50% ofload-bearing walls, is part ofthe updated proposal. 5.10.2 “Where a building has been erected prior to the date of passing of this Bylaw on an existing lot and said building has less than the minimum 30 metre (98.4 ft.) setback from the highwater mark of a waterbody or watercourse, then said building may be repaired, renovated or strengthened to a safe condition provided there is no enlargement ofthe gross floor area or increase in height. Reconstruction of the building is prohibited. In addition, no living space shall be added below grade to any existing building or structure. For the purposes of interpreting section 5.10.2, once more than 50% of the load-bearing walls of an existing structure within the minimum 30 metre setback have been removed,the land is deemed to be vacant and the structure may not be reconstructed within the 30 metre setback.” If this is not the current proposal, then Council should provide a written update to the community. It will be impossible for anyone to provide meaningful input where the proposal is not clear. Also, the vast majority ofthe community was not in attendance on April 26th,and would have no idea about the modifications mentioned. This would be particularly true ofthe seasonal residents who would suffer the most. Please take care to be sure that everyone knows what’s going on.
- The Envisaged Process for the Amendments Our understanding is that the Committee of the Whole proposes to consider further submissions at its May 10 meeting, and Council proposes to quickly move to a vote on June 7. What’s the rush? These are contentious proposals. They deserve a complete review and should not be rushed through. The amendments were proposed on the Planning Department’s own initiative. This is not a situation where the community has lined-up and demanded action. To the contrary, the community has lined-up to say “hold on”, “what’s this all about”,“why are we doing this”, “what impacts will it have”. In this context rushing is extremely inappropriate. Council is duty-bound to pay attention to its constituents, regardless of departmental initiatives. Please reconsider the envisaged process, and extend the timelines — to allow for the most impacted members ofthe community to have a suitable amount oftime to understand the issues, and to make their own views heard.
4
Page 135 of 203
- Its Impossible to Write a Short-Hand Rule for Deemed Vacancy or Abandonment The proposed rule prohibiting reconstruction is illegal and not enforceable. So is the related rule that deems the property to be vacant when 50% of the load-bearing walls are removed. The Housekeeping Report dated “March 10 18, 2016” states that the “Township has always interpreted that, when the walls of the building are removed,the building is considered to be gone”. The problems with that approach is that it is too simple. More factors need to be considered. Deemed vacancy and deemed abandonment are complicated topics that cannot be covered by a simple “50% of load-bearing walls” rule, or any other simple rule. Taking away someone’s right to continue to enjoy their home in the manner they prefer is a very serious matter. As a result, in all ofthe cases heard by the courts and the OMB, there is a consistent and clear message that all ofthe particular circumstances of each case must be considered. In his opinion letter, Mr. Fleming says the same thing: “The facts ofthe situation and the particular intent of the user(and evidence ofthis intent) are critical to making a determination as to whether the use may continue legally.” [Emphasis added.] The common law is the authoritative source ofthe rules for determining whether a structure has been abandoned, or whether the property can be deemed to be vacant. The common law is well suited to that purpose. It is a collection of principles derived from many individual cases, with all oftheir important and detailed facts. No judge (nor any panel of appeal courtjudges) has ever attempted to summarize the applicable law by capturing it in a simple rule.1 Nor has Queen’s Park ever attempted to do so. That’s because it is impossible to do so. No simple rule can achieve the balanced results that are provided by the common law. Taking down 50% ofthe load-bearing walls might be silly in one case, and perfectly sensible in another — depending on the other circumstances ofthe individual cases. That’s why all such simple rules are thrown out by the OMB,and by the courts: they fail to capture enough ofthe relevant considerations, and therefore fail to strike a fair balance. In throwing them out, the OMB and the courts make it clear that its not for an individual municipality to determine what should or should not be permitted in any individual case about non-conforming uses and non-complying structures. It’s up to the common law. Townships have no ability to take away things that are protected by the common law.
‘Courts routinely write simple rules in other contexts where it is possible to do so.
5
Page 136 of 203
- The City of Ottawa Example Ottawa is a very good example, due to the similarities between its by-law, and the proposed South Frontenac by-law. Here’s the text of the Ottawa version. It was found to be illegal and thrown out. I’ve underlined a few words for emphasis. (2)No person will repair or rebuild any part of any building housing or otherwise used in connection with a non-conforming use, except as set out in subsection (3). (3) When a building, structure, facility or otherwise, including septic and other servicing systems, used in connection with a non-conforming use is damaged or demolished, the non-conforming right is not extinguished if:(By-law 2008-462) (a)the damage or demolition was involuntary; (b)the building is repaired or re-occupied before the expiry oftwo years; and (c)the building continues to be used for the same purpose after it is repaired as it was used before it was damaged or demolished. (4)Non-conforming rights are extinguished: (a) where the damage, demolition or removal of a building is not involuntary; (b) where a damaged building is not repaired or re-occupied before the expiry oftwo years; or (c) where the non-conforming use, (i) is abandoned, or (ii) is changed without permission from the Committee of Adjustment. (5) This section applies, with all necessary modification, to a non-complying building. As you can see, this (illegal) by-law says that a building is deemed to be abandoned, and the rights to use it are extinguished, if its removal is voluntary. That is exactly the same as M. Mills’ current proposal to prohibit voluntary reconstruction. Ottawa’s by-law was thrown out because it tried to infringe illegally upon people’s rights to nonconforming uses and non-complying structures, Those rights are protected by the Planning Act and by the common law, and municipalities can’t take them away. Here’s what the OMB had to say: [The landowner] would not lose its rights … during a closure for a voluntary repair or even replacement ofthe building." The Ontario Divisional Court later upheld the OMB’s decision. In my submissions on April 26th,I spoke about the difficulties that the City of Ottawa faced in 2009 for two main reasons:
6
Page 137 of 203
i.
The Ottawa example shows what will happen if South Frontenac passes the proposed bylaw. Both the OMB and the courts have already thrown these rules out once. And they will do the same thing again.
ii.
The published reactions ofthe planning and legal communities in the aftermath ofthe Ottawa example speak volumes. They reveal that what is being proposed for South Frontenac is an attempt to change the law, rather than an attempt tofollow the law. Mr. Newman’s article in The Ontario Planning Journal makes that abundantly clear. I have attached a further copy of the Newman article.
The goal of seeking to change the law is clearly favoured by Mr. Newman in his article, and by Mr. Fleming in his opinion letter. They want to change the law. They may say “clarify” but they mean “change”. Because the law stands in opposition to their views. Our community should follow the law — not fly in the face of it. The principles laid down by the Ottawa case, as Mr. Newman admits,“have the force oflaw”. They represent the law of the Province of Ontario at present. And what the law says is that municipalities may not do what Ottawa tried to do.
7
Page 138 of 203
- Isn’t this just a difference of opinion? I have been dismayed by recent and repeated suggestions that some members of Council feel that Mr. Fleming’s opinion is all they need to see on the legal aspects ofthe subject. Given any difference of opinion — it is said — they will go with the views oftheir own lawyer. Surely we can all expect Council to meet a higher standard that to accept, unquestioningly, a legal opinion prepared in consultation with the Planning Department in order to advance a specific departmental agenda. Moreover, we are not convinced that people have looked closely at what the opinion letter says, and what it does not say. As Mr. Newman explains in his article, they want to manufacture a new case (i.e., a guinea pig case), and send it through the OMB and all the way up to the Ontario Divisional Court — because they hope they can demonstrate that the Ottawajudgements “do not adequately differentiate between … [concepts of use and structures]”. As Mr. Fleming puts it, “it is our opinion that there is a good legal argument that if … a structure is demolished … it no longer retains any non-complying status”. Mr. Newman thinks he sees a gap in the armour ofthe Ottawa court judgement, and Mr. Fleming thinks he sees a “good argument” with which he can try to exploit that gap. It’s hair-splitting, and a suggestion that it might, maybe, possibly work. That’s it. They say that they might, possibly be able to get in through the back door, even though the court refused them at the front door. And it all hangs on the idea that the Ottawa case isn’t relevant to a discussion about noncomplying buildings. But read sub-section 5 of Ottawa’s illegal by-law: “This section applies, with all necessary modification, to a non-complying building.” It cannot be said that the Ottawa case has nothing to do with non-complying buildings. Or that its not “adequately” clear. The words are right there. Ottawa’s entire by-law limiting reconstruction rights, including sub-section 5, was thrown out by the OMB and the Ontario Divisional Court. Any suggestion to the contrary is fanciful. Any failure to see that this cases applies to non-complying buildings (as well as non-conforming uses) could only result from choosing to ignore the plain words used by the OMB and the courts to throw it all out.
8
Page 139 of 203
- What about Section 34 of the Planning Act? Section 34 ofthe Planning Act does two things, in the same breath. It gives municipalities the power to pass by-laws, AND it puts clear limits on how far municipalities can go in exercising that power.2 The limits are in subsection(9)of Section 34, which says that new by-laws may not prevent “the existing use of any land, building or structure” so long as it continues. An extract from Section 34 is attached to this letter. The arguments of Mr. Newman and Mr. Fleming try to have their cake and eat it too. They like the part of Section 34 that gives power to municipalities to “prohibit … the erecting [or] locating … of buildings or structures”. But they don’t like the limiting part(subsection(9))that says that no new by-laws can place limits on the continued enjoyment of non-conforming uses and noncomplying structures. So they try to create a sharp distinction, and say that the limits just don’t apply to them and their “structure-specific” by-laws. But you can’t have your cake and eat it too. The OMB and the courts will see right through it. Its also important to remember that Section 34 limits, in exactly the same way, what municipalities can do under their Official Plan. The policies set out in the Official Plan (such as protecting lakes) are subject to the very same limits. The Plan can set out a policy idea or objective - but that objective can’t be implemented in any way that puts limits on a landowner’s right to continue to enjoy and maintain non-conforming structures.
Municipalities would have no ability to pass any by-laws if it wasn’t for Section 34 of the Planning Act.
9
Page 140 of 203
- So what should we do about all ofthis? First off, the proposed amendments should be scrapped. They are a departmental priority which does not reflect any of the views we have heard from the community. They promise results (i.e., moving everyone back 30m)that they can’t deliver. They are an ill-fated attempt to change the law ofthe province. They will cost both the Township and its community members real money. Moreover, there is no need to do any ofthis in the first place. The topics are fully covered by the common law and the Planning Act. And the common law and provincial laws will always trump our own by-laws in any event. There’s just no point in banging our heads against this wall. With respect to renovation, reconstruction and repairs, long-standing common law principles recognize that when buildings are repaired or renovated, this may involve the total reconstruction of an existing building because of changes over time in building codes and building materials; the need to insulate, install modern plumbing, electrical wiring, etc.; and the need to adapt the building to the normal evolution of use, including adding bedrooms for a growing family, utilityroom space for modern furnaces, and similar changes. It is our understanding that the Township and its Planning Department have resisted these common law principles, and their application by the Building Department, leading to conflict between the two. Council and the Planning Department must accept that landowners have these rights, and Building Departments are required to comply with these laws in carrying out their duties. There can be no justification, whether based on Official Plan concepts or otherwise, for interfering with landowners and with the Building Department in this manner. That is why the community reacted so strongly at the April 26 meeting against the attempt by Council to insert itself into the process.
10
Page 141 of 203
- Are there any other changes that should be considered for by-laws 5.10.2 and 5.11? As Council heard from a number of delegations on April 26, the existing versions of 5.10.2 and 5.11already go too far in infringing upon the rights ofindividual members ofthe community. As such,they are not enforceable. They would be thrown out if challenged. For example,there can be no basis for restricting gross floor area usage within a given footprint. For another example, the current versions do not allow for natural evolution of a continuing use, yet this is specifically protected at law. Speaking for the Supreme Court of Canada in the leading case in this area, Saint-Romuald (City) v. Oliver, Mr. Justice Ian Binnie put it this way: [people are] “not only entitled to continue to use the premises as they were when the new by-law was passed [they are] given some flexibility in the operation ofthat use” …. “normal evolution”[may occur with the passage of time]; “a use … may be exercised more intensively … and adapt to the demands of the market or the technology that are relevant to it” The current South Frontenac by-laws purport to prohibit things that the Supreme Court says people are allow to do. So the by-laws are too restrictive already, and would fail if challenged. It has been suggested that Council has a positive duty to amend the exiting by-laws to bring them into conformity with Ontario law. I would defer to Mr. Fleming on whether such a positive duty exists. Nevertheless, our submission is that its the right thing to do in any event. The current process should be stopped before a mistake is made. It should be redirected towards following the laws of the Province of Ontario. It should be refocused on the need for a fair balance between individual rights and community interests. It should be driven by a working group with a broader range of perspectives.
11
Page 142 of 203
- But hold on a minute, do we need to do something to protect the environment? And to protect the natural aesthetics of our lakes? No-one cares more deeply about the natural beauty and health of our lakes than the people who spend a lot oftime within 30 m ofthem. More importantly, however, no-one should assume that coercing people to re-build on a different site “further back” will necessarily have a positive environmental outcome. It could. But it might not. And it could also make matters worse. So we can’t make any assumptions here. There has been at least one case in the Township where re-building on the same site (within the 30m set-back) led to substantial environmental improvements, on erosion, water/septic standards, and fish spawning habitat, among others. That’s what happened when we renovated our cottage on Sydenham Lake approximately 16 years ago. An independent environmental consultant wrote a detailed report setting out these and other environmental benefits ofthe project. (There were no detriments.) We all heard a number of submissions to Council on April 26th about the good stewardship practices ofthe very people who would be harshly treated by the proposed by-law. Many of us have seen the highly negative effects (both environmental and aesthetic)from landowners who are forced to build 30m back, and clear-cut trees that obstruct their views ofthe lakes. On occasion this clear cutting goes right down to the edge ofthe lake. Whether allowed or not, if happens. That’s a fact. If people are forced (under the proposed by-law)to re-build 30 meters back from the water, they will have to clear some trees in order to open up a new site, and they may be expected to cut down trees in order to restore the views they have enjoyed for many years, and in some cases many generations. The net impact could well be harmful to the environment. And it would look worse, and less natural. We cannot assume that the proposed by-law would necessarily have a positive environmental benefit in any individual case. There is no evidence to support that proposition. And there is evidence that environmental improvement can result from sensible reconstruction in the same place. As for aesthetic considerations, there are probably as many opinions as there are people in the Township on what looks better or worse. So any assumptions made in this regard are dangerous, and they can’t be supported by facts. Most important of all, however, Council is not permitted to make any assumptions on these points. Council must be guided by facts. As Mr. Justice Ian Binnie said in the same Supreme Court of Canada case, [these elements] “should not be assumed but should be established by evidence if they are to be relied upon.” To be sure, we completely understand that as a general environmental principle, everything else being equal, lakes are likely to suffer less pressure when structures are set 30 m back. That’s why we support the prohibition against new buildings within 30 m. But for existing properties
12
Page 143 of 203
and existing structures, everything else is not equal. There are other considerations. We have to consider more factors to get the right balance, including the rights and reasonable expectations of the owners ofthe existing structures. So its a very different story when you look at existing structures, as opposed to brand new structures. The law accepts existing buildings and is only trying to prevent overbuilding through the creation of more non-conforming structures. There is a more technical point here as well. We should not be asking whether the continued existence of a structure in its present location is bad for the environment. Rather, we should be asking whether any proposed change to a use or structure would aggravate any negative elements. That’s why,for example,the rules say that you can’t encroachfurther towards a lake. Mr. Justice Binnie puts it this way: “The landowner overreaches itself if …. the new or modified activities can be shown to create undue additional or aggravated problems for the municipality, the local authorities, or the neighbours.” And he also reminds us that all ofthe relevant considerations must be “balanced against one another.” The proposal before Council seeks to alter the balance between individual rights and community objectives. The proposal goes too far. It wants to trample on property rights protected by the law. It’s not right to do so. And its not fair to do so. The proposal is made in pursuit of an unrealistic and unnecessary objective. And it won’t achieve what it says it wants to achieve. We would welcome any and all further opportunities to discuss the issues and our submissions with you. I can most easily be reached by email at tim.n.ross@gmail.com or by phone at 647.821.8426. Yours since
Timothy N. Ross
13
Page 144 of 203 ONTARIO PROFESSIONAL. PLANNERS INSTITUTE
ONTARIO
Waterfron Regeneration Two decades of progress Also in this issue: Waterfront Regeneration Trust • Planning for Employment • Intensification Targets • Surplus Dwelling Severances • Solastalgia • CSI Miami • OMB’s Executive Chair • Value Capture • Conservation Districts • Caution to Planners • Wrestling with Moses Ontario Institut des Professional planificateurs professionnels Planners Institute de (‘Ontario Ontario Planners: Vision • Leadership • Great Communities
Page 145 of 203
10 / DISTRICTS & PEOPLE Writing in 1958, American complying buildings or structures. which that use is established were author Frederick Buechner com- While the workshop largely voluntarily removed. Following pared the world to a great spider focused on those communities the decision of the Board, the web: “If you touch it anywhere, with an abundance of waterfront City of Ottawa sought leave to you set the whole thing trembling lands, it should be noted that all appeal the matter to the … As we move around this world municipalities in Ontario may be Divisional Court [see Ottawa Grant Moore (City) v. TDL Group Corp., 2009 and as we act with kindness, per- affected by the legal precedent haps, or with indifference, or with created by the decision of the Carswell Ont 7168 (Ont. Div. ast fall, the School of Urban Divisional Court. A brief summa- Ct.)]. While the OMB is recoghostility toward the people we and Regional Planning at nized as a quasi-judicial body that meet, we too are setting the great ry of both proceedings follows. Queen’s University suffered the In 2008, the City of Ottawa does not set legal precedent, the spider web a-tremble . Our lives loss of Dr. Sue Hendler. A tenDivisional Court can render . an are linked. No man is an island.” enacted Comprehensive Zoning ured associate professor at the ung —Act — By-law 2008.250 (CZBL), which interpretation of the –lan’ 7 So what does this mean? As School since 1993, Dr. Hendler included zone provisions that pur- which l as the wei ht of law. The finite persons, we are limited in succumbed to metastatic breast OUnorthat the ported to limit the repair, recontime, space, intelligence, and cancer at the age of 49. struction or use of buildings that decision of the Board was reasonI did not know Sue Hendler. I insight. But clearly our actions able; “reasonwere non-concan change the world; we just never had the opportunity to ableness” being ornrirZrn may not realize it at the time. So meet her, and never heard her the standard of re7ins =eh lecture because my student days at perhaps this means we should review for the use, and non• g Queen’s predated her arrival by a conduct our lives as though all Board’s decicomp yiwin that we do, from the extra effort number of years. But I surely sions. of particuprofessional lives down to terms our her in special: at someone missed Accordingly, er ormance the smallest acts of kindness or memorial service, speaker after the City of encouragement, might produce a standards. These E speaker attested to the ways in Ottawa’s zone provisions which she had affected their lives. ripple effect through our world. appeal was were set out Those who knew her well refer This, I believe is the message of dismissed. under Section 3 to the quote she kept taped to the Dr. Hendler’s quote. As one City’s of the door of her office: “If anyone is reads through Grant Moore is a graduate of the CZBL. Arguing going to change the world, it’s Arcane regulations have the case mateSchool of Urban and Regional that Section 3 of going to be you.” I’ve pondered practical impact rials presented this CZBL University. Queen’s this off and on in recent months. Planning at both the by beyond extended Mississauga lives in He stumainly to here appeal Is the Board and Divisional Court, it those powers granted to municiand can be reached at dents, those with full careers palities under Section 34(9)(a) of becomes apparent that it is priwhizkidd66@bell.net ahead of them and possessing the marily the use of property that is Planning Act, TDL Group the youth? idealism of and energy Corporation appealed the passing being protected under section Older persons more buffeted by 34(9)(a) of the Planning Act. of this CZBL to the Ontario the vagaries of the world surely There is little reference in the Board [see TDL Group Municipal their increfor forgiveness require case law or even within the Act Corp. v. Ottawa (City), 2009 dulity: how can an individual itself, which speaks to the “grandCarswell Ont 7336 (O.M.B.)]. change the world when it seems of fathering” of a non-complying thorough review Based upon a effect so daunting a task to building or structure. If the decithe case law presented by both change in just one small comer of Greg Newman parties, the Board found that on sion of the Divisional Court is it? a interpreted as being applicable to nona clear reading of section 3 “grandfathering” of e Cynicism about “changing the mplying buildings or struc- of the Act that suc a munici al the continued use of a non-comworld” may be understandable, plying building or structure, then but consider a different approach. tures: does section 34(9)(a) of the intent an e ect o a zoning Planning Act apply? The Township law is not permitted by the Act." the ability to achieve improved The developing field of science, The Board further provided that municipal efficiencies may be of Rideau Lakes hosted a workChaos Theory, suggests that cerundermined. A common waterthe use of buildings may see shop in February to share best tain macroscopic systems, for front planning dilemma is offered. “renewal and change and that practices in waterfront planning example, weather systems or insect populations, are extraordi- and development. The objective “the Appellant would not lose its If a cottage were situated 20 feet right to its legal non-conforming from a neighbouring body of narily sensitive to the tiniest per- was to generate discussion on water; and the required setback implications of a recent OMB and use during a closure for a volunturbations. A butterfly fluttering subsequent Divisional Court rul- tary repair or even replacement of were 100 feet, when that cottage on a branch in West Africa may was to be replaced with a perma2g’ likely to affect the way munic- the building.” Ultimately, the set in motion forces that eventually results in a hurricane over the ipalities in Ontario, through their Board found that a legal non-con- nent home most municipal planners would seek to have the new Atlantic Ocean. Yet it is impossi- zoning by-laws, control legal non- forming use could be re-estabbuilt to comply with the building within structure even if the nonlished and legal conforming uses outcome. such an predict ble to
Eastern
No Deed Too Small
L
Questions raised about non-complying buildings
I
THE ONTARIO PLANNING JOURNAL
10
Page 146 of 203 need to distinguish between a current zoning standard. The “use” (i.e. residential) as protected non-conforming use and a noncomplying building or structure under section 34(.9)(a) of the and that the Divisional Court Planning Act would not be compromised; rather, it would be the decision did not adequately differstructure itself that is affected by entiate between the two. The the planner’s attempt to achieve a only way to validate this position, water setback that offers improved however, would be to see an environmental and aesthetic out- application move beyond the OMB to the Divisional Co= comes. It is with an evolving underlying framework of planning wilsmaissIslistinction could be made. To avoid the costs associcontrols that we as professionals ated with seeing the matter taken are able to achieve tangible back to the OMB and Divisional change within an existing built Court, planners may decide that community. this is a matter of particular Taking into account the deciimportance warranting dialogue sion of the Divisional Court, municipalities are now faced with with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing(MMAH). the challenge of re-evaluating Perhaps stemming from an inhow their regulatory controls affect the use and development of depth discussion with the Ministry, changes could be incorLand, buildings, and structures which do not conform to the zon- porated into the Planning Act, ing standards of the day. In future, thereby distinguishing between the continuance of a legal nonmunicipalities ma choose to complying use versus the continecision of the e acct t Divisional Court and amend their ued use of a non-conforming building or structure. Making the z—OliTfilFraraccordingly. distinction could enable municiAlternatively, a municipality, or pal planners to implement, group of municipalities, could through the findings of applied take the position that there is a
research, science, and professional experience, land use controls that reflect evolving social, environmental, and economic considerations.
Secretariat of the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure has produced urban form case studies of nine recently completed projects from across North America. Intended to be inspirational Greg Newman is Senior Planner rather than prescriptive, the case studies are a tool for understandat the Township of Rideau Lakes. He can be reached at ing the Growth Plan’s policies and griewman@twprideaulakes.on.ca how they can be successfully executed on the ground. The case studies can also be used to spark Oak Ridges broader discussion on development and urban form issues, with an emphasis on the importance and benefits of compact development. Selected from over 50 projects around the world, they:
Growth Plan Policy on the Ground: Urban Form Case Studies
• Best represent a range of land uses and designations addressed in the Growth Plan and diverse development scales that may be e Growth Plan for the Greater appropriate across the Greater Golden Horseshoe released in Golden Horseshoe 2006 envisions vibrant, complete, • Demonstrate infill and intensicompact, walkable, transit-supfication, as many are brownportive communities for the field and greyfield redevelopregion. To help illustrate what ments these communities might look • Illustrate density targets establike, the Ontario Growth
Elana Horowitz
Th
HARDY STEVENSON strategic planning organizational effectiveness
• • • •
governance facilitation services carolyn kearns michael rowland susan wright www.randolph.on.ca
I I I king street east,3rd fl Toronto, ontario 115C I G6 ti 4 I 6 368-7402 consull(O_lr;.Indolph.on.ca
FoTenn
AND ASSOCIATFS
PLANNING 8, URBAN DESIGN OTTAWA • KINGSTON
Socio-economic Impact Assessment Land-use and Environmental Planning Public Consultation and Facilitation Project Management
land use planning and development
Tel:(416) 944-8444 Fax: 944-0900 Toll free: 1-877-267-7794 Website: www.hardystevenson.com E-mail: 1-15A@hardystevenson.com 364 Davenport Road,Toronto, Ontario M5R 1K6
sustainable community planning urban design strategic site evaluation
LEA Consulting Ltcl. Consulting Engineers & Planners Tel: 905-470-0015 Fax; 905-470-0030
facilifation and public engagement
625 Cochrane Drive, Suite 900 Markham, Ontario, L3R 9R9 CANADA www.LEA.ea
Providing engineering, planning and project management services for:
Ottawa Office: 613-730-5709 Kingston Office:
1, Transportation & Transit Planning
f. Transportation Systems (ITS)
Traffic Engineering & Signals
- Construction Administration 1 Municipal & Development Engineering
Parking & Servicing
- Roads & Highways 1 Bridges & Structures
613-542-5454
dr
Vol. 25, No. 2, 2010
Page 147 of 203
PLANNING ACT(ONTARIO) LAND USE CONTROLS AND RELATED ADMINISTRATION Zoning by-laws 34. (1) Zoning by-laws may be passed by the councils of local municipalities: 1. For prohibiting the use ofland,for or except for such purposes as may be set out in the by-law… For prohibiting the erecting, locating or using of buildings or structures for or 2. except for such purposes as may be set out in the by-law…
For prohibiting any use of land and the erecting, locating or using of any class or 3.2 classes of buildings or structures within any defined area or areas,
ii.
that is a significant corridor or shoreline of a lake, river or stream, or
For regulating the type of construction and the height, bulk, location, size, floor area, spacing, character and use of buildings or structures to be erected or located within the municipality … and the minimum frontage and depth of the parcel of land and the proportion of the area thereof that any building or structure may occupy.
For regulating the minimum elevation of doors, windows or other openings …
Excepted lands and buildings (9) No by-law passed under this section applies, (a) to prevent the use of any land, building or structure for any purpose prohibited by the by-law if such land, building or structure was lawfully used for such purpose on the day ofthe passing of the by-law, so long as it continues to be used for that purpose; or (b) to prevent the erection or use for a purpose prohibited by the by-law ofany building or structure for which a permit has been issued …., so long as the building or structure when erected is used and continues to be used for the purpose for which it was erected
Page 148 of 203
May 7, 2016
Municipal Council of the Township of South Frontenac 4432 George St. Sydenham, Ontario K0H 2T0
RE: Housekeeping By-Law to Amend By-Law Number 2003-75: Sections 5.10.2 and 5.11 Dear Council:
We are seasonal property owners on the north branch of Buck Lake as recent as July 2013. This proposed by-law amendment is very disconcerting and we are strongly opposed to it being passed at council. We echo those who have already voiced their concerns of not supporting these amendments. The changes directly affect our property as our lot size, location and terrain make it impossible to rebuild according to the 30-metre setback.
As property owners/taxpayers, one would think we would have the right to be properly notified by SFT regarding such amendments that have a “negative” impact on our waterfront property. The March 2016 interim tax notice would have been an excellent means of communicating this proposed by-law amendment to allow public input from all concerned. But how ironic, both March 2015 & June 2015 interim tax notices provided us with a 2-pg news bulletin that clearly provides the names, phone numbers and email addresses of all council members and in black bold letters it indicates, Council members are here to help…Contact us… Therefore, on behalf of waterfront property owners/taxpayers of South Frontenac Township who do not support these changes, this is our call for help to council members to reject the proposed by-law amendments to sections 5.10.2 and 5.11 of By-Law Number 2003-75. Regards,
Marg & Greg Allen 1134 Sawmill Lane e-copy: Mayor Ron Vandewal Councillors SFT CAO/ Wayne Orr SFT Planner, Lindsay Mills
Page 149 of 203
h
Monday, May 9Ti\ 201^ Township of South Frontenac
4432 O^o^g^ Sxr^et Syrie^ham, Ontario KOH 2TO D^rCte^dS
.AT
As seasonal property owne-s, we ar^ v^?y conc^Tned afcc^t i^e ^roposeef &y-la^F (Hou^k^ping By law to Am^d By-law Numteif 2C03-7S^ SecTjam 5.10.2 ^d
5.31), as ^t appRes to our cottiagj^ nefir Qavsdson’s S^ch on lo^gbboroygh Late (Sa^th ShomJ.
The proposed houseteeplng amendmem wavld eiimnat® she grandfstherhg protection, which has been on the property since it wa^ buiEf in s^e X950E, ctose to the &h&re, as the io^ ^re only stout 60 f^m dwpWe would fe to r&Cjuest t^at ov^- cstfrago propertv and Dther^ like it, cantino^ tt?
be graiuSfathered, ^$ it b not yiractjcsl to conform so the proposed by bw. in fecT, as th® rfepth of ovr is! is snwfer than tg^e selback reqyired by the proposed bylaw change^ any rebuilding wou^ w impossible, resulting ^ tb^ removaS of th^ automatic rigMto rebuiSdi
Aiso, there ans many cottages ^^d permar^nt d’lweilings with :t?^ ^xart same probtem on the west basin of the lake as w^li
We would aiw liEce to express our mriosms fDr a% frhc? S^^SOTOE takeside ©wfters
who have not &e<^ ade aware of thfe propQsed i»y-1aw c^ang^ as tfi^y would ROt subscribe to our itei newspdper or receEve our comsnunjiy Rewspapers, in dosing, we strongly oppose th@ recommendations of th^ PiwTg Dep^nmem <ind the proposed by-^ as it ^ not m th^ b^st interest of the lakesitte property owners, ^ r( ^Ef^ntly reduces ^e^ rrg^ts as cottages owncr^ ^-4 deva!u<i^
thd?” prcpeny,
Yours sincerejy, r
^
^t"
<[
_t>.
Ujc^JS^,^..^^ rr-s
c-^ ri
Q^Q
:^®‘A?<^. .*
W^?ter & Monies St-P^rrt
Page 150 of 203
From: Jan Cunningham [mailto:cunningham-rae@xplornet.com] Sent: May-08-16 4:21 PM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net; Ron Vandewal rvandewal@southfrontenac.net; patbarr1@aol.com; councillorrevill@gmail.com; markschjerning@outlook.com; elbe@web.ca; john.mcdougall@xplornet.ca; robinsonw@bell.net; councillornroberts@gmail.com; rmscouncilor@gmail.com Subject: Fw: Changes to By-Law 2003-75
Subject: Changes to By-Law 2003-75 To South Frontenac Council and Wayne Orr: We object to the proposed changes as our property rights will be removed. For the past 25 years we’ve worked hard to build up our property value knowing we could rebuild our home on the original footprint. That automatic right to rebuild on the footprint is being taken away from us through the proposed By-Law changes and our property value will decrease substantially. Will our property taxes also decrease? Council is proposing changes which will result in expropriation without compensation. All property owners impacted by this removal of the “Grandfathered clause” will suffer severe financial hardship. The verbal assurances uttered at the April 26th meeting of the Committee of the Whole are worthless as the paper they are written on. The Committee of Adjustment members are not required to have any knowledge of the Planning Act or even the Ontario Building Code and can not be relied upon to issue minor variances in accordance with either Act or Code. The example portrayed by Mr. Mills at the April 26th meeting would fall under the scope of the Ontario Building Code and the Chief Building Inspector’s office, not the Planning Act. The legal opinion supplied by Cunningham, Swan is not supported by other lawyers we have spoken with; no doubt these changes, if passed, will lead to future legal challenges and expenses paid for by the taxpayers of South Frontenac. These proposed changes are in direct conflict with the Township’s own Long Term Plan wherein the 30 metre set back refers to vacant land existing of the day of adoption of Township’s plan. We strongly urge Council to leave the wording of Section 5 as it currently stands and deal with the very few issues on a case by case basis. Yours truly, Jan Cunningham-Rae Derek Rae
Page 151 of 203
From: Tim Upton [mailto:tim.upton@gmail.com] Sent: May-07-16 1:14 PM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Subject: Amendments to section 10 Mr. Orr, I am a seasonal resident of Devil Lake and have been made aware of some proposed changes the building code that could be more restrictive. Having not had an opportunity to properly study the impact of these proposed changes, I would urge you to not approve them until they can be better understood and their implications appreciated. Thank you for your help. Tim Upton Devil Lake
Page 152 of 203
From: Jill Baker [mailto:JillBaker@sl.on.ca] Sent: May-09-16 8:55 AM To: Lindsay Mills lmills@southfrontenac.net; Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Subject: Proposed by-Iaw changes I live in South Frontenac, and own a cottage on west Devil Lake. I would like to express my concern and opposition to your proposal to change sections 5.10.2 and 5.11 of the zoning by-law. It will be deleterious for the properties, for the lakes and for the county if these changes are brought through, as they will discourage/prevent maintenance of currently grandfathered structures. It will also devalue the property, and is patently unfair to current property owners who have put much time and money into responsible maintenance. I request that you do the responsible thing and continue to protect and support the grandfathered rights of your taxpayers. Jill Baker Hartington On and West Devil Lake On
Page 153 of 203 To: South Frontenac Council
File: 16KLM11
May 7, 2016
From: Kaye L. MacInnes Property Owner on Birch Lake, Bedford District, 8594 Canoe Lake Road
RE: COMMENTS ON PROPOSED “HOUSEKEEPING” AMENDMENTS REGARDING REBUILDING IN POST 2005 “30 M SETBACK” FROM A “HIGHWATER MARK”
- Our property on Birch Lake was legal when my parents purchased it in 1945 and when I took it over in
- We are strong supporters of minimizing environmental disturbance. We are descendants of Hannah Kemp, one of the local Kemp families of Kemp Road (see Chapter 4 of Their Enduring Spirit, the History of Frontenac Provincial Park 1783-1990 by Barber and Fuchs, 1997) and aware of many changes here since 1941.
- Frontenac County just commemorated 150 years of history. In historical perspective, it might seem more appropriate to term the 2005 “30 m setback” as “currently required” rather than “normally required” unless “normal” refers to variations in the actual distance required. We would respectfully prefer calling older properties as “legal, pre-2005 heritage properties”.
- It is important to note that the so called “30 m setback” is highly dependent on the “designated” position of the highwater mark and on the topography of your location. The required setback would likely be more that 30 m unless one had more or less level terrain.
- Any future setback would probably not be based on the high watermark of 1945 or of 1984. Our property is subject to flooding rights (Indenture No. H5280) since 1942 in favor of the Gananoque Light and Water Supply Company giving the company the right to maintain the waters of Birch and Kingsford Lakes in, on and over several lots including Lot 2 Con 6 up to a level of 136.12 m (446.6 ft). Hence, we have no control over the seasonally variable and ever increasing water levels which affect the location of the highwater mark on our predominantly narrow, irregular and ruggedly ridged property. As property owners we have never been notified by the Province of Indenture status or of levels or changes in allowed water levels. In the meantime we have noted increasing erosion of shoreline slopes in the cabin area facing the main lake and overall flooding of the shoreline and especially of the low area north of the cabin locations. Shoreline trees are being killed in the low flooded areas and undercut trees were falling into the main lake waterfront. One of our Eastern boundary survey iron bars has been underwater for several decades. When conditions were favorable for property access and the positioning of satellite stations on the lake ice in February 2013, I hired a surveyor to geo-reference the property boundaries and determine the current land area and the lake water level (Plan 13R20761). In February 2013 the lake level was 135.83 m (445.6 ft), very near the maximum allowed level of the original Indenture, and our property land area was reduced from 8.0 acres to 7.17 acres. Figure 1a shows a mid-70s shoreline in the cottage area facing the main expanse of Birch Lake. In Figure 1b, the wooden stake marks the underwater July 2013 position of one of our survey iron bars).
- If rebuilding on the current location was, or is, to be prevented or made unduly complicated and expensive, each affected property owner should be provided with a document from the Township which could be submitted to MPAC or others verifying these restrictive conditions. This would assist property owners in attempting to ensure that their current and future MPAC assessments do not over-value the property.
- My insurance covers damage from falling objects etc. but only fully if the structure is rebuilt as, and where, it was before being damaged. I have been at the cabin when a microburst severed the top of a tall white pine and dropped it on the slope beside the cabin. It could have easily crushed the entire small cabin. If climate change brings more frequent extreme weather, damage from falling trees may be more common. In summary: We are opposed to any changes that would hinder repairing or rebuilding, or increase the costs of repairing or rebuilding, our existing small main cabin (633 sq ft) or smaller sleeping cabin on their existing foot prints whether by fire or tempest or falling tree(s) destroying one to all 4 walls of the small cabins. Thank you for your consideration, Kaye L. MacInnes macinnes@kingston.net, 613-374-2847 (home: 1052 Cedarwoods Drive, Site B, Box 21, Verona, ON K0H 2W0)
Attached: Figure 1
Page 154 of 203
Page 155 of 203
From: Bruce Myers [mailto:myersb@sympatico.ca] Sent: May-09-16 2:23 PM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net; Ron Vandewal rvandewal@southfrontenac.net; pattbarr1@aol.com; councillorrevill@gmail.com Cc: colleenmarionflood@gmail.com Subject: Proposed Amendments to By-Law 2003-75; Legal Non-Complying Structures (Proposed Amendments) Importance: High I am an owner of property on Devil Lake in South Frontenac Township including a legal complying structure beyond the 30 metre set-back. The purpose of this e-mail is to place in the public record my objection to the proposed (and, in my oinion, dishonestly labelled as “housekeeping”) Proposed Amendments to By-Law 2003-75; Legal NonComplying Structures (Proposed Amendments). I wish my views to be made known to Council members and others participating in the Council Committee meeting scheduled for May 10, 2016. I have reviewed all those documented opinions sent to Council that were disclosed on the Township website as of May 8, 2016. There is one such documented submission with which I agree in both its substance and its every detail, namely the submission dated May 2, 2016 from Professor Colleen M. Flood, whom I do not know and who is an owner of a property on Knowlton Lake which includes, unlike my property on Devil Lake, a legal non-complying structure. Accordingly, it is my judgement that the Township’s proposed amendments do not conform to the Township’s own Plan and are therefore ultra vires its own powers and the Planning Act. In my opinion there is only one legal and democratically acceptable method for the Township to eliminate, over any given period of time, any or every structure located within a 30 metre set-back from bodies of water, namely through a land purchase negotiation. In such a scenario, all Township taxpayers would have a vested financial stake and risk, and therefore all of us (i.e. those with and those without legal noncomplying structures) are affected owners and all and each of us are owed a robust level of procedural fairness. I would define such a robust level to be one that is substantively more comprehensive, disclosing and paced than the insufficient disclosure and consultation accorded to this process so far. If the Township Council wishes to propose action(s) that would lead over time to the elimination of all structures within a 30 metre set-back throughout the township, the starting point should be to develop and table with the electors the core cost and benefits data, including, inter alia, precisely the current number and assessed value of such properties and structures within the township and reasonable cost scenarios of potential negotiated buy-outs by the Township. Respectfully, Bruce Myers
Page 156 of 203
From: B. Grant [mailto:bandrgrant1@gmail.com] Sent: May-09-16 8:57 PM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net; Ron Vandewal rvandewal@southfrontenac.net; Angela Maddocks amaddocks@southfrontenac.net Subject: Proposed Zoning By-Law Changes Barry and Rene Grant – West Devil Lake. It has just come to our attention through a member of our cottage association – West Devil Lake Cottage Association – of the Proposed Zoning By-law changes by Lindsay Mills, Planner – in particular proposed changes to Sections 5.10.2 and 5.11 dealing with legal non-complying structures. We explicitly disagree with these amendments as a property owner. The By-law as it stands now protects the owners’ rights to stay within an existing footprint on a dwelling that was erected back in the 1960s. We purchased this property and paid a premium for it due to the dwelling location. Buildings should be allowed to be rebuilt within the existing footprint as long as they maintain the gross floor area. Changes to our existing footprint location on our land would involve huge costs to us (architectural study) and an impact to the environment – cutting down trees. We are unable to attend the council meeting on May 10, 2016, and would request notice of the outcome of the meeting and any challenges to our rights as a property owner. We are concerned that property owners did not receive public notice of this proposed amendment that could affect us all financially and legally. Barry and Rene Grant
Page 157 of 203
To Wayne Orr, Cterk and Councillors/
11
I am writing regarding the proposed amendments to sections 5.10.2 and 5.11 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law. While I understand and appreciate the goal of protecting the water quality of the lakes, feel the proposed amendments, and specifically the requirement that buildings destroyed by fire be rebuilt at a minimum distance of 30 meters from the shore/ are unfeasible for me given the size of my property.
My home is located on the north shore ofSydenham Lake (Lot 6 Concession 5). My house has been in its current location for at least 75 years, and I have lived there, continuously maintaining it, since 1968. The house is approximately 7 meters from the shore, with an attached deck extending to the shore. Where live the shoreline is a vertical cliff so the edge of the deck is about 7 meters above the water level. My property is only 45 meters deep. It is bordered on one side by the lake/ and on the other side by the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority trail (the old rail line) which also imposes a minimum distance from the right-of-way for any new building. Considering both the right-of-way and the proposed amendment, I would have less than 10 meters remaining in which to rebuild. My house, which is
approximately 15 meters by 15 meters, could not be rebuilt within the remaining space. The possibility of having to build a smaller house well back from its current location will significantly impact the resale value of the property.
I understand that there is a provision for applying for an exception/ but the fact that an application would be required means that an exception is not guaranteed. That uncertainty, combined with the
associated cost of making the appeal/ is worrisome to me. I also own another property on Lot 6 Concession 6, and there is a building on that property that is part boathouse. If that building were also subject to the proposed amendment/ and could not be replaced on its current site, that property would not have a boathouse, and would also decrease its property value. While I do not anticipate having a fire, the added uncertainty which would be introduced by these amendments is a significant concern. hope that you will reconsider the proposed amendments.
Sincerely/ ^-^
-JL^^J
oan (rwin
(613) 376-3144
Page 158 of 203
—–Original Message—-From: harbisonburtsue@gmail.com [mailto:harbisonburtsue@gmail.com] Sent: May-10-16 4:19 PM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Subject: “Housekeeping” Amendments Dear Mr. Orr; I have just learned of the consideration being given to making changes in the 30 meter setback bylaws. I have serious objections to these changes. I am the president of the West Devil Lake Property Owners Group, eighty property owners on the west end of Devil Lake. Our community was developed in the late fifties and sixties and cottages were designed, sited and built adhering to all building regulations in force at the time. If the bylaws are changed and, God forbid, one of our members should lose their cottage due to forces beyond their control, the proposed by-laws might prohibit them from ever rebuilding, WDLPOG (the acronym for our group) has been active stewards of Devil Lake for many, many years. We test our waters monthly and are proud to say the province has continuously rated West Devil Lake in the highest category of cleanliness. We council our new owners on good lake stewardship habits and keep a vigilant eye out for anyone “breaking the rules”. In addition, we have contributed to South Frontenac Township through our taxes while getting relatively little in return. As seasonal owners, we do not look to the township for our children’s education, our senior citizens’ assistance or other benefits regularly afforded full-time residents of the Township. Mostly, we get our trash and recycling picked up once a week and even then we have had to pay at least partially for our own bins. While we support the township’s efforts to be good caretakers of our lakes and streams, we are opposed to new by-laws that take away our rights as property owners. Please be very careful as you deliberate. Sincerely yours, G. Burton Harbison President, West Devil Lake Property Owners Group E-mail: wdlpog@gmail.com Cottage Address: 45 Shoal Lane, RR2, Westport, ON, K0G 1X0 Cottage Phone: 6134548 Residence: 28 Fir Tree Lane, Jamesville, NY 13078 Home Phone: 315-446-3484
Page 159 of 203
From: Doug [mailto:acton.doug@gmail.com] Sent: May-10-16 5:23 PM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net; councillorrevill@gmail.com; patbarr1@aol.com Subject: Opposed proposed bylaw amendment regarding 20 metre setback For the upcoming council meeting, I am expressing my concerns and opposition to some of the proposed changes to section 5.10.2 Existing Buildings within 30 metres of a Waterbody and Section 5.11 Replacement of Buildings or Structures. Myself and many friends on Devil Lake have existing buildings within the 30 metre restriction. We believe the proposed changes would make it considerably more difficult to maintain and replace buildings in the event of a disaster such as a fire. There are enough bylaws and recommended procedures on the books for council to be able to adequately deal with deteriorating properties which owners may want to upgrade or rebuild from the ground up. I am concerned it could devalue property values and is not fair to current waterfront property owners. In my opinion it is not change that will stand up to legal challenge and it does not seem like reasonable governance that should be undertaken. Enough of these incremental changes that attempts to erode property owner rights for little if any gain. I do not believe that these changes are in the best interests of South Frontenac residents and urge council to oppose the suggested changes. Best Regards, Doug Acton
Page 160 of 203 Angela Maddocks From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:
Wayne Orr May-11-16 2:47 PM Angela Maddocks Lindsay Mills May 17 FW: Stay in touch 30 ft. setback47f8285f-744e-4179-9a5a-d36f7df11eb6.docx
Letter and email for agenda. Thanks
Wayne Orr Chief Administrative Officer Township of South Frontenac Box 100, Sydenham ON K0H 2T0 613-376-3027 Ext 2225 613-376-6657 (Fax)
—–Original Message—-From: noreply@esolutionsgroup.ca [mailto:noreply@esolutionsgroup.ca] On Behalf Of johnst.aubin60@gmail.com Sent: May-11-16 11:59 AM To: Wayne Orr worr@southfrontenac.net Subject: Stay in touch Would the council consider contacting the seasonal and permanent residence on these types of major decisions through a group email and snail mail for those few who do not have email. ————————————Origin: http://www.southfrontenac.net/en/contacts/search.aspx?s=FyPlUsu3T0gFmsK0M722E7QtweQuAleQuAl ————————————This email was sent to you by john st aubinjohnst.aubin60@gmail.com through http://www.southfrontenac.net/.
1
Page 161 of 203
Friday, May 6, 2016
John St. Aubin Cindy Benoit 60B Stinson Lane Tichborne, Ontario K0H 2V0 Canada Ph. 1-375-6582 johnst.aubin60@gmail.com
To: Wayne Orr CAO All Members of Council Planning Staff We are permanent residents on Crow Lake. My concerns are in regard to the proposed bylaw changes 5.10.2 and 5.11 re: 30meter setback controversy. It is my understanding the origin of the 30-meter setback was implemented to protect the natural and cultural heritage characteristics and water quality of our lakes and rivers. Given this is its basis, why not send out your septic and grey water inspectors to check all legal non-conforming properties for compliance. This will improve the shoreline water quality a lot more than not allowing us to re-build a deteriorated structure. In my case the existing lot precludes the reasonable possibility of achieving the 30-meter setback. So an act of god (fallen tree or even a carpenter ant infestation) would under the new by-law deem my property to be vacant and possibly worthless. In conclusion if this by-law passes, there will most likely be an increase in illegal and unsafe construction practices. I formally request the council reject these two changes.
Reconstruction of the building is prohibited.
Definition of when a building ceases to exist. I have 2 questions I would like answered.
Does the township know the locations of all legal non-conforming properties?
Does the council plan include a property standards by-law?
Yours truly, John St. Aubin, Cindy Benoit
Page 162 of 203
Thursday, May 12, 2016
John St. Aubin Cindy Benoit 60B Stinson Lane Tichborne, Ontario K0H 2V0 Canada Ph. 1-375-6582 johnst.aubin60@gmail.com
To: Wayne Orr CAO All Members of Council Planning Staff Here is my story. In 2003 we bought (legal non-conforming property) older cottage on Crow Lake. We fixed the place up. Put in a new septic system. There was no septic only a pipe stuck in the ground. Built a 2-car garage and a 96 sq. ft. shed. Build a permanent dock on the water. One day a couple of young fellows arrived to inspect out septic tank. I asked them how they even knew I had one and they replied, “Well you had a permit”. One other day a nice lady from the tax department arrived to look at the buildings. I asked her why are you even here and she replied, “Well you had a permit. Are those new windows can I come inside to look around; did you get a permit to build that shed? Your place looks nice and we believe your taxes are too low because you improved the property”. Well she fixed that problem quick in fact the next tax bill was retroactive back to when I applied for my building permit. And now you want to change the rules after I improved my property? When it came time to build the dock my plan was to remove a concrete buttress and old boathouse foundation at the shoreline. I applied for the proper permits. South Frontenac had no interest what I did to the shoreline; I was not building anything so I did not need their permit. Dept. of fisheries passed on their permit too. I finally got a permit from the Rideau Valley Conservation, and they informed me I could just leave all the concrete and build over it that they didn’t care. Does this sound like protecting the lakes and rivers to you? I did remove the concrete thus restoring the natural shoreline. I am very protective of the lake, trees and runoff. Now a lot of wildlife hangs out at our place.
Yours truly, John St. Aubin, Cindy Benoit
Page 163 of 203
South Frontenac Council, May10,2016
When the 4 councils that make up South Frontenac came together to put our Amalgamated Zoning bylaw together we looked at those conditions that had made each of our communities great places to live .Because of all the lakefront properties in the four districts it was felt that proper and consistent use had to be made of the existing land that was developed as well as make sure our lakes would survive and thrive with added pressure of new development . Many lakes had existing development that was truly of the cottage variety being small, with outhouses and summer only use .The pressure to change those properties especially those locations closer to larger centers became increasingly stronger. People who make substantial investments of time and money in their property are very concerned that their investments are going to be long lasting and beneficial to all not just themselves because if they do something to hurt the lake it affects all. We being on our lake for 70 plus years have seen the changes man decisions can make on a lakes health. When the new zoning bylaw was put in it acknowledged that people had built within the 30 M setback but it also acknowledged that while this was not necessarily the best practice it existed and current property owners should not be penalized if something unforseen were to happen such as fire ,Act Of God etc. It was carefully set out that any changes to make a building bigger at or closer to the waterfront would not be tolerated ,it allowed the building to be rebuilt on the same footprint that existed. I would expect if a property owner could shift a building back a bit from the water on a rebuild they would. In any case the health unit would be involved for comments on the bldg. permit or continance of use . In our case the well is directly north of the building and the septic tank and pump chamber are also just north of the structure .The area further north and away from the lake has a full approved septic bed . These improvements were all done to keep the water quality in the lake safe .The removal of the old steel septic tank and small bed and the addition of a new approved tank and bed were put in to make sure no detrimental effect was put on the lake. We truly do have a very vested interest in seeing the lake water quality stay good .To say that a person should have to come to council after a fire or major occurrence at their residence and basically beg to be allowed to rebuild what they had is a true injustice and a hardship if nothing else ,emotionally it is very devastating .
Page 164 of 203
It was stated by one councillor that they felt the lake associations would inform their members of the “Housekeeping “ changes. Well , if you want to use that venue then you had better make sure that you know what associations there are. Many lakes do not even have an active association including ours and even if they did they do not normally speak to their members until the spring when they start to come back to the lake . It truly is almost I implore you to please leave sec 5.11 alone in the zoning bylaw. criminal that a municipal planner could try to bury such an important change in peoples rights .Rights that were put in place to recognize those who have already developed and use their land respectfully and have paid taxes far above what non waterfront lots pay. People that do know our lakes are sensitive and want to keep them clear and clean. Thankfully some informed and concerned councillors have spoken up and brought this important subject to light before any damage was done and our right s were diminished . Don Smith
Page 165 of 203
Re: Re input on zoning bylaw changes Mayor and council, I would like to thank you for the opportunity address council tonight. Our names are Barbara and Jeff Canton, we are waterfront residents of Loughborough Lake. Since we moved in, there have been 3 fires within 2 Km of our home that resulted in a home or cottage being destroyed. 2 of these fires were waterfront properties. We attended the council meeting in April regarding the zoning bylaw changes. We were specifically interested in the reason for the removal of section 5.11. At that meeting, no one on council voiced any objection to the concept that buildings destroyed by fire or flood etc. would be re-approved for reconstruction in their current location. The Mayor even appeared to offer assurances that in such circumstances home owners would be able to rebuild where the structures originally were. Unfortunately, by removing section 5.11, any assurances cannot be taken for granted. The planning department has not provided a reasonable and logical explanation that justifies the removal of section 5.11.The stated goal for 5.11 removal was because and I quote “it has been the subject of some controversy because many property-owners will argue that they should be allowed to reconstruct because their structure has deteriorated to the point where it is unsafe and unusable. However, this state of dis-repair is often the result of neglect where the building has been neglected” Unquote The town planner used a photo of a derelict property to illustrate the point. We wonder how familiar the town planner is with by-law 2007-13 - “Safe Properties” by-law. The structure used in the photo appeared to be an excellent example of property in need of the “Safe Properties” by-law enforcement. We find it curious that the city planner is using the Township’s lack of action in enforcing an existing bylaw (in dealing with a derelict building), as justification to remove “grandfathered rights” from the majority of property owners that keep their properties in good repair. In fact if the Safe properties bylaw was enforced, no building owner could ever use that excuse. There are also inconsistencies between the mayor’s position allowing rebuilding as a given and the planning departments stated goals. In section 5.10.2. the statement Quote “that existing buildings within the 30 metre setback, once removed, should be set back further so that, some day, all buildings will be well set back from waterbodies to ensure protection of our lakes into the future” End
Page 166 of 203
Quote directly contradict the Mayor’s assurances. Our lakes do need protection, however using the Hutchison study (and others like it) as a prescriptive planning tool to justify the removal of 5.11 - specifically enforcing the 30M setback is an over reach. According to one of the authors of the Hutchison study (Neil Hutchinson) (quoted by Jeff Green from the Frontenac news in approximately 2011). Quote-Phosphorous levels in the year 1700, before the arrival of Europeans, has been charted. Between 1850 and 1900 the levels rose precipitously, likely due to settlement and deforestation. The levels dropped between 1900 and 1950, and then began rising as the era of seasonal cottages intensified. Between 1970 and the year 2000, the levels dropped, however, and by the end of the 20th Century they were lower than they had been in 1700. End quote The Hutchinson survey 2014 confirms a continued reduction of total Phosphorous (TP). If TP has continued to decrease, and is now below pre European levels, what Phosphorous count is the planning department trying to achieve and for what purpose? Lastly there is the issue of unintended consequences of poorly planned and implemented bylaw changes- if this bylaw is amended, has the planning department given much thought to how far some property owners may go to protect their current “investment”- say clear cutting trees to protect an existing structure. Also, what is going to prevent home owners from building 30M back but using their old foundations for other purposes such as a deck -thus further reducing the shoreline buffer. In conclusion, this bylaw amendment appears to be unwarranted. Bylaws should reflect Council’s intent. If Council’s intent is really to allow home owners to rebuild, council must reject the planning departments plans to remove section 5.11.
We thank you for your time.
Jeff Canton
Page 167 of 203
May 7, 2016
Municipal Council of the Township of South Frontenac 4432 George St. Sydenham, Ontario K0H 2T0
RE: Housekeeping By-Law to Amend By-Law Number 2003-75: Sections 5.10.2 and 5.11 Dear Council:
We are seasonal property owners on the north branch of Buck Lake as recent as July 2013. This proposed by-law amendment is very disconcerting and we are strongly opposed to it being passed at council. We echo those who have already voiced their concerns of not supporting these amendments. The changes directly affect our property as our lot size, location and terrain make it impossible to rebuild according to the 30-metre setback.
As property owners/taxpayers, one would think we would have the right to be properly notified by SFT regarding such amendments that have a “negative” impact on our waterfront property. The March 2016 interim tax notice would have been an excellent means of communicating this proposed by-law amendment to allow public input from all concerned. But how ironic, both March 2015 & June 2015 interim tax notices provided us with a 2-pg news bulletin that clearly provides the names, phone numbers and email addresses of all council members and in black bold letters it indicates, Council members are here to help…Contact us… Therefore, on behalf of waterfront property owners/taxpayers of South Frontenac Township who do not support these changes, this is our call for help to council members to reject the proposed by-law amendments to sections 5.10.2 and 5.11 of By-Law Number 2003-75. Regards,
Marg & Greg Allen 1134 Sawmill Lane e-copy: Mayor Ron Vandewal Councillors SFT CAO/ Wayne Orr SFT Planner, Lindsay Mills
Page 168 of 203 May 9, 2016 Dear Committee Members, I am addressing the Council with the following concerns in addition to my letter as well as the several other letters written by very esteemed and knowledgeable people speaking to this issue copies of which were provided to you. I will speak to two concerns: First, the legal aspect: I would like to note that this synopsis is based upon my own reading and research of the legal opinions surrounding this issue. It is my opinion that the proposed bylaw contradicts itself: it does not conform to its own plan and is ultra vires its own powers. I believe the legal opinion on which the proposed bylaws are based is flawed because of two issues ; First: the opinion does not engage with the term ‘vacant’ and Second: the opinion clearly speaks to what the council commissioned. In my opinion, the bylaws, if passed, would also contravene the doctrine of proximal cause that deals with the duality and inseparability of cause and effect. I believe the bylaws would also contravene the law of takings, which addresses pseudo-expropriation without compensation by virtue of passing restrictive property bylaws. Second, I would like to speak to the common sense aspect: I believe that to separate the non-conforming intent of use with the existing non-conforming structures which flowed out of the intent is not possible for one could not exist without the former. I feel that Council should accept the fact that there are non-conforming structures within the Ribbon of Life now and in the foreseeable future. Council already has the power now to ensure the environmental impact of these NCS’s is minimized and should therefore focus on ensuring the these NCS’s comply with the current bylaws. To summarize my position: I propose that the existing bylaws 5.10.2 NOT be amended and the bylaw 5.11 NOT be removed for the reasons outlined above. It is my belief that Council should not separate non-conforming INTENT from STRUCTURES for the one flows from the other. Thus, Council should have no further jurisdiction over these structures other than ensuring the compliance with existing bylaws and protecting the Ribbon of Life. I feel that legally there are a myriad of concerns that point to Council reaching for powers that are ultra vires.
Page 169 of 203 May 9, 2016
Council should allow for the evolution of use given that technology and knowledge change over time. Prudent decisions regarding modernization of existing structures should be allowed if deemed to be well planned and acceptable to reasonable ratepayers. It is my understanding that existing bylaws adequately address these issues at present. Finally; It would be an interesting exercise to see whether the existing bylaws are actually legal and within the scope of law seeing the recent OMB ruling in the case of TDL group v. the city of Ottawa in 2009.
Page 170 of 203
th
Notes for May 10L" S. Frontenac C.O.W.
Intro: Mr. Mayor/ Councillors/ staff/ and waterfront dwellers. Thank you for the chance to address Committee of the Whole on this issue. My name is Gord
Rodgers. I am here as a waterfront landowner in S. Frontenac/ and am not formally representing any of the groups I am affiliated with. I am currently
president of the 14 island Mink Lake Association/ president of the Frontenac Stewardship Foundation, and I help lake associations in eastern Ontario to prepare lake stewardship plans.
I am not speaking specifically in favour or against the proposed changes to the zoning bylaw. I attended the last meeting of the COW, and recognized that there’s a lot of people realty unhappy about the possible effects of the
proposed changes to the bylaw. At the same time, I heard a few people also recognize that we need to be mindful of protecting the quality of our lakes and rivers.
We are all drawn to the shoreline. It’s the main reason we live on a lake - to
relax or to have fun by the water. And if your house or cottage is only steps away from the shoreline/ you feel a direct link to the lake, and that connection is convenient and immediate. If you have to move further from the lake, some of that connection you have lived with for years is going to be disrupted. It’s
not quite the same if you are building on a new lot/ and are required to build 30m back from the shoreline.
/d like to talk for a minute about shorelines, and then about phosphorous. Shorelines - the Ribbon of Life: Just as we are drawn to the shorelines of our
lakes, the fish/ wildlife/ and other critters likewise find this area desirable. In
fact/ shorelines are referred to as the “Ribbon of Life/’ because this is the richest natural environment you are likely to find anywhere. 90% of the species in the lake either pass through or live their lives in this shoreline zone -
everything from aquatic plants to frogs/ fish/ and furry mammals. In my own case/ my end of 14 Island Lake has almost a completely natural shoreline, and we have lots of fish spawning and moving about/ along with herons and other
birds feeding along the shoreline/ and a constant presence of muskrats and other mammals. And/ much to my wife’s chagrin/ a really healthy population of
Page 171 of 203
water snakes. So, keeping this area of your property healthy is one of the most important things to keeping your lake healthy.
Phosphorous - the lake fertilizer: I’m sure everyone in this room realizes the importance of keeping our septic waste, and agricultural waste away from our waterbodies. And most will understand that it is all about keeping harmful bacteria/ as well as nutrients (like phosphorous) out of our water. Just as
phosphorous gives our gardens a good boast/ it does the same for the algae and plants in our lakes and rivers. High levels of phosphorous mean increased algae blooms - and sadly/ we appear to be getting more in our eastern Ontario lakes/ including more toxic blooms of blue-green algae. Some researchers are
suggesting that this might be due in part to increased length of ice-free conditions on our lakes, something we may see more of in future. In any event, when you have a major algae bloom off your dock/ the shoreline isn’t such a desirable place to be any more - for us, or for a lot of the critters
who share the lake with us. And the phosphorous is not coming just from faulty septic tanks or poor agricultural practices - it is washing into the lake from our roads/ driveways, and lawns.
30 m setbacks- what’s the big deal? So/ what’s the big deal about having your house or cottage within 30 metre of the shoreline? It may seem a bit arbitrary to say that we shouldn’t have any development within 30m of our shorelines. But it’s not arbitrary at all - it’s based on a whole lot of research - much of it
from the 1970s and 80s - to show that buffers in the range of about 30m will/ among other things, protect fish and wildlife habitats/ and reduce the inflow of
phosphorous to our lakes and rivers. Based on this/ most municipalities have bylaws restricting development within 30m of a waterbody, similar to that of South Frontenac Township.
So what’s to be done with this South Frontenac Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw, and the housekeeping changes? But we’re not talking about new development here, we’re talking about re-building on existing building sites. As I said earlier, am not supporting a position one way or the other. I recognize the importance of being fair to those who may want to/ or have to/ re-build their house or cottage/and feel that the best location is on the existing footprint of their older building. However, I would like Council to recognize the importance of that 30
Page 172 of 203
metre zone back from the shoreline. If council chooses to stay with the existing wording, and permit re-building on the existing footprint, there are things that can be done to lessen the impacts of this development, and not place a significant burden on the property owner. My suggestion is - that at the time
of a variance decision/ or a building permit/ landowners should be encouraged to take a few simple steps to protect the quality of the water and the life it supports:
Ensure that septic services are in good working order;
Naturalize the shoreline - plant shrubs/ wildflowers, along and back from the shore to help catch and store phosphorous as it washes toward the lake. Our conservation authorities offer free or subsidized plant materials for this purpose;
Reduce the amount of water flowing directly into the lake from your roofs, driveways and lawns. For example, use rain barrels to collect water so that it doesn’t just wash directly off your house, and into the fake;
Never use fertilizer on your lawns/ or better still/ don’t have a lawn near the shoreline.
Thank you for your time/ and remember - if your shoreline is covered in an algae bloom/ no one is going to want to rebuild - inside or beyond the 30m buffer.
Gord Rodgers 613-374-3521
Page 173 of 203
I believe that the proposed changes to these Zoning Bylaws are intended to phase out Legal nonConforming Uses…. In S.F. Township. THIS IS ….. Similar to what the City of Ottawa tired to do in a – 2008 0MB hearing – and in the 2009Divisional Court case of Ottawa City v TDL Group Corporation
… where the City Planner admitted that the
purpose of the ByLaw was to gradually phase out existing legal non-conforming use-” The 0MB -held that the land owner could
involuntarily repair or replace a building that was legal non-conforming use. and
- voluntarily repair or even replace a building under Section 34(9} [a] of the Planning Act.
Page 174 of 203
The Divisional Court (a part of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice) in 2009 upheld the 0MB decision.
The Court held that the - City of Ottawa exceeded the powers granted to municipalities under Planning Act s.34[9) [a) .
^ * /
^M^
-^
9 /^
^/ .I-
A>/^
Page 175 of 203
(SW^LO Gc^nec f
Conservation
Let me start by stating my wife and I are retired veterans that combined served 50 years in the military so I’m no anarchist that gets his kicks by refuting authority for no particular reason. When I think of all the information that has come to light with this present situation I believe the thing we found most disturbing is that we were warned that this township would make life difficult for us if they dislike what I have to say here tonight We’ve been residents here only a few years but that some people felt the need to warn us like that speaks volumes about how they feel about our current officials doesn’t it? First of all let me state that I think that the environmental impact of homes within 30m of the water is relatively minimal and that the true reason for this amendment is simply aesthetics. Someone in the township thinks the shoreline should look pristine again and is attempting to make that happen eventually.
Page 176 of 203
It’s a bold initiative but is there scientific and
impartial conclusive proof that households at 10m have any greater negative impact on lakes than those at 30m. From all that I’ve read the answer is that is not the case.
The term grey water refers to water from septic beds that leeches out into the land and can travel
up to 2 miles as ground water to pollute our rivers and lakes. The worst pollutant of grey water is its phosphate content due to the fact that phosphate damages fish species like lake trout With that in mind it seems odd that I have seen
nothing done to educate homeowners about available alternatives such as phosphatefree soaps and detergents. Not only would that help prevent water pollution but it would be a proactive tactic that would have the property owners and environmentalists united in protecting our waters. So with ground water travelling up to 2 miles it certainly appears that a 30m buffer zone would be an expensive waste of time. A structure free shoreline is the true objective of this amendment It is all about aesthetics and not about lessening our environmental impact
Page 177 of 203
If conservation of our waters for the future were really part of this amendment then the township would:
.
1: Mandate that all farms have to build holding ponds that are periodically vacuumed then their contaminated contents disposed of at least 4 miles away from any water source. Farms are vital and I understand that but just consider for a moment the quantities of liquid manure, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and sheer volume of animal waste from a farm that leeches into the land and then runs into the ground water. 2: The Point right here on Sydenham Lake and also Moyer’s Point are serious targets because the railroad ties there are continuously leeching creosote into the water and creosote can cause
birth defects in pregnant women.
Those are environmental targets worthy of the township’s attention and not households near waters.
I’ve been told by at least a dozen or so residents that the very bare minimum required was done to ensure that we homeowners were even made aware
of this proposed by-law amendment before it was to be voted on. If this is true then it raises the point that perhaps transparency is an issue in this township.
Page 178 of 203
I just read the application for minor variance audit basically says that the township can refuse homeowners renovation plans based on whether they find them desirable. We have been put into the precarious position of having to apply to individuals that desire a structure free shoreline. How then can they be counted on to remain impartial or fair? / was also shocked to read the part of the application called the Agreement to Indemnify that homeowner’s are asked to sign concerning appeals. It says that a homeowner wishing to appeal to the 0MB any decision of the council agrees that all fees incurred by the homeownerAND the council are to be paid solely by that homeowner regardless if they win the appeal or not That means lawyers fees and expenses incurred for any experts brought in by the township shall be paid by you the homeowner if you wish to appeal An appeal would be financially impossible for most of us? That is quite a deterrent to disagreeing with the township and in my opinion it borders on intimidation! In truth I doubt that this is even a
legal document that would stand up in court and would urge people to take it to a lawyer before signing it
Page 179 of 203
I’ve read the fact that we aren’t allowed to do renovations that increase volume as well as the
usual square footage of the existing footprint but some examples of the enforcement of this rule seem ludicrous. Not allowing a renovation to raise a floor 2ft because it increases volume for instance? My wife and I have bought homes all over the country while serving in the Canadian forces and we’ve never seen that rule about volume before. Is there even another township that has that rule in placed9 At the very least we need an unbiased person to whom we can present plans for renovations and repairs for our shoreline structures that isn’t someone who dreams of a structure free shoreline. Who’s agenda will they satisfy first do you think? One of the main reasons that many of us invested so heavily into our properties was the fact that we were protected by the grandfather clause and now with our money spent there is suddenly a by-law amendment proposed.
Page 180 of 203
The power this Council seems to be endowing themselves is spiraling out of control. In my honest opinion this township’s authority over my land and my increasingly dwindling rights as a landowner are way out of balance in South Frontenac. Constituents should be able to count on the fact that elected officials will hold as paramount their duty to champion the wants of the homeowner’s they were voted in to represent That is the inherent trust that was asked for at the time they asked for our vote. Presently I believe that trust to be irreparably broken. This latest Housekeeping amendment is a wake-up call and I think the tip of the proverbial iceberg. It is indeed time for change but the real change needed here is for landowner’s to start asking if they think their elected officials are still working on what the property owner’s want or following their own agenda. Landowner’s need to start clawing back the rights we’ve lost and protecting those we have left because it no longer appears that we have elected officials working FOR us but ones dictating TO us.
Page 181 of 203
May 5,2016 South Frontenac Council Members,
I write today on behalf of my parents, Don and Margaret Smith, as well as my husband, Shawn, and myself.
Like many you have already heard from we were very disappointed to see such an impactful bylaw be tabled as a “housekeeping item” and feedback not proactively sought by the township. The potential impact of the bylaw as it was initiaily presented is significant to us. Our cottages are older dwellings, my
parents ‘“70 years old and ours ft'100 years old, both currently within the 30 metre setback. These dwellings have been in our family for 4 and 5 generations and our intent is to continue that tradition of enjoyment and use for years to come. Should an act of God, or fire destroy either of these dwellings, it would be difficult, if not impossible to
rebuild anywhere except on the current footprint. The well and septic at my parents’ property would both have to be relocated resulting in significant financial burden and hardship.My parent’s property is a 4-season residence. Our property is a true cottage - a 2 bedroom k»g cabin with no well or septic, nestled among trees and abutting a stone incline. Without significant blasting, we would be unable to rebuild anywhere but our current footprint. The costs associated with moving the current footprint including, minor variance application, survey, and blasting would leave us financially unable to rebuild and without a seasonal dwelling to enjoy. It would also significantly reduce the potential resale value of our property.
After hearing the many discussions at last week’s meeting, I also struggle with the suggestion that removing 50% of the walls to IMPROVE and MAINTAIN a property will result in the need to completely rebuild the dwelling outside of the current 30m setback. As responsible, environmentally conscious property owners, I would hope the township would support our ongoing desire to improve the structures to keep them safe as wet! as create positive impacts to the environment by including new technology within existing structures. The draft bylaw as it is currently written discourages major renovations to improve existing structures - many will see the advantages of improvement outweighed
by the financial and beurocratic implications of the tabled bylaw. It is our hope that the councilors have heard the concerns, can understand the financial implications and have seen the emotional worry that this “housekeeping” item has caused. It is very unfortunate that the
way in which this issue was tabled was not by proactively seeking residents’ input through the various media and lake associations but by quietly posting on the township website where many residents would have no knowledge of the potential change. A change in bylaws, that will impact hundreds of
properties, was tabled in the middle of winter when many seasonal owners are not in the area (or country) and labeled as affecting “Cottages” not inclusive of all dwellings located on waterfront properties. It is disappointing to see that a council that speaks to transparent leadership and open dialogue and “partnerships” is now perceived as exclusionary and untrustworthy due to the ineffective communication strategies within their Planning Department. I believe there are many learning
opportunities that can be gleaned from this experience, and I would hope that council would challenge their team to better engage the residents and taxpayers of this township to create a more effective
partnership that is proactive versus reactively inclusive. Respectfully submitted by Rachael Smith-Tryon
Page 182 of 203
South Frontenac - Proposed By-Law Changes
PETITION FROM RESIDENTS, TAX-PAYERS & VOTERS OF SOUTH FRONTEN he ourpose at this petition Is to ensure that <?ny propcsfcd amendmente lO Comprehensive Zoninp By-law^ receiv3 ;orsidt;‘rR^le pubtic cor.srltat.on. vfth proposed chaisgss advartised Otifine znd in local paper and in wach instanco residents have sn opportunity to voice thsi- cuncems end have ihose concerns addressed before chany^s -arc voted upon bv council.
0
The undersigned demand that any amendments to sections s5.11 and s.5.10.2 of the South
Frontenac Township Zoning By-laws law (CZBL) be delayed for three months, to allow Staff, Council and Resklents alike the opportunity to investigate the full impact of proposed changes on existing structures (whether or not they are legal non-compfying structures). Also the impact on the rights of the residents to enjoy their homes and cottages and to protect the values of their properties. Name
Adores?
,-”:/» /
^f ///^7^y^/
^
‘///^^/ 2 p^
Narnp’i
Contact
\ -^
^
-J
/»
‘^Lii’lLci’-
‘^>&11 ic»Ct
/
/
^ H^r^ /^.A^Cs ^3-3o5-^8-^ y^
Addi’es;;
r^arw
^ rf.<:-<a
^<^JK
.^
.ajc-tY^
Name
“G^
.^C (^
‘F-
^-t-~
L;ont-3ct *
^^S ^^^ M
^V3 -y^ -13^
Address
Cc Ot’Hfit^
^5."^ 9^-^^ ^A
G^^’^ ^L-5
\
Name
Afcii’&s?
C^Si^ ^ftot^
\(> S^O^^^OQ/S-
Narns
\ddresc:
r>
/)
I”
t’^k-
^
Contact
rt’Jar^si
‘7>
L/?
^
<-
i*
-^6 /Vc^r^/cs^y /^
I* /
.^ ^
.’.
t^£k l^x^ .^
^^
^: ^
~)
^?-5y7–^,
‘-^p/ys^M^
^.-\
ContdCi
m
‘>
^-’/^
;^ ^
?,
<^
f-
f,
fc^^^te^
/^ /Uws^j t^l^’^^ /^.J^ ;1 / /-^
a
^
^ ^ ~!l
/<-.»
f
LfOnLciCi
^
n
.^sr: e?
^/J ^^-/>}^>1
^Y^^AA^
^dcire;s
\S T– ..Pl ^2 ^qme
^%t
^~1
^
^^ }s^c 5
A’
<Q\3 - ^’^O ^/^JS-^-^^//
^.^
7^ ^^L ^w/ /
is«i d nic
Coni.act
Con’tact
^h
.^//^/e-//4^
T^tp/ WW.
-*^
-.4f v ^_ ^f OilLSu’i!
itsa^:s
^Guicii,’.’
ML
f.
/
[n ^ K^^ ^L ^/V-S59-Qo3,f IfcloUvvr^D^L ^ °Ce^lt8^~0?,^
:;
^/ u^ ^
^3-3^-5W<
Aa’^’^^^
Noi IT;
7
.^ rtoJi’ess
5,^ ^^^i^ ^i ;vdC .7
/
DA x-*^ i h-VuU.^., ^w\
‘<
Coruaci
rt
I
.f /
AduffSi
.^
I’^p?-
/
^
L-oniad
s?
::W6^i.^ j^n ^kw7, ^d\ S>’\J\C^l
“6
2 ‘-?:: ?7^i7^ -^Rz.‘z- ^)^L».^ ^1, tw to. ^^v ^ ^W^
N^-»’!.-
Na dj’nfc
7
Adurc3s
N-’n’n-
7 ?^z/^^
Contact;
6,^ -3/r - si, ^H/
.- —
y
.f
^
^
^) ^
.^
^-.
^
r
^
‘>
*f
^\
c^. ^
3^ ^3
~^ ^
en
^
.^
^
T^a
^
:3
^
^
ON
c Wf 0
-^
^
4-
en r –
^>
-’
^ ^ ^> >-
?r ^
^? K, 1, ^ ^
s
^
ffc
^>
i” ?
^
(^
(T-^
^ ^
?
/
-k
^
l/i
^
0
<.
^ c<> ^1
^ sJ5 KJ <T. ui
^
^ ^
tT
VK
^
^ 0 ^
^
V
“!
l^. ^
-s
/
s
0
<^^^»
^
^ c
/
^
.^
sa>
I/
s
^
/
c
^
?t>
<
s
&G
^
^>
^
^ ^
^3
e
^5
$.
^
^
^ r'
^ ^)
^ ^ ^.
,-J
0^
^ \
‘?i 0
^ ^ ^ ^
/
^ Ni
^
^1
^
cP^ ^
^
^
^3
^ ^’s>
^
^
^
^
^
^
t”
.^
^ r\
t
/
^
^
?s
^
-CN
^
<^
^\
^Cs rA *.
^
0>< ‘-"~
^
Si*
^ N
^ Q\
^
-40
R< .^
^
U)
1
r>
bl ^ ^
^
-/
u
^ ^
‘^
N
d
^\
<^
w
~^ Ns
^1 ^
^
^
r
-^ ^ ^
‘?:
t
^
^
^
^ ^y
^ ^ ^^-)
~£ £
f
A*
^
^ ^
.\
^
I
Os
^r
x^S ^
<5\
^
^
^
t r~ v>
-V’
^
^! y
^
t-t
^
^
‘>
^
ss
-^ ^
^
0
?
^
^
.^\
f^
^ ^ ^
^ ^
^ ^1
^
^
^
^
^>
^
(^
^ ^,-J ^. -f-
^
t^
^i
p
y
^
.^ /i
^
^ ^
QS) co
/
^
t
x
r>-
^
^. ^
^
&
I ^-^-E^
.^
^fAi ? <L
.^
^
<^6^ 0^
u*
^ ip
<.
-\i
^:^J
^
^
^ .1 ^ t
\
\ -t
<,
^,
X
.^J
Ik
^
^ \
^
I-
Q
.-^
-i-y
^
/
Page 183 of 203
^
^
TW
<j0 L^> (7^-
/
f,
^ ^
T^.
^ crt <& <
0 (Tv
^
T~t\
f%
^ ^ -0 ^
2-
? ^? (^ l/sl ^ <T»
-t
c^
T~ ^
^/
Fb
-^
“s
\r> X/
^
.->
c
^n
-i
^ s-
^ ^^
3
^ ^
c
-\
0
^
r~-
s,
ex-
^
a- «=r
e->
v^
<
-^
i r
^*.
^
i’rfm^. ^
\
^T
Page 184 of 203
South Frontenac Township - Residents
PETITION CONCERNING CHANGES TO COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BYLAW logcthcr ^‘itii thfc invi’.ation to d°!egGtions ‘LO spe£k on the subject to tn° Committa’? of the Whoic in Aprii ^ Ma1.-
We the undersigned request that South Frontenac Council not vote on any Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw amendments (such as the proposed changes to s.5.10 and s.5.11) until such time as the affected property owners have had suffident time to investigate the property value implications for their properties and had time to discuss these implications with their Councillor t; d iie
^
^^-TAl^/^/y ^ ^
CiW-^ -=~u^-
|SoS^cL_E^4 i
; pl If
^B^A- ^,^
^-.Con^^l^
iA
^OiTiuCrr
.z
5^A^^k (s 11- 371^- 3 D^? rtUO. .-
i^dl i K’
<t3^t
«.=
L.’’;ntaci:
;-
rtLnjl’Sj
IF C.t-tf^WrlUFUK)
^
5^‘ap.A^ RJ,^|^
^S^^hAfi.^^^Wr
^
Addlu^?
iii-mc
i^i
Cor.i:act
^/
LrOiflctCi.
.’;..’ ‘J
~^j Liri^Xc^fal^tk^ 3’“Ho’loOl5 f
d^-W-leb^ jTnji^iv^ <Avv^ ^12^ L> ^U Lt^ I n.kjL ^
m <^ ,AfA^,, (si3’^<c-<L^ ^ ^ §‘c?&%7^20(3? 6f?-r?^c^ ^.^^ COi’ita UL f-
:;ntaoi
rti.li.ii’ci&d
Address
7 .J
^\^~~ 1 <d,,i:11 r,
^^^^
Cj^
f
s .-.,-..< L.ornac:;
cSU 61^ ^-76r<^a
i ‘^r’^^?’ f-%
f~
^.ontciCE
HMtoB. QrOUs^o^
101C\ G^t^. C.otsiS ^Wo J w^ \r£Mstd y<
fNiarne
A,JC:i
Jo^rj Name
S^fTp
^4^B (SuCK^WL-fl^
t’^ntac:
4-
^,5- 353- m0
^>M^^ Contoc? ^
^ ^^ ^)^\ T^QO Sj^> ^^^ fin ^ y^ ^ ec^^^c Te/^y Todcf ^cj^n [^ r
rl
^^^:
i^ame
G»V2^ y^- 3M’& .\
p f Ar^ress ‘T
Wft e^-^t
t>–) ^J-3%-y-^&s ^.^^^
Contact
Contact
i^L^Ji^^-^’ ^^^^^^^
^^^s^ <ois^:>t-^-t^
y^
/^1A^^
5Q^,0 P-U^s.
^)
^hi2W
(^-^r?-^y
.
Page 185 of 203
South Frontenac - Proposed By-Law Changes
THIS IS A REAL OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE YOUR VOICE HEARD AND EFFECT CHANG vV3wanttoensi’ieyoj have c.srnc.ny facts as cossible ffth.s concerns you, or if you are suppcrt./e, v/e encourage you to .;ont£ct South Fmntenac Towrdhip Council and Steff Make sure +hey h.:,’/e the opinions of ^‘esidente. tpxp^vers ?i voters,
Dear Waterfront Residents,
TTie purpose of this e-mail is to provide information regarding proposed changes to the zoning by-law related to buildings located within the 30m setback from the water BACKGROUND
Approximately 2 weeks ago, we were made aware of a South Frontenac Housekeeping report prepared by the SET Planning Department for the Committee of the Whole. I have attached the document to this email for your information. Of concern to us is the
recommended removal of s.5.11 and a change to s.5.10.2 of the SFT Comprehensive Zoning By-law (CZBL).
Currently any new build has to be constructed outside the 30m setback. However, there are many grandfathered “legal non-complying structures” within the setback. The
proposed changes would seriously affect the rights of property owners who have one of these gran d-fathered structures on their property. Our best guess is approximately 1/3 of the lake has a grandfathered structure. This
includes everything from a house, cottage, boat house and/or bunkie. Currently, the CZBL allows for any grandfathered structures to be re-built in the event an Act of God
(Fire/ Fallen Tree/ etc.) in the same location as long as it keeps the same foot-print. The proposed changes would take away this automatic right of rebuild. Instead, property owners would have to make an application before the Committee of Adjustment and seek its approval prior to any re-build. LOOKING AT BOTH SIDES OF TtiE STORY
This issue reveals the tension between property rights and environmental concerns.
On one hand/ the proposed changes would be consistent with SF Township’s Planners goal of creating a green-ribbon around the lake. Numerous reports can be cited that detail the environmental benefits of a 30m setback. Lake quality has consistently scored as the #1 concern of our members.
On the other hand, an argument can be made that the proposed change is unlawful and inconsistent with section 34.9 of the Planning Act.
This states:(9) No by-law passed under this section applies/(a) to prevent the use of any land/ building or structure for any purpose prohibited by the by-law if such land, building or structure was lawfully used for such purpose on the day of the passing of the by-law/ so long as it continues to be used for that purpose. Going to the Committee of Adjustment takes both money and time. It can cost upwards of $1000 without a lawyer, and between 2-6 months (at least). In the end your right to rebuild is not automatic and the CoA may deny your application and recommend moving your structure to another location. If a structure is moved/ property values will likely be affected.
Page 186 of 203
\
Fo’vrisiii!: 01 SojLii Fi'3.-;’::cn-^ ;:.’.^‘os-^ t’/lGV/ A[i’;’,^Li.^,0: ‘-:c Submission by Suzanne & John Billing-May 10, 2016 4183 Latimer Rd. Inverary, On. KOH 1X0 We have carefully reviewed the proposed bylaw amendments and have concerns about the overall message and nature of the proposed amendment to Section 5.10.2 and removal of section 5.11.
The Planning report refers to the proposed changes as “housekeeping amendments” and refers to the changes as being minor in nature. We are quite taken aback that changes which such far-reaching impact on property owners would be considered minor or simply matters of housekeeping by our Township representatives. These proposed changes impact negatively on property values, waterfront accessibility, the freedom and right to enjoy one’s property as planned and intended/ and has the
potential to punish those of limited financial means. I will provide you with greater detail to clarify how the proposed changes stand to affect property owners and their expectations around utilizing and enjoying their property as purchased and intended. When purchasing a waterfront property the evaluation of the property is determined to a large degree by the waterfrontage and by the ease of access to enjoy that waterfront. A home set high above the waterfront is evaluated at a lower value than one set within steps of the shoreline. If a homeowner has purchased a property with structures at the shore/ being able to maintain and/or rebuild such structures at the same site has been factored into decision-making around those purchases. Changing the bylaws in a way which has a devaluing effect/ after property owners have made a large investment is draconian and should not be considered.
Should a homeowner wish change, for whatever reason e.g. a modernized or a more green structure, located at the site of their existing building/ the proposed bylaw changes would not allow individual choice and further limit the ability to make changes anticipated at the time of purchase. Maintenance and the setback of septic systems is much more relevant to the preservation of the health of our lakes and rivers, than the proximity of other structures to the shore. Limiting new shoreline builds is a reasonable step to take but implementing bylaw amendments which limit personal choice and property enjoyment are easily considered punitive to some waterfront property owners. Older waterfront residents or those with mobility challenges may have purchased waterfront homes or cottages at the water’s edge, with the specific intent of being close enough to the water to be able to access it safely. The proposed bylaw changes requiring residents to move their buildings back, should the walls come down for any reason, or should changes in their structure be desired or needed/ may cause property owners and/or their friends/family to lose their ability to access their own waterfront as planned or intended. Waterfront accessibility should not be limited by making the proposed bylaw amendments. The past decade there has been a focus in our society on improving accessibility for those with mobility challenges and bylaw changes should reflect such a trend, even when considering the impact on personal property, not only public spaces. One rationale cited for not allowing rebuilding at the same site suggests that not maintaining a property adequately may be a reason for the walls coming down and that the proposed changes may encourage ongoing property maintenance. For the Township to presume to determine that building repair and
Page 187 of 203
maintenance affected the decline of a particular building/ without having performed yearly inspections to note any demise in condition/ is unrealistic, impractical and unreasonable. Should a property owner need to save adequate funds to make major repairs should they be punished for their financial status? A bylaw which somehow implies reliance on an unwritten standard of property maintenance should not be enacted. Fairness would dictate that if a property owner wishes to rebuild on their existing footprint they should be allowed to do so when and if they wish or have previously made plans to do so. Should catastrophic damage occur insurance coverage is unlikely to cover the cost of rebuilding at a new site,
which could potentially require not only a new foundation but excavation and movement of a septic system. Building a new structure, potentially as much as 30m back from its original site may involve exorbitant costs for major demolition of old structures which re building on the same site would not necessarily entail.
It is unclear why the reason for rebuilding is in any way relevant to the ability to rebuild on one’s existing footprint. It is either fair and reasonable to respect property owners’ rights to make decisions about their property or it is not. Leaving decision-making to the Township for consideration of a variance
provides no secure position to property owners and as such devalues the property. If our property is large enough to allow a 30 m setback why would we be forced to move back should the situation
warrant when someone with a smaller property would likely be granted a variance? Trying to correct history on the backs of waterfront property owners is not reasonable. Structures were allowed to be built at the water’s edge in the past and having been purchased as evaluated for their waterfront proximity should be allowed to be maintained and renovated to whatever extent the owner wishes within an existing footprint.
We strongly support bylaws 5.10.2 and 5.11 remaining intact, without the proposed “housekeeping” amendments and that clarification of 5.10.2 should coincide with the interpretation of the “Building Department” to be clear that renovation can include reconstruction up from an existing foundation fo any reason. If this were included in 5.10.2 then the desired elimination of 5.11 would be reasonable.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne Billing
John Billing
r
Page 188 of 203
The Premier of Ontario
Legislative Building, Queen’s Park Toronto, Ontario M7A1A1
uuy-m <
^
r^
n
^
BK: L ^ ^nuif^
Ontario
La premiere ministre de I’Ontario edifice de l’Assembl6e legislative, Queen’s Park Toronto (Ontario) M7A1A1
May 3, 2016 Mr. Way ne Orr Chief Administrative Officer
Township of South Frontenac 4432 George Street PO Box 100
Sydenham, Ontario KOH 2TO
Dear Mr. Orr:
Thank you for your letter providing me with a copy of council’s resolution. I appreciate your keeping me informed of council’s activities. As this issue would also interest my colleague the Honourable Bob Chiarelli, Minister of
Energy, I have sent him a copy of council’s resolution. trust that the minister will also take council’s views into consideration.
Once again, thank you for the information. Please accept my best wishes. Sincerely, ^}
-/<^:J^U<^- liM’^-*^
Kathleen Wynne Premier c:
The Honourable Bob Chiarelli
Page 189 of 203
Municipality of Central Huron P.O. Box 400, 23 Albert Street, Clinton, Ontario N0M 1L0 Telephone: 519-482-3997 Fax: 519-482-9183 Email: info@centralhuron.com www.centralhuron.com
May 3, 2016 SENT BY EMAIL TO: worr@southfrontenac.net
Township of South Frontenac ATTENTION: WAYNE ORR CAO
Dear Sir; RE: VIBRANCY FUND Please be advised that Council, at their May 2nd, 2016 regular meeting, passed Resolution No. 189-16 as follow: “Be it resolved that the Municipality of Central Huron supports the resolution from the Township of South Frontenac regarding large renewable procurement initiatives.”
Yours truly,
Janisse Zimmerman Clerk’s Assistant 519-482-3997 Ext. 1224 /jz c. Premier Kathleen Wynne – premier@ontario.ca IESO – customer.relations@ieso.ca Lisa Thompson, MPP Huron-Bruce – lisa.thompson@pc.ola.org AMO – amo@amo.on.ca Patrick Brown, Leader of Ontario PC Party - Patrick.Brownco@pc.ola.org Andrea Horwath, Leader of Ontario NDP Party – ahorwath-qp@ndp.on.ca
Township of Goderich
Incorporated 2001 Township of Hullett
Town of Clinton
Page 190 of 203
Page 191 of 203
The Corporation of the ^
1,
Ji T “r " ’ ;/
r^-7
255 Metcalf St., Postal Bag 729
^ Ill
°/
.^
(613) 478-2535 (613) 478-6457 Email: mfo@twp.tweed.on.ca
n
-r^ -n _J T
v Y
Tweed, ON KOK3JO Tel.: Fax;
-^
-/
Jo-Anne Albert
^/
MAYOR
rfT ^ ~^
‘-
r^
Patricia L. Bergeron, A.M.C.T.
A
CAO/CLERK
I
Website: www.tweed.ca
i^.
f.f
1996
i
3 K V.J.
^^.
r ’’ .‘J rf
May 2, 2016
v *
f
If
ft
^
^
.J.O
/.
:1
‘-..’".i
ED
s.
f
/T; » .^-
<
SOUTH n^-r-^NAC Township of South Frontenac 4432 George St. PO Box 100 SydenhamON KOH2TO Attention; Wayne Orr CAO Dear Sir:
I wish to advise that Council, at their regular meeting held April 26, 2016 passed a
resolution in support of the Township of South Frontenac’s resolution regarding renewable procurement initiatives. Yours truly,
^”)^)<2^ Betty Gallagher, A.M.C.T. Acting CAO/Clerk BG:lw
Page 192 of 203
From: Ashley Sage [mailto:asage@zorra.on.ca] Sent: May-11-16 12:58 PM To: Angela Maddocks Subject: Township of Zorra Resolution Good afternoon, Please be advised that at the Township of Zorra’s council meeting on May 3rd, Council passed the following resolution: “THAT Council support the resolution received from the Township of South Frontenac regarding Large Renewable Procurement Initiatives; AND THAT a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Township of South Frontenac and AMO.” Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thanks, Ashley Sage Clerk Township of Zorra 274620 27th Line, P.O. Box 306 Ingersoll, ON N5C 3K5 519-485-2490 ext. 228 asage@zorra.on.ca
Page 193 of 203
SNIP OF C
O~
~
c~
The Corporation of
THE TOWNSHIP of CARLING
2 West Carling Bay Road, Nobel, ON POG 1 GO
Phone: 705-342-5856 •Fax: 705-342-9527
May 11, 2016
RE: Resolution of Support re: Large Renewable Energy Project Procurement Initiatives
At the regular meeting of Council for the Township of Carling held May 9, 2016 Council passed
the following resolution as part of Consent Agenda Resolution 16-054 moved by Councillor
Crookshank and seconded by Councillor Gilbert:
c. Large Renewable Energy Project Procurement Initiatives
WHEREAS the Council for the Township of Carling has received a request
for support from the Township of South Frontenac for their resolution
regarding large renewable energy project procurement initiatives; and
WHEREAS this resolution calls on the Provincial government to require
the payment of the Community Vibrancy Fund in situations where a green
energy project is awarded despite lack of municipal support and
Community Benefit Agreements;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Council for the Township of
Carling hereby supports the Township of South Frontenac's resolution
regarding large renewable energy project procurement initiatives; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be sent to the
Premier of Ontario; the Leaders of the Opposition; Norm Miller, MPP for
Parry Sound-Muskoka; the Independent Electricity System Operator
(IESO); AMO; and the Township of South Frontenac.
Carried.
If you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at 705342-5856 ext. 404 or mbonenfant@carlingtownship.ca.
Sincerely,
~i
Megan Bonenfant
Deputy Clerk
Page 194 of 203
Cc: Hon. Kathleen Wynne, Premier of Ontario
Hon. Patrick Brown, Leader of the Opposition, Leader of the PC Party of Ontario
Hon. Andrea Horwath, Leader of the Ontario NDP
Norm Miller, MPP Parry Sound-Muskoka
Independent Electricity System Operator
AMO
Township of South Frontenac
Page 195 of 203
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC
P.O. Box 100
5862
Telephone 376-3027 /1-800-559-
4432 George Street
Sydenham, Ontario, KOH 2TO
FAX (613) 376-6657
E-mail: worr@southfrontenac.net
April 21, 2016
Honourable Kathleen Wynne
Premier of Ontario
Room 281
111 Wellesley Street West
Toronto, Ontario
M7A1A1
Dear Premier:
The Council of the Township of South Frontenac endorsed the following resolution at
their regular meeting held April 19,2016:
"Whereas the Province is moving forward with another round of large renewable
procurement initiatives;
And whereas these projects can create economic opportunities for property owners
and municipalities as well as job creation in both manufacturing, installation and site
maintenance;
And whereas certain large renewable procurement projects may not be aligned with
the priorities of residents and municipal councils, despite municipal government
having been given enhances power to negotiate with green energy proponents;
And whereas the installation of large renewable procurement projects can have a
significant impact on municipal infrastructure and operating costs;
Now therefore be it resolved that the Council of South Frontenac calls upon the
Provincial government to regulate that; where there is not a willing municipal host and
subsequently no community benefit agreement in place and green energy projects
are awarded anyway that; successful proponents would be responsible to pay to the
municipality, according to an established formula, and over the lifespan of the project,
the associated costs to both infrastructure and operations commonly known as a
Community Vibrancy Fund.
And that this resolution be sent to the Premier, the Leaders of the Opposition, Local
MPP's the IESO , Local Municipalities and AMO.
Carried.
We respect^ly request to be notified of any action taken in this matter.
Yours tail
ay
r
Cffi^F Administrative Officer
W0:am
IESO
ec
Association of Municipalities of Ontario
Patrick Brown, Leader of the Ontario PC Party
Andrea Horwath, Leader of the Ontario NDP
Randy Hillier, MPP, Lanark-Frontenac-Kingston
All Ontario Municipalities
Page 196 of 203
May11,2016
Mr. Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer
Township of South Frontenac
worr@southfrontenac.net
Dear Mr. Orr,
Re:
Large renewable
procurement
initiatives
The Council-In-Committee of the Corporation of Norfolk County, considered your
communication on May 3, 2016, regarding the above-noted.
Please be advised of the following resolution which was passed by Committee
regarding this matter:
“WHEREAS the Province is moving fon/vard with another round of large
renewable procurement initiatives;
AND WHEREAS these projects can create economic opportunities for
property owners and municipalities as well as job creation in both
manufacturing, installation and site maintenance;
AND WHEREAS certain large renewable procurement projects may not be
aligned with the priorities of residents and municipal councils, despite
municipal government having been given enhances power to negotiate with
green energy proponents;
AND WHEREAS the installation of large renewable procurement projects can
have a significant impact on municipal infrastructure and operating costs;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of Norfolk County
calls upon the Provincial government to regulate that; where there is not a
willing municipalhost and subsequently no community benefit agreement in
place and green energy projects are awarded anyway that; successful
proponents would be responsible to pay to the municipality, according to an
established formula, and over the lifespan of the project, the associated costs
to both infrastructure and operations commonly known as a Community
Vibrancy Fund;
Corporate Services
Governor Simcoe Square
50 Colborne Street South, Sirncoe, Ontario N3Y 4H3
Fax: 519-426-8573
519-426-5870
www.norfolkcounty.ca
Page 197 of 203
AND THAT this resolution be sent to the Premier, the Leaders of the
Opposition, and the Township of South Frontenac.”
The Council of Norfolk County endorsed the above recommendation of Committee at its
meeting on May 10, 2016.
Trusting this is satisfactory.
Sg
ephanie Go ‘y, B.A., CMM
Deputy Clerk/Licensing Coordinator
Norfolk County
Employee & Business Services, Clerk & Council Services
(519) 426-5870 ext. 1228
stephanie.godby@norfolkcounty.ca
Copy to:
Kathleen Wynne, Premier of Ontario, premier@ontario.ca
Andrea HonNath, ahon/vath-gp@ndp.on.ca
Patrick Brown, patrick.brownco@pc.ola.org
Page 198 of 203
Ministry of
Mfnfst6re des
Municipal Affairs
Affalres munlclpales
and Housing
et du Logement
Municipal Services Dhrteton
777 Bay Street-16th Floor
777,meB8y,16'6tage
DMsion des services aux munfclpalftes
Toronto ON M5G 2E5
Toronto ON M6G 2E5
Telephone: 416 S85-6429
TAIApflone: 416585-6429
Tel6copiBur: 416585-6445
Fax:416585-6445
r^--
^Ontario
April 22, 2016
MEMORANDUM TO: Municipal Chief Administrative Officers, Clerks and
Service Managers
SUBJECT:
Proclamation of the infrastructure for Jobs & Prosperity Act,
2015
I am writing to you on behalf of the Ministry of Economic Development, Employment
and Infrastructure to advise you that the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2015
will be proclaimed on May 1,2016. The purpose of the Act is to establish mechanisms
to encourage principled, evidence-based and strategic long-term infrastructure planning
that supports job creation and training opportunities, economic growth, protection of the
environment and design excellence.
Upon proclamation, the Government and Broader Public Sector entities covered by the
Act will be required to consider statutory infrastructure planning principles when making
infrastructure-related decisions.
Attached as Appendix A are the principles that planning and investment decisions
should take into account. These include:
1. A long-term view as well as demographic and economic trends
2. Applicable budgets and fiscal plans
3. Clearly identified priorities
4. Continuation of the provision of core public services
5. Promotion of economic competitiveness, productivity, job creation and training
6. Ensuring health and safety of infrastructure workers
Opportunities to foster innovation
7.
8.
Evidence-based and transparent decisions
9. Existing plans and strategies such as policy statements and transportation plans
10. Promotion of accessibility for persons with disabilities
11. Designs that minimize environmental impact and are resilient to climate change
12. Use of acceptable recycled aggregates
13. Promotion of community benefits
As a matter of best practice, many entities are likely already considering these
principles. Proclamation of the Act will formalize these requirements, making their
application more consistent across entities in a manner appropriate to each entit/s
context.
.o ^
co S
-3&JS
0
.E -Q
c
a> c
d) 2
s 0
3
0
-S
^.i
m3
^.aa.
0
(0
.g£S
t-
8? -c
»
3 (0
8y
n i^iiGO re
c
c c
»
.c <u
0
£
tO .u -^
c'®
co
u
£1 -0 c "0
c. (D
>»a>
<D .a
ss-g^r
c
0
<S W c
!liHijliill?ii i
y=
0-^=.£
-c
2
9
5s
^i
(0
c
-*.?
.oc?
;50
5o
£
co
i-
a
= 0
=3
o-S .£.
c=
>-
0)
w 8 c C i;
»
o'> S w ®a.
a. -c <fi
£13
vs
s 0
& 1-I*
§<"£ E" 3 T3 a.
0
® a?
3,0" CO
><
c
<Ctfc
t£
8
a.
z
a.-S^-^'S
^ w
0
.2 ;£
.£Q
s
8
0>
>*
.£ ^.2
a.
CL
3
w
.o
:B^i
<D
3
ro aT©
± QCO
X: -->
£^ S
CL
<u
.a S¥.
u
>-
co
CO »
.2 .
.a
% c
^ w 3
iD<£2
l*-rf
c.
0)
E
J=
0
^
'*-'
**-!
<
Page 199 of 203
Sii IH!1! Si! {
i-x
(0
>t
0 Si
>.
C -0 --rf
<u -^ £
c
3
£^
ii! iltfi i! 5
^ <0
<0 -.&"
c
<p -^
0 c 0
-0 0 s
c £ 03
0 0 .o
<0
y
3
g i! ii
c ,2
Q.
I-
.p
£ J=
® c C - S3
8 -^ 0 (D .
a:s
¥.ff±=
3s ?
03
w
^S w
CT o?
<0
Page 200 of 203
Appendix A
Infrastructure Planning Principles as provided for in the Infrastructuw for Jobs and
Prosoen'tvAct. 2015
Principles
The Government, and every broader public sector entity, shall consider the following
principles when making decisions respecting infrastructure:
1. Infrastructure planning and investment should take a long-term view. and
decision-makers should take into account the needs of Ontarians by being
mindful of, among other things, demographic and economic trends in Ontario.
2. Infrastructure planning and investment should take into account any applicable
budgets or fiscal plans, such as fiscal plans released under the Fiscal
Transparency and Accountability Act, 2004 and budgets adopted under Part VII
of the Municipal Act, 2001 or Part VII of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.
3, Infrastructure priorities should be clearly identified in order to better inform
investment decisions respecting infrastructure.
4. Infrastructure planning and investment should ensure the continued provision
of core public services, such as health care and education.
5. Infrastructure planning and investment should promote economic
competitiveness, productivity, job creation and training opportunities.
6. Infrastructure planning and investment should ensure that the health and
safety of workers involved in the construction and maintenance of infrastructure
assets is protected.
7. Infrastructure planning and investment should foster innovation by creating
opportunities to make use of innovative technologies, services and practices,
particularly where doing so would utilize technology, techniques and practices
developed in Ontario.
8. Infrastructure planning and investment should be evidence based and
transparent, and, subject to any restrictions or prohibitions under an Act or
otherwise by law on the collection, use or disclosure of information.
(. investment decisions respecting infrastructure should be made on the
basis of information that is either publicly available or is made available to
the public, and
ii. information with implications for infrastructure planning should be
Page 201 of 203
shared between the Government and broader public sector entities, and
should factor into investment decisions respecting infrastructure.
9. Where provincial or municipal plans or strategies have been established in
Ontario, under an Act or otherwise, but do not bind or apply to the Government or
the broader public sector entity, as the case may be, the Government or broader
public sector entity should nevertheless be mindful of those plans and strategies
and make investment decisions respecting infrastructure that support them. to
the extent that they are relevant. Examples of plans and strategies to which this
paragraph may apply include,
I. policy statements issued under section 3 of the Planning Act, and
provincial plans as defined by that Act,
ii. municipal water sustainability plans submitted .under the Water
Opportunities Act, 2010,
iii. the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan established under the Lake Simcoe
Protection Act, 2008, and
iv. transportation plans adopted under the Metrolinx Act, 2006.
10. Infrastructure planning and investment should promote accessibility for
persons with disabilities.
11. Infrastructure planning and investment should minimize the impact of
infrastructure on the environment and respect and help maintain ecological and
biological diversity, and infrastructure should be designed to be resilient to the
effects of climate change.
12. Infrastructure planning and investment should endeavour to make use of
acceptable recycled aggregates.
13. Infrastructure planning and Investment should promote community benefits,
being the supplementary social and economic benefits arising from an
infrastructure project that are intended to improve the well-being of a community
affected by the project, such as local job creation and training opportunities
(including for apprentices, within the meaning of section 9), improvement of
public space within the community, and any specific benefits identified by the
community.
14. Any other principles that may be prescribed for the Government or fhe
broader public sector entity, as the case may be.
Page 202 of 203
Mr. Mayor: Ron Vandewal & Council: South Frontenac
Nicole: Safety Program Manager Tri-board
Janet Sanderson: Vice Prmcipal Sydenham High School
Subject: S^S ,?:40 n^panurc time For buse^ a} ST1S
There is serious traffic congestion @ approx: 2:40 - 2:41 - 2:42 Departure time for all buses.
There are student vehicles coming from the north (their designated parking lot) into the line of
traffic causing extra congestion, (this is not necessary a sign could be placed left turn only)
Bus drivers have been accused of being inconsiderate of other drivers (this is simply untrue)
"However," we do take advantage of the wonderful drivers who actually recognize our plight &
.
motion us out.
Solutions:
1.) Divert student traffic from north parking lot to left turn only
2.) Enlist the services of a bonafied trafRc controller who would control trafRc in an orderly
fashion
3.) Install traffic lights @ intersection ofRutledge Rd & Wheatly set on a timer to stop all
trafidc for the 3 - 4 minutes so the buses could safely exit the parking lot.
4.) Re-route all the buses to the north end of the parking lot to work simultaneously so all could
leave to travel north & south (for our designated bus runs)
In order to do this. part of the median would need to be removed which could lose up to 3
parkine spaces
The bus drivers are committed to their dedicated bus routes within the scheduled time
constraints, however with the demands ofTri-board requesting we leave one at a time it is
difficult
With all the delays @ the school & the fact that Tri-board is only focusing on the "dedicated
bus drivers" we need to find a solution for all of us.
There are so many more options surely something can be done to help the bus drivers.
Sincerely
^ Eva Ball: Ball Bus Lines #524
^
^U^f 77^'^t^ ^^JfS
^-3
^ -^^ ^'55-Z.
.-^f
^^^- yj^
^^;% i^
^^. s-^h^^ ^13
^/A^ ^^
c ^r^Jy S'53 ^^^s
/
,<^i
Page 203 of 203
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC
BY-LAW 2016-34
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 May 17th, 2016 be confirmed.
2.
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.
3.
This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the date of its
passage.
Dated at the Township of South Frontenac this 17th day of May, 2016.
Read a first and second time this 17th day of May, 2016.
Read a third time and finally passed this 17th day of May, 2016.
THE CORPORATION OF THE
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC
______________________________
Ron Vandewal, Mayor
____________________________________
Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer
