Regular Council Agenda Monday, April 26, 2021 7:00 PM Electronic Meeting via Zoom
Page
1. CLOSED SESSION, IF REQUIRED - 6:00 P.M.
Recommendation: THAT we go into Closed Session at to discuss a personal matter and negotiation matter in accordance with Section 239(2)(b)(k) of the Municipal Act.
Recommendation: THAT we rise and report from Closed Session at p.m.
1.1. Closed Session Council minutes dated April 12, 2021
1.2. Closed Session Committee of the Whole minutes dated April 19, 2021
1.3. Volunteer Recognition personal matter in accordance with Section 239(2)(b) of the Ontario Municipal Act, 2001.
1.4. A discussion regarding Talisker in accordance section 239(2)(k) a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality or local board.
1.5. Ramara Industrial Park Offers and Proposed Layouts
2. OPENING OF THE MEETING - 7:00 P.M.
2.1. Remarks by Mayor
2.2. Remarks by the CAO
3. ADOPTION OF AGENDA AND/OR AGENDA ADDITIONS
3.1. Agenda and Additions dated April 26, 2021. Recommendation: THAT the Council Agenda dated April 26, 2021 and any Additions thereto be adopted as presented.
4. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
4.1. Council meeting minutes dated April 12, 2021 6 - 14 Regular Council - 12 Apr 2021 - Minutes - Pdf Recommendation: THAT the Council meeting minutes dated April 12, 2021 be adopted as presented.
4.2. Public Meeting minutes dated April 12, 2021 (Ramara Landscape 15 - 21 Quarry File Z-1/20) 2021-04-12 PM Z-1, 1300488 Ont. Ltd Recommendation: THAT we adopt the Public Meeting minutes dated April 12, 2021 (Ramara Landscape Quarry File Z-1/20), as presented.
5. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST Page 1 of 154
6. MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY GIVEN
7. PUBLIC MEETINGS
8. PRESENTATIONS, RECEIVING OF PETITIONS AND DEPUTATIONS
8.1. John Matheson and Olivia Lahaie, Strategy Corp - Ward Boundary 22 - 84 Review Ramara WBR Final Report Recommendation: THAT we receive the presentation by Strategy Corp regarding the Ward Boundary Review as information.
9. CONSENT AGENDA
9.1. AMO Communications 85 - 99 Recommendation: Receive as information. a) Policy Update dated April 19, 2021 b) AMO Policy Update – April 16, 2021 c) AMO WatchFile - April 15, 2021 d) AMO WatchFile - April 22 2021
9.2. March 2021 Building Permit Summary Comparison Report. 100 - 101 Recommendation: Receive as information. Building Permit Comparison Report
9.3. Township of Springwater correspondence dated April 16th, 2021 102 - 103 regarding Clean Fuel Standard. Recommendation: Receive and support. Clean Fuel Standard Letter
9.4. Township of Georgian Bay correspondence dated April 12th, 2021 104 - 106 regarding Planning Act Timelines. Recommendation: Receive as information. Planning Act Timelines Kitchener - Planning Act Timelines
9.5. Town of Mono correspondence dated April 16th, 2021 regarding 107 - 108 Cannabis Licensing and Enforcement. Recommendation: Receive as information. Mono - Cannabis Licencing and Enforcement
9.6. International Awareness Day for Chronic Immunological and 109 Neurological Diseases email correspondence dated April 14th, 2021. Recommendation: THAT we receive and declare May 12th as International Awareness Day for Chronic Immunological and Neurological Diseases. Sample Proclamation - Ontario
9.7. Couchiching Conservancy email correspondence dated April 21st, 2021 110 - 113 regarding Covid-19 Third Wave. Recommendation: Receive as Information. The Couchiching Conservancy Rides the Third Wave
Page 2 of 154
9.8. Township of Hudson correspondence dated April 21, 2021 regarding 114 - 115 Support for Fire Departments. Recommendation: Receive as Information. LTR to Premier Ford Support to Fire Departments LTR to Twp of Hudson Support to Fire Departments
9.9. Municipality of Calvin email correspondence dated April 13th, 2021 116 - 119 regarding Carbon Tax on Primary Agriculture Producers. Recommendation: Receive as Information. Support for Norfolk County - Carbon Tax for Primary Ag Producers
9.10. National Youth Week email correspondence dated April 13th, 2021. 120 Recommendation: THAT we receive and declare May 1st - May 7th as National Youth Week. National-Youth-Week-Proclamation (1)
9.11. City of Cambridge email correspondence dated April 22nd, 2021 121 - 122 regarding Request for Paid Sick Leave. Recommendation: Receive as information. Cambridge Council Resolution.April 20.2021
9.12. Deputy Mayor Gough expenses for March and April 2021. 123 Recommendation:Receive and Approve. Gough Expenses
9.13. Outstanding Water Bill regarding 22 Willow Cres. 124 Recommendation: THAT we receive and the owners pay the water bill in full. Outstanding Water Bill
9.14. Andy Wojtis, Karen Greiner, Mark Chandler, Paul Randlesome, 125 - 132 Sebastian Vaitus and Jennifer Grossman, email correspondence regarding new parking restrictions. Recommendation: Receive as Information. Andy Wojtis - parking_Redacted Karen Greiner - Parking_Redacted Mark Chandler - Parking_Redacted Paul Randlesome_Parking_Redacted Sebastian Vaitus - Parking_Redacted Jennifer Grossman_Parking_Redacted
Recommendation: THAT we adopt the recommendations of Items 9.1 to 9.14 as set out in the Consent Agenda dated April 26, 2021 and any additions thereto, with the exception of Items
10. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES & BOARDS
10.1. Committee of the Whole Report 05/21 dated April 19, 2021. 133 - 138 Committee of the Whole - 19 Apr 2021 - Minutes - Pdf Recommendation: THAT we adopt Committee of the Whole Report 05/21 dated April 19, 2021 as presented.
11. ITEMS REQUIRING THE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION OF COUNCIL
Page 3 of 154
12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
13. COUNTY COUNCIL UPDATE
14. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND INQUIRIES – MEMBERS OF COUNCIL
15. REQUESTS FOR REPORTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
16. NOTICES OF MOTION
17. QUESTION PERIOD FOR MEDIA AND PUBLIC DEALING WITH AGENDA ITEMS
Questions regarding agenda items may be submitted to [email protected]. Ensure you include your name, address and the item number related to your question.
18. BILLS AND BYLAWS
2021.24 A Bylaw To Dedicate Part of Lot 36, Rama Island, Registered Plan 139 RD-72, Rama, as a Public Highway 2021. - A Bylaw To Dedicate Part of Lot 36, Rama Island, Registered Plan RD-72, Rama, as a Public Highway - Pdf
2021.25 A Bylaw to Permit and Regulate Kitesurfing from Municipal Property 140 - 146 2021. - A Bylaw to Permit and Regulate Kitesurfing from Municipal Property - Pdf
2021.26 A Bylaw to Amend Bylaw 2020.32 being a Bylaw to Prohibit Beach 147 Access, Municipal Boat Launches and Lagoon City Canals During State of Emergency 2021. - A Bylaw to Amend Bylaw 2020.32 being a Bylaw to Prohibit Beach Access, Municipal Boat Launches and Lagoon City Canals During State of Emergenc - Pdf
2021.27 A Bylaw to Amend Bylaw 2003.52 being a Bylaw to Regulate the 148 - 153 Parking of Vehicles within the Township of Ramara 2021. - A Bylaw to Amend Bylaw 2003.52 being a Bylaw to Regulate the Parking of Vehicles within the Township of Ramara - Pdf
2021.28 A Bylaw To Amend Bylaw 2003.48 being a Bylaw to Regulate the 154 Carrying on and Operation of Pits and Quarries in the Corporation of the Township of Ramara 2021. - A Bylaw To Amend Bylaw 2003.48 being a Bylaw to Regulate the Carrying on and Operation of Pits and Quarries in the Corporation of the Township - Pdf Recommendation: THAT Bill Nos. 2021.24, 2021.25, 2021.26 and 2021.27 be read a first, second and third time and finally passed as bylaws. Recommendation: THAT Bill No. 2021.28 (Pits and Quarries Amendment) be read a first, second and third time and finally passed as a bylaw.
Page 4 of 154
19. CONFIRMATION BYLAW
Recommendation: THAT Bylaw 2021.36, a bylaw to confirm the proceedings of the Council meeting held on the 26 day of April 2021, be considered read a first, second and third time and finally passed.
20. ADJOURNMENT
Recommendation: THAT we now adjourn at p.m. until May 10, 2021 at 7:00 p.m.
Page 5 of 154 Agenda Item #4.1.
Regular Council Minutes Monday, April 12, 2021 - 7:00 PM Electronic Meeting via Zoom
The Electronic Regular Council of the Township of Ramara was called to order on Monday, April 12, 2021, at 7:00 PM, with the following members present:
PRESENT: Mayor Basil Clarke Deputy Mayor Joe Gough Councillor Ward 1 David Snutch Councillor Ward 2 Jennifer Fisher Councillor Ward 3 Ted Lamb Councillor Ward 4 Gary Hetherington Councillor Ward 5 Kal Johnson ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Chief Administrative Officer John Pinsent Director of Legislative and Community Services/Clerk Jennifer Connor Deputy Clerk Cathy Wainman Director of Finance/Treasurer Zach Drinkwalter Director of Infrastructure Kathy Sipos Director Fire & Rescue Services/Fire Chief Tony Stong Chief Building Official Leo Grellette Chief Building Official Walied Zekry Planning Supervisor/Zoning Administrator Deb McCabe Administrative Services, Fire & Infrastructure Sarah Karabin Community Standards Manager Jon Popple HR Coordinator/H&S Officer Brittany Wilson Business & Communication Coordinator Ashley Watson
1. CLOSED SESSION, IF REQUIRED - 6:00 P.M. Resolution Number CR.120.21 Moved by Joe Gough Seconded by Jennifer Fisher THAT we go into Closed Session at 6:02 p.m. to discuss personal and property matters in accordance with Section 239(2) of the Municipal Act. CARRIED.
Resolution Number CR.121.21 Moved by Kal Johnson Seconded by Jennifer Fisher THAT we rise and report from Closed Session at 6:44 p.m. CARRIED.
Page 6 of 154 Agenda Item #4.1.
1.1. Closed Session Council meeting minutes dated March 22, 2021.
Resolution Number CR.122.21 Moved by Jennifer Fisher Seconded by Joe Gough THAT we adopt the Closed Session Council meeting minutes dated March 22, 2021 as presented. CARRIED.
1.2. Closed Session Special Council meeting minutes dated March 31, 2021.
Resolution Number CR.123.21 Moved by Joe Gough Seconded by Ted Lamb THAT we adopt the Closed Session Special Council meeting minutes dated March 31, 2021 as presented. CARRIED.
1.3. Appointment to the Trails Committee
Resolution Number CR.124.21 Moved by Gary Hetherington Seconded by Kal Johnson THAT we defer the appointment to the Trails Committee to the next Committee of the Whole meeting. CARRIED.
1.4. Proposed Sale of Ramara Industrial Park Land (2 Acres and 6.75 Acres)
Resolution Number CR.125.21 Moved by Kal Johnson Seconded by Gary Hetherington THAT we receive Report TR 07 21 regarding proposed sale of 2 acres, 6.75 acres and 30 acres in the Ramara Industrial Park; AND THAT staff proceed as directed. CARRIED.
1.5. A discussion regarding personal matter about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees as permitted under Section 239(2)(b)(f) of the Ontario Municipal Act, 2001.
Resolution Number CR.126.21 Moved by Joe Gough Seconded by Ted Lamb THAT we discussed a personal matter about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees in accordance with Section 239(2)(b)(f) of the Ontario Municipal Act, 2001; AND THAT staff proceed as directed. CARRIED. Regular Council Minutes April 12, 2021 Page 2 of 9
Page 7 of 154 Agenda Item #4.1.
2. OPENING OF THE MEETING - 7:00 P.M. 2.1. Mayor Clarke acknowledged the Provincial-Wide Stay-at-Home order and cautioned everyone to remain safe.
2.2. CAO, John Pinsent advised that the doors to the Administration Centre are now closed to the public except by appointment only. He explained that there are difficulties regarding new staff coming on line during a pandemic. The CAO advised that a new Building Inspector will joining the Township next week.
3. ADOPTION OF AGENDA AND/OR AGENDA ADDITIONS 3.1. Agenda and Additions dated April 12, 2021
Resolution Number CR.127.21 Moved by Kal Johnson Seconded by David Snutch THAT the Council Agenda dated April 12, 2021 and any Additions thereto be adopted as presented. CARRIED.
4. ADOPTION OF MINUTES 4.1. Council meeting minutes dated March 22, 2021
Resolution Number CR.128.21 Moved by Joe Gough Seconded by Ted Lamb THAT the Council meeting minutes dated March 22, 2021 be adopted as presented. CARRIED.
4.2. Special Council meeting minutes dated March 31, 2021.
Resolution Number CR.129.21 Moved by Jennifer Fisher Seconded by Gary Hetherington THAT we adopt the Special Council meeting minutes dated March 31, 2021 as presented. CARRIED.
5. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST 5.1. Councillor Snutch declared a conflict of interest regarding item 1.5 - concerning the discussion regarding a personal matter about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees. Councillor Snutch left the meeting while the matter was being discussed and did not vote.
Regular Council Minutes April 12, 2021 Page 3 of 9
Page 8 of 154 Agenda Item #4.1.
6. MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY GIVEN
7. PUBLIC MEETINGS 7.1. Zoning Bylaw Amendment File Z-1/20, 1300488 Ontario Ltd. (Ramara Landscaping Quarry) 1378 Concession Road D-E, Township of Ramara.
Minutes under separate cover
Resolution Number CR.130.21 Moved by Ted Lamb Seconded by Joe Gough THAT we receive the comments and concerns from Council and the public regarding Zoning Bylaw Amendment File Z-1/20, 1300488 Ontario Ltd (Ramara Landscape Quarry), 1378 Concession Road D-E; AND THAT a recommendation be brought forward by staff for consideration following the Public meeting. CARRIED.
8. PRESENTATIONS, RECEIVING OF PETITIONS AND DEPUTATIONS 8.1. Teri Nelson deputation regarding two broken, collapsed and corrugated metal culverts along the undeveloped shoreline in Gondola Lagoon opposite 21 Laguna Parkway. Her concerns include erosion, shorewall damage, aesthetics and mainly the safety of people using the trails on that property. Teri suggests that these culverts be replaced and the ditches be repaired.
Resolution Number CR.131.21 Moved by Joe Gough Seconded by Gary Hetherington THAT we receive the deputation by Teri Nelson regarding broken, collapsed and corrugated metal culverts in Lagoon City. AND THAT staff further investigate the matter. CARRIED.
9. CONSENT AGENDA 9.1. AMO Communications Recommendation: Receive as information.
9.2. Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority correspondence dated April 1, 2021 regarding an updated fee policy/schedule. Recommendation: Receive as information.
9.3. Town of Amherstburg correspondence dated April 6, 2021 regarding Request for Amendments to the Agricultural Tile Drainage Installation Act. Recommendation: See CR.133.21 below
9.4. Town of Amherstburg correspondence dated April 6, 2021 regarding Support for Universal Paid Sick Days in Ontario.
Regular Council Minutes April 12, 2021 Page 4 of 9
Page 9 of 154 Agenda Item #4.1.
Recommendation: Receive as information.
9.5. City of Owen Sound correspondence dated March 24, 2021 regarding Support for West Grey Resolution - Municipal Insurance Rates. Recommendation: See CR.133.21 below.
9.6. Municipality of Calvin correspondence dated March 9, 2021 regarding Universal Paid Sick Days. Recommendation: Receive as information.
9.7. Municipality of Grey Highlands correspondence dated March 22, 2021 regarding Ontario Fire College Closure. Recommendation: See CR.133.21 below.
9.8. Town of Kingsville correspondence dated March 25, 2021 regarding Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms). Recommendation: See CR.133.21 below.
9.9. Town of Orangeville email correspondence dated March 26, 2021 regarding Resolution, Bill 257. Recommendation: Receive as information.
9.10. City of Orillia correspondence regarding Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment. Recommendation: See CR.135.21 below.
9.11. City of Orillia email correspondence dated April 6, 2021 regarding OPP Detachment Board Framework. Recommendation: Receive as information.
9.12. City of Orillia correspondence dated April 1, 2021 regarding Orillia Waterfront Parking and Boat Launch Program. Recommendation: Receive and take into consideration when reviewing the Waterfront Strategy April 19, 2021.
9.13. Township of Severn email correspondence dated April 8, 2021 regarding Technical Land Evaluation for Settlement Boundary Expansion. Recommendation: See CR.133.21 below.
9.14. City of Orillia email correspondence dated March 30, 2021 regarding A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Recommendation: See CR.134.21 below.
9.15. Township of Hudson correspondence dated March 31, 2021 regarding Support for Fire Departments. Recommendation: Receive as information.
9.16. Town of Gravenhurst correspondence dated April 6, 2021 regarding a Housekeeping update to the Town's comprehensive Zoning By-law to bring into conformity with the Town's Official Plan as well as other Housekeeping amendments. Recommendation: Receive as information.
Regular Council Minutes April 12, 2021 Page 5 of 9
Page 10 of 154 Agenda Item #4.1.
9.17. Environmental Registry of Ontario correspondence dated March 7, 2021 regarding Fowler Construction Company Ltd MNRF INST 15/19. Recommendation: Receive as information.
9.18. Environmental Registry of Ontario correspondence dated March 7, 2021 regarding Fowler Construction Company Ltd MNRF INST 16/19. Recommendation: Receive as information.
9.19. Ray Kopylciw email correspondence dated March 18, 2021 regarding Paradise Blvd Deteriorating Road Condition. Recommendation: Receive and staff respond.
9.20. A Resident of Norfolk County email correspondence dated March 26, 2021 Health Canada Cannabis Consultation Open for Comment Until May 7/21. Recommendation: See CR.133.21.
Resolution Number CR.132.21 Moved by Jennifer Fisher Seconded by Joe Gough THAT we adopt the recommendations of Items 9.1 to 9.20 as set out in the Consent Agenda dated April 12, 2021 and any additions thereto, with the exception of Items 9.3, 9.5, 9.7, 9.8, 9.10, 9.13, 9.14 and 9.20 CARRIED.
Resolution Number CR.133.21 Moved by Joe Gough Seconded by Kal Johnson THAT we receive and support Items 9.3, 9.5, 9.7, 9.8, 9.13 and 9.20. CARRIED.
Resolution Number CR.134.21 Moved by Joe Gough Seconded by Jennifer Fisher THAT Item 9.14, be forwarded to the next Committee of the Whole meeting for further discussion. CARRIED.
9.10. Resolution Number CR.135.21 Moved by Joe Gough Seconded by Kal Johnson THAT we receive the Notice of Complete Application from the City of Orillia regarding the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning Bylaw Amendment at 679 Atherley Road. AND THAT we request the City of Orillia consult with the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority regarding this development CARRIED.
Regular Council Minutes April 12, 2021 Page 6 of 9
Page 11 of 154 Agenda Item #4.1.
10. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES & BOARDS 10.1. Trails Committee minutes dated March 18, 2021.
Resolution Number CR.136.21 Moved by Gary Hetherington Seconded by David Snutch THAT we receive the Trails Committee minutes dated March 18, 2021, as information. CARRIED.
11. ITEMS REQUIRING THE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION OF COUNCIL
12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
13. COUNTY COUNCIL UPDATE
14. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND INQUIRIES – MEMBERS OF COUNCIL Mayor Clarke confirmed that the fire rating in the Township has been reduced from High to Moderate.
Residents are reminded to report traffic incidents to the O.P.P. through their online reporting tool or by calling 1-888-310-1122.
Resolution Number CR.137.21 Moved by Joe Gough Seconded by Jennifer Fisher THAT we request the O.P.P. to patrol along Monck Road between County Road 169 and Sebright due to concerns from area residents of excessive speed and traffic volumes. CARRIED.
Resolution Number CR.138.21 Moved by Jennifer Fisher Seconded by Joe Gough THAT we request Strategy Corp. to conduct another interview with individual Members of Council prior to submitting the final report on April 26, 2021. CARRIED.
Councillor Johnson reported that there are a lot of visitors coming to Lagoon City and ignoring the Stay-at-Home order. He is concerned that this summer is going to be just as bad or worse than last summer.
Resolution Number CR.139.21 Moved by Gary Hetherington Seconded by Joe Gough THAT we request Transport Canada investigate the condition of the CN Crossing at Ramara Road 47. CARRIED.
Regular Council Minutes April 12, 2021 Page 7 of 9
Page 12 of 154 Agenda Item #4.1.
Deputy Mayor Gough asked for an update on the requested reduced speed limit on County Road 46.
15. REQUESTS FOR REPORTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
16. NOTICES OF MOTION
17. QUESTION PERIOD FOR MEDIA AND PUBLIC DEALING WITH AGENDA ITEMS Michael Zielenski questioned whether it was Ridge Road or Ridge Avenue in reference to the Parking Bylaw.
Joan Mitzzi-Fry asked why Items 9.17 and 9.18 were on the Agenda when the commenting period has already passed.
18. BILLS AND BYLAWS 2021.20 A Bylaw to Appoint a Building Inspector (Meagan Hawkins)
2021.21 A Bylaw to Amend Bylaw 2020.94 being a Bylaw to Decrease the Rate of Speed of Motor Vehicles other than the Statutory Speed Limits
2021.22 A Bylaw to Amend Bylaw 2003.52 being a Bylaw to Regulate the Parking of Vehicles within the Township of Ramara
2021.23 A Bylaw to Appoint a Bylaw Enforcement Officer and Property Standards Officer for the Township of Ramara
Resolution Number CR.140.21 Moved by Jennifer Fisher Seconded by David Snutch THAT Bill Nos. 2021.20, 2021.21, 2021.22 and 2021.23 be read a first, second and third time and finally passed as bylaws. CARRIED.
19. CONFIRMATION BYLAW Resolution Number CR.141.21 Moved by Joe Gough Seconded by Ted Lamb THAT Bylaw 2021.31, a bylaw to confirm the proceedings of the Council meeting held on the 12th day of April 2021, be considered read a first, second and third time and finally passed. CARRIED.
20. ADJOURNMENT Resolution Number CR.142.21 Moved by Joe Gough Seconded by Kal Johnson THAT we now adjourn at 8:46 p.m. until April 26, 2021 at 7:00 p.m.
Regular Council Minutes April 12, 2021 Page 8 of 9
Page 13 of 154 Agenda Item #4.1.
CARRIED.
Basil Clarke, Mayor
Jennifer Connor, Clerk
Regular Council Minutes April 12, 2021 Page 9 of 9
Page 14 of 154 Agenda Item #4.2.
Public Meeting Minutes Monday April 12, 2021 @ 7:00 p.m. Electronic Meeting via Zoom
The Electronic Public Meetings of the Township of Ramara was called to order on Monday April 12, 2021, at 7:00 p.m., with the following members present:
PRESENT: Mayor Basil Clarke Deputy Mayor Joe Gough Councillor Ward 1 David Snutch Councillor Ward 2 Jennifer Fisher Councillor Ward 3 Ted Lamb Councillor Ward 4 Gary Hetherington Councillor Ward 5 Kal Johnson
ALSO PRESENT: Chief Administrative Officer John Pinsent Director of Legislative and Community Services/Clerk Jennifer Connor Deputy Clerk Cathy Wainman Planning Supervisor/Zoning Administrator Deb McCabe Planning Assistant Sarah Karabin Director of Infrastructure Kathy Sipos Director of Finance Zach Drinkwalter Fire Chief Tony Stong Special Development Advisor Leo Grellette Chief Building Official Walied Zekry Manager Community Standards Jon Popple Human Resources/Health & Safety Brittany Wilson Business, Communications & Comm. Engage Ashley Watson
1. OPENING OF THE MEETING – 7:06 p.m.
2. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
Public Meeting April 12, 2021
Page 15 of 154 Agenda Item #4.2.
3. PUBLIC MEETINGS
The Mayor opened the Public Meeting at 7:06 p.m.
As required under The Planning Act, and pursuant to Council policy, Council is holding a Public Meeting to deal with ONE planning proposal:
Zoning Bylaw Amendment File Z-1/20 Location: 1378 Concession Road D-E Owner: 1300488 Ontario Ltd. Agent: MHBC Planning, Urban Design & Landscape Architecture
The Mayor advised that if a person or public body that files an Appeal of a decision of the Ramara Township Council in respect to the proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendment application, does not make oral submissions at a Public Meeting, if applicable or make written submissions to the Ramara Township Council before the proposed zoning bylaw amendment is adopted, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) may dismiss all or part of the appeal.
Council has made no decision on this matter, and is neither in support or opposition. We want to hear your concerns so that they may be addressed. We want everyone present to have a chance to make a statement. Council will consider all comments and submissions received and staff will work with the applicants in an attempt to resolve the issues. Deb McCabe, Planning Supervisor/Zoning Administrator, is present and will be writing down your concerns.
Notice of this Public Meeting for Zoning Bylaw Amendment File Z-1/20 was mailed on March 5, 2021, to the Property owners in the required area in accordance with Provincial regulations.
Written comments and submissions, with respect to the proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendment were received and are as follows:
Building Department No concerns with Zoning Bylaw Amendment proposal
Infrastructure Department No approval should be given to increase tonnage until such time as new road access has been built and put into place
New haul route is to be exclusive route and no truck traffic, full or empty, is to use Concession Road D-E east of the quarry
Public Meeting April 12, 2021
Page 16 of 154 Agenda Item #4.2.
New road will require environmental assessment prior to construction
All abutting land owners of new haul route should be notified of increase application, new road not being built to standards which will not give them frontage on an opened road and will not be maintained by the Township
Did the original EA of Concession Road BC haul route take this extra use into consideration?
Fire Department This application has no implications with the Fire Code. However, if this road is built to municipal standards, it would be a beneficial road for Fire Service delivery
County of Simcoe The proposed change is a permitted use and the County has no concerns
Jim Westcott The intent of the amendment is to increase the current limit of extraction of mineral aggregate from a neighbouring quarry property from 20,000 to 100,000 tonnes/annum. Preparation for this level of activity has already damaged my ranch property through the construction of the road to support the quarry operations, and I have reason to believe that the additional heavy truck traffic and increased quarry operations will also harm the quality and quantity of water on the property, which is provided by a creek (bisected by the road) and a spring-fed pond. The heavy truck and equipment traffic resulting from the road and quarry activity will also impact the water and vegetation quality on the property.
As my property has already been damaged by the construction of the road, I could not support the Proposed Amendment, until at least the fence was properly repaired and I was given suitable reassurance that my property would not be further damaged, that my use and enjoyment of the property would not be hindered, and I was informed of who submitted the application for the proposed amendment and what the impact of the Proposed Amendment to my property.
The proposal is site specific to Lots 14, 15 and 16, Concession E, and Lots 14, 15 and 16, Concession F, formerly in the Township of Rama, now in the Township of Ramara known municipally as 1378 Concession Road D-E.
Public Meeting April 12, 2021
Page 17 of 154 Agenda Item #4.2.
The proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendment is a request to amend the current zoning of Mineral Aggregate Extraction Exception Nine (MAE-9) to Mineral Aggregate Extraction (MAE) to permit an extraction limit of greater than 20,000 tonnes/annum. The intent of the proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendment is to permit an increase in the maximum tonnage in conjunction with the ARA application, to 100,000 tonnes/annum as per the provision in Section 19 of Zoning Bylaw #2005.85.
Darryl Tighe, D.M. Wills Associates provided a brief overview of what had transpired prior to the public meeting and the processing to date for Zoning Bylaw Amendment File Z-1/20. The public meeting being held is a statutory public meeting under Section 34 of the Planning Act. The Township of Ramara is in receipt of an application to amend Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 2005-85, as amended; as submitted by 1300488 Ontario Limited. The lands in question comprise an extraction area of 150 Hectares (370.7 acres), and described as Lots 14, 15 and 16 Concession E. and Lots 14, 15 and 16, Concession F, in the former Township of Rama. The application for a zoning by-law amendment coincides with an application also filed under the (ARA) by 1300488 Ontario Limited with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry for the purpose of converting the existing Class ‘B’ quarry license to a Class ‘A’ quarry license. The ARA application will permit an increase in the tonnage extraction limit of 100,000 tonnes per annum and below water extraction.
Together with and in support of the zoning by-law amendment application; the following technical reports were also received. Natural Environment Level 2 Assessment, dated June 2013, revised December 2014. Prepared by Michalski Nielsen Associates Limited Noise Impact Analysis, dated July 26, 2016; prepared by Volcoustres Canada Inc. Hydrogeological Impact Assessment, dated September 19, 2016, prepared by Harden Environmental Services Ltd. Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment, dated March 7, 2018, prepared by ASI. Planning Justification Report, dated December 2019, prepared by MHBC ARA Site Plans, dated March 2019, prepared by Geological Investigations.
To date, public consultation has consisted of the applicant advertising and hosting a Public Meeting as required by the Aggregate Resources Act. According to MHBC, no objections were expressed.
The existing haul route proceeds east from the quarry, along Concession D-E, south along the Rama- Dalton Boundary; and west along Monck Road to County Road 169. Alternatively, the applicant is proposing a new haul route which would proceed in a west direction from the entrance, following the unopened portion of the road allowance between Concessions D and E, then proceed south along the unopened portion of the road allowance between Concessions B and C toward County Road 169. Having completed the foregoing assessment, it is apparent that the processing of this application is on-going.
James Newlands, Planner MHBC Planning provided a presentation to Council and members of the public on the proposal before them. The overview provided mapping showing the location of the existing quarry operations as well as the proposed area of operation upon receipt of the increase in tonnage. The existing quarry has been operating since the early 2000’s and is currently an approved Class B above water table license. The existing quarry area is 150 ha. with the existing extraction area being 142 ha. At the present time, the ARA license permits a maximum of 20,000 tonnes of aggregate per year, which consists of dimensional stone with no blasting taking place. Public Meeting April 12, 2021
Page 18 of 154 Agenda Item #4.2.
There is one single family dwelling and one hunt camp within 500 m of the licensed boundary at the present time.
The application that has been submitted to MNRF is an application for a Class A license, permitting below the water table extraction. The proposed licensed area will not change and will remain at 150 ha. The proposed extraction area is being reduced by 21.2 ha., to 120.8 ha. The quarry is proposing to ship a maximum of 100,000 tonnes of aggregate per year, which will be dimensional stone which does not require blasting. The haul route proposed will be ingress and egress from the quarry entrance west and south along private driveways to Concession Road B-C, then west to County Road 169. This would reduce truck traffic on the current haul route on Concession Road D-E.
A chronology of the events leading up to the submission of the Zoning Bylaw Amendment application was provided, starting in 2018, when a haul route agreement between the Township and 1300488 Ontario Ltd. was signed, which allows 1300488 Ontario Ltd. to use the unopened road allowance to build a private driveway to connect to the existing approved Concession B-C haul route. This lead to the application for a Zoning Bylaw Amendment to be submitted on January 9, 2020.
Mr. Newlands provided an overview of the reports submitted and the peer reviews completed to date. Confirmation of sign offs from MECP should be directed to the agency directly to obtain the confirmations in writing.
The Mayor proceeded to take questions and comments from residents who had submitted a request to speak at the meeting to the Clerk’s Department.
Lance Flash, owner of 6364 Rama Dalton Boundary Road, advised Council that he owns property approximately 1.5 kms. from the quarry and is concerned with noise from the quarry. His property consists of a hobby farm and part of his property backs onto Concession Road D-E. He had met with both MHBC Planning and the owner of the quarry to discuss his noise concerns and wants to ensure that noise mitigation measures are implemented. His main concern is excessive noise from the operation on the weekends. James Newlands advised he will take Mr. Flash’s concerns to the owner and discuss hours of operation including weekend hours and the level of expectation when the operations will increase. At the present time, the Class B license permits Saturday operations from 6:00 a.m. to Noon. If a Class A license is issued, the hours of operation on a Saturday are permitted to be 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Correspondence received from Jim Westcott, owner of 1387 Concession Road D-E, expressing his concerns with the damage that had been done to property as a result of the owner of the quarry constructing the unopened road allowance between Lots 15 and 16, including damage to his fencing and the impact on the water resources in the area. James Newlands stated that the owner of the quarry met on site with Mr. Westcott to discuss the damages and has assured the owner that any repairs required will be completed. Studies have been completed regarding the natural environment and water resources. Sign offs are required by MECP prior to the issuance of the ARA license.
Public Meeting April 12, 2021
Page 19 of 154 Agenda Item #4.2.
Mike Rumsey, joint owner of Lot 17 and South Part of Lot 18, Concession F, being used as a hunt camp, asked what type of mitigation measures would be implemented to protect the neighbours from the noise. James Newlands stated that the quarry noise is recognized as a Class 3 noise level and measures to be implemented include berming, setbacks and where the equipment will be located to operate. He offered to review the Noise Study with Mr. Rumsey and provide more details.
The Mayor confirmed with Mr. Newlands that there would be no increase in noise than already existing, just the removal of more dimensional stone.
Terry Rumsey, another owner of Lot 17 and South Part of Lot 18, Concession F, was scheduled to speak at the meeting, however, was unable to join the meeting due to sound issues. He was advised that any questions or concerns could be submitted to the Township and a response will be provided.
Ralph Klingel, joint owner of the hunt camp with Mike Rumsey and Terry Rumsey, indicated he had nothing further to add.
The Mayor turned the question period over to members of Council.
Deputy Mayor Gough stated he was concerned with the hours of operation proposed on weekends and more specifically Saturdays. He was under the impression that quarry operations were only permitted until noon. James Newlands advised that his understanding that all quarries in the area are permitted to work later, but choose to shut down operations on Saturdays earlier. He confirmed that he will take the concerns with hours back to the applicant to discuss.
Councillor Lamb wanted assurance that the fence, berms and other property matters relating to Mr. Westcott’s property will be resolved.
Deputy Mayor Gough confirmed that the quarry operator and Mr. Westcott have met to discuss the issues and how the damage will be rectified.
Councillor Fisher reiterated the concerns of the neighbour, Mr. Westcott relating to noise, dust, fencing and the berm. She inquired if dust control measures would be implemented both from the quarry operations and the unopened road allowance that is currently being constructed for the proposed haul route. James Newlands advised that it is provincial legislation to implement dust mitigation both on the quarry site as well as the haul route providing ingress and egress to the site. The material used is typically just water.
Mayor Clarke inquired as to the number of existing entrances to the Westcott property and was advised by Councillor Lamb that there are currently two existing entrances.
Councillor Hetherington stated he was concerned with the issues raised by Mr. Flash pertaining to noise and wanted assurance that these concerns were being addressed. James Newlands confirmed that the concerns will be addressed by his client.
Public Meeting April 12, 2021
Page 20 of 154 Agenda Item #4.2.
If any person who has not received notice of this meeting, wishes to receive Notice of the Passing of the bylaw, please forward your address and phone number by email to Deb McCabe at [email protected]. If you do not provide your full address, you may not receive notice.
Resolution Number CR.130.21 Moved by Ted Lamb Seconded by Joe Gough THAT we receive the comments and concerns from Council and the public regarding Zoning Bylaw Amendment File Z-1/20, 1300488 Ontario Ltd (Ramara Landscape Quarry), 1378 Concession Road D-E; AND THAT a recommendation be brought forward by staff for consideration following the Public meeting.
The Mayor concluded the Public Meeting at 7:53 p.m.
Basil Clarke, Mayor
Jennifer Connor, Clerk
Public Meeting April 12, 2021
Page 21 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Ward Boundary Review The Township of Ramara April 26th, 2021
Page 22 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Table of Contents Executive Summary and Summary of Recommendations 3 Part 1: Project Overview 5 Progress to Date 5 Review Process Since the Interim Report 7 Part 2: Designing Ward Boundary Concepts 8 Design Process 8 Key Factors That Influence All Designs 10 Part 3: Description and Analysis of Ward Boundary Options 17 Draft Boundary Option 1 18 Draft Boundary Option 2 22 Draft Boundary Option 3 26 Draft Boundary Option 4 30 Draft Boundary Option 5 34 Draft Boundary Option 6 39 Public Feedback Overview of All Draft Options 45 Part 4: Recommendations 48 Population Parity, Today and Tomorrow 48 Appendix A: Projected Population Growth (Interim Report Excerpt) 51 Appendix B: Other Draft Boundary Options 54 Appendix C: Projected Mid-Growth 2030 Population Projections 57 Appendix D: Guiding Principles of this Review 60 Appendix E: Terms of Reference 62
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 2 Draft Final Report
Page 23 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Executive Summary and Summary of Recommendations In December 2020, the Township of Ramara (the “Township” or “Ramara”) retained StrategyCorp Inc. and Sajecki Planning to conduct a Ward Boundary Review (the “Review”). Since then, we have had the pleasure of speaking to Ramara’s elected officials, staff, and residents about the structure of Ramara’s ward boundaries. Ontario law gives municipalities a significant degree of set their own ward boundaries. In the case of Ramara, the challenge is finding a model that can deliver effective representation given: • the municipality’s distinct communities of interest; • the wide range of potential growth scenarios; and • the uneven distribution of expected population growth.
Steps Since our Interim Report Since the presentation of our interim report, we have: 1. developed ward boundary concepts, based on the insights from our earlier phases of work, the principles of Effective Representation, and the Terms of Reference (TOR) evaluative criteria. 2. Pre-screened concepts for adherence to Effective Representation factors and TOR evaluative criteria. 3. Consulted public with via an on-line survey and two digital public meetings on a “Long-List” of 6 favourable options. 4. Narrowed the “Long-List” to a “Short-List” of preferred options based on public comment, and our evaluation, based on the principles of Effective Representation, and the TOR evaluative criteria. 5. Prepared this Final report to Council: o reporting on consultation and o making recommendations having regard to the principles of Effective Representation, and the TOR evaluative criteria.
Summary of Recommendations The report presents six options and several subvariants that arose from the consultation process. Options 1 to 5 would all be satisfactory to meet the population parity requirements of the Terms of Reference. This report Recommends Option 5, as described below, and as amended by 5a, as most suitable to meet the requirements of the Terms of Reference. 5a was a minor tweak proposed in the consultations which extends the boundary of ward 5 slightly to the south to achieve better population parity goals. • Choosing Among Options 1-5: While each of options 1-5 would be acceptable on the mathematics of parity alone, we do not believe they are all equally desirable from a perspective of Effective Representation. • Ruling out Options 2 and 4: In our consultations, we heard many times that it was a desirable outcome of this process to unify the Lake St. John area in one ward. Options 1-5 all achieve this goal. Options 1, 3 and 5 would allocate the area to ward 1 and Options 2 and 4 would allocate it to ward 2.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 3 Draft Final Report
Page 24 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
We believe the alignment with ward 1 is more appropriate, and we think this is sufficient advantage on which to rule out options 2 and 4. • Ruling Out Option 1: We heard in our consultations that the flaw in Option 1 is that it results in boundaries for ward 2 that are unreasonably large. This would likely lead to challenges in workload for the local councillor that could undermine the overall effectiveness of representation in the ward. Option 1 also fails to respect the existence a large provincially significant wetland which was the basis for the current ward 1 boundary. The new configuration would leave residents on the north side of the wetland isolated from the remainder of the ward, undermining its ability to provide effective representation. • Choosing between Options 3 and 5: There are reasons to prefer both options 3 and 5. ▪ Both are acceptable from the perspective of relative parity of ward population. ▪ Both unify Lake St John in Ward 1. ▪ Both avoid creating unacceptably large wards. ▪ Both deliver three wards that will have a vested interest in the affairs of the rural community. This compares favourably with Option 1, that would only have had two rural wards. The alignment of wards in Option 3 is more readily understandable and communicable than the shapes of the wards in Option 5. Option 5 maximizes the number of wards that will have a direct interest in Lake Couchiching and Lake Simcoe. Some commentators who saw the narrow corridors of wards 2 and 4 touching Lakes Couchiching and Simcoe viewed this as a weakness, that risked “cutting up” the accountability of representation along the shoreline into too many wards, and too many councillors. On the other side, we heard “we should all have a stake in protecting the shoreline.” We would be sympathetic to the concerns of blurring accountability if we were drawing municipal boundaries and dividing up a shoreline among different governance structures. In this case, the issue is drawing wards within one municipality, and one governance structure, where all decision-making is the role of the entire Council, and not of any one local councillor. We agree with those who think that it is a positive move to draw wards to maximize attachment to shoreline issues. Conclusion: On this basis, having regard to all the factors in the terms of reference, and in particular the overall principles of effective representation, we: ▪ Favour options 3 and 5, and of the two; and ▪ Recommend option 5, as amended by 5a, as being the best fit for the next ten years of Ramara’s growth.
Report Sections • Part One provides a project overview including progress to date, and engagement following the Interim Report. • Part Two describes the process and major considerations that went into designing initial ward boundary configurations. • Part Three presents the initial six Draft Ward Boundary Options, feedback on public consultations, and our evaluation of each option on its own. • Part Four evaluates the Draft Ward Boundary Options against the evaluative criteria set by the Terms of Reference and Makes our Recommendations to Council.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 4 Draft Final Report
Page 25 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Part 1: Project Overview
Progress to Date A full description of the process so far, including methodology for making current and future population estimates can be found in our Interim Report dated February 22nd, 2021, which is linked here.
Summary of Key Findings & Recommendations From our Interim Report
1. The image (right) shows Ramara’s current wards boundaries, and the table bellow illustrates how the current ward structure no longer delivers effective representation due to lack of population parity among wards.
Population Per Variance from Ward Share Ward Average Ward 1 2,882 19% -2% Ward 2 3,365 22% +15% Ward 3 3,710 24% +26% Ward 4 1,583 17% -12% Ward 5 2,146 14% -27% Total 14,686 (100%) 2,937 (Average)
2. With the current boundaries, this problem is forecast to worsen over the period 2020 to 2030. The rate at which the variance in population among wards will increase varies based on three potential growth scenarios. • Low-Growth: This assumes 2.3% growth based on historical population growth between 2011-2016 but is distributed using the same distribution as the high-growth scenario. • Mid-Growth: This assumes all the above developments occur but to only 50% the anticipated capacity. This would represent a 20% population growth from 2025 projections, with the same distribution as the high-growth scenario. • High-Growth: This assumes all the above developments occur resulting in 32% growth from 2025 projections. The distribution of this growth is 60% occurring in ward 3; 35% in ward 2; and 5% in ward 4.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 5 Draft Final Report
Page 26 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Low growth (at 2.3%) Mid-Growth (at 20%) High-Growth (at 32%) 2030 Population Share Population Share Population Share Ward 1 2,937 19% 2,937 17% 2,937 15% Ward 2 3,518 23% 4,248 27% 5,101 25% Ward 3 4,330 28% 5,582 36% 7,045 35% Ward 4 2,599 17% 2,692 17% 2,801 14% Ward 5 2,146 14% 2,146 14% 2,146 11% Total 15,529 17,605 20,031 Based on guidance from Council at the meeting on February 22nd, 2021, we have based our analysis of ward boundary options on the low growth option, on the basis that: • the high growth forecast would be considerably greater than historic levels of growth. It is contingent on normal economic conditions, as well as provincial and local policy approvals. • Much of the growth in the high growth scenario is not expected to be occupation-ready until 2030, which is the last year of the period covered by this study. • There is some likelihood that projects contemplated by the medium and high growth scenarios will not occur until after 2030, which is the outer planning horizon for this study.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 6 Draft Final Report
Page 27 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Review Process Since the Interim Report During the third phase, we developed Ward Boundary Options based on the findings of the first two phases.
Public Engagement There were several opportunities for public input and feedback, including: Information about the Review was posted on the Township’s website. Two virtual public meetings held to seek comment on the Draft Boundary Options. These Town Halls were held on March 17th, and on March 24th. Advance public notice was provided via the normal communications channels of the Township; and A public engagement survey was posted on the Township’s website from March 10th to April 2nd, 2021.
Engagement in a Time of COVID In compliance with Ontario’s Emergency Order, public consultation has been and will continue to be undertaken in an interactive online format, in lieu of more normal face-to-face meeting arrangements.
The Online Public Engagement Surveys The public engagement survey was available on-line and provided a convenient mechanism for residents to get involved by providing their opinions and feedback. Physical copies were also made available upon request. A total of 33 participants completed the online survey. The completed responses provided qualitative insights into the opinions of participants, which were very helpful in the preparation of the Interim Report. A Public Engagement Survey is NOT to be mistaken for a Scientific Opinion Poll: Given that respondents were self-selecting, the public engagement survey results should not be misconstrued as a representative sample of the public or a quantitative public opinion poll of the population of Ramara. Such a poll would have been different in that it would have required a randomly selected group of participants, chosen using methods to model Ramara’s demographics. A public engagement survey is a survey of self-selected willing participants. As a result, where we have reported on the numerical outcomes of the survey, it should be taken as a report on the opinions of those who participated but NOT as statistically representative of broader public opinion.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 7 Draft Final Report
Page 28 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Part 2: Designing Ward Boundary Concepts
Design Process To create potential draft ward boundary for options for consideration by the public and Council, StrategyCorp 1) identified “population blocks”, and 2) grouped those population blocks into draft ward configurations. The factors used to determine these two steps are described below. Step One: Identify “Population Blocks” Population blocks are the “building blocks” of ward design. They were developed using the following process: • Existing communities of interest such as neighbourhoods and hamlets were identified. • The boundaries of these areas were delineated having regard to natural, human made features and/or property ownership. • For each identified population block, current and future populations were estimated. The following image illustrates some of the original “population blocks” created for the analysis. Community Current Share Block Name Population Washago 1,847 13% Coopers Falls 524 4% Lake St. John 1,005 7% Rama Rd N.
(Fawn Bay) 432 3% Rama Rd S. 147 1% Atherley Narrows 97 1% Atherley 1,235 8% Uptergrove (N of HW-12) 244 2% Orkney Beach 1,012 7% Joyland Beach 800 5% Bayshore 1,244 8%
Lagoon City 2,477 17% Brechin Beach 400 3% Gamebridge Beach 840 6% Brechin 699 5% S. Dalrymple 299 2% N. Dalrymple 138 1%
Sebright 136 1% Udney 1,109 8%
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 8 Draft Final Report
Page 29 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Step 2: Group Population Blocks into Draft Ward Configurations Population blocks are then assembled to create possible ward boundary options, having regard to the following considerations over the period of 2020 to 2030. • Current and forecasted population of “population blocks” and their ability to deliver appropriate parity among wards. ▪ The Ideal average ward size for 2020, based on a population of 14,686 is 2,937. ▪ The Ideal average ward size for 2030, based on a population of 15,532 is 3,106. • Areas forecasted to experience the most growth were identified for their potential impact on population parity between wards. • Population blocks were evaluated for their patterns of community of interest. • Key natural and human made boundaries were identified for their potential to create common boundaries for groups of population blocks. • Patterns of communication and transportation among grouped population blocks were considered, where relevant. • Township servicing issues, such as water and wastewater, were considered, where relevant. • Issues relating to overall “effective representation” and the fit of population blocks as draft wards were assessed, including such issues as: ▪ Rural representation ▪ Waterfront representation ▪ Overall area of the wards ▪ Projected workload of Councillors This analysis creates literally dozens of inputs into the design of wards which are then reflected in the Ward Boundary Options that we developed. The ones brought forward for consultations meet a minimum threshold of population parity, and an at least satisfactory performance on other characteristics. Many other versions which failed to meet this level of fit were left “on the cutting room floor.”
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 9 Draft Final Report
Page 30 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Key Factors That Influence All Designs Based on the analysis above, certain overarching factors came to light that provide the basic “facts on the ground” that all options must have regard to. The following list is not exhaustive of all factors, but highlights for the reader some of the facts that need to be accommodated in a ward design that will deliver on effective representation for all Ramara. They are summarized here and elaborated on in the pages below. • Focus Points of Projected Growth: Growth is NOT forecast to be evenly distributed, and areas with planed growth need to be taken into consideration for 2020 and 2030 to ensure reasonable population parity. • Rural and Waterfront Representation: With 80% of the Township population clustered in waterfront population blocks, any ward boundary design that reflects population parity and delivers effective representation, need to have an element of east-west orientation in the wards that links waterfront and rural areas. • Addressing Population Shortfalls in Wards 4 and 5: Given their location in the Township, to make progress on this lack of parity, any new ward design would need to move the northern boundary of wards 4 and/or 5 north and reallocate population among the resulting two wards. • Defining Ward 3 Around Atherley: Due to the Atherley’s relatively high population density, its central location, and proximity to key growth areas in the Township, ward 3 presents the most options for ward alignment to consider. • Achieving unified Representation for Lake St. John: Lake St. John was identified as an area with a legitimate community of interest that is currently divided among wards. Options are presented to achieve “single ward” representation for Lake St. John. • Township Servicing Issues: Water and wastewater services are a high-cost item relevant to representation but is only provided to some neighbourhoods within the Township.
All the factors discussed in this section were considered, along with other factors relevant to effective representation and the terms of reference, to develop the six Draft Ward Boundary Options presented in this report, as well as several options shown in Appendix B that were not shown in public consultations because they were deemed unsuitable by StrategyCorp and were “left on the cutting room floor”.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 10 Draft Final Report
Page 31 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Focus Points of Projected Population Growth The following map (right) illustrates the distribution of expected development and population growth across the Township. These projections were fully discussed in our previous report, and are fully described in Appendix A. The areas highlighted in red are those that will be completed by 2025 with a high degree of certainty. Most of this development is centered in ward 3 along Highway 12, with some limited development slated in Longford Mills (ward 1) and Sebright (ward 2). The areas highlighted in purple are those slated to be complete between 2025-2030, but that have a lower degree of certainty for several reasons. This includes several developments along the Rama Road corridor (ward 2 and 3), and a large development in Brechin (ward 4). Given most of the population growth will occur around Atherley and the Rama Road corridor, care must be taken to ensure anticipated growth in these areas is divided among wards to ensure the boundaries can withstand expected growth until 2030.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 11 Draft Final Report
Page 32 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Rural and Waterfront Representation This analysis illustrates the challenges of balancing the requirement for relative population parity, with maintaining wards of a reasonable geographic size when considering rural and waterfront representation. It demonstrates that in any design that reflects population parity and delivers effective representation, there is a need to have an element of east-west orientation in the wards, that links waterfront and rural areas. This map (right) shows the distribution of current population and anticipated growth for the major shorelines of Lake Simcoe, Lake Couchiching, and the in-land areas. Roughly 80% of Ramara’s population is focused along the shores of these two lakes. The remaining 20% includes the entire eastern side of the Municipality comprised of mostly rural in-land communities, but also some smaller waterfront communities along Dalrymple Lake, and the Trent-Severn Waterway. So, designing a purely rural ward that achieves relative population parity would require one “too big” ward that included the entire north- south length of Ramara. Clearly, this would not be conducive to “effective representation.” The options that we present reflect this population distribution reality.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 12 Draft Final Report
Page 33 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Addressing the Population Shortfalls in Wards 4 and 5 At present, Ramara’s two southern wards (4 and 5) have a low population share relative to the northern wards. They need to gain up to ~2,200 residents to achieve full population parity with the northern wards of the Township. In the current configuration, ward 5 is surrounded by ward 4. Other than through increase in population, which is not forecasted due to zoning limitations, it can only grow at the expense of ward 4 which already has a low share of the population. Considered as a block, wards 4 and 5 are surrounded by water on the west and municipal boundaries to the south and east. Given their location, to make progress on this lack of parity, any new ward design would need to move the northern boundary of wards 4 and/or 5 further north. Lagoon City is a community built around a network of canals with a population of just under 2,500 residents. Lagoon City is almost entirely represented by ward 5. A small portion is in ward 4. Ward 5 is over-represented on council with only 14% of the current population, resulting in a variance from the average of -27%. Bayshore Village is currently in ward 2. It is the first significant population block to the north of wards 4 and 5, with a population of just over 1,200 people, including those along the shoreline to the south. Given the proximity and population size of Bayshore Village to both Lagoon City and Brechin, and how sparsely populated the eastern side of the Township is, it is reasonable to assume either ward 4 or ward 5 will need to include Bayshore Village. From community consultation, we learned that these two communities have very distinct expectations. Each was strongly identified as a community of interest that should not be divided. The images below illustrate the two options for moving Bayshore into ward 4 (left) or ward 5 (right) that were discussed in public consultations.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 13 Draft Final Report
Page 34 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
During the first round of consultations, we heard divided stakeholder and public input on whether Bayshore and Lagoon City should be included in the same ward. Those in favour point out that Lagoon City and Bayshore are both connected to municipal water and sewer, both shoreline communities, and both share many of the same concerns related to many issues including bylaw enforcement, and short-term rentals. Those opposed note that the two communities are separated by an impassable provincially significant wetland, meaning that they are not as close in travel time as they appear to be, as the crow flies. They also note that both these communities generate large amounts of case work for their respective councillors. From a population parity perspective, combining the populations of Bayshore Village and Lagoon City would locate over 25% of the Township’s population in one ward, +27% greater than the average and more than the current wards 4 and 5 combined. In our view, there is not a justification related to the goals of effective representation that would make it desirable to combine Bayshore Village and Lagoon City at this time. Given the volume of comment about combining those communities, we modelled it in Option 6. However, we do not recommend it. In the remaining 5 options: • Ward 4’s population is increased by extending its northern boundary to Concession Rd. 7 to include Bayshore Village. • Ward 5’s population is increase by extending its southern boundary south to Concession Rd. 1. This extension of ward 5 was made to ensure the entire Lagoon City community was in the same ward, and to include additional shoreline properties with that would be more aligned with the new ward than other surrounding properties, to achieve population parity.
Defining Ward 3 Boundaries Around Atherley Due to the Atherley’s relatively high population density, its central location, and proximity to key growth areas in the Township, ward 3 presents the most options for ward alignments. We have presented five different options for its boundaries (below) that account for several factors described on the next page.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 14 Draft Final Report
Page 35 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Projected Growth around Atherley and the Rama Road Corridor As described in the previous section on key growth areas in the Township, the areas southeast of Atherley and Uptergrove will receive most of the the Township’s growth between 2020 and 2025, and the Rama Road Corridor is forecast to experience the greatest growth over the period of 2025 to 2030. The need to accommodate this growth is both a challenge and opportunity in designing the ward around Atherley and the Rama Road Corridor. Orientation of Atherley’s Surrounding Communities One factor under consideration is how communities that surround Atherley are oriented with respect to their communication and servicing patterns. Many stakeholders identified that the communities to the east and south including Orkney Beach, Uptergrove, and Joyland Beach were far more oriented toward Atherley and Orillia, than to Brechin in the south. Those communities north of Atherley along the Rama Road Corridor seem to orient to both the north with other communities along Lake Couchiching, and to the south, accessing services primarily in Atherley or Orillia. This flexibility presents several acceptable options for configuring the communities along Rama Road. Boundaries Along the Rama Road Corridor Rama Road runs between Atherley and Washago along Lake Couchiching. The stretch of road between Highway 12 and Territory of the Chippewas of Rama First Nations is known as the Rama Road corridor. Currently the corridor is divided just south of Casinorama between wards 2 and 3 along Mara Rama Boundary Rd. – a vestige of the pre-amalgamation divisions. North of Casinorama, ward 2 abruptly ends just south of Longford Mills at the boundary for ward 1 (see image right). These boundaries were identified during the first round of consultations as arbitrary and difficult to understand even for residents who lived in the area. One of the priorities established for the new ward designs was to ensure these boundaries were logical and easy to understand by using more identifiable boundaries including the Casino, Monck Rd., or to have only 2 wards cover the entire Lake Couchiching shoreline to reduce the number of boundaries along the corridor entirely.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 15 Draft Final Report
Page 36 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Achieving Unified Representation for Lake St. John The residents along Lake St. John were identified as a community of interest that is currently divided between wards 1 and 2. With its own resident association and ~1,000 residents, it was identified as an area that would receive more effective representation if it were unified in one ward. All the Draft Options are designed to achieve this goal. We presented Options that included the Lake St. John area with Washago in ward 1 (top row), or with the Rama Road Corridor (bottom row) in ward 2 or 3.
Generally, stakeholders confirmed that the Lake St. John area would be better served in some version of a northern ward 1, as they tended to relate more to Washago then other communities on the southern shore of Lake Couchiching.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 16 Draft Final Report
Page 37 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Part 3: Description and Analysis of Ward Boundary Options What follows are the ward boundary options that we presented to the public for their consideration. For each, we have presented the following: • A map, showing the boundaries. • A chart showing the population for 2020, 2025 and 2030, as well as variance from the average. • A chart showing public and stakeholder feedback and comments on each option. • Results of the input from the community survey.1 • StrategyCorp’s evaluation of each Option having regard to the scorecard which reflects our terms of reference, and the “Effective Representation” test, as elaborated by the Supreme Court of Canada, and decisions of Ontario Tribunals in the context of ward boundary reviews.
1 As noted above, due to small sample size and self-selection by participants in the survey, the survey results should NOT be taken as a statistically relevant quantitative report on public opinion. Rather, it is a qualitative assessment of those who were kind enough to participate. (and we think them for it!!)
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 17 Draft Final Report
Page 38 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Draft Boundary Option 1
*Projections for the medium-growth scenario for this option is available in Appendix C.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 18 Draft Final Report
Page 39 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Public Feedback – Option 1 Option 1 - Summary of Participant Feedback2 Favourable “Ward 2 currently is mostly rural. The lakefront people's votes could easily be swamped by the rest of the ward. Proposal 1 resolves this.” “As a ward 1 resident, the boundaries of ward 1 in option 1 nicely end in logical spots. This option allows Ward 1 to represent all lakeshore cottagers and shoreline residential, as they have the same concerns.” “This makes the most sense of keeping neighbourhoods (and their specific respective interests) together, and respecting socio-economic and geographical boundaries, whilst keeping the numbers pretty fair.” “This segregates the lakeshore from the interior, managing the potential for cottager votes to be washed out by permanent residents.” Not Favourable “Not fair representation by 2030.” “Ward 2 way too big geographically.” “Shoreline communities in Wards 2 and 4 are isolated from similar communities. Balancing the population of each Ward is not the most important part of effective representation.” “Ward 2 is too big and ward 1 too small geographically.” Improvement Ideas “Move Bayshore down to Ward 5. Bayshore has more similarities with Lagoon City than Ward 4.” “Reduction of Ward 2 to exclude shoreline properties and population.”
Residents were asked whether they were satisfied with how Option 1 met the five established criteria for achieving “effective representation.” Their responses are presented below.
20 Yes No Not Sure 15
10
5
Number of Respondents 0 Current Population Future Population Georgraphy Communities of Communication Interest Patterns
2 We have edited some comments for clarity and brevity.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 19 Draft Final Report
Page 40 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Ward Boundary Evaluation – Option 1 Meets Test of Effective Representation? YES / NO 1. Consideration of Representation by Population Wards should have relatively ▪ This option provided excellent parity in the near term, with under/over in equal population totals. However, the low single digits. a degree of variation is acceptable given differences in geography and population densities as well as the township’s characteristics. 2. Consideration of Present and Future Population Trends Population and Electoral Trends: ▪ Relative parity is maintained through 2025, with no ward deviating more consider current and anticipated than 5% from the average and only 7% between the smallest and largest population increases/decreases so ward populations. that ward sizes will be balanced ▪ By 2030, focused growth in Atherley and along the Rama Rd. corridor for up to three terms of Council. results in larger but still acceptable variances between wards of up to 21% between the smallest and largest ward populations. ▪ Risk Management Note: In the medium growth scenario, ward 3 would reach +57% variance from the average because this alignment of ward 3 focuses all the forecast growth in the Rama/Atherley corridor in one ward. See appendix C. 3. Means of Communication and Accessibility: Group existing neighbourhoods ▪ In this design, ward 2 is very large. The result is that it includes several into wards that reflect current rural neighbourhoods that in their transportation and service transportation and consumption patterns orient in very different directions, with those in the communication patterns. north orienting to Washago, those in the south orienting to Brechin, and the eastern areas orienting to Atherley or Orillia. 4. Geographic and Topographical Features: Use geographical and ▪ This option does not respect the significant wetland south of Coopers Falls topographical features to which makes it less convenient to service the residents to the north of the delineate ward boundaries while wetland by the councillor from ward 2. keeping wards compact and easy ▪ With the size of ward 2, the drive from the northeast end at Cooper’s Falls to understand. to Joyland Beach in the southwest would take around 40 minutes. 5. Community or Diversity of Interests: As far as possible, ward ▪ Ward 2 represents primarily rural communities and farmland, grouping boundaries should be drawn similar communities of interest including Udney, Rathburn, Sebright, and around recognized settlement Coopers Falls together. areas, traditional neighbourhoods, ▪ The option divides Ramara’s rural communities among two wards and the and community groupings – not waterfront among all five wards. through them. ▪ Lake Couchiching is represented in two wards, and Lake Simcoe is represented in four wards. ▪ Boundaries do not arbitrarily divide existing neighbourhoods, hamlets, and villages. ▪ It includes Bayshore in ward 4. This is viewed as both a strength and a weakness by different stakeholders from a quality of representation point of view.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 20 Draft Final Report
Page 41 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
SCI Observations – Option 1 Without repeating each of the factors set out above, in general: • This option achieves population parity based on current numbers and the low growth forecast. • It achieves unified representation for Lake St. John, in a revised ward 1. • It addresses population growth issues in wards 2 and 3 under the low growth scenario, subject to the risk management considerations set out below. • It addresses the population shortfalls in wards 4 and 5. Options 1-5 all have a similar treatment of wards 4 and 5. The benefits of combining Bayshore Village with ward 4 to promote population parity outweigh the risks associated with the workload of the resulting ward, and these issues can be addressed in other ways, through corporate casework management improvements. While some have expressed the view that Bayshore does not have any commonality of interest with the rest of ward 4, this appear to be overstated, particularly in comparison with its current alignment with ward 2. A downside is that results in an alignment for ward 2 that is geographically too large to deliver effective representation. This also has the result that there are only 2 wards with a substantial rural representation. This alignment does not maximize the number of wards with a direct interest in each of Lake Couchiching (2) and Lake Simcoe (3). Risk Management: It also focuses the Rama/Atherley corridor in one ward, ward 3, making the model vulnerable to population inequality should actual growth exceed the low growth forecast. For this reason, it is an acceptable option, but not our preferred recommendation.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 21 Draft Final Report
Page 42 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Draft Boundary Option 2
*Projections for the medium-growth scenario for this option is available in Appendix C.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 22 Draft Final Report
Page 43 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Public Feedback – Option 2 Option 2 - Summary of Participant Feedback3 Favourable ▪ “In option 2, Bayshore Village is linked with Brechin and some waterfront communities further south. I think it's OK.” ▪ “Option 2 makes the most sense. It keeps the Rama Road community all together. Ward 3 is good. Ward one covers the north and central rural Ramara well and wards 4 and 5 are done well.” ▪ “My biggest concern is to ensure we can be as equal as possible, option 2 seems to maintain that over time.” Not Favourable ▪ “Ward 4 is completely cut off from similar communities. They would not receive effective representation based on this model.” ▪ “Ward 2 still too large.” ▪ “I don't see how ward 2 aligns with natural or human features or any relationship”? ▪ “This option is bound to force the councillor to not be able to adequately represent the entire ward, as the interests of the rural crowd vs shoreline are not the same.” ▪ “Not fair representation by 2030.” ▪ “This option makes it harder for Lakefront residents to have voices heard.” Improvement Ideas ▪ “I live on Monck road and I’m unsure why a section between Monck road and Hwy 169 is included in ward 1? This seems odd and cuts half our neighbours into a new ward?” ▪ “Ward 1 ward 2 are divided by the lake around Rama. Use it.
Residents were asked whether they were satisfied with how Option 2 met the five established criteria for achieving “effective representation.” Their responses are presented below.
20 Yes No Not Sure
15
10
5 Number of of Number Respondents 0 Current Population Future Population Georgraphy Communities of Communication Interest Patterns
3 We have edited some comments for clarity and brevity.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 23 Draft Final Report
Page 44 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Ward Boundary Evaluation – Option 2 Meets Test of Effective Representation? YES / NO 1. Consideration of Representation by Population Wards should have relatively ▪ This option provides excellent parity in the near term, with under/over in equal population totals. However, the low single digits. a degree of variation is acceptable given differences in geography and population densities as well as the township’s characteristics. 2. Consideration of Present and Future Population Trends Population and Electoral Trends: ▪ By 2025, variances increase, but remain within acceptable ranges, with consider current and anticipated ward 3 ward deviating +13% from the average and 19% between the population increases/decreases so smallest and largest populations. that ward sizes will be balanced ▪ Between 2025 and 2030, population parity remains relative stable. for up to three terms of Council. ▪ Risk Management Note: As with option 1, in the medium growth scenario, ward 2 would reach +37% variance from the average because this alignment of ward 2 focuses all the forecast growth in the Rama Corridor in one ward. See appendix C. 3. Means of Communication and Accessibility: Group existing neighbourhoods ▪ In this option, Atherley is grouped with shoreline communities to the into wards that reflect current south, which many stakeholders identified as being more reflective of transportation and common transportations and communications patterns. communication patterns. 4. Geographic and Topographical Features: Use geographical and ▪ This option does not respect the significant wetland south of Coopers Falls topographical features to which makes it less convenient to service the residents to the south of the delineate ward boundaries while wetland by the councillor from ward 1. keeping wards compact and easy ▪ This option clearly divides representation along Ramara’s two major to understand. lakeshores of Lake Couchiching and Lake Simcoe ▪ This option uses highway 12 as a boundary between wards 2 and 3 which was identified in the first round of consultations as an appropriately identifiable landmark but was more recently identified as potentially increasing alienation of northern wards who often feel underrepresented. 5. Community or Diversity of Interests: As far as possible, ward ▪ Boundaries may divide some rural neighbourhoods or hamlets around boundaries should be drawn Rathburn in the centre of the Township. around recognized settlement ▪ It includes Bayshore in ward 4. This is viewed as both a strength and a areas, traditional neighbourhoods, weakness by different stakeholders from a quality of representation point and community groupings – not of view. through them. ▪ Lake Couchiching is represented in two wards, and Lake Simcoe is represented in three wards. ▪ The option divides Ramara’s rural communities among three wards and the waterfront among all five wards.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 24 Draft Final Report
Page 45 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
SCI Observations – Option 2 Without repeating each of the factors set out above, in general: • This option achieves population parity based on current numbers and the low growth forecast. • It achieves unified representation for Lake St. John, in a revised ward 2. • It addresses population growth issues in wards 2 and 3 under the low growth scenario, subject to the risk management considerations set out below. • It addresses the population shortfalls in wards 4 and 5. Risk Management: It focuses the Rama corridor growth in one ward, ward 2, making the model vulnerable to population inequality should actual growth exceed the low growth forecast. We think it is a positive that this option provides substantial rural representation in three wards, unlike other options that only provide two wards with substantial rural representation. This alignment does not maximize the number of wards with a direct interest in each of Lake Couchiching (2) and Lake Simcoe (3). The problem with option 2 is that it makes more sense for Lake St. John to be in Ward 1 and it is more oriented to the north of Ramara Township. For these reasons, this is an acceptable option on the mathematics of population parity, but not our preferred recommendation.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 25 Draft Final Report
Page 46 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Draft Boundary Option 3
*Projections for the medium-growth scenario for this option is available in Appendix C.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 26 Draft Final Report
Page 47 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Public Feedback – Option 3 Option 3 - Summary of Participant Feedback4 Favourable ▪ “Having Bayshore and Brechin in the same ward is okay.” ▪ “Better.” ▪ “I like this one the best.” Not Favourable ▪ “I do not see this as an improvement over the current boundary. Shoreline communities are cut off from similar communities. This does not give effective representation to Ward 2 and Ward 4.” ▪ “This is way too much on ward 1 councillor's plate in option 3. Considering the problems that exist in north Ramara (i.e., internet), this is too big a problem to be spread out that far, and somebody would get the short end of the stick.” ▪ “Lakefront residents will have difficulty having their voices heard.” ▪ “Wildly unfair representation both in 2020 and 2030.” Improvement Opportunities ▪ “Bayshore population more aligned with Ward 5 or Ward 3 than Ward 4.” ▪ “Why not move Ward 5 to take in the corner on Concession 7 to take some of the pressure off ward 4?”
Residents were asked whether they were satisfied with how Option 3 met the five established criteria for achieving “effective representation.” Their responses are presented below.
20 Yes No Not Sure
15
10
5 Number of Respondents 0 Current Population Future Population Georgraphy Communities of Communication Interest Patterns
4 We have edited some comments for clarity and brevity.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 27 Draft Final Report
Page 48 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Ward Boundary Evaluation – Option 3 Meets Test of Effective Representation? YES / NO 1. Consideration of Representation by Population Wards should have relatively equal ▪ This option provided acceptable, but sub-optimal parity in the near population totals. However, a degree term, with under/over of up to 37%, which is less effective than of variation is acceptable given other options. differences in geography and population densities as well as the township’s characteristics. 2. Consideration of Present and Future Population Trends Population and Electoral Trends: ▪ Relative parity improves through 2025, with the deviation between consider current and anticipated the smallest and largest ward populations decreasing to 34%. population increases/decreases so ▪ By 2030, the deviation further narrows to 26%. that ward sizes will be balanced for up ▪ Risk Management Note: In the medium growth scenario, all wards to three terms of Council. would be within the acceptable maximum range for variance from average, with none exceeding 24%. See appendix C. 3. Means of Communication and Accessibility: Group existing neighbourhoods into ▪ In this design, all wards are relatively compact in their geography, wards that reflect current minimizing the practical impacts of transportation and service transportation and communication consumption issues. patterns. ▪ In this Option, Lake St. John is grouped with other northern communities that share an orientation towards Washago in the north. ▪ In this option, Atherley is grouped with shoreline communities to the south, which many stakeholders identified as being more reflective of common transportation and communications patterns. 4. Geographic and Topographical Features: Use geographical and topographical ▪ Generally, this option uses clear geographic features as the basis of features to delineate ward boundaries boundaries, including Hwy 12, the Rama First Nations Territory, while keeping wards compact and Concession Rd. 7, and the large wetland south of Cooper’s Falls easy to understand. resulting in clear, easy to understand boundaries. ▪ This option clearly divides representation along Ramara’s two major lakeshores of Lake Couchiching and Lake Simcoe. ▪ This option uses highway 12 as a boundary between wards 2 and 3 which was identified in the first round of consultations as an appropriately identifiable landmark but was more recently identified as potentially increasing alienation of northern wards who often feel underrepresented. 5. Community or Diversity of Interests: As far as possible, ward boundaries ▪ Boundaries do not arbitrarily divide existing neighbourhoods, should be drawn around recognized hamlets, and villages. settlement areas, traditional ▪ The option divides Ramara’s rural communities among three wards neighbourhoods, and community and the waterfront among all five wards. groupings – not through them. ▪ Lake Couchiching is represented in two wards, and Lake Simcoe is represented in three wards. ▪ It includes Bayshore in ward 4. This is viewed as both a strength and a weakness by different stakeholders from a quality of representation point of view.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 28 Draft Final Report
Page 49 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
SCI Observations – Option 3 Without repeating each of the factors set out above, in general: • This option achieves acceptable population parity based on current numbers and the low growth forecast. It starts out with worse performance on parity, but unlike some other options, its performance improves with growth. • It achieves unified representation for Lake St. John, in a revised ward 1. • It addresses population growth issues in wards 2 and 3 under the low growth scenario and performs well in the mid-growth scenario. • It addresses the population shortfalls in wards 4 and 5. This alignment does not maximize the number of wards with a direct interest in each of Lake Couchiching (2) and Lake Simcoe (3). It provides substantial rural representation in three wards, unlike other options that only provide for two wards with rural representation, The main problem with option 3 is current population distribution. In our stakeholder interviews, we found some tolerance for ward 1 starting off at a higher base relative to the other wards, as it is not slated for any significant growth over time. It may promote the durability of the ward structure to allow ward 1 to start. For these reasons, this is one of our two preferred options, but not our recommendation.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 29 Draft Final Report
Page 50 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Draft Boundary Option 4
*Projections for the medium-growth scenario for this option is available in Appendix C.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 30 Draft Final Report
Page 51 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Public Feedback – Option 4 Option 4 - Summary of Participant Feedback5 Favourable ▪ “Better than current.” ▪ “This is the fairest representation both in 2020 and 2030.” ▪ “Having Bayshore linked with Brechin is fine.” Not Favourable ▪ “Ward 4 and Ward 2 shoreline communities are cut off from similar communities. They would not get effective representation.” ▪ “This does have Wards 1,2, & 4 all stuck with a portion of waterfront properties and developments. These populations are not the rural community. Ramara is more than her shores.” ▪ “Ward 1 is too big of an area for a councillor to be traipsing around. Improvement Opportunities ▪ “Personally, I like Atherley being separate from the Rama Road Corridor. It does not really impact my travel and is not really part of my immediate community. We associate more with Joyland Beach and Val Harbour.”
Residents were asked whether they were satisfied with how Option 4 met the five established criteria for achieving “effective representation.” Their responses are presented below.
20 Yes No Not Sure
15
10
5 Number of Respondents 0 Current Population Future Population Georgraphy Communities of Communication Interest Patterns
5 We have edited some comments for clarity and brevity.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 31 Draft Final Report
Page 52 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Ward Boundary Evaluation – Option 4 Meets Test of Effective Representation? YES / NO 1. Consideration of Representation by Population Wards should have relatively equal ▪ This option provides excellent parity in the near term, with population totals. However, a degree under/over in the low single digits. of variation is acceptable given differences in geography and population densities as well as the township’s characteristics. 2. Consideration of Present and Future Population Trends Population and Electoral Trends: ▪ Relative parity is still excellent through 2025, with the deviation consider current and anticipated between the smallest and largest ward populations only at 12%. population increases/decreases so ▪ By 2030, the deviation further grows to only 14%. that ward sizes will be balanced for up ▪ Risk Management Note: In the medium growth scenario, ward 2 to three terms of Council. would reach +42% variance from the average because of more concentrated growth south of Atherley and Uptergrove then in ward 3. See appendix C. 3. Means of Communication and Accessibility: Group existing neighbourhoods into ▪ Lake St. John and Atherley are combined in single ward, though they wards that reflect current are service consumption patterns orient in very different directions, transportation and communication with Lake St. John orienting north to Washago, those in Atherley patterns. orienting to Orillia to the west or Brechin to the south. 4. Geographic and Topographical Features: Use geographical and topographical ▪ This option does not respect the significant wetland south of Coopers features to delineate ward boundaries Falls which makes it less convenient to service the residents to the while keeping wards compact and north of the wetland by the councillor from ward 2. easy to understand. 5. Community or Diversity of Interests: As far as possible, ward boundaries ▪ Boundaries do not arbitrarily divide existing neighbourhoods, should be drawn around recognized hamlets, and villages. settlement areas, traditional ▪ The option divides Ramara’s rural communities among three wards neighbourhoods, and community and the waterfront among all five wards. groupings – not through them. ▪ Lake Couchiching is represented in two wards, and Lake Simcoe is represented in four wards. ▪ It includes Bayshore in ward 4. This is viewed as both a strength and a weakness by different stakeholders from a quality of representation point of view.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 32 Draft Final Report
Page 53 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
SCI Observations – Option 4 Without repeating each of the factors set out above, in general: • This option achieves excellent population parity based on current numbers and the low growth forecast. • It achieves unified representation for Lake St. John, in a revised ward 2. • It addresses population growth issues in wards 2 and 3 under the low growth scenario, subject to the risk management considerations set out below. • It addresses the population shortfalls in wards 4 and 5. This alignment delivers 3 wards with a substantial rural representation. This alignment does not maximize the number of wards with a direct interest in each of Lake Couchiching (2) and Lake Simcoe (4). Risk Management: While this alignment delivers excellent parity on the low growth scenarios, ward 2’s alignment makes it vulnerable in the medium growth scenario because of growth south of Atherley. The problem with option 2 is that it makes more sense for Lake St. John to be in Ward 1 and it is more oriented to the north of Ramara Township. For these reasons, it is an acceptable option, but not our preferred recommendation.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 33 Draft Final Report
Page 54 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Draft Boundary Option 5
*Projections for the medium-growth scenario for this option is available in Appendix C.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 34 Draft Final Report
Page 55 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Public Feedback – Option 5 Option 5 - Summary of Participant Feedback6 Favourable ▪ “This is the fairest option.” Not Favourable ▪ “I don't think Rama Road Corridor should be lumped in with Atherley. They are also different lakes. Plus, in this example the Rama Road Corridor is cut in half which doesn't make sense to me.” ▪ “Makes it harder for Lakefront residents to have voices heard.” ▪ “Wildly unfair representation.” ▪ “Shoreline communities that share common needs are cut off from each other. It is not just about balancing the numbers.” ▪ “Doesn't make sense to extend Ward 3 to the East.” ▪ “This is still too much for the ward 1 councillor to carry. To have ward 1 be all the way in the most northeastern corner, no thank you.” Improvement Opportunities ▪ “Ward 3 has more community relationships along the southern shores.” ▪ “I Could see that if you were to move ward 1 boundary about 2km east of 169, maybe that would work.”
Residents were asked whether they were satisfied with how Option 5 met the five established criteria for achieving “effective representation.” Their responses are presented below.
20 Yes No Not Sure
15
10
5 Number of Respondents 0 Current Population Future Population Georgraphy Communities of Communication Interest Patterns
6 We have edited some comments for clarity and brevity.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 35 Draft Final Report
Page 56 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Ward Boundary Evaluation – Option 5 Meets Test of Effective Representation? YES / NO 1. Consideration of Representation by Population Wards should have relatively equal ▪ This option provided acceptable, but sub-optimal parity in the near population totals. However, a degree term, with under/over of up to 26%, which is less effective than other of variation is acceptable given options. differences in geography and population densities as well as the township’s characteristics. 2. Consideration of Present and Future Population Trends Population and Electoral Trends: ▪ Relative parity remains stable through 2025 with the largest gap being consider current and anticipated 26% but becomes more balanced with the largest variance from the population increases/decreases so average at 13%, down from 15% in 2020. that ward sizes will be balanced for up ▪ By 2030, the largest deviation between wards narrows to 22%. to three terms of Council. ▪ Risk Management Note: In the medium growth scenario, ward 3 would reach +31% due to projected growth along the Rama/Atherley corridor being more concentrated in ward 3 than ward 2. See appendix C. 3. Means of Communication and Accessibility: Group existing neighbourhoods into ▪ In this Option, Lake St. John is grouped with other northern wards that reflect current communities that share an orientation towards Washago in the north. transportation and communication patterns. 4. Geographic and Topographical Features: Use geographical and topographical ▪ This option most closely resembles the existing ward boundaries. features to delineate ward boundaries ▪ This option respects the significant wetland south of Coopers Falls while keeping wards compact and which makes a convenient boundary between wards 1 and 2. easy to understand. ▪ This option uses several side roads and property lines as boundaries that may be less identifiable. 5. Community or Diversity of Interests: As far as possible, ward boundaries ▪ Boundaries do not arbitrarily divide existing neighbourhoods, should be drawn around recognized hamlets, and villages. settlement areas, traditional ▪ The option divides Ramara’s rural communities among three wards neighbourhoods, and community and the waterfront among all five wards. groupings – not through them. ▪ Lake Couchiching is represented in three wards, and Lake Simcoe is represented in four wards. ▪ It includes Bayshore in ward 4. This is viewed as both a strength and a weakness by different stakeholders from a quality of representation point of view.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 36 Draft Final Report
Page 57 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Option 5A – Alternative Boundary Configuration Year 2020 2030 Share of Variance Share of Variance Ward Pop. from Avg. Pop. from Avg. Ward 1 23% +15% 22% +10% Ward 2 18% -11% 18% -11% Ward 3 19% -7% 22% +8% Ward 4 20% -1% 19% -6% Ward 5 21% +4% 20% -1% Original Option 5 Population Distribution Ward 4 21% +5% 20% 0% Ward 5 20% -2% 19% -7% Option 5A is minor variant to Option 5 suggested in the stakeholder discussion. It is intended to balance out the population distribution between wards 4 and 5, by extending the ward 5 boundary further south along the shoreline from Concession Rd. 1 to Concession Rd A. This move ~200 residents from ward 4 to ward 5. As you can see from the chart above 5A provides marginally better outcomes than Option 5.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 37 Draft Final Report
Page 58 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
SCI Observations – Option 5 and 5A Without repeating each of the factors set out above, in general: • This option achieves acceptable population parity based on current numbers and the low growth forecast. • The minor variant, 5A, which we recommend, achieves slightly better outcomes, and reduces the size of ward 4 relative to ward 5 slightly. • It achieves unified representation for Lake St. John, in a revised ward 1, which is in our view the better way to achieve this outcome. • It addresses population growth issues in wards 2 and 3 under the low growth scenario, subject to the risk management considerations set out below. • It addresses the population shortfalls in wards 4 and 5. This alignment delivers 3 wards with a substantial rural representation. This alignment maximizes the number of wards with a direct interest in each of Lake Couchiching (3) and Lake Simcoe (4). Risk Management: While this alignment delivers acceptable parity on the low growth scenarios, In the medium growth scenario, ward 3 would reach +31% due to projected growth along the Rama/Atherley corridor being more concentrated in ward 3 than ward 2. For these reasons, Option 5 as amended by 5A is our preferred Option.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 38 Draft Final Report
Page 59 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Draft Boundary Option 6
*Projections for the medium-growth scenario for this option is available in Appendix C.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 39 Draft Final Report
Page 60 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Public Feedback – Option 6 Option 6 - Summary of Participant Feedback7 Favourable ▪ “This option best congregates similar communities based on interests and features.” ▪ “Combining Bayshore Village, Glenrest Beach, Southview Beach, Sandy Cove and Lagoon City in one Ward would achieve effective representation in Ward 5. This is the only option that delivers this! I think the effective representation it delivers outweighs that population imbalance.” Not Favourable ▪ “The needs to Joyland beach are not the same as Brechin. This option is my least favourite. It’s too jumbled and broken.” ▪ “Makes it harder for Lakefront residents to have voices heard.” ▪ “Bayshore is linked with Lagoon City in this option; we do share many issues, but we'd both be under-represented and probably outvoted by communities with other interests.” ▪ “This is the most unfair representation by population.” ▪ “Bayshore and lagoon should not be in same ward.” ▪ “The portion of 4 above 5 seems disconnected and they aren't heading to Brechin. There services are Atherley and Orillia.” ▪ “Ward 5 is too big in this one, and it is not a natural collaboration, to have Lagoon City and Bayshore together. That said, at least they all have internet and water/sewer, so they have similar issues. Ward 1 is also too big.” ▪ “Not understanding why ward 4 needs to be chopped.” ▪ “The councillor workload for Ward 5 will be too high; by adding it, it would be too much and could make it too heavy a burden.” Improvement Opportunities ▪ “Ward 2 could take up some and 3 could take up the shoreline communities.” ▪ “Lagoon City has more in common with the Southern shoreline communities.” Residents were asked whether they were satisfied with how Option 4 met the five established criteria for achieving “effective representation.” Their responses are presented below.
20 Yes No Not Sure 15
10
5
0 Number of Respondents Current Population Future Population Georgraphy Communities of Communication Interest Patterns
7 We have edited some comments for clarity and brevity.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 40 Draft Final Report
Page 61 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Ward Boundary Evaluation – Option 6 Meets Test of Effective Representation? YES / NO 1. Consideration of Representation by Population Wards should have relatively equal This option does fall within the Supreme Court’s guidelines for population population totals. However, a degree parity, with ward five reaching a +27% variance from the average of variation is acceptable given resulting in an over/under spread of 49%. differences in geography and population densities as well as the township’s characteristics. 2. Consideration of Present and Future Population Trends Population and Electoral Trends: ▪ Relative parity falls into acceptable ranges through 2025, with the consider current and anticipated deviation between the smallest and largest ward populations population increases/decreases so decreasing to 46%, with no wards deviating from the average by that ward sizes will be balanced for up more than 23%. to three terms of Council. ▪ By 2030, this deviation further narrows to 41%, but is still sub- optimal compared to other options. Risk Management Note: In the medium growth scenario, all wards would be within the acceptable maximum range for variance from average, with none exceeding 24%. See appendix C. 3. Means of Communication and Accessibility: Group existing neighbourhoods into This option groups Joyland Beach with several southern communities in wards that reflect current ward 4 though they are service consumption patterns orient in different transportation and communication directions. While southern communities orient around Brechin and patterns. Gamebridge, Joyland Beach orients toward Atherley to the northwest. 4. Geographic and Topographical Features: Use geographical and topographical ▪ This option respects the significant wetland south of Coopers Falls features to delineate ward boundaries which makes a convenient boundary between wards 1 and 2. while keeping wards compact and easy to understand. ▪ This option does not respect a provincially significant wetland north of Lagoon city that geographically separates Lagoon City from other communities to the north.
5. Community or Diversity of Interests: As far as possible, ward boundaries ▪ Boundaries do not arbitrarily divide existing neighbourhoods, should be drawn around recognized hamlets, and villages. settlement areas, traditional ▪ The option divides Ramara’s rural communities among three wards neighbourhoods, and community and the waterfront among all five wards. groupings – not through them. ▪ Lake Couchiching is represented in three wards, and Lake Simcoe is represented in four wards.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 41 Draft Final Report
Page 62 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Draft 6A – Alternative Boundary Configuration: Not Recommended Year 2020 2030 Share of Variance Share of Variance Ward Pop. from Avg. Pop. from Avg. Ward 1 23% +15% 22% +10% Ward 2 13% -37% 13% -35% Ward 3 22% +12% 25% +26% Ward 4 17% -17% 16% -21% Ward 5 25% +27% 24% +20% This adapted configuration of Option 6 was developed to respond to stakeholder input as a potential way to limit the amount of new shoreline and geographic size added on the northern end of Ward 4, by adding the Joyland Beach area to Ward 3 and making up the necessary population in ward 4 by pushing up the northern boundary of the ward along the eastern border of the Township instead. This option does not achieve sufficient population gains for ward 4 to achieve parity goals. Based on the inability to deliver population parity, this is not recommended.
Draft 6B – Alternative Boundary Configuration Year 2020 2030 Share of Variance Share of Variance Ward Pop. from Avg. Pop. from Avg. Ward 1 16% -19% 15% -24% Ward 2 20% -2% 20% -1% Ward 3 22% +12% 25% +26% Ward 4 17% -17% 16% -21% Ward 5 25% +27% 24% +20% This adapted configuration of Option 6 makes further amendments to Draft 6A to correct for some of the issue’s reduction in the population of ward 2 caused by increasing ward 4 at the expense of ward 2. As a result, ward 1 is reduced to increase the size of ward 2 by moving the Lake St. John area into ward 2 from ward 1. This version is not recommended as it also fails to achieve parity and has desirable characteristics, such as allocating Lake St. John to Ward 2.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 42 Draft Final Report
Page 63 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Draft 6C – Alternative Boundary Configuration Year 2020 2030 Share of Variance Share of Variance Ward Pop. from Avg. Pop. from Avg. Ward 1 16% -19% 15% -24% Ward 2 20% -2% 20% -1% Ward 3 19% -7% 22% +8% Ward 4 20% 0% 19% -5% Ward 5 25% +27% 24% +20% This variation aims to address some of the more confusing boundary lines in the original Option 6 by including all of Lake Dalrymple in Ward 4, and adjusts the boundaries of Wards 1, 2, and 3 to accommodate and more evenly distribute the lower population in those wards. This variation is still based on a Ward 5 that includes both Lagoon city and Bayshore Village, and a Ward 4 that includes waterfront both north and south of Lagoon City.
Based on the inability to deliver population parity, this is not recommended.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 43 Draft Final Report
Page 64 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
SCI Observations – Option 6 and Proposed Variations Without repeating each of the factors set out above, in general: • This option fails to achieve the target outcomes for population parity based on current numbers and the low growth forecast. It would begin with a population variance of 49% between highest and lowest. Other variants considered do not significantly improve this performance. • It achieves unified representation for Lake St. John, in a revised ward 1, which is in our view the better way to achieve this outcome. • It addresses population growth issues in wards 2 and 3 under the low growth scenario, subject to the risk management considerations set out below. • It addresses the population shortfalls in wards 4 and 5. This alignment delivers 3 wards with a substantial rural representation. This alignment does not maximize the number of wards with a direct interest in each of Lake Couchiching (3) and Lake Simcoe (3). Risk Management: In the medium growth scenario, all wards would be within the acceptable maximum range for variance from average, with none exceeding 24%. See appendix C. The main difference between options 1-5 and 6 is the method of addressing the population parity challenges of wards 4 and 5. • The approach taken in option 6 is to merge Lagoon City and Bayshore Village in a new Ward 5, and to expand the boundary of ward 4 north along the eastern border of the Municipality. • The approach taken in options 1 to 5 is to expand ward 5 to the south, and ward 4 north to concession y across from Lake Simcoe to the eastern border of Ramara, including Bayshore Village in Ward 4. In our view, the approach taken in options 1-5 delivers better results than Option 6 and its sub-variants 6A, 6B, and 6C, that we modelled to see if we could make Option 6 work. We think there is good reason to be cautious about combining the communities of Lagoon City and Bayshore Village into one ward. This could reduce the effectiveness of their representation both within the resulting combined ward, and at the Council table, where they would only then have one directly interested councillor, instead of two. The realities of Ramara geography dictate that the boundary of ward 4 needs to move north, and we think Bayshore Village will achieve effective representation in a new urban-rural ward 4, much as it is currently represented in the current urban rural ward 2. Similarly, we think that the resulting ward 4 will continue to give effective representation for residents outside of Bayshore Village. For these reasons, we do not recommend this Option.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 44 Draft Final Report
Page 65 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Public Feedback Overview of All Draft Options Respondents were asked to select their preferred option among those presented, as well as identifying all the options they would be satisfied with overall. Prefered Option Satisfactory Option 12 10 8 6 4 2
Number of Respondents 0 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6
*6 respondents indicated they would not be satisfied with any of the presented options.
Overall, the preferred option was Option 5, followed by Option 1, and Option 6. However, the option that respondents most frequently reported being satisfied with were Options 3 and 6, followed by Options 1 and 5.
Respondent's Current Ward Ward 5, Ward 1, 3 respondents 6 respondents The figure (left) shows the current ward of the Ward 4, respondents who responded to the Public Survey. The 1 respondents majority of respondents came from ward 2, with very few Ward 2, responses from wards 3 and 4. Ward 3, 15 respondents 8 respondents
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 45 Draft Final Report
Page 66 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Summary of Participant Feedback8 On the presented options ▪ “I like that options 5 & 6 keep the rural communities in ward 2.” ▪ “In every option shoreline communities are cut off from similar properties." ▪ “Make the Lake St. John area into Ward 1.” ▪ “I think slightly below Monk road should be the dividing line between the wards.” General comments ▪ “Make the population equal between all wards even if a ward splits a street in half. Make it fair.” ▪ “Have you considered designing the wards around the existing infrastructure?” ▪ “Go back and do your homework and make things fair and equal. Otherwise, you have one less voting family here.” On shoreline and rural representation ▪ “Ramara is strung out along the lake: the reason many of us are here is the lake; it is really important that each ward councillor has a stake in the health of the lake and the watersheds; prefer everyone to have a share.” ▪ “As a shoreline resident, I would not want a rural councillor, and I would also think that a rural resident would not want a shoreline councillor.” ▪ “There is underlying resentment between the rural and shoreline communities. It is evident to anyone in Ramara that this is a "high/low" township, in that there are two distinct socio-economic groups, and these can generally be divided as shoreline vs rural. ▪ “If you mix the shoreline and rurals under one representation, there will be someone getting the short end of the stick, and the councillor will suffer gross job dissatisfaction based on always feeling like somebody hates him.” ▪ “Ward 1 should represent all lakeshore cottagers and shoreline residential, as they have the same concerns. There is enough for one councillor to ensure the needs of these residents are met, without having to also be familiar with rural issues.” ▪ “I do believe that going back to the well, with a view in mind of grouping together shoreline communities with other shoreline communities. Hopefully, you would eventually come up with a better solution for all of the shoreline residents that would not have so many individual shoreline areas clumped in with totally dissimilar communities!”
8 We have edited some comments for clarity and brevity.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 46 Draft Final Report
Page 67 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Summary of Stakeholder Feedback9 Ward 1 ▪ “Option 1 eliminates all rural representation from ward 1, which should be avoided.” ▪ “It makes a lot of sense to add the entire Lake St. John area into ward 1.” ▪ “Having a larger population in ward 1 is reasonable given the area will not see much growth in the future.” Ward 2 ▪ “If ward 2 remains mostly rural, it makes sense that its population might be smaller to ensure they are adequately represented on Council.” ▪ “Option 1 just makes ward 2 too big.” ▪ “Ward 2 should have some representation on both Lake Simcoe and Lake Simcoe.” Ward 3 ▪ “Options that use Highway 12 as the northern boundary for ward 3 may reinforce old pre- amalgamation divisions.” ▪ “Ward 3 should include representation on both sides of Highway 12 and both Lake Couchiching and Lake Simcoe.” ▪ “Making ward 3 a purely waterfront ward, by extending up the Rama Corridor or to Lake St. John will not result in balanced representation.” Ward 4 ▪ “Bayshore Village represents a high amount of case work, adding it to Ward 4 would make the workload for that Ward unmanageable, and detract from areas like Brechin which also generate a lot of casework.” ▪ “Bayshore would appear to be manageable as part of ward 4, it would also more equitably distribute case work from community organizations and resident associations amongst Council.” ▪ “Adding Bayshore Village to Ward 4 results in a nice balance of rural and “urban” residents.” ▪ “Ward 4 is already a large ward geographically; it shouldn’t grow much larger than it currently is.” ▪ “There may be unintended consequences to only having fewer councillors with constituents on municipal sewer.” Ward 5 ▪ “Extending Ward 5 south makes the most sense, it balances the population and representation between Lagoon City and other waterfront properties.” ▪ “Ward 5 is already the craziest when it comes to casework, adding Bayshore would require a full- time Councillor.” ▪ “Extending ward 5 north will not make sense for equally distributing population.” ▪ “Ward 5 could be extended even further south than presented in options 1-5 to balance out wards 4 and 5 more.”
9 We have edited some comments for clarity and brevity.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 47 Draft Final Report
Page 68 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Part 4: Recommendations
Achieving “Effective Representation” The following recommendations are based on our application of Council’s Terms of Reference (see Appendix E) to all of the inputs that we have received from this process as described above. We make these recommendations in an attempt to give effect to the principles of “effective representations” which guide this process and influenced the Terms of Reference.
Choosing Among Options 1-6 Options one to five would all be satisfactory to meet the population parity requirements of the Terms of Reference. Ruling out Option 6: Option 6 would not meet the Terms of Reference regarding population parity in the near term, although its fit would improve over time. The plus 27% of ward 5 in Option 6 would not absolutely disqualify Option 6, but variances in parity of greater than 25% should only be accepted if the lack of parity is the necessary consequence to achieving some otherwise missing and unattainable aspect of effective representation. In our view, the population parity differences in Option 6 are not necessary to promote effective representation and might make representation worse. The main difference between options 1-5 and 6 is the method of addressing the population parity challenges of wards 4 and 5. • The approach taken in options 6 is to merge Lagoon City and Bayshore Village in a new Ward 5, and to expand the boundary of ward 4 north along the eastern border of the Municipality. • The approach taken in options 1 to 5 is to expand ward 5 to the south, and ward 4 north to concession y across from Lake Simcoe to the eastern border of Ramara, including Bayshore Village in Ward 4. In our view, the approach taken in options 1-5 delivers better results than Option 6 and its sub-variants 6A, 6B, and 6C, that we modelled to see if we could make Option 6 work. We think there is good reason to be cautious about combining the communities of Lagoon City and Bayshore Village into one ward. This could reduce the effectiveness of their representation both within the resulting combined ward, and at the Council table, where they would only then have one directly interested councillor, instead of two. The realities of Ramara geography dictate that the boundary of ward 4 needs to move north, and we think Bayshore Village will achieve effective representation in a new urban-rural ward 4, much as it is currently represented in the current urban rural ward 2. Similarly, we think that the resulting ward 4 will continue to give effective representation for residents outside of Bayshore Village. We are mindful that some expressed the view that the resulting ward 4 (combining in Bayshore) would result in an excessive volume of casework. We are of this view that there are potential solutions to this problem in corporate approaches to case management that can address this issue for all wards, without it needed to be a barrier to ward boundary design.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 48 Draft Final Report
Page 69 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Choosing Among Options 1-5 While each of options 1-5 would be acceptable on the mathematics of parity alone, we do not believe they are all equally desirable from a perspective of Effective Representation. Ruling out options 2 and 4: In our consultations, we heard many times that it was a desirable outcome of this process to unify the Lake St. John area in one ward. Options 1-5 all achieve this goal. Options 1, 3 and 5 would allocate he area to ward 1 and Options 2 and 4 would allocate it to ward 2. Based on the input we heard from the consultations, and on the overall principles of effective representation, we believe the alignment with ward 1 is more appropriate, and we think this is sufficient advantage on which to rule out options 2 and 4. We reach this conclusion, while acknowledging that both wards 2 and 4 have excellent outcomes in terms of parity compared to other options. We recognize this but note, as many courts and tribunals have concluded, that ward boundary design is not a purely mathematical exercise. The question is not which one delivers the greatest mathematical parity, it is which model delivers the best outcomes in effective representation while meeting the requirements of mathematical parity. Ruling Out Option 1: We heard in our consultations that the flaw in Option 1 is that it results in boundaries for ward 2 that are unreasonably large. This would likely lead to challenges in workload for the local councillor that could undermine the overall effectiveness of representation in the ward. Option 1 also fails to respect the existence a large provincially significant wetland which was the basis for the current ward 1 boundary. The new configuration would leave residents on the north side of the wetland isolated from the remainder of the ward, undermining its ability to provide effective representation. Options 3 and 5 achieve better outcomes without causing similar disruption.
Considering Options 3 and 5: There are reasons to prefer both options 3 and 5. • Both are acceptable from the perspective of relative parity of ward population. • Both unify Lake St John in Ward 1 • Both avoid creating unacceptably large wards. • Both deliver three wards that will have a vested interest in the affairs of the rural community. This compares favourably with Option 1, that would only have had two rural wards. One strong feature of option 3 is the transparent and “orderly” structure of its boundaries, which are based on readily recognizable features, making them easy to understand and communicate to the public. Of note is the difference between the regular shape of wards 2 and 4 in option 3, versus the puzzle-piece shapes of wards 2 and 4 in option 5. While the visual alignments of wards 2 and 4 may be preferable in Option 3, the wards shapes in Option 5 do delivers important functionality by increasing the number of wards with a direct interest in the shoreline. Unlike option 3, option 5 maximizes the number of wards that will have a direct interest in Lake Couchiching and Lake Simcoe. See table below.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 49 Draft Final Report
Page 70 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Maximizes wards with an interest Option 3 Option 5 in shoreline: 2 Councillors 3 Councillors Lake Couchiching (wards 1,2) (wards 1,2,3) 3 Councillors 4 Councillors Lake Simcoe (wards 3,4,5) (wards 2,3,4,5)
To be fair, some commentators who saw the narrow corridors of wards 2 and 4 touching Lakes Couchiching and Simcoe viewed this as a weakness, that risked “cutting up” the accountability of representation along the shoreline into too many wards, and too many councillors. On the other side, we heard “we should all have a stake in protecting the shoreline.” That view saw option 5 as being the best at delivering effective representation for waterfront interests. We would be sympathetic to the concerns of blurring accountability if we were drawing municipal boundaries and dividing up a shoreline among different governance structures. That is not at stake here. In this case, the issue is drawing wards within one municipality, and one governance structure, where all decision-making is the role of the entire Council, and not of any one local councillor. We agree with those who think that it is a positive move to draw wards to maximize attachment to shoreline issues. We think this is certainly favourable to (already dismissed) option 4, which would have created a narrow shoreline ward along Lake Couchiching, potentially setting up unhelpful “we-they” dynamics between wards with more seasonal and wards with more permanent residents. Option 5a was a minor tweak proposed during the consultations. It would extend the boundary of ward 5 slightly to the south to achieve better population parity goals, as set out on pages 38-39. Conclusion: On this basis, having regard to all the factors in the terms of reference, and in particular the overall principles of effective representation, we: • acknowledge that all of options 1-5 could be suitable or preferred by some, but • we favour options 3 and 5, and of the two, • we recommend option 5, as amended by 5A, as being the best fit for the next ten years of Ramara’s growth.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 50 Draft Final Report
Page 71 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Appendix A: Projected Population Growth (Interim Report Excerpt) Under the Terms of Reference, this Review is intended to accommodate projected growth through the 2022, 2026, and 2030 municipal elections. For consistency with the Township’s planning framework, 2030 was chosen as the population growth horizon. StrategyCorp worked with Ramara’s staff to estimate current and future population growth as well as anticipate where that growth is expected to occur.10 There are two complications in projecting growth of the purpose for designing wards: • There is a significant variance between the past actual growth and the projected possible growth for Ramara. For example, Simcoe County has Ramara projected to reach a permanent population of 13,000 by 2031, representing an average year-over-year growth rate of 2.5% from 9,488 in 2016.11 This would be a very large increase from StatsCan’s reported year-over-year growth of 0.46% between 2011-2016.12 • Most of the projected growth is almost entirely focused along the Rama Road corridor, primarily within the boundaries of current ward 3 and to a lesser extent ward 2. A list of forecasted development projects and a map indicating where they are anticipated to occur are on the following pages. Many of these projects have been in the planning stage for some time and are contingent on provincial land use approvals which have yet to be granted.
Known Development Projects 2020-2025 # of New Additional Est. "Move. Development Ward Units Population in Date" Ramara Lakefront Resorts 1 24 55 2022 7199 Rama Rd (Rosy Beach Crt) 6119 Concession Rd B-C (Sebright) 2 3 7 2022 6029 Concession Rd. B-C (Sebright) 2 10 23 2023 4185 Concession Rd 11 3 5 12 2021 3894 Concession Rd 10 3 5 12 2021 4672 McNeil Street (Atherley) 3 2 5 2023 7 Balsam Road (Atherley) 3 4 9 2025 Lakepoint Village 3 150 345 2025 3986 Concession Rd 10 Rama Resorts 3 12 28 2025 Christopher Cres. Concession Rd. 12 Total 215 495
10 For the purposes of a ward boundary review, we do not express any opinion on whether proposed growth will happen or should happen. We take it in to account only for the purpose of forecasting the effect that growth would have on the distribution of population among wards relevant to the Effective Representation test. 11 Simcoe County 2018 Economic Development Data Report. https://www.ramara.ca/en/business-and- development/resources/Documents/Ramara-Economic-Development-Data-Report-2018.pdf 12 StatsCan (2016) Census data
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 51 Draft Final Report
Page 72 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Distribution of projected growth 2020-2025 These development applications and proposals provide us with accurate and specific population growth projections to the year 2025, ahead of the 2026 elections.
The chart (below) describes how these developments would impact the current ward populations. The map (right) illustrates the concentration of potential development activity.
Year 2020 2025 Ward Population Share Population Share Ward 1 2,882 19% 2,937 19% Ward 2 3,365 22% 3,395 22% Ward 3 3,710 24% 4,119 27% Ward 4 2,583 17% 2,583 17% Ward 5 2,146 14% 2,146 14% TOTAL 14,686 15,180
Anticipated Development Projects 2025-2030 # of New Additional Est. "Move Development Ward Units Population in Date" Waterpark/Resort 2 742 1707 2030 South of Casino Rama on Rama Rd. corridor Harbour Village at the Narrows 3 500 1,150 2030 West of Rama Rd. S. of Fern Rd. Senior Living Development 3 322 741 2030 Rama Rd, between Fawn Bay and Fern Resort Concession 11/ON-125699 Highway 12 3 150 345 2030 180 Courtland St. 3 300 690 2030 Veltri Subdivision 4 95 219 2030 2123 Concession Road 4 (Brechin) Total 2,109 4,851
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 52 Draft Final Report
Page 73 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Distribution of projected growth 2025-2030 Potential Growth in the 2025-2030 period would have a major effect on the relative population of the wards. Planned projects would deliver an unprecedented increase in the pace of population growth in Ramara. Planned developments for the 2025-2030 period, if realized, would have a significant impact on Township. There is a high degree of uncertainty to these growth forecasts. In addition to the usual uncertainty that comes from the economy, many of the proposed 2025-2030 development projects rely on yet to be confirmed provincial and municipal land use approvals, and the availability of servicing. Growth will be unevenly distributed. As illustrated in this map, if the growth happens, 95% of it will happen in Wards 2 and 3. The contingent nature of forecast growth, and its materiality to ward boundary design has prompted us to develop three possible growth scenarios to assess the range of possible effects on ward boundary design: 1. Low-Growth: This assumes 2.3% growth based on historical population growth between 2011-2016 but is distributed using the same distribution as the high-growth scenario. 2. Mid-Growth: This assumes all the above developments occur but to only 50% the anticipated capacity. This would represent a 20% population growth from 2025 projections, with the same distribution as the high-growth scenario. 3. High-Growth: This assumes all the above developments occur, resulting in 32% growth from 2025 projections. The distribution of this growth is 60% in ward 3; 35% in ward 2; and 5% in ward 4.
Low growth (at 2.3%) Mid-Growth (at 20%) High-Growth (at 32%) 2030 Population Share Population Share Population Share Ward 1 2,937 19% 2,937 17% 2,937 15% Ward 2 3,518 23% 4,248 27% 5,101 25% Ward 3 4,330 28% 5,582 36% 7,045 35% Ward 4 2,599 17% 2,692 17% 2,801 14% Ward 5 2,146 14% 2,146 14% 2,146 11% Total 15,529 17,605 20,031
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 53 Draft Final Report
Page 74 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Appendix B: Other Draft Boundary Options
Draft A This option is designed to keep the rural and shoreline communities as isolated as possible. It results in a very large rural ward the spans the entire eastern side of the Township. It also presents issues in creating population parity among wards while respecting existing communities of interests.
Year 2020 2030 Share of Variance Share of Variance Ward Pop. from Avg. Pop. from Avg. Ward 1 19% -4% 19% -6% Ward 2 20% +1% 19% -3% Ward 3 20% -2% 23% +16% Ward 4 14% -30% 13% -34% Ward 5 25% +27% 24% +20%
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 54 Draft Final Report
Page 75 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Draft B
This option was designed to keep Joyland Beach, Val Harbour, and Bayshore Village together, a priority identified during the second round of public consultations.
Year 2020 2030 Share of Variance Share of Variance Ward Pop. from Avg. Pop. from Avg. Ward 1 19% -3% 19% -6% Ward 2 13% -33% 13% -36% Ward 3 20% -2% 23% +16% Ward 4 22% +10% 21% +5% Ward 5 25% +27% 24% +20%
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 55 Draft Final Report
Page 76 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Draft C This option was designed to examine alternate configurations for Bayshore Village that place it outside of ward 4 or 5. This option also examines how far north the boundary for ward 4 would need to move up the eastern border of the Township to reach a relatively even population.
Year 2020 2030 Share of Variance Share of Variance Ward Pop. from Avg. Pop. from Avg. Ward 1 20% -1% 19% -5% Ward 2 25% +24% 26% +29% Ward 3 20% -2% 21% +6% Ward 4 16% -19% 15% -23% Ward 5 20% -2% 19% -7%
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 56 Draft Final Report
Page 77 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Appendix C: Projected Mid-Growth 2030 Population Projections The following tables show the 2030 projects for each Draft Boundary Options under the medium-growth scenario presented in the Interim Report. These figures were deemed by Council to be less likely than the low-growth scenario, but they have been included to illustrate how the presented options might withstand more growth then is anticipated.
Draft Boundary Option 1 2020 Variance 2030 Variance Ward Population from Avg Population from Avg Ward 1 2,850 -3% 2,905 -18% Ward 2 3,054 +4% 3,085 -12% Ward 3 2,822 -4% 5,536 +57% Ward 4 3,082 +5% 3,191 -9% Ward 5 2,877 -2% 2,877 -18% TOTAL 14,686 17,608 (Average) (2,937) (3,522)
Draft Boundary Option 2 2020 Variance 2030 Variance Ward Population from Avg Population from Avg Ward 1 2,921 -1% 2,952 -16% Ward 2 2,758 -6% 4,823 +37% Ward 3 3,048 +4% 3,764 +7% Ward 4 3,082 +5% 3,191 -9% Ward 5 2,877 -2% 2,877 -18% TOTAL 14,686 17,608 (Average) (2,937) (3,522)
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 57 Draft Final Report
Page 78 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Draft Boundary Option 3 2020 Variance 2030 Variance Ward Population from Avg Population from Avg Ward 1 3,376 +15% 3,407 -3% Ward 2 2,302 -22% 4,367 +24% Ward 3 3,048 +4% 3,764 +7% Ward 4 3,082 +5% 3,191 -9% Ward 5 2,877 -2% 2,877 -18% TOTAL 14,686 17,608 (Average) (2,937) (3,522)
Draft Boundary Option 4 2020 Variance 2030 Variance Ward Population from Avg Population from Avg Ward 1 2,921 -1% 2,952 -16% Ward 2 2,933 0% 4,998 +42% Ward 3 2,873 -2% 3,589 +2% Ward 4 3,082 +5% 3,191 -9% Ward 5 2,877 -2% 2,877 -18% TOTAL 14,686 17,608 (Average) (2,937) (3,522)
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 58 Draft Final Report
Page 79 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Draft Boundary Option 5 2020 Variance 2030 Variance Ward Population from Avg Population from Avg Ward 1 3,376 +15% 3,432 -3% Ward 2 2,615 -11% 3,498 -1% Ward 3 2,735 -7% 4,608 +31% Ward 4 3,082 +5% 3,191 -9% Ward 5 2,877 -2% 2,877 -18% TOTAL 14,686 17,608 (Average) (2,937) (3,522)
Draft Boundary Option 6 2020 Variance 2030 Variance Ward Population from Avg Population from Avg Ward 1 3,376 +15% 3,432 -3% Ward 2 2,298 -22% 3,193 -9% Ward 3 2,491 -15% 4,352 +24% Ward 4 2,799 -5% 2,908 -17% Ward 5 3,721 +27% 3,721 +6% TOTAL 14,686 17,608 (Average) (2,937) (3,522)
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 59 Draft Final Report
Page 80 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Appendix D: Guiding Principles of this Review
This Ward Boundary Review is led by Guiding Principles which are informed by: • Statutory Authority • Council’s Terms of Reference • The Principles of “effective Representation” as enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada and other Ontario Tribunals Statutory Authority The Municipal Act gives councils discretion to set the ward configuration, including the number of wards, the number of Councillors to be elected in each ward and the boundaries of the wards (Municipal Act, 2001, s. 222 (1)). Council’s Terms of Reference As set out in the Terms of Reference, the overarching purpose of the Review is to conduct a review of the Township’s ward boundaries. The full terms of reference can be found in Appendix X. The Principle of Effective Representation The principle of effective representation was set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Reference Re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Saskatchewan), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158 (Carter),13 the leading authority for evaluating electoral systems in Canada. The issue in Carter was whether a difference in population between provincial ridings in Saskatchewan infringed the right to vote protected by section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter). In Carter, the Supreme Court held that the purpose of the right to vote enshrined in the Charter is not “equality of voting power” but the right to “effective representation.” Effective representative is the right to be “represented in government,” where “representation” entails both the right to a voice in the deliberations of government (the legislative role of elected representatives) and the right to bring your concerns to your representative (the ombudsman role of elected representatives). Effective representation begins with voter parity, the idea that all votes should have equal weight and, as a result, the number of people living in each ward should be similar. According to the Supreme Court: A system which dilutes one citizen's vote unduly as compared with another citizen's vote runs the risk of providing inadequate representation to the citizen whose vote is diluted. The legislative power of the citizen whose vote is diluted will be reduced, as may be access to and assistance from his or her representative. The result will be uneven and unfair representation. While parity is of “prime importance,” the Supreme Court held that it is “not the only factor to be considered in ensuring effective representation:” Notwithstanding the fact that the value of a citizen's vote should not be unduly diluted, it is a
13 Carter is available online here: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/766/index.do.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 60 Draft Final Report
Page 81 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
practical fact that effective representation often cannot be achieved without considering countervailing factors. The Supreme Court provided a non-exhaustive list of factors that should be considered, including geography (natural and manmade), community history, community interests (such as urban and rural), minority representation and population growth. These factors allow the population of wards to vary to some extent. It is generally accepted, that wards should not vary in population by more than 25% from the average, unless there is a good reason to depart from this having regard to overall effective representation. When defining effective representation as the right protected by the Charter, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that the relative parity of voting power was a prime, but not an exclusive, condition of effective representation. One thing is clear though. While maintaining relative parity is important, both now and in the future, it is not the only factor. As one Ontario Tribunal put it, “ward design is not just a purely mathematical exercise.” Departure from mathematical parity should be avoided and minimized but may be justified where the other factors set out above combine to justify the departure to achieve overall effective representation. In other words, effective representation is a balance. The Supreme Court rejected the “one person – one vote” approach in favour of a more nuanced approach that balances voter parity with a number of other factors to ensure “legislative assembles effectively represent the diversity of our social mosaic.” The principle of effective representation has been interpreted and applied in a long line of Ontario Municipal Board cases dealing specifically with ward boundary and council structure issues.14
14 See, for example, Teno v. Lakeshore (Town), (2005), 51 O.M.B.R. 473 and Osgoode Rural Communities Association et al. v. Ottawa (City) [2003] Decision/Order 0605.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 61 Draft Final Report
Page 82 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Appendix E: Terms of Reference OBJECTIVE To conduct a comprehensive review of the Township of Ramara’s ward boundaries and make recommendations as to options that would achieve an effective system of fair representation for residents. CONTEXT
Pursuant to section 222 of the Municipal Act, a municipal council has the authority to divide or re- divide the municipality into wards or to dissolve the existing wards. GUIDING PRINCIPLES The review will have regard to the following guiding criteria, subject to the overriding principle of “effective representation” as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Reference re Provincial Electoral Boundaries and elaborated by successive OMB/LPAT decisions: ▪ Representation by Population: wards should have relatively equal population totals. However, a degree of variation is acceptable given differences in geography and population densities as well as the town’s characteristics. ▪ Population and Electoral Trends: consider current and anticipated population increases/decreases so that ward sizes will be balanced for up to three terms of Council. ▪ Means of Communication and Accessibility: group existing neighbourhoods into wards that reflect current transportation and communication patterns. ▪ Geographic and Topographical Features: use geographical and topographical features to delineate ward boundaries while keeping wards compact and easy to understand; and, ▪ Community or Diversity of Interests: as far as possible, ward boundaries should be drawn around recognized settlement areas, traditional neighbourhoods, and community groupings – not through them. OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION Having regard to the Municipal Act and the Guiding Principles, the review of the ward boundaries will consider: 1. Acceptability of the status quo. 2. Options for reconfiguration of ward boundaries. TIMING CONSIDERATIONS For the Ward Boundary Review to be completed and take effect for the 2022 Municipal Election, the By-law to amend the City’s Wards must be adopted and in full force and effect by December 31, 2021. Under the Municipal Act, there is a 45-day appeal period once the By-law is adopted by Council. ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES Council • Approve terms of reference. • Monitor public consultation, provide input on options. • Decision maker on final recommendations
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 62 Draft Final Report
Page 83 of 154 Agenda Item #8.1.
Consultant • In consultation with the Clerk, develop a communication plan to inform the public of the ward boundary review. • Review all pertinent background information made available by the Town. • Review OMB cases, best practices, and other relevant resources • Consult with Council, Ramara staff, school boards and any other significant stakeholders. • Organize public consultation in a manner consistent with the Township’s current COVID 19 protocols in collaboration with the Clerk. • Prepare appropriate public consultation materials, which shall include a description of the process, the current ward boundary structure and provide an opportunity for the public to give ask questions, receive answers, and give input for inclusion into the review. • Receive and review comments and submissions from stakeholders and the public. • Develop a report detailing options and present to Council for consideration.
CAO, Clerk & Township Staff • Work in collaboration with consultant, to assist in scheduling necessary consultations with Council and the public, in a manner consistent with norms of the Township. • Provide information regarding current population and projected population forecasts. • Promote the ward boundary review using normal Township communications channels. • Maintain a webpage on the review. • Draft all required staff reports to accompany the consultant’s recommendation.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 63 Draft Final Report
Page 84 of 154 Agenda Item #9.1.
Cathy Wainman
Subject: FW: AMO Policy Update – Federal Budget Highlights, Revised COVID-19 Measures, and Red Tape Bill
From: AMO Communications
AMO Update not displaying correctly? View the online version Add [email protected] to your safe list
April 19, 2021 AMO Policy Update – Federal Budget Highlights, Revised COVID-19 Measures, and Red Tape Bill
Canada Budget 2021: Highlights for Ontario Municipal Governments
The Honourable Chrystia Freeland, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, brought down her first Budget today and the federal government’s first Budget since before the beginning of the pandemic.
Budget 2021 includes significant new spending on policies of interest to Ontario municipal governments including: affordable childcare and housing; broadband internet expansion; support for the tourism sector; and climate change, greenhouse gas reduction and the circular economy. It also makes new commitments to extend sickness benefits through Employment Insurance and extension of rent supplements and hiring benefits; increasing Old Age Security for seniors over 75.
Items of interest to Ontario municipal governments include:
Childcare and Early Learning: Moving forward on the Throne Speech commitment to establish a national early learning and childcare system, the government is committing to provide funding to provinces and territories to subsidize and make childcare more affordable. The plan will aim to reduce fees for parents with children in regulated childcare by 50 per cent on average, by 2022, with a goal of reaching $10 per day on
1
Page 85 of 154 Agenda Item #9.1.
average by 2026, everywhere outside of Quebec. $30 billion will be spent over 5 years starting in 2021 with $8.3 billion ongoing to support the government vision.
Housing and Homelessness Prevention: The government is making additional commitments under the National Housing Strategy. There are targets and plans for a variety of measures to help build, repair, and support 35,000 affordable housing units for vulnerable Canadians. This will be achieved through an investment of $2.5 billion and a reallocation of $1.3 billion in existing funding to speed up assistance. Funding will maintain the increases to the Reaching Home program to address homelessness for a further two years. A new tax on unproductive use of housing by foreign non- resident owners.
Broadband: The government has proposed to provide another $1 billion over six years for the Universal Broadband Fund, to help connect rural and remote communities to high-speed internet faster. This increases the overall size of the Fund to $2.75 billion and sets them on track to achieve their 98% high-speed coverage initiative by 2026.
Long-Term Care: The government is proposing to provide $3 billion over five years, starting in 2022-23, to support provinces and territories in ensuring standards for long- term care are applied. Work is underway to develop national standards.
Tourism: The Budget provides $1 billion to support tourism sector businesses including supports for events and festivals. This includes $200 million for major festivals through Canada’s Regional Development Agencies, $200 million in support for community festivals and $500 million to support tourism-based businesses through a Tourism Relief Fund.
Transit: The Budget commits to the earlier announcement of permanent infrastructure funding for transit of $15 billion including subway development, fleet electrification and zero-emission transit vehicles.
Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction: The Budget commits to the goal of net zero emissions for Canada by 2050. Significant investments in climate change and GHG reduction including $5 billion over seven years for the Net Zero Economy Accelerator to invest in decarbonizing major emitters such as cement, aluminum, and steel sector businesses to allow them to adopt cleaner technology.
The Budget provides $4.4 billion for CMHC zero interest loans to homeowners, up to $40,000, for deep energy retrofits on existing housing stock to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions.
The Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund will be provided with $1.4 billion over 12 years to support climate adaptation and disaster mitigation projects that protect people and communities from climate change impacts. Of this, $670 million is for small projects between $1 million and $20 million. AMO has long called for more dedicated funding for climate adaptation projects including extending this funding. In addition, the Budget will provide $63.8 million to improve flood mapping, a key recommendation of AMO’s recent flooding paper.
2
Page 86 of 154 Agenda Item #9.1.
$54.8 million is committed over two years to help the forestry industry and communities to take advantage of bio-economy opportunities in areas such as biofuels and building materials that can improve sustainable economic development.
$319 million over seven years for carbon capture and storage initiatives and demonstration projects to help reduce GHGs from large emitters. The Budget also proposes to consult on tax incentives for these projects.
$1.5 billion over five years for clean fuels through the Clean Fuels Fund to support such initiatives as hydrogen fuel adoption and biomass.
Provincial Stay-at-Home Order Revisions
Late Friday, April 16th the Province announced additional enforcement, travel restrictions, and public health measures. Additional enforcement tools came into force at 12:01 a.m. on Saturday, April 17th, 2021.
Since then, provincial amendments to regulations were made to clarify that playgrounds will remain open and that police officers and other provincial offences officers, including municipal bylaw officers, will not have as much enforcement authority as announced on April 16th to support enforcement under the Reopening Ontario (A Flexible Response to COVID-19) Act, 2020.
Reducing Red Tape Bill
Bill 276, Supporting Recovery and Competitiveness Act, 2021 was introduced for 1st reading on April 15th and contains 28 schedules impacting a wide range of matters. A general overview is available.
From a municipal government perspective, the following schedules are of interest:
Schedule 9 Changes to Designate Long-Term Care Homes: French Language Services Act
The Schedule changes the definition of “government agency” in the French Language Services Act to permit the designation of municipal long-term care homes and joint homes as public service agencies delivering services in the French language.
Schedule 21 Changes to Delivery Roles: Ontario Works Act, 1997
Earlier this year, the government announced a new social assistance vision. Once fully realized, there will be a significant change in municipal roles and responsibility for Ontario Works delivery. Municipal governments will focus on frontline casework helping people to access the life stabilization services that they need in the community to become more independent and ready for employment. The Province would assume responsibility for financial assistance delivery.
3
Page 87 of 154 Agenda Item #9.1.
The Bill’s proposal would provide authority to the Minister and the government to make these changes. The details will be worked out in subsequent regulations.
Schedule 23 Energy Transmission Projects: Planning Act
Section 62 of the Planning Act, 1990 currently exempts Hydro One’s transmission projects that are approved under the Environmental Assessment Act from the Planning Act, 1990 in its entirety. This exemption was introduced in 1983, before the energy market was restructured, at a time when Hydro One was part of the fully integrated, Crown-owned Ontario Hydro.
The Bill’s proposal would apply Hydro One’s exemption to all transmitters whose transmission projects undergo Comprehensive or Streamlined Environmental Assessment processes.
Schedule 24 Changes to Consents and Subdivisions: Planning Act
This schedule alters many elements of Section 50 to 57. This includes stopping merging of lots as a result of the death of one of the joint tenants; interests in land acquired for an energy line would be allowed to be disposed of but only to owners of abutting land, some administrative matters to clarify validation and issuing certificates, circulation, use of part lot control, leases for uses ancillary to a building, amending and cancelling consents, and applicant would be able to apply to the consent granting authority to request a one-time extension of up to one year (2 years total) in which to satisfy the conditions of approval for the consent.
Many of these proposals are addressing longstanding problems with the consent and subdivision process. AMO will continue to work with the province when any regulatory changes come forward.
AMO’s COVID-19 Resources page is being updated continually so you can find critical information in one place. Please send any of your municipally related pandemic questions to [email protected].
*Disclaimer: The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) is unable to provide any warranty regarding the accuracy or completeness of third-party submissions. Distribution of these items does not imply an endorsement of the views, information or services mentioned.
Association of Municipalities of Ontario Please consider the environment 200 University Ave. Suite 801,Toronto ON Canada M5H 3C6 before printing this.
Wish to Adjust your AMO Communication Preferences ? Click Here
4
Page 88 of 154 Agenda Item #9.1.
From: Madison Dunn To: Madison Dunn Subject: FW: AMO Policy Update – New COVID-19 Enforcement Measures and Two-Week Extension of Emergency Declaration, and Emergency Child Care Date: April 20, 2021 3:26:58 PM
From: AMO Communications
AMO Update not displaying correctly? View the online version Add [email protected] to your safe list
AMO Policy Update
April 16, 2021 AMO Policy Update – New COVID-19 Enforcement Measures and Two-Week Extension of Emergency Declaration, and Emergency Child Care
New COVID-19 Enforcement Measures and Extension of Emergency Declaration
Late this afternoon the Province announced that the province-wide emergency declaration will be extended by an additional two weeks, effective immediately. New enforcement measures and restrictions are being implemented to help Ontario manage through the third wave of COVID-19 in order to protect the health and safety of Ontarians.
As of 12:01 a.m. on April 18th, the new restrictions will apply provide-wide:
Outdoor gatherings will be strictly limited to members of the same household only, or with one other household if that individual lives alone. In-person shopping at stores that primarily sell food and pharmaceutical goods, grocery, and “big box” stores will be restricted to 25% occupancy. Only essential construction will be able to continue (e.g., assessment centres, hospitals, long-term care homes). Non-essential construction (e.g., shopping malls, office towers, and hotels) is not allowed. All outdoor amenities will be closed (e.g., playgrounds, basketball courts).
As of 12:01 a.m. on April 19th, additional changes will include:
Page 89 of 154 Agenda Item #9.1.
Restricting indoor participation at places of worship, funerals, and weddings to 10 people. Checkpoints will be created to restrict mobility at interprovincial borders between Quebec and Manitoba, with exceptions for work, transportation of goods, and medical appointments.
To accompany these restrictions, the Ministry of Labour has increased the number of inspectors for workplaces, to ensure that any employee that is not required to work outside of the home, stays at home.
The Ministry of the Solicitor General has also provided new temporary enforcement powers of by-law, Provincial Offences Act (POA), First Nation Constables, and police officers. Some of these powers include the ability to ask Ontarians to provide the purpose of being outside the home, to ask their personal address, and police officers will be able to stop cars to inquire into why they are outside the home.
Regarding vaccine distribution, the Province continued to call on the federal government to increase its supply of vaccines. With that supply, the Province announced that 25% of future vaccine supply will be targeted to the “hotspot” neighborhoods. The Minister of Health defined those as 12 Public Health Units that have historical and ongoing high rates of deaths, transmission, and spread of COVID 19. It was noted that 80% of the current COVID-19 cases are occurring in 20% of the province and they want these areas targeted.
Additional information will be shared with members as soon as it becomes available and it is expected that further provincial details on all of the above, especially with respect to the enhanced enforcement provisions, essential services under these orders, and the accompanying Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act (EMCPA) regulations will be provided likely early next week.
Emergency Child Care for Health Care and Other Frontline Workers
The government announced it is, again, funding free emergency child care, available for school-aged children of health care and other frontline workers. These include many categories of municipal staff. The list published today includes occupations such as police, firefighters, paramedics, nurses in long-term care and some staff delivering transit, waste, and water services.
To confirm a specific occupation and for a full list of eligible workers, see the Ontario website. Note this list could potentially be modified at any time. The government is advising parents with a school-aged child or children and on the eligibility list looking to access an emergency child care program, to contact the local municipal service system manager for information on availability, program locations, and registration.
AMO’s COVID-19 Resources page is being updated continually so you can find critical information in one place. Please send any of your municipally related pandemic questions to [email protected].
*Disclaimer: The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) is unable to provide any warranty regarding the accuracy or completeness of third-party submissions. Distribution of these items does not imply an endorsement of the views, information or services mentioned.
Page 90 of 154 Agenda Item #9.1.
Association of Municipalities of Ontario Please consider the environment 200 University Ave. Suite 801,Toronto ON Canada M5H 3C6 before printing this. Wish to Adjust your AMO Communication Preferences ? Click Here
Page 91 of 154 Agenda Item #9.1.
From: Jennifer Connor To: Madison Dunn Subject: FW: AMO WatchFile - April 15, 2021 Date: April 15, 2021 11:29:12 AM
From: AMO Communications
AMO WatchFile not displaying correctly? View the online version Add [email protected] to your safe list
AMO WatchFile banner
April 15, 2021 In This Issue - AMO 2021 Conference program update. - AMO webinar on City of Brampton’s modernized work from home model. - AMO training - Leading Through Crisis: Strengthening Personal Resilience. - AMO 2021 Sponsorship and Exhibitor opportunities. - AMO 2021 Early Bird registration - Ending very soon! - How is COVID affecting the Ontario electricity market? - NEW! Group Buying Program aggregates solution. - Culvert prices protected under Group Buying Program. - Energy Reporting Portal now open. - Training on delegation of planning decisions - April 23. - Careers: York Region DSB, Durham Region, Malahide and Grey County.
Eye on Events This year’s AMO conference program features issues that matter to you: broadband, long-term care reform, community paramedicine, housing and neighbourhood revitalization, policing, CAs, CBAs, speeches by the Premier, opposition leaders, and Ministers, along with 3 Ministers’ forums and provincial delegation meetings. Register by April 30 to take advantage of the early-bird rate.
Join AMO in discussion with City of Brampton CAO Brian Hutchings and Director of Facilities Management and Security, Lisa Sordo. Learn how Brantford moved from decision to implementation and the anticipated positive impact on employees and the city. Join this free webinar April 23, 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm EST.
Page 92 of 154 Agenda Item #9.1.
AMO has joined with the Loomex Group to offer training that provides tools for elected officials to build resilience and strength in providing leadership through and beyond COVID-19. This important training has limited capacity - register today.
The AMO Annual Conference remains the premier event for sponsors and exhibitors to connect with municipal leadership. This year’s conference offers a number of new sponsorship and exhibitor opportunity to explore your role at the 2021 conference contact: Christine Gallagher.
Counting down to April 30, you have 16 days to take advantage of the reduced conference registration rate under our early bird offer. Register by the April 30 deadline.
LAS COVID-19 created uncertainty in the Ontario electricity sector from forecasting supply, demand, in addition to disruption of reliable operation of the grid to prices and rates. Read more in our latest blog.
Our Municipal Group Buying Program has the solution for all your stone, gravel and sand purchases. Join our webinar on April 21 at 10 am to learn about our new Aggregates category, designed to help you easily and efficiently buy any needed materials.
LAS’s trade compliant contracts were put in place prior to the current steel price jump, protecting participants from fluctuating costs. Our members are seeing 35% - 45% savings by using the culvert offering under the LAS Municipal Group Buying Program. Contact Tanner to learn more.
The Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines is now accepting O. Reg. 507/18 annual energy reports. Reporting is for the energy used in 2019 and due by July 1, 2021. Ministry information webinars will be on April 25, May 12 and 26, and June 9 and 23. Questions, email [email protected].
Municipal Wire* The Ontario Professional Planners Institute (OPPI) will lead a conversation with municipal council and staff on how delegation of planning approvals could be leveraged to help Council agendas focus on the strategic, support efficient processes, and improve service delivery while maintaining accountability. Register for this free education opportunity on April 23.
Careers Senior Manager, Human Resources - York Region District School Board. Reports to: Superintendent of Human Resources. Work Location: Aurora. Number Positions: One (1). Application Deadline: April 19, 2021. Candidates are required to complete the on line application to the attention of: The Recruitment Team. This position is effective immediately. IMPORTANT INFORMATION: This application is a repost. If you have already submitted an application, you will not be able to reapply at this time.
Page 93 of 154 Agenda Item #9.1.
Manager, Corporate Secretariat & Trustee Services - York Region District School Board. Work Location: Aurora. Number of Positions: One (1). Application Deadline: April 27, 2021. In compliance with Board policies and procedures, responsible for the implementation, monitoring and refinement of the Board’s effective governance framework. Interested applicants are required to complete the following on-line application to the attention of: The Recruitment Team. This position is effective immediately.
Director, Customer Contact Centre (Job ID 14301) - Region of Durham. Reports to: Commissioner, Corporate Services. To learn more about this opportunity, please visit Durham Region Job Postings and apply online directly to Job ID# 14301 no later than April 22, 2021.
Chief Administrative Officer - Township of Malahide. The Township is located on the brow of Lake Erie, in the heart of Elgin County, minutes away from the Cities of St. Thomas and London. Applicants must indicate how they meet the minimum qualifications in their resume and cover letter submissions. Please submit your resume in confidence by email, no later than April 30, 2021, to: Gwen Tracey, Manager of Human Resources, Township of Malahide. Tel.: 519.773.5344, ext. 241.
Maintenance Technologist - Grey County. Position Status: Permanent. Department: Transportation Services. Reports to: Maintenance Manager. A detailed job description and instructions on how to apply are available on the County’s website. Candidates for this position are invited to submit resumes prior to 4:30 p.m., Friday, May 7, 2021 to: Lisa Wood, Maintenance Assistant, The County of Grey, 595 - 9th Ave. East, Owen Sound, ON N4K 3E3. Email: Lisa Wood.
About AMO AMO is a non-profit organization representing almost all of Ontario's 444 municipal governments. AMO supports strong and effective municipal government in Ontario and promotes the value of municipal government as a vital and essential component of Ontario's and Canada's political system. Follow @AMOPolicy on Twitter!
AMO Contacts AMO Watch File Tel: 416.971.9856 Conferences/Events Policy and Funding Programs LAS Local Authority Services MEPCO Municipal Employer Pension Centre of Ontario ONE Investment Media Inquiries Tel: 416.729.5425 Municipal Wire, Career/Employment and Council Resolution Distributions
*Disclaimer: The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) is unable to provide any warranty regarding the accuracy or completeness of third-party submissions. Distribution of these items does not imply an endorsement of the views, information or services mentioned.
Please consider the environment Association of Municipalities of Ontario before printing this. 200 University Ave. Suite 801,Toronto ON Canada M5H 3C6
Page 94 of 154 Agenda Item #9.1.
To unsubscribe, please click here
Page 95 of 154 Agenda Item #9.1.
From: Jennifer Connor To: Madison Dunn Subject: FW: AMO WatchFile - April 22, 2021 Date: April 22, 2021 10:24:50 AM
From: AMO Communications
AMO WatchFile not displaying correctly? View the online version Add [email protected] to your safe list
AMO WatchFile banner
April 22, 2021 In This Issue - Hydro One encourages Ontarians to be prepared for potential flooding this spring. - PJ Marshall Awards - Call for submissions for 2021. - AMO 2021 Conference program update. - AMO webinar on City of Brantford’s modernized work from home model. - AMO training - Leading Through Crisis: Strengthening Personal Resilience. - AMO 2021 Sponsorship and Exhibitor opportunities. - AMO 2021 Early Bird registration - Ending very soon! - Home and auto insurance private offering. - Energy Reporting Portal now open. - Incentives still available for energy projects. - Energy workshops train communities to work better! - Happy Birthday to Earth Day! - Group Buying webinar: Arena products. - Training on delegation of planning approvals - April 23. - Affordable mass timber housing solutions - Element5 webinar. - Tarion seeking municipal feedback by April 30. - Careers: Cabinet Office (OPS), Melancthon and Greater Sudbury.
Guest Column* With spring underway, Hydro One is reminding communities across Ontario to prepare for the potential risk of localized flooding. The Community Relations team is here to support your community in the event of a flood.
AMO Matters
Page 96 of 154 Agenda Item #9.1.
Every year at the AMO Conference the PJ Marshall Awards recognize municipal excellence and innovation in capital projects, operating efficiencies and new approaches to service delivery. If you have something you are proud to share, the deadline for 2021 submissions is May 28, 2021.
Eye on Events This year’s AMO conference program features issues that matter to you: broadband, long-term care reform, community paramedicine, housing and neighbourhood revitalization, policing, CAs, CBAs, speeches by the Premier, opposition leaders, and Ministers, along with 3 Ministers’ forums and provincial delegation meetings. Register by April 30 to take advantage of the early-bird rate.
Join AMO in discussion with City of Brantford CAO Brian Hutchings and Director of Facilities Management and Security, Lisa Sordo. Learn how Brantford moved from decision to implementation and the anticipated positive impact on employees and the city. Join this free webinar April 23, 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm EST.
AMO has joined with the Loomex Group to offer training that provides tools for elected officials to build resilience and strength in providing leadership through and beyond COVID-19. This important training has limited capacity - register today.
The AMO Annual Conference remains the premier event for sponsors and exhibitors to connect with municipal leadership. This year’s conference offers a number of new sponsorship and exhibitor opportunities to explore your role at the 2021 conference contact: Christine Gallagher.
Counting down to April 30, you have 8 days to take advantage of the reduced conference registration rate under our early bird offer. Register by the April 30 deadline.
LAS LAS Home and Auto Insurance program partner Cowan insurance is offering Private Client services to LAS employees, AMO members, and existing participants in the program. Read more about this offering and how you can save time and money.
The Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines is now accepting O. Reg. 507/18 annual energy reports. Reporting is for the energy used in 2019 and due by July 1, 2021. Ministry information webinars will be on April 28 (note corrected date), May 12 and 26, and June 9 and 23. Got questions? Email [email protected].
Take advantage of available lighting incentives to reduce energy consumption in your municipal facilities. Contact Christian Tham today for a no-obligation budget proposal through our turn-key Facility Lighting Service.
LAS has several virtual or in-person workshops to help staff identify energy savings opportunities in municipal facilities. Led by renowned instructors including Stephen Dixon, you’re sure to learn a lot about energy conservation and have fun while doing it. Contact Christian Tham to book a session for the fall.
Page 97 of 154 Agenda Item #9.1.
Did you know that Earth Day started on April 22, 1970, making it 51 years young today? This was the start of the modern environmental movement and the theme for 2021 is “Restore Our Earth.” In communities across the globe, people are taking action to address climate change. Take a moment to think about what you can do in your community today and the weeks ahead.
Our spring webinar series for the Municipal Group Buying Program continues. Join us May 5 at 2:00 pm to hear from one of our many Arena Product suppliers. With warmer temperatures, now is the perfect time to get your arenas in tip-top shape for the fall. Don’t get caught on thin ice; skate on over to register here.
Municipal Wire* Municipal Councils in Ontario are faced with challenges that are fundamental to the future growth of their communities. The Ontario Professional Planners Institute will lead a conversation with council and staff on how delegation of planning approvals could be leveraged. If COVID has taught anything, it is the importance of a planning system that is adaptable and allows local development plans and projects to continue during extenuating circumstances. Register for this free session on April 23.
Register today for Element5’s webinar May 12 from 11 - 12pm on “Affordable and Sustainable Mass Timber Housing Solutions.”
Tarion launched a new consultation that includes a proposal to share information with municipalities related to Ontario Building Code issues. Feedback can be submitted to [email protected] by April 30, 2021.
Careers Director, Economics, Justice & International Relations Policy - Cabinet Office (Ontario Public Service - OPS). Diversifying leadership teams is a top OPS priority, with the goal to achieve parity with the Ontario labour force by 2025 for the most underrepresented groups (Indigenous, racialized and persons with disabilities) in leadership positions. Location: Toronto. Job Term: 1 Permanent. Please apply online, only, by Monday, May 3, 2021, by visiting Ontario Public Service Careers.
Treasurer / Deputy Clerk - Township of Melancthon. The Township is a rural community located in the northwest corner of Dufferin County with a population of approximately 3,000. Position reports to the CAO. Applicants are invited to submit in confidence a detailed cover letter and resume by May 10, 2021 at 4:00 p.m. local time to: Denise B. Holmes, AMCT, CAO/Clerk, Township of Melancthon, 157101 Highway 10, Melancthon, Ontario L9V 2E6. Email: Denise Holmes.
Manager, Communications & Engagement (Bilingual - English/French) - City of Greater Sudbury. Position Status: Permanent. Please submit your résumé in confidence by May 10, 2021 at 4:30 p.m. by email: [email protected], or by fax: 705.688.3979. Any application received after this deadline will not be considered. Please reference the Employment Opportunity number (EX21-258) on your resume.
Page 98 of 154 Agenda Item #9.1.
About AMO AMO is a non-profit organization representing almost all of Ontario's 444 municipal governments. AMO supports strong and effective municipal government in Ontario and promotes the value of municipal government as a vital and essential component of Ontario's and Canada's political system. Follow @AMOPolicy on Twitter!
AMO Contacts AMO Watch File Tel: 416.971.9856 Conferences/Events Policy and Funding Programs LAS Local Authority Services MEPCO Municipal Employer Pension Centre of Ontario ONE Investment Media Inquiries Tel: 416.729.5425 Municipal Wire, Career/Employment and Council Resolution Distributions
*Disclaimer: The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) is unable to provide any warranty regarding the accuracy or completeness of third-party submissions. Distribution of these items does not imply an endorsement of the views, information or services mentioned.
Please consider the environment Association of Municipalities of Ontario before printing this. 200 University Ave. Suite 801,Toronto ON Canada M5H 3C6 To unsubscribe, please click here
Page 99 of 154 Agenda Item #9.2.
Township of Ramara Page 1 Permit Comparison Summary Issued For Period MAR 1,2021 To MAR 31,2021
Type Number Property Solar Collector 2021-0046 5546 FAWN BAY RD Demolition 2021-0047 4054 MCRAE PARK RD Class 4 Sewage System 2021-0048 4054 MCRAE PARK RD C Occupancy New Dwelling 2021-0049 4054 MCRAE PARK RD Plumbing 2021-0050 4054 MCRAE PARK RD Demolition 2021-0051 2268 LAKESHORE DR Accessory Building 2021-0052 2268 LAKESHORE DR Demolition 2021-0053 2768 RAMARA RD 47 Demolition 2021-0054 2768 RAMARA RD 47 Deck/Porch with Roof 2021-0055 2350 FAIRGROUNDS RD Demolition 2021-0056 2668 CONCESSION RD D-E Demolition 2021-0057 2668 CONCESSION RD D-E Class 4 Sewage System 2021-0058 7861 PARK LANE CRES C Occupancy New or Addition 2021-0059 7861 PARK LANE CRES Plumbing 2021-0060 7861 PARK LANE CRES Class 4 Sewage System 2021-0061 60 BALSAM RD Accessory Building 2021-0062 4126 MCRAE PARK RD Site Alteration Permit Bylaw #2018 .642021-0063 3449 AIRPORT RD Class 4 Sewage System 2021-0064 4704 KIRKFIELD RD C Occupancy New Dwelling 2021-0065 4704 KIRKFIELD RD Plumbing 2021-0066 4704 KIRKFIELD RD Demolition 2021-0067 2721 STONE GATE RD C Occupancy New Dwelling 2021-0068 2721 STONE GATE RD Plumbing 2021-0069 2721 STONE GATE RD
Page 100 of 154 Agenda Item #9.2.
Township of Ramara Page 2 Permit Comparison Summary Issued For Period MAR 1,2021 To MAR 31,2021
Previous Year Current Year Permit Count Fees Value Permit Count Fees Value Accessory Building 0 0.00 0.00 2 1,056.00 65,000.00 Class 4 Sewage System 4 1,633.00 65,000.00 4 1,772.00 90,000.00 Deck 2 608.00 49,000.00 0 0.00 0.00 Deck/Porch with Roof 0 0.00 0.00 1 304.00 20,000.00 Demolition 3 414.00 0.00 7 966.00 0.00 Plumbing 3 532.00 0.00 4 979.00 0.00 Solar Collector 1 221.00 30,000.00 1 221.00 25,000.00
C Occupancy Addition C Occupancy New or Addition 3 3,945.90 555,000.00 1 2,996.55 650,000.00
C Occupancy New Dwelling C Occupancy New Dwelling 0 0.00 0.00 3 5,979.30 1,645,000.00
Site Alteration Site Alteration Permit Bylaw #2018.64 0 0.00 0.00 1 600.00 0.00
Previous Year Current Year Total Permits Issued 16 24 Total Dwelling Units Created 2 4 Total Permit Value 699,000.00 2,495,000.00 Total Permit Fees 7,353.90 14,873.85 Total Compliance Letters Issued 4 2 Total Compliance Letter Fees 240.00 160.00
Inspection Summary Ward Permit Inspections Other Roll Inspections 010 32 0 020 32 0 Total 64 0
Permit Charge Amount
Accessory Building 1,056.00 C Occupancy New Dwelling 5,979.30 C Occupancy New or Addition 2,996.55 Class 4 Sewage System 1,772.00 Deck/Porch with Roof 304.00 Demolition 966.00 Plumbing 979.00 Site Alteration Permit Bylaw # 600.00 Solar Collector 221.00
Total 14,873.85
Page 101 of 154 Agenda Item #9.3.
www.springwater.ca 2231 Nursery Road Minesing, Ontario L9X 1A8 Canada
April 16, 2021
To: MP Shipley, Sent via email 48 Alliance Blvd Suite 104 Barrie, Ontario
RE: Clean Fuel Standard
Good day,
At its regular meeting on April 7, 2021, Council of the Township of Springwater passed resolution C146C-2021 endorsing the following letter presented by the Township of Springwater’s Agricultural Advisory Committee regarding the Clean Fuels Standard:
Dear Mr. Shipley,
The purpose of this letter is to discuss the Proposed Clean Fuels Standard that is being considered for legislation. As members of the Springwater Township Agricultural Advisory Committee, we have serious concerns with this proposal. This proposal in its current form, has the potential to be catastrophic to the Canadian farmer. The proposed rules and regulations for restrictions on land use are detrimental to the long-term viability of Canadian agriculture.
If this proposal goes ahead, Canadian farmers will be unable to make improvements to their land to make it more efficient for the use of crop production, thus making them unable to meet the needs of food supply needed for the ever-growing population. Making improvements to land for crop production is essential to the growing demand in food supply for our country and should not have restrictions placed upon it. Instilling restrictions in this manner is no different than telling a homeowner that any renovations made after a specific date disqualifies any future renovations.
The restrictions being imposed through the Clean Fuels Standard will make it so Canadian farmers are unable to recoup costs that they are spending in order to meet the needs of the growing population in Canada. Having these restrictions in place, will have buyers seeking products elsewhere, out of country. What will this do to Canada’s economy?
The ideas proposed, ‘setbacks from watercourses and woodlands,’ would come at a tremendous cost to the Canadian farmers who have purchased, paid taxes, and cared for, for generations, are suddenly unable to use the land for renewable fuel purposes.
Phone: 705-728-4784 Office of the Mayor Fax: 705-728-6957
Page 102 of 154 Agenda Item #9.3.
2
How will these costs be recovered if the farmer is unable to utilize this land for crop production? Is a farmer going to have to build separate grain storage to store products that are ineligible for renewable energy at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars? Isn’t it important that the Canadian Government work with Canadian farmers, not impose unworkable rules and regulations that hinder crop production and create a competitive disadvantage with other countries?
The Canadian Government has shown little regard for Canadian farmers in some of their policies and proposed legislation in recent years. The Clean Fuels Standard combined with the recent Carbon Tax, has the potential to put many Canadian farmers out of business. We need our governments to work with Canadian farmers in order to provide for the growing need of food supply in our country.
Please contact Chair David Spring to discuss this further at (705) 730-4033. We look forward to your support on this matter.
Sincerely,
Don Allen Mayor, Township of Springwater
David S. Spring Chairperson of the Springwater Township Agricultural Advisory Committee
Cc: Hon., Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Environment and Climate Change; MPP Doug Downey, Hon., Ernie Hardeman, Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs All Ontario Municipalities
Page 103 of 154 Agenda Item #9.4.
C-087-2021 THE TOWNSHIP OF GEORGIAN BAY Council DATE: 12 April 2021
YEA NAY
Councillor Bochek MOVED BY: Hazelton Councillor Cooper
Councillor Douglas SECONDED Bochek
Councillor Hazelton BY:
Councillor Jarvis Councillor Wiancko Mayor Koetsier
DEFERRED ______CARRIED ___X___ DEFEATED ______REFERRED ______
BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council supports the City of Kitchener Resolution dated March 22, 2021 regarding Planning Act Timelines.
Peter Koetsier Mayor
Page 104 of 154 Agenda Item #9.4.
CHRISTINE TARLING Director of Legislated Services & City Clerk Corporate Services Department Kitchener City Hall, 2nd Floor 200 King Street West, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Phone: 519.741.2200 x 7809 Fax: 519.741.2705 [email protected] TTY: 519-741-2385
March 31, 2021
Honourable Steve Clark Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing 17th Floor, 777 Bay Street Toronto ON M5G 2E5
Dear Mr. Clark:
This is to advise that City Council, at a meeting held on March 22, 2021, passed the following resolution regarding Planning Act Timelines:
“WHEREAS the City of Kitchener, like many Ontario municipalities, is experiencing significant growth; and,
WHEREAS the City of Kitchener has conducted extensive work through its Development Services Review to remove red tape and improve public engagement; and,
WHEREAS the Province of Ontario's Planning Act provides a legislative framework for processing development applications including established timeframes which permit applicants to appeal to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal if a Council fails to make a decision within a prescribed timeline; and,
WHEREAS the passing of Bill 108 in 2019 reduced the timelines for processing development applications before they can be appealed to the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal (LPAT) for a non-decision from those outlined in Bill 139, the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 as follows:
• from seven months (210 days) to four months (120 days) for Official Plan amendments; • from five months (150 days) to three months (90 days) for Zoning By- law amendments; and • from six months (180 days) to four months (120 days) for Plans of Subdivision; and
Page 105 of 154 Agenda Item #9.4.
WHEREAS the shortened timeframes create unreasonable pressures on municipalities, even outside the context of navigating city business in a global pandemic, and result in reduced opportunities for meaningful public engagement and limited time for the public to provide written submissions on a development application;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Kitchener City Council urge the Province of Ontario to review and reconsider the current timelines established for review of Planning Act applications before an appeal is permitted to the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal and to return to the timelines that were in effect under Bill 139, the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017;
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be sent to the Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, to the local MP’s and MPP’s, to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, to the Association of Municipalities Ontario, and all other municipalities in Ontario.”
Yours truly,
C. Tarling Director of Legislated Services & City Clerk
c: Honourable Tim Louis, M.P. Honourable Raj Saini, M.P. Honourable Marwan Tabbara, M. P. Honourable Bardish Chagger, M.P. Honourable Bryan May, M.P. Honourable Amy Fee, M.P.P. Honourable Catherine Fife, M.P.P. Honourable Belinda Karahalios, M.P.P. Honourable Mike Harris, M.P.P. Honourable Laura Mae Lindo, M.P.P. Bill Karsten, President, Federation of Canadian Municipalities Monika Turner, Association of Municipalities of Ontario Rosa Bustamante, Director, Planning, City of Kitchener Ontario Municipalities
Page 106 of 154 Agenda Item #9.5.
April 16, 2021
Hon. Patty Hajdu House of Commons Ottawa, ON Canada K1A 0A6 Honourable Minister Hajdu: Re: Cannabis Licencing and Enforcement Council for the Town of Mono passed the following resolution in open council on March 23, 2021. Resolution #11-6-2021 Moved by Sharon Martin, Seconded by John Creelman WHEREAS the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-45 (the Cannabis Act) to create the foundation for a comprehensive national framework to provide restricted access to regulated cannabis, and to control its production, distribution, sale, importation, exportation, and possession; AND WHEREAS the police have not been given lawful authority to lay charges under the Cannabis Act to appropriately respond to violations of Health Canada Registrations and Licenses; AND WHEREAS there is no direct communication or dedicated effort to provide a communication channel between Municipal government staff or Police Agencies for dealing with Health Canada Registrations and Licenses; AND WHEREAS the Town of Mono has not been consulted by Health Canada prior to the issuance of licenses for properties not in compliance with municipal zoning by-laws. BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Town of Mono requests that Health Canada: 1. Require Federal Licenses and Registrations for Designated Growers to conform with local zoning and control by-laws; 2. Ensure local authorities are provided with notification of any licence issuance, amendment, suspension, reinstatement or revocation within their jurisdiction; 3. Provide dedicated communication with local governments and Police services; 4. Provide lawful authority to Police agencies to lay charges when registered or licenced operations grow in excess of their registration or licence through Health Canada; and,
P: 519.941.3599 E: [email protected] 347209 Mono Centre Road F: 519.941.9490 W: townofmono.com Mono, ON L9W 6S3
Page 107 of 154 Agenda Item #9.5.
5. Provide enforcement support and guidance to local municipalities for dealing with land use complaints relating to cannabis. AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED THAT this motion be sent to the local MP and MPP; the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs; the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food; and all municipalities in Ontario, requesting that the Federal government enact legislation to better support local governments with land use management and enforcement issues as they relate to Cannabis Production and Processing. "Carried "
Regards,
Fred Simpson Clerk cc: Honourable Marie-Claude Bibeau, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Honorable Kyle Seeback, MP Dufferin-Caledon Honourable Ernie Hardeman, Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Honourable Sylvia Jones, Solicitor General and MPP Dufferin-Caledon All Ontario Municipalities
P: 519.941.3599 E: [email protected] 347209 Mono Centre Road F: 519.941.9490 W: townofmono.com Mono, ON L9W 6S3
Page 108 of 154 Agenda Item #9.6.
Here is a draft of possible wording of this proclamation to aid your office:
Draft Proclamation 2021
The Township of Ramara declares May 12, 2021 as the 29th anniversary of International Awareness Day for Chronic Immunological and Neurological Diseases (CIND). CIND includes Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME), Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), Fibromyalgia (FM) and Environmental Sensitivities/Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (ES/MCS). The Township of Ramara also declares the month of May as a time to raise awareness for these very disabling illnesses.
Over 20 million individuals worldwide are afflicted by these chronic illnesses. Once diagnosed, one is often ill for years and as many as 70 per cent are disabled for life. These illnesses affect men, women and children of all backgrounds and presently the cause is unknown. In 2020/2021, we are starting to experience victims of COVID-19 coming down with an illness currently referred to as long covid which is strikingly similar and may in prove to be ME.
Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME), sometimes referred to as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), is a neurological and autoimmune disease characterized by overwhelming fatigue, pain, post exertional malaise, major cognitive issues, headaches, cardiac symptoms, immune disorders, dizziness, and balance problems. Most are forced to give up careers and much of their family and social connections.
Fibromyalgia (FM) is characterized by severe musculoskeletal pain and tenderness in many areas of the body, along with fatigue and sleep dysfunction, generalized or regional stiffness, and in some cases neurological and cognitive symptoms. This pain can become strong enough to prevent people from working or engaging in physical activities for months and even years.
Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS), also called Environmental Sensitivities (ES) or Intolerances, means an unusually severe sensitivity or allergy-like reaction to different kinds of pollutants such as chemicals, perfumes and other environmental triggers.
Page 109 of 154 Agenda Item #9.7.
Dear Mayor Basil,
Here we are again: in the midst of another Covid-19 wave, navigating government regulations and the guidance of health officials.
This doesn’t get easier with practice.
Conservancy staff have made a number of decisions in light of the current lock-down. After surveying the relevant documents, we have determined a course for the next few weeks that closely resembles our position during the second wave. Staff are still working from home and the Grant’s Woods office is closed.
Nature reserves with public access will remain open. These reserves are protected by the community, for the community. It is our collective responsibility to care for them. If you decide to visit a nature reserve, please help by packing out any garbage, picking up after others if safe to do so and notifying us of any issues.
Page 110 of 154 Agenda Item #9.7.
The decision to remain open is driven by the vital role natural settings are playing for those coping with the stresses of the pandemic, combined with the continued advice of healthcare leaders who tell us there is minimal risk to outdoor activities, provided social distancing precautions are taken and gatherings are avoided.
We ask that you only use the reserves close to your home and carefully consider the current strain on our hospitals in every decision you make.
Full details about the stay-at-home order can be found here: COVID-19 public health measures and advice | COVID-19 (coronavirus) in Ontario
To keep our nature reserves open, it is important that we monitor and maintain them. To that end we are continuing to operate our volunteer programs on a reduced basis. Staff and volunteers will continue to maintain a presence on our reserves, limiting numbers and implementing strict safety protocols. Special instructions are being provided to volunteers, stressing that while this work matters, their health, safety and well-being matter more. If at any time volunteers feel uncomfortable with a task, we are urging them to decline the request.
Our acquisition efforts will also continue, with three projects currently in the works and others in the offing, supported by our Corridors Campaign.
Unfortunately some citizen science training programs are being cancelled or postponed, and we ask that you keep an eye on our website and your email for updates as the situation continues to be fluid. We hope to advance and improve this critical program when the third wave passes as we originally planned for this year.
Because many of our programs have been pandemic-proofed over the last year, we expect to be able to continue with them. Passport to Nature programming will continue, and we still anticipate holding our annual Carden Challenge fundraising marathon.
Our work is about the future, so by our nature we spend a lot of time looking forward. We’ll keep our eyes set there over the coming weeks to see this wonderful enterprise through.
Stay safe.
Mark Bisset Executive Director
If this e-newsletter is not displaying correctly please View as Webpage.
Read the full update on our website Nature reserve etiquette
Page 111 of 154 Agenda Item #9.7.
Protecting Nature for Future Generations
The land on which we operate is the territory of the Anishnaabeg, Haudenosaunee, Wendat and Metis Peoples with whom we share the Upper Canada Treaties in the Orillia area.
Website: www.couchichingconserv.ca Phone: 705-326-1620 Mail: Box 704, Orillia, ON L3V 0X6 Office: 1485 Division Rd W, Orillia, ON L3V 6H2 Charitable Registration #: 13972 5030 RR0001
Page 112 of 154 Agenda Item #9.7.
Couchiching Conservancy | Box 704, 1485 Division Road WEST, Orillia, Ontario L3V 6K7 Canada
Unsubscribe [email protected] Update Profile | Customer Contact Data Notice Sent by [email protected] powered by
Try email marketing for free today!
Page 113 of 154 Agenda Item #9.8.
THE TOWN OF COCHRANE 171 Fourth Avenue Cochrane, Ontario, Canada, POL l CO T: 705-272-436 l I F: 705-272-6068 E: [email protected] G?coceliiiE WONDERFUllY UIUIPECTED
"Via Email: [email protected]
April 21, 2021
The Honourable Doug Ford Premier of Ontario Legislative Building Queen's Park Toronto, ON M?A 1A1 Dear Premier Ford: Re: Support for Fire Departments
This will serve to advise you that Council, at its regular meeting held Tuesday, April 131h, 2021 passed the following resolution in support of the Township of Hudson's resolution pertaining to the above noted: "Resolution No.: 103-2021 Moved by: Councillor Daniel Belisle Seconded by: Councillor Shea Henderson BE IT RESOVLED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Cochrane endorses and supports the resolution from the Township of Hudson that the Federal and Provincial Government includes apparatuses, training, equipment and structures for fire departments as eligible categories to any further infrastructure programs which will not only provide immediate stimulus to the local, provincial and federal economies given current economic uncertainty but also ensure the safety of Canadians and dedicated firefighters. CARRIED" Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated! Yours truly, THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF COCHRANE ttfl~o/fl{ ~ Alice Mercier Clerk lam c.c.: Hon. Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Hon. Laurie Scott, Minister of Infrastructure, Charlie Angus, MP, Timmins - James Bay, John Vanthof, MPP, Timiskaming - Cochrane, Jon Pegg, Ontario Fire Marshal, Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs, Ontario Municipalities.
www.cochraneontario.com
Page 114 of 154 Agenda Item #9.8.
THE TOWN OF COCHRANE 171 Fourth Avenue Cochrane, Ontario, Canada, POL l CO T: 705-272-4361 I F: 705-272-6068 E: [email protected] G?COCHliiiE WONDE RFUllY UNEXPECTED
"VIA EMAIL"
April 21, 2021
The Corporation of the Township of Hudson 903303 Hanbury Road New Liskeard, ON POJ 1PO Attention: Jordan Kemp - ClerkfTreasurer Dear Ms. Kemp: Re: Support for Fire Departments This will acknowledge receipt of your letter and resolution dated March 31, 2021 pertaining to the above noted. This will also serve to advise you that your correspondence was received by Council at its regular meeting held Tuesday, April 13th, 2021 and the following resolution was passed: "Resolution No.: 103-2021 Moved by: Councillor Daniel Belisle Seconded by :Councillor Shea Henderson BE IT RESOVLED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Cochrane endorses and supports the resolution from the Township of Hudson that the Federal and Provincial Government includes apparatuses, training, equipment and structures for fire departments as eligible categories to any further infrastructure programs which will not only provide immediate stimulus to the local, provincial and federal economies given current economic uncertainty but also ensure the safety of Canadians and dedicated firefighters. CARRIED" Trusting that this action of Council will be of assistance, I remain Yours truly, THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF COCHRANE dfl~1?1~ Alice Mercier Clerk lam
www.cochraneontario.com
Page 115 of 154 Agenda Item #9.9.
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CALVIN Resolution
DATE: April 13, 2021 NO.__2021-097______
MOVED BY____Heather Olmstead______
SECONDED BY_____Sandy Cross______
“THAT the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Calvin supports the Norfolk County Agricultural Advisor Board’s letter dated December 20, 2020 regarding the application of the carbon tax on primary agriculture producers, and;
THAT this resolution be sent to the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, the Honourable Vic Fedeli, MPP and circulated to all municipalities in Ontario. ”
CARRIED______
DIVISION VOTE
NAME OF MEMBER OF COUNCIL YEA NAY
Coun Cross __X______Coun Maxwell __X______Coun Olmstead __X______Mayor Pennell __X______
Page 116 of 154 Agenda Item #9.9.
Norfolk County Officer of the Mayor Governor Simcoe Square 50 Colborne St., S. Simcoe, Ontario N3Y 4H3 519-426-5870 Fax:519-426-7633 norfolkcounty.ca
February 23, 2021
The Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson Minister of Environment and Climate Change House of Commons Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
The Honourable Marie-Claude Bibeau Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food House of Commons Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Dear Ministers,
I am writing to advise that Norfolk County Council supports the attached Norfolk County Agricultural Advisory Board’s letter regarding the application of the carbon tax on primary agriculture producers. It is the recommendation of Norfolk County Council that the Federal Government consider the concerns of the agricultural community and move to exempt all primary agriculture producers from current and future carbon taxes. Please find attached the full recommendation.
Thank you for your attention,
Yours truly,
Kristal Chopp Mayor, Norfolk County
P.c. Norfolk County Council Association of Municipalities of Ontario Federation of Canadian Municipalities Ontario Municipalities
Page 117 of 154 Agenda Item #9.9.
Dec 7, 2020 The Honourable Marie-Claude Bibeau, MP Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Dear Minister Bibeau
Our agricultural advisory board (AAB) who represents the agricultural sector in Norfolk County, Ontario is very concerned about the federal government’s current carbon pricing policies. It is our hope that you consider our concerns and move to exempt all primary agriculture producers from current and future carbon taxes.
Carbon tax remains as a major cost of production for producers in Norfolk County. Although some farm fuel purchases are exempt, it is selective and does not meet the needs of the entire agriculture industry. Currently crop drying, heating/cooling of livestock barns and cooling of perishable commodities are still subject to full carbon taxes.
Currently there are no replacements for fossil fuels in agricultural production. As a result, carbon tax policies are not appropriate for the agricultural sector and only decrease farm margins.
Norfolk County which is known as Ontario’s garden is home to one of the country’s largest diversity of crop production. In addition to the extensive vegetable, fruit and grain production it boasts some of the highest ecological diverse natural habitats, plants and animals in Canada. There is approximately 25% tree cover in the county which is the highest percentage of forested land in Southwestern Ontario. Norfolk County It is also home to over 10,000 acres of woodlots and wetlands protected under Long Point Conservation Authority. In addition to the natural woodlots and wetlands there is also extensive fruit production with 2000 acres of apples and 1000 acres of sour cherries. A mature orchard can fix upwards of 18 mt of C02 annually. The adoption of production practices to protect the soil and environment are advanced in Norfolk County. There has been a wide implementation of cover cropping, planting green and reduced tillage practices all of which sequester carbon. Additional farming practices of 4R nutrient management coupled with precision technology ensure that appropriate nutrients are applied at the right time, place and rate. In many cases sensitive water sources around ponds and wetlands are planted with buffer strips and soil erosion control measures of grassed waterways and windbreaks are also common practices. ALUS (alternative land use) programs have been embraced across the county, taking unproductive land out of production, and returning it to natural native grass plantings, trees and constructed wetlands. Currently there are 1148 active projects with 189 producers covering 1573 acres in Norfolk County managed under the ALUS program.
Page 118 of 154 Agenda Item #9.9.
The agriculture industry has made great strides to protect the environment and will continue to improve production practices that reduces the carbon footprint in food production.
The AAB board believes that all on farm fuels used in agricultural production should be exempt from carbon tax. This should include natural gas, propane, gas, and diesel. We strongly urge the government to be consistent with a sector wide exemption to current carbon tax policies.
Sincerely,
Dustin Zamecnik Chair of Norfolk County Agriculture Advisory Board
Page 119 of 154 Agenda Item #9.10.
National Youth Week in Canada May 1 – 7
Sample Proclamation
Whereas recreation benefits individuals, families, neighbourhoods and communities and (x municipality/organization) provides high quality programs and leisure opportunities for residents to lead healthy, active lives through recreation and to make our community a great place to live, work and play.
And whereas there is an increasing interest in intentional youth development through recreation in Canada that is founded on a substantial and growing body of research to support the role of recreation in the positive development of youth. Canadian youth are often unrecognized for the valuable contributions they make to communities and Canada’s social, economic and civic landscape. Meaningful youth engagement through recreation emphasizes access, equity and social justice and leads to positive youth development.
National Youth Week reminds us all of the valuable contributions that recreation and parks can make to youth development and that youth can make to community development. National Youth Week is endorsed by the Canadian Parks and Recreation Association and the network of agencies and individuals committed to the positive development of youth.
Therefore in recognition of these benefits and values and to provide a focal point within the year for increasing awareness, (X municipality/organization), hereby proclaims May 1 – 7 as National Youth Week.
Page 120 of 154 Agenda Item #9.11.
The Corporation of the City of Cambridge Corporate Services Department Clerk’s Division The City of Cambridge 50 Dickson Street, P.O. Box 669 Cambridge ON N1R 5W8 Tel: (519) 740-4680 ext 4585 [email protected]
April 21, 2021
Re: Resolution - City of Cambridge Council – Request for Paid Sick Leave
At the Special Council Meeting of April 20, 2021, the Council of the Corporation of the City of Cambridge passed the following motion:
Mover: Councillor Wolf Seconder: Councillor Reid
WHEREAS as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the increase in cases in Ontario, our hospitals and Intensive Care Units s are overrun with people sick with the virus;
AND WHEREAS according to the Provincial Science Advisory Table on COVID-19 we need to protect essential workers and support them with paid sick leave;
AND WHEREAS it is being reported that the drivers of transmission are indoor work places, particularly industrial workplaces, warehouses, and distribution centres;
AND WHEREAS the COVID-19 crisis has unmasked the inequalities in our Province as most of the people now getting sick are the most vulnerable in our society and are those who cannot afford to stay home and often live and work in crowded conditions;
AND WHEREAS Workers who are denied paid sick days do not avoid illness, they bring the infections to work with them, and they transmit them to their coworkers, employees without paid sick leave;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Cambridge Council urge the Honourable Doug Ford, Premier to require Ontario employers to provide no less than five paid sick days annually to workers — after three months of employment — by amending the
Page 121 of 154 Agenda Item #9.11.
Employment Standards Act, 2000, or through a different mechanism and to provide necessary funding, fiscal relief and/or support to employers so that all workers in Ontario have access to no less than 10 paid sick days annually in the event of a declared infectious disease emergency, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and ensure all Ontario workers have access to protected and paid emergency leave so care can be provided to children, parents, and/or other family members who may become ill and that all workers may receive paid time off to enable them to receive the COVID-19 Vaccine.
AND FURTHER that upon Council’s approval of this motion that it be forwarded to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Provincial Minister of Labour, the Premier, and each Ontario municipality.
Should you have any questions related to the approved resolution, please contact me.
Yours truly,
Danielle Manton City Clerk
Page 122 of 154 Agenda Item #9.12.
Township o am Council Expense Form
Name:
j
l ew7
(-)
Misc Expenses (Parking etc.) Misc Expenses (Parking etc.) Misc Expenses (Parking etc.) Misc Expenses (Parking etc.)
2020 Rates $126.76 $63.38 $0.54 t--'--~---4___,:_~;__~~....:.__t
TOTAL ***Any receipts must be attached ._____.i..______.__ __..
Sianature:
Page 123 of 154 Agenda Item #9.13.
From: Jennifer Connor To: Madison Dunn Subject: FW: Outstanding Water Bill Date: April 26, 2021 2:46:01 PM
From: Sent: April 21, 2021 3:28 PM To: Jennifer Connor
To The Ramara Council,
Re: 22 Willow Cres, Brechin. Acct 0086600000
This last weekend we received our sewer and water bill. ($2420.48) Due to CVID we have not been travelling to our cottage as per the government guidelines. Imagine the shock after opening this bill when we have never had an issue before. We have owned this property for over 20 years and never had any kind of problem. We immediately drove up on Saturday to check and found everything inside to be fine. My husband checked the outside water tap and found it to be dripping. (We now turn off the water every time we leave.)
We have never missed a bill or ever had any issue before. Why this tap was not fully closed we will never know. We would normally have seen it had it not been for the travel restrictions put on due to COVID.
I have called in to the office and spoken to Audrey. She was so helpful and so amazing in helping me through this awful time. She suggested that I email to the council. Would there be any chance of some forgiveness of even the sewer charge since it actually never went through the sewer? This bill will be even higher since the bill in question cut off on April1 and we did not get it April 17th.
Would it be possible to give some leeway on this bill and the one to follow if at all possible.
Thank you,
Page 124 of 154 Agenda Item #9.14.
Cathy Wainman
From: Andy Wojtis Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 12:56 AM To: Council Subject: Regrding April 26 Council Meeting Bills and Bylaws Item 18
Dear Mayor and Councilors,
I am a resident of Lagoon City.
I am writing this letter to express my dissatisfaction pertaining to the discussion regarding a full summer parking ban for non residents in Ramara, with no regard for Provincial Covid guidelines.This occurred during the Committee of the whole meeting on Monday April 19,2021.
While I watched the meeting on Ramara You Tube Channel it appeared quite clear to me that the proposal made to ban parking to all non residents was made on the spot and did not follow the meeting agenda posted on the Ramara website. The document was well prepared and followed the Provincial guidelines for parking provisions in the Parks and Cities.
Some members of the Council using Covid Pandemic, confusing Government Guidelines pertaining to non movement due to Pandemic, and using their own interpretation of them , as well as the ill anticipated end of the Pandemic, all that in very emotional speeches supporting the motion to ban parking. The speeches were also tainted/supported by a lot of personal beliefs and guesses about the influx of the visitors that are not necessarily facts.
As a resident I want to see the influx of visitors. I want Lagoon City to be a vibrant, sporty, healthy and wealthy community as it was once built and advertised. This was the main reason why my Wife and I bought our home in 2011. You are doing a disservice to the communities growth and health trying to keep others out. Of course I agree with not jeopardizing anyone's health.
I plea for you to revisit the parking ban and take into consideration Provincial Guidelines and not just choose random dates on whim.
I was pleased to see that the motion to accept the new Kiting Bylaw passed. As a resident and a kiteboarder I would like my kiteboarding friends to be able to come to Lagoon City and park stress free, set up the kites safely and join me and other resident kiteboarders on the water. The new kiting Bylaw appears to have been written with thoughtfulness, fairness and safety in mind.
As of this time it feels like visitors of any kind are being singled out and downright segregated as a second class citizens.
There is a name for it in law abiding countries. Allowing parking for only residents is a decision that could very well be challenged an the grounds of racism, and just doesn't feel right.
What happened with paid parking? Why was the initial decision that was proposed in the 1
Page 125 of 154 Agenda Item #9.14.
Agenda Document(Staff Report # CD-07-21) not adhered to? Why is the Township neglecting the income from parking and tourism that all other small towns thrive from?
Where are the washrooms? Park users have already been at the Park and yet the Township has not taken efforts to improve garbage facilities and provide modified as required by Covid portable washroom facilities.
The ill conceived notion that visitors should park in friends driveways and then walk is total nonsense. Allowing residents only to freely access facilities is basically discrimination.
I hope that this letter will make you aware of the shortsightedness in your decision making and that you can set things straight.
KInd Regards,
Andy Wojtis Executive Project Superintendent J.J. McGuire General Contractors Inc.
2
Page 126 of 154 Agenda Item #9.14.
Cathy Wainman
From: Karin Greiner Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2021 10:24 PM To: Council Subject: Re: April 26 meeting Ramara parking ban
> > > To Ramara City Council: > > Hello, I am a Physician living in Peterborough. I have heard about the proposed Covid-related parking ban for all non- locals at Ramara beaches starting June 1 and lasting until October 1, 2021. I wish to express my dismay at this proposal. As you may know, Peterborough beaches are either polluted or unpleasant and weedy, so frequently during the summers our family (including my three children and my husband) like to come to Lake Simcoe beaches to enjoy the shallow water and sandy bottom. We especially enjoy Lagoon City and have recently been looking for a cottage somewhere on Lake Avenue. I was somewhat confused when I heard that the city council was proposing a non-resident parking ban in Ramara and that this ban was covid-related and was to start on June 1. Currently we are in a province- wide lockdown, and if this lockdown continues into the summer then I can completely understand that your beaches would not be open to anyone. However, if the state of emergency is lifted then there is no valid medical reason for having a covid-related parking ban. I can understand reducing total numbers of people being allowed to use the beach at one time, such as with 6-foot wide circles, or by limiting parking to the available number of spots. However there is no evidence of transmission of covid in parking lots or on beaches or in any outdoor location as long as people are remaining physically distanced from other families. > > Please reconsider this “covid”-related parking ban, as this is definitely not within the provincial health guidelines of what is acceptable for political or medical reasons. > > Thank you for you time, > Sincerely, > Karin Greiner, MD, CCFP, GP Anaesthesia, Coroner for the Province of Ontario
1
Page 127 of 154 Agenda Item #9.14.
Cathy Wainman
From: Mark Chandler Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2021 11:23 PM To: Council Subject: PARKING BYLAW
Regarding: 04/26/2021 Council Meeting
Parking Ban proposal
To Ramara City Council:
Dear Ramara city Council,
I have been a frequent user of the public beach at Lagoon City for the past few years and I have friends that are residents on the Canals. I am a kiter, Swimmer, Sailor, Windsurfer, Scuba Diver, and Pilot. I spend a lot of Money in the township mostly at the Ramara (Orillia Lake St. John) airport where my plane is maintained and I rent hanger space there.
Last week I watched the Committee of the whole meeting due to my interest in the new kiting bylaw which I was pleased to see was passed by council. It was clear to see that Jon Popple had done his research in finding fairness in resolving the previous hastily prepared and passed kiting rules of last year.
I am writing this letter as a result of the discussion regarding an outright parking ban for non residents of Ramara. I was surprised to see how the Mayors speech regarding this ban completely disregards the Provincial Covid Guidelines. How is it that choosing a random future date (as the Mayor suggested) to reinstate parking makes any logical, or scientific sense? Outdoor activities are lower risk for Covid transmission than having a relative over to visit. There was little logic in this parking proposal and I hope that some good thought can be put into discussions during the meeting on April 26, 2021.
I will be watching the meeting in anticipation of some thoughtful proposals.
Mark Chandler President All Canada Contractors Ltd.
1
Page 128 of 154 Agenda Item #9.14.
Cathy Wainman
From: Randlesome, Paul Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 11:46 AM To: Council Subject: Concerns re: Non-Resident Parking Ban, Council meeting 04/26/2021
Ramara Council, As a local resident, I do not support the proposed parking ban for the entire summer season. With so many people struggling with mental health through continued isolation, why wouldn’t we allow our fellow Canadians to come to our community to enjoy the lake when the province has deemed that public parks are necessary and chosen to keep them open despite COVID? We know that people visiting for the day, can stay outside and isolated in their respective bubbles and I urge us to use a parking system that supports those limitations, in a balanced and fair way. Many other Townships equally concerned about intraprovincial travel have chosen to err on the side of both caution and legally sound practices to protect their residents from COVID spread. I urge you to benefit from the time spent on developing these strategies on thoughtful beach closure policies to protect our Township from both COVID and civil rights infractions, that both can be avoided with more effort to find that balance. Regardless of people’s residency status, they have a right to access public waters and parks, and it’s the responsibility of the Council to thoughtfully protect both the physical and mental health and rights of all stakeholders of our public spaces. All of us benefit both mentally and physically from the opportunity to get out. Residents already have the ability to self-segregate from the public through the private beach. The risks of the spread of COVID through our public beach just aren’t big enough to warrant this type of closure. In addition to supporting our fellow citizens, Ramara will benefit in multiple ways. These visitors will buy local goods, including food and gas. They can pay for a day or seasonal parking, which should provide revenue to help other local residents. The suggested parking ban will harm local businesses that rely on seasonal increases in revenue. It also increases the risk of negative public relations as this could be interpreted by many as acting exclusionary. With many people looking to buy and rent places outside of the GTA, it is not the time to be perceived as being closed to non-residents. I would encourage the council to give this additional thought before making a final decision. There are both short-term and long-term consequences. We need to achieve the appropriate balance between protecting ourselves, helping our fellow citizens and supporting our local businesses and reputation.
Sincerely,
Paul
Paul Randlesome
1
Page 129 of 154 Agenda Item #9.14.
Cathy Wainman
From: Council Subject: FW: New policies feedback
From: Sebastian Vaitus Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 12:20 PM To: Council
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to express concern with policies discussed in recent council meetings that adversely impact economic growth in the area, with parking policies as a specific example.
For context, I am not currently a resident of Ramara, but I am closely researching Ramara and other counties to purchase a waterfront property. To learn more about the community, I have also reviewed the recent council meeting recording to better understand any current challenges/issues Ramara may be facing, and more importantly the way these challenges are being addressed by the officials.
The tone in the last council meeting towards non-residents of the community however left me disappointed, but not discouraged - hence my reachout to you in hopes that some of these issues can still be addressed. One of the key criterias that I am considering in purchasing the new property is social inclusion in a community that welcomes new business and tourism to the area to increase revenue of the region as a win-win to both the local community as well as visitors. The recent practice that I noticed from Ramara however goes as far as to not even allow visitors to park in the region. Beyond temporary Covid restrictions, I understand that Ramara is also considering charging very high prices for non-resident parking to curb any non-residents from visiting and spending with the local businesses (any gains from parking would be greatly offset by business revenue loss). In my view, these practices go against the economic principles for growth in the area, and I hope that the Council would reconsider these policies in order to not only allow the region to grow, but to also make the region attractive to new residents wanting to buy property (thus creating more demand and raising the price of real estate in the area).
Thank you for your consideration.
-- Sebastian
1
Page 130 of 154 Agenda Item #9.14.
Cathy Wainman
From: Jennifer Grossman Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 5:15 PM To: Council Subject: Proposed non-residents parking ban CW.94.21
Dear Members of Council,
I am writing this letter in response to the perplexing, emotionally-driven and biased arguments made by specific individuals during the April 19th COW meeting, urging for the creation of a bylaw that prohibits parking for non-residents only for the entirety of the summer months, regardless of provincial guidelines, up until an arbitrary date of September 30th. I also write this letter with deep respect for the residents of Ramara, many of which I consider good friends-- friends I have not visited, and have no intent to visit, until it is safe to do so, according to provincial and public health guidelines. I also write this letter as someone who loves the Township, its shared spaces, and who, before COVID, was actively seeking opportunities to find a home within the Township.
My main issue with last week’s meetings pertains to the impact of how decision-making for the proposed ban took place, and how that process negatively impacts the Township I love. The process and any law crafted as a result of CW.94.21 would exhibit 1) procedural failure in considering federal or provincial guidelines when constructing a bylaw, and 2) a lack of education concerning actual data on how COVID is spread, with some suggestions that run the risk of hurting, rather than protecting, the public.
1) Procedural Failure: Vagueness, Bad Faith, Lack of Jurisdiction. In the meeting, a fair amount of anti-outsider rhetoric was used to unfairly stereotype attributions of COVID spread to visiting populations. This fear of outsiders and a lack of desire to have non-residents within the Township, regardless of a legal right to be there, was the main argument behind the parking ban, making it explicitly clear that the specific intent of this parking bylaw as described would be to indirectly prohibit freedom to peacefully assemble in public beaches for that particular class of people, and restrict their recreational access to the water, contrary to the intended usage of public parks and public waters protected by provincial law, the Municipal Act, the Charter of Rights, and Federal Navigation Rights. The discriminatory impact of this ban is foreseeable, as it not only affects non-residents, but would greatly impact the marginalized, protected communities and individuals within that class, who would, in the absence of federal or provincial stay at home orders, travel out of their townships to therapeutically access the water and use public spaces, safely, as is their right to do so, within reason. Emergency orders currently under force under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act have been extended until May 5, 2021. Orders currently in force under the Reopening Ontario Act, have been extended until May 20, 2021. The proposed June - Sept 30th parking ban does not take into account the framework for which municipal discretionary powers are intended to be used, and are therefore arguably being proposed without the required good faith or public interest necessary for such fundamental rights restrictions. Ignoring these rights when constructing laws that affect the public is careless, and when specific intent to prohibit access is obvious, as was expressed in the April 19th meeting, it also feels somewhat alarmingly negligent. I hope this letter helps provide notice of the discriminatory impact of constructing a parking ban for these purposes, so that you have time to put forth a good faith effort to avoid jurisdictional authority issues, and offenses against civil rights. I have outlined below the issues to look out for:
Municipal administration, who usually drafts bylaws, is expected to act in good faith when creating bylaws and to consider a balanced, and minimally restrictive approach, regardless of constituent pressure. To avoid challenges to your municipal bylaws, it is recommended that council and administration observe the following: that the bylaw be enacted according to provincial and federal statutes. In this instance, that would mean not creating a bylaw that negatively impacts protected classes or restricts rights as outlined by the Charter of Freedom, Ontario Human Rights Code, the Navigations Act, and the Municipal Act.
1
Page 131 of 154 Agenda Item #9.14.
that the bylaw should not treat one group within a class differently from another group, such as non- residents, especially if the impact of such bylaws greatly impacts other protected classes that can be foreseen (access to the water for immigrants, visitors from other countries, people of color, people with disabilities, for instance). that council does not pass bylaws that affect an individual's rights. In this instance, discretionary powers afforded by emergency orders are only in good faith if they comply with the framework of those emergency orders, instead of operating beyond them, such as the discretionary powers conferred by timelines outlined by EMCPA and the Ontario Reopening Act. that the meanings within the bylaw are clear and precise, and clearly reasoned to conform with the above legal structures.
2) COVID Education: Legal issues aside, I would also like to say that I believe that we must all work together to fight COVID, and support each other as citizens of Ontario and Canada. COVID is very real, and it’s terrifying. However, the decision to shut down beaches only to non-residents after the time that the Stay-at-Home Order is projected to be lifted up until an arbitrary date for removing the parking ban, despite vaccination projections, doesn’t protect the public. I urge the council to look to provincial and public health mandates when creating laws to protect the public from COVID. For example, recommending that residents allow their out-of-town cousins to come over to their house during lockdown and park in their driveway, is in direct conflict with provincial guidelines, and reflects a lack of understanding about transmission risks. Inviting out-of-town family members into your home is very high risk and strongly discouraged by all public health officials. Alternatively, participating in therapeutic,independent recreational activities with appropriate social distancing outdoors is considered low risk, and encouraged by the provincial government, as can be seen by their willingness to keep provincial parks open despite the stay-at-home order. There have only been 62 cases of COVID in Ramara township despite parks being open last year with little regulation or organization to thoughtfully address visitors accessing public parks. This is because there is low risk spread in public parks, especially in scenarios where you have a private beach for residents. This year, with improved education and experience, Ramara Township is even better poised to reducing spread without prohibitions, and should educate their constituents on how to reduce spread by not inviting their out-of-town family into their houses, and being extra careful when travelling out of the Township themselves to shop in crowded stores for food and other amenities not available in their Township. Both of these activities have a greater likelihood of spreading COVID within the Township than visitors using public beaches to access the water. For more information on COVID spread risks, I recommend reading this quick article: https://www.cnet.com/health/10-activities-that-expose-you-to-coronavirus-from-most- to-least-risky/
Thank you for your consideration,
Jennifer Grossman A resident of Port Credit, Mississauga and seasonal lover of Ramara's natural spaces
2
Page 132 of 154 Agenda Item #10.1.
Committee of the Whole Report -05/21 Monday, April 19, 2021 - 9:30 AM Electronic Meeting via Zoom
The Electronic Committee of the Whole meeting of the Township of Ramara was called to order on Monday, April 19, 2021, at 9:30 AM, with the following members present:
PRESENT: Mayor Basil Clarke Deputy Mayor Joe Gough Councillor Ward 1 David Snutch Councillor Ward 2 Jennifer Fisher Councillor Ward 3 Ted Lamb Councillor Ward 4 Gary Hetherington Councillor Ward 5 Kal Johnson
Chief Administrative Officer John Pinsent Director of Legislative and Community Services/Clerk Jennifer Connor Deputy Clerk Cathy Wainman Director of Finance/Treasurer Zach Drinkwalter Director of Infrastructure Kathy Sipos Director Fire & Rescue Services/Fire Chief Tony Stong Deputy Fire Chief Rob McCarthy Chief Building Official Leo Grellette Chief Building Official Walied Zekry Community Standards Manager Jon Popple Bylaw Officer Michael Briggs Planning Supervisor/Zoning Administrator Deb McCabe Recreation and Community Services Supervisor Caroline Schiavone GIS Analyst/Infrastructure Technologist Jennifer Stong HR Coordinator/H&S Officer Brittany Wilson Business & Communication Coordinator Ashley Watson Executive Assistant to the CAO/Council Liaison Madison Dunn ABSENT:
1. OPENING OF THE MEETING John Pinsent, CAO, welcomed Michael Briggs, Bylaw Enforcement Officer to the Township. Michael has been working in Bylaw Enforcement for the past 3- 4 years and comes from the Town of Ajax and the City of Barrie.
2. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
3. DEPUTATIONS/PRESENTATIONS
Page 133 of 154 Agenda Item #10.1.
4. ADMINISTRATION/FINANCE/PERSONNEL – COUNCILLOR JOHNSON, LIAISON 4.1. Customer Service Strategy
CW.88.21 THAT we receive Report AD-13-01 regarding Customer Service Strategy; AND THAT we support staff moving forward with the Customer Service Strategy as outlined in the report.
4.2. Internet Update
CW.89.21 THAT we receive Report AD-14-01 regarding Internet Update as information; AND THAT staff provide a report in June on results and recommendations from the negotiated request for proposal for Broadband internet solutions.
4.3. 2020 Budget to Actual Summary
CW.90.21 THAT we receive Report TR-08-21 regarding 2020 Budget to Actual Summary, as information.
5. CULTURE & RECREATION SERVICES – COUNCILLOR LAMB, LIAISON 5.1. Community Centre Update
CW.91.21 THAT we receive the memo regarding Community Centres and Outdoor Amenities; AND THAT no indoor or outdoor permits be issued in 2021; AND THAT indoor facilities remain closed until January 2022 or until Provincial Orders allow for review.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES – COUNCILLOR FISHER, LIAISON
7. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – DEPUTY MAYOR GOUGH, LIAISON 7.1. City of Orillia email correspondence dated March 30, 2021 regarding A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe
CW.92.21 THAT we receive the City of Orillia email correspondence dated March 30, 2021 regarding A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe;
Committee of the Whole April 19, 2021 Page 2 of 6
Page 134 of 154 Agenda Item #10.1.
AND THAT we advise the Province that we wish to be included in discussions regarding land expansion by the City of Orillia.
8. PROTECTIVE SERVICES – COUNCILLOR SNUTCH, LIAISON 8.1. Ramara Fire and Rescue Services Master Plan
CW.93.21 THAT we receive and endorse the Fire Master Plan as presented; AND THAT it be used as a reference guide for future direction of Ramara Fire and Rescue Services.
8.2. Waterfront and Parking Strategy Final Report
CW.94.21 THAT any parking in the permit parking areas be restricted to Ramara residents only.
CW.95.21 THAT we do not participate in the City of Orillia Parking and Boat Launch Program in 2021.
CW.96.21 THAT we review and consider the draft bylaw to permit and regulate Kiteboarding from municipal property and forward to Council for adoption;
CW.97.21 THAT we amend Bylaw 2020.32 to remove references to closures of the canals in Lagoon City
CW.98.21 THAT we approve the Heritage Farm Strategy as presented in Report CD-07- 21;
CW.99.21 THAT we approve the Lagoon City Strategy as presented in Report CD-07-21; AND THAT staff work with Councillor Johnson regarding parking restrictions in Lagoon City.
CW.100.21 THAT we approve the Lovely Day Park Strategy as set out in Report CD-07- 21, subject to the input from the Atherley Community Centre Board.
CW.101.21 THAT we approve the Poplar Lane Strategy as set out in Report CD-07-21 subject to the removal of portable washrooms and waste receptacles; AND THAT we allow permit parking along one side of Parklane Crescent;
Committee of the Whole April 19, 2021 Page 3 of 6
Page 135 of 154 Agenda Item #10.1.
AND THAT we request Lake Country to stop promoting tourism in Ramara Township.
CW.102.21 THAT we accept the physical changes to the Bluebird Street parking lot as set out in Report CD-07-21; AND THAT we include an additional portable washroom and waste receptacle; AND THAT we include Bluebird Street in the no parking bylaw; AND THAT we implement the HONK program by December 1, 2021.
CW.103.21 THAT we approve the physical changes to the Florida Avenue park as set out in Report CD-07-21; AND THAT we remove the requirement for portable washrooms, waste receptacles, the HONK program and scale back the barrier requirements; AND THAT the Florida Avenue park remain for Ramara residents only; AND THAT an identifiable parking pass be provided to property owners with deeded access.
CW.104.21 THAT we approve the strategy for The Steps as set out in Report CD-07-21 subject to the removal of the requirement for portable washrooms.
CW.105.21 THAT we approve the Simcoe Road strategy as set out in Report CD-07-21.
CW.106.21 THAT we extend our waterfront strategy to residents of Rama and Severn Township by honoring their parking passes in Ramara Township.
CW.107.21 THAT we receive report CD-07-21, and implement the recommendations of the Waterfront and Parking Strategy, as amended;
8.3. Purchase of Replacement 3/4 Ton, 4x4 Crew Cab, Long Box Pickup (Car Two)
CW.108.21 THAT we receive Report FE-04-21 regarding the Purchase of Replacement 3/4 Ton, 4X4 Crew Cab, Long Box Pickup (Car Two) AND THAT weaccept the proposal from Finch Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick, GMC Ltd., to supply one 3/4 Ton 4x4 Crew Cab, Long Box Pickup Truck, to the specifications we have provided at a cost of $44,995.00 (plus HST).
Committee of the Whole April 19, 2021 Page 4 of 6
Page 136 of 154 Agenda Item #10.1.
Unfinished or New Business
CW.109.21 THAT the Fire Chief and Mayor work with Chippewas of Rama First Nation to get a second ambulance to serve Ramara Township.
CW.110.21 THAT we go past the hour of adjournment of 1:30 p.m.
Questions from Media and Public regarding items on the agenda pertaining to Protective Services
Christina Hucker asked the following questions regarding the Waterfront and Parking Strategy: 1. Could the Bylaw Officers not check ID's to turn away people from outside of Ramara, fine those who do not comply and post "Residents Only" and "No Barbeques" signage? 2. How do we get a parking pass for Orillia and can we use their boat launches? 3. Requested no parking signs on the east side of Courtland Street between Mara Park and Anderson Avenue? 4. Asked for someone to check if influx of traffic and non-resident walkers are from the area?
Mark Belcourt asked if the boat launches are going to be open to local only?
MJ Zielenski asked how many permit parking spots are being contemplated at The Steps and will they be clearly marked?
9. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES – COUNCILLOR HETHERINGTON, LIAISON Unfinished or New Business.
CW.111.21 THAT we amend Pits and Quarries Bylaw 2003.48 to limit quarry activity to 12:30 p.m. on Saturdays with the exception of watering equipment.
10. CLOSED SESSION Mayor Clarke added a negotiations matter to Closed Session; Deputy Mayor Gough added a property matter to Closed Session; Councillor Lamb added a property matter to Closed Session.
CW.112.21 THAT we go into Closed Session at 1:28 a.m. to a discuss personal, negotiations and two property matters in accordance with Section 239(2) (b), (k) and (a) of the Municipal Act.
CW.113.21 THAT we Rise and Report from Closed Session at 2:00 a.m.
Committee of the Whole April 19, 2021 Page 5 of 6
Page 137 of 154 Agenda Item #10.1.
10.1. Appointment to the Trails Committee
CW.114.21 THAT we appoint Jessica Brandt to the Ramara Trails Committee for the balance of the term ending November 14, 2021.
10.2. Negotiations matter regarding Governance
CW.115.21 THAT we discussed a negotiations matter regarding Governance in accordance with Section 239(2)(k) of the Municipal Act; AND THAT staff proceed as directed.
10.3. Property matter regarding Talisker
CW.116.21 THAT we discussed a property matter regarding Talisker in accordance with Section 239(2) (a) of the Municipal Act; AND THAT staff proceed as directed.
10.4. Property Matters regarding Fountain Drive Lake Access and Works Yard 1
CW.117.21 THAT we discussed two property matters regarding the Fountain Drive Lake Access and Works Yard 1 in accordance with Section 239(2) (a) of the Municipal Act; AND THAT staff proceed as directed.
11. ADJOURNMENT CW.118.21 THAT we adjourn at 2:02 p.m. CARRIED.
Committee of the Whole April 19, 2021 Page 6 of 6
Page 138 of 154 Agenda Item #2021.24
BILL NO. 2021.24
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF RAMARA
BYLAW NO. 2021.
A BYLAW TO DEDICATE PART OF LOT 36, RAMA ISLAND, REGISTERED PLAN RD-72, RAMA, AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY
WHEREAS the Corporation of the Township of Ramara (the "Corporation") is the registered owner of Part of Lot 36, Rama Island, Part 20 of Registered Plan RD-72, Rama, in the Township of Ramara, in the County of Simcoe;
AND WHEREAS Council wishes to establish Part of Lot 36, Rama Island, Registered Plan RD-72 as a public highway and to become Pineridge Road;
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Ramara hereby enacts as follows:
1. This Council does hereby dedicate Part of Lot 36, Rama Island, Registered Plan RD-72, Part 20 Pin 58701-0334 (LT) as a public highway Pineridge Road.
2. This Bylaw shall come into force and take effect on the date of passing.
BYLAW READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS DAY OF .
Page 139 of 154 Agenda Item #2021.25
BILL NO. 2021.25
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF RAMARA
BYLAW NO. 2021.
A BYLAW TO PERMIT AND REGULATE KITESURFING FROM MUNICIPAL PROPERTY
WHEREAS Section 8 (1) of the Ontario Municipal Act provides that the powers of a municipality under this or any other Act shall be interpreted broadly so as to confer broad authority on the municipality to enable the municipality to govern its affairs as it considers appropriate and to enhance the municipality’s ability to respond to municipal issues.
AND WHEREAS Section 9 of the Ontario Municipal Act, 2001 states the municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority under this or any other Act. 2006;
AND WHEREAS Council of the Township of Ramara deems it necessary to the health, safety and welfare of residents and visitors to control and regulate the use of Township beaches, Township parks, Township road allowance and all municipal property for recreational purposes;
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Ramara hereby enacts as follows:
PART 1 – DEFINITIONS
1. For the purpose of this By-law:
a. “Bylaw Enforcement Officer” means a person appointed by Council to enforce municipal bylaws.
b. “Kitesurfing” means the sport of riding on a small surfboard that is propelled across water by a large kite to which the rider is harnessed and also includes kiteboarding.
c. "Kitesurfing or Kiteboarding equipment” means any equipment used for kitesurfing and includes but is not limited to kites, boards, harnesses, equipment bags, bars, trainer kites, masts and bridles.
d. "Municipal property” includes a park, beach, road allowance, boat launch or any property owned or under the control of the Township of Ramara.
e. “Township” means The Corporation of the Township of Ramara
Page 140 of 154 Agenda Item #2021.25
PART II - APPLICATION OF THE BYLAW
2. This By-law applies to all Municipal Property or lands owned by the Corporation of the Township of Ramara or under its management and control.
PART III – REGULATIONS
3. Regulations
I. Permitted Locations:
a. Kitesurfing is permitted from the Lagoon City Public Park and Beach at all times subject to the rules and regulations as set out in Schedule A of this bylaw.
II. Regulated Locations:
a. Kitesurfing is permitted from all other Municipal Property, subject to the following regulations;
i. No person shall use any Municipal Property for staging or as a launching area to access the water for the purpose of kitesurfing between June 1st and September 30th annually;
ii. No person shall use any Municipal Property listed in Schedule B of this by-law as a staging or launching area to access the water for the purpose of kitesurfing at any time;
iii. No person shall unload, store, set up, dry or place any kitesurfing equipment on any municipal property listed in Schedule B of this bylaw at any time;
iv. No person shall use any Municipal Property listed In Schedule B of this bylaw to offer kitesurfing lessons or training at any time;
PART IV- ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES
4. This bylaw shall be enforced by a Bylaw Enforcement Officer;
5. Every person who is convicted of an offence is liable to a fine in the amount of $1,000.00, exclusive of costs, or otherwise as provided for in the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, as amended.
6. When a person has been convicted of an offence under this By-law,
a. the Superior Court of Justice, or
Page 141 of 154 Agenda Item #2021.25
b. Any Court of competent jurisdiction thereafter, May, in addition to any penalty imposed on the person convicted, issue an order prohibiting the continuation or repetition of the offence or the doing of any act or thing by the person convicted directed toward the continuation or repetition of the offence.
PART V – SEVERABILITY
7. If a court of competent jurisdiction should declare any section or part of a section of this By-law to be invalid the remainder of this By-law shall continue to be valid and remain in force.
PART VI – SHORT TITLE
8. This Bylaw may be referred to as the “Kitesurfing” Bylaw.
PART VII – EFFECTIVE DATE
9. This Bylaw comes into force on the day it is passed.
10. That Bylaw 2020.41 to Prohibit Kitesurfing be repealed.
BYLAW READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS DAY OF .
Page 142 of 154 Agenda Item #2021.25
SCHEDULE A
BY-LAW NUMBER 2021.
BEING A BYLAW TO PERMIT AND REGULATE KITESURFING FROM MUNICIPAL PROPERTY
1. Permitted Locations – Lagoon City Public Park and Beach;
a. Kitesurfing is permitted at Lagoon City Park and Beach at all times subject to the rules and regulations as set out in this schedule;
i. No person shall use any portion of the Lagoon City Public Park and Beach for launching, accessing or exiting of Lake Simcoe for kitesurfing, except from the designated and posted Entry/Exit zone;
ii. No person shall unload, store, set up, dry or place any kitesurfing equipment on any portion of the Lagoon City Public Park and Beach, except in the designated and posted Rigging Zone;
iii. No Person shall launch or land a kite within 25 metres of any tree, building, utility pole, or person; except when that person is assisting in safe launching and landing procedure, or should a navigation emergency occur.
iv. No person shall advertise or use any portion of the Lagoon City Public Park and Beach as their primary business location for a kitesurfing school or lessons, except under the following conditions;
1) A kitesurfing school or instructor may provide instruction or lessons using the Lagoon City Public Park and Beach as a launching point only, subject to them complying with all requirements of this bylaw and schedules.
v. No person shall access or use the designated kitesurfing Rigging or Entry/Exit Zones prior to the opening or after the closing of the Lagoon City Public Park and Beach as posted by official sign.
b. The following map(s) shall establish the areas for kiteboarding at the Lagoon City Public Park and Beach;
Page 143 of 154 Agenda Item #2021.25
i. Map 1 – Lagoon City Public Beach and Park
ii. Map 2 – Lagoon City Public Beach and Park
Page 144 of 154 Agenda Item #2021.25
c. Lagoon City Public Park and Beach Kiteboarding Rules:
Green Rigging/Drying Zone: 1. No assembled kites or lines should be left unattended on the ground unless during rigging or drying. 2. De-rigging and drying of kites should be at the back of the Rigging/Drying Zone. 3. Inflate only one kite per person at a time. 4. During busy times it is recommended to help others for faster setup. 5. If there is insufficient space to set up your kite, place your kite in a waiting line at the base of this sign, or consider kiting at another location. 6. Unused gear should be stored against the chain-linked fence to the north of the Rigging/Drying Zone or leave in vehicle. Yellow Entry/Exit Zone: 1. Give way to all other beach goers who may not be aware of kite launching area. 2. Move quickly through this zone to keep area clear. 3. Do not fly kites on the beach. 4. Launching kites with assistance is highly recommended. No Kiting Zone: 1. No kiting activity in the red No Kite Flying Zone marked by the 2 buoys. General Rules 1. Launch, land and ride kites well away from bystanders and swimmers. 2. Kiteboarders should yield right of way to other beach users at all times and Obey and respect Lagoon City Park and Beach guidelines
Page 145 of 154 Agenda Item #2021.25
SCHEDULE B
BY-LAW NUMBER 2021.
BEING A BYLAW TO PERMIT AND REGULATE KITESURFING FROM MUNICIPAL PROPERTY
1. Prohibited Locations – Any Time
a. “The Steps” Municipal Park and Beach – Ridge Avenue
b. Simcoe Road Municipal Road Allowance from Ridge Avenue to Lake Simcoe
Page 146 of 154 Agenda Item #2021.26
BILL NO. 2021.26
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF RAMARA
BYLAW NO. 2021.
A BYLAW TO AMEND BYLAW 2020.32 BEING A BYLAW TO PROHIBIT BEACH ACCESS, MUNICIPAL BOAT LAUNCHES AND LAGOON CITY CANALS DURING STATE OF EMERGENCY
WHEREAS Section 8 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended, provides that the powers of a municipality under this or any other Act shall be interpreted broadly so as to confer broad authority on the municipality to enable the municipality to govern its affairs as it considers appropriate and to enhance the municipality's ability to respond to municipal issues.
AND WHEREAS Section 9 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended states the municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority under this or any other Act. 2006;
AND WHEREAS Bill187, the Municipal Emergency Act, 2020, which received Royal Assent on March 19, 2020 declared a State of Emergency in the Province of Ontario;
AND WHEREAS Council deems it necessary to amend Bylaw 2020.32 by removing permitted closures of the Lagoon City Canals;
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Ramara hereby enacts as follows:
1. THAT PART 2 - REGULATIONS be amended as follows:
a. by deleting subsections 1, 2 and 3;
b. at the end of subsection 5 adding the words "with the exception of the Lagoon City Canals.
2. THAT the remainder of Bylaw 2020.32 remain in full force and effect.
BYLAW READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS DAY OF .
Page 147 of 154 Agenda Item #2021.27
BILL NO. 2021.27
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF RAMARA
BYLAW NO. 2021.
A BYLAW TO AMEND BYLAW 2003.52 BEING A BYLAW TO REGULATE THE PARKING OF VEHICLES WITHIN THE TOWNSHIP OF RAMARA
WHEREAS the Municipal Act, 2001, Section 101 (2) and the Highway Traffic Act, Section 170 (2) provides that a municipality may pass a bylaw to regulate or prohibit the parking or leaving of a motor vehicle on land owned or occupied by the municipality or any of it’s local boards without the consent of the municipality or local board, as the case may be, it may provide for removal and impounding or restraining and immobilizing of any vehicle, at the owner’s expense, parked or left in contravention of the bylaw;
AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Ramara passed Bylaw 2003.52 on the 28th day of July 2003 to regulate the parking of vehicles on certain roads within the Township of Ramara;
AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Ramara deems it expedient to further amend Bylaw 2003.52 to include Permit Parking Areas in certain neighborhoods, waterfront areas and municipal parking lots throughout the Township of Ramara;
AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Ramara deems it expedient to further amend Schedule "A" of Bylaw 2003.52 to restrict or amend parking restrictions on Bluebird Street, Concession Road B, Florida Avenue, Lake Avenue, Park Lane Crescent, Poplar Crescent, Poplar Lane, Riverleigh Drive and Spyglass Point Road;
AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Ramara deems it expedient to further amend Schedule "B" to delete the seasonal parking restrictions on Bluebird Street.
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Ramara hereby enacts as follows:
1. THAT Subsection 3.22 be added to Section 3 of Bylaw 2003.52 and to read as follows:
3.22 No person shall park a vehicle on a road, highway or in a municipal parking lot in a neighbourhood, waterfront area or in municipal parking lot where "No Parking Except by Permit" signs are on display at the
Page 148 of 154 Agenda Item #2021.27
entrance to such neighbourhood, waterfront area or municipal parking lot without a valid Township of Ramara parking permit.
2. THAT Schedules “A” and "B" of Bylaw 2003.52, be replaced with Schedules "A" and "B" attached hereto;
3. THAT this bylaw shall come into force and take effect on the date of passing.
BYLAW READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS DAY OF .
Page 149 of 154 Agenda Item #2021.27
Schedule "A" to No Parking Bylaw 2003.52, As Amended Permanent No Parking Areas Street Location Amended By: Airport Road south side from the intersection of Rama Road 200 metres east
Airport Road south side from the intersection of Rama Road to Logan Lane Airport Road north side from the intersection of Rama Road 30 metres west
Anderson Avenue north side from Courtland Street east to 50 meters east of 2021.29 Courtland Street Anderson Avenue south side from Courtland Street east to 50 meters east of 2021.29 Courtland Street Bluebird Street both sides from Airport Road north to the end of the road 2021.00 Canal Road Repealed by 2018.67 2018.67 Concession Road 10 south side from the intersection of Courtland Street, 350 metres south to Byers Lane Concession Road 10 north side from Courtland Street west to 50 meters west of 2021.29 Courtland Street Concession Road 2 easterly a distance of 727 m from highway 12 to Lafarge Quarry 2013.30 (2013.30) Concession Road B north side from 911 number 2902 Miami Avenue to 20 metres 2021.00 west of Florida Avenue Concession Road B south side from the west corner of Spyglass Avenue to Miami 2021.00 Avenue Concession Road B both sides from Miami Avenue west to Lake Simcoe 2021.00 Courland Street East side from Lake Simcoe north to 50 meters north or Orkney 2021.29 Beach Road Courtland Street west side at Cedar Point Lane intersection 15 metres north and south Courtland Street both sides from the intersection of Highway #12, 100 metres south Courtland Street both sides, from the intersection of Caroline Ave, 200 metres north and south Courtland Street Both sides from Creighton Street North south to Highway 12 2020.97 (2020.97) Creighton Street west side from the intersection of Highway #12, 100 metres south Creighton Street east side from the intersection of Highway #12, 6 metres south
Creighton Street west side from the intersection of Winchester St., 150 metres south Ellis Drive in the turning circle from 7540 to 7546 Ellis Drive (2004.49) Fern Resort Road The south side of Fern Resort Road from the intersection of 2020.67 Prospect Avenue east for a distance of 100 metres. (2020.67)
Florida Avenue both sides from Concession Road B north to the end of the road 2021.00
Harry's Lane all sides of the cul de sac
Page 150 of 154 Agenda Item #2021.27
Street Location Amended By: Henry Street both sides a distance of 30 metres south from the intersecton of 2004.42 Highway 12 (2004.42) Laguna Parkway east side from the intersection of Poplar Crescent, 900 metres south Lake Avenue northwest side from Poplar Crescent to 114 Lake Avenue (Park 2021.00 frontage) Lake Avenue south and east side from Poplar Crescent to the north boundary 2021.00 of 101 Lake Avenue Lake Avenue Permit Parking Only on the east side from the north boundary of 2021.00 101 Lake Avenue south for 200 metres Lake Avenue Permit Parking Only on the west side from the north boundary of 2021.00 114 Lake Avenue south for 200 metres Lone Birch Trail West side from the lot line between 2754 and 2758 Lone Birch 2021.29 Trail to Simcoe Road Lone Birch Trail East side from 2757 and 2761 Lone Birch Trail to Simcoe Road 2021.29
Longford Mills Road both sides from Stepan Canada Inc. entrance 700 metres west
Muley Point Road west side of Muley Point Road from Highway 12 to Concession 2016.15 Road 10; and east side of Muley Point Road from the north side of the north driveway into 4833 Muley Point Road (Uptergrove Public School) to the south side of the south driveway into 4833 Muley Point Road. (2016.15) Municipal Municipally marked parking spaces (2006.47) 2006.47 Handicapped Parking Space Orkney Beach Road south side from the westlery boundary of 4299 Orkney Beach 2006.63 Road a distance of 170 meters westerly to the easterly boundary of 4271 Orkney Beach Road (2006.63) Orkney Beach Road both sides from Courtland Street east to 50 meters east of 2021.29 Courtland Street Paradise Blvd all sides of the cul de sac Park Lane Crescent south side from Riverleigh Drive to Poplar Lane 2021.00 Park Lane Crescent Permit Parking Only on the north side from Riverleigh Drive to 2021.00 Poplar Lane Poplar Crescent Repealed by 2018.22 2018.22 Poplar Crescent west side from the intersection of Lake Avenue 30 metres south 2021.00
Poplar Crescent Repealed (2010.99) 2010.99 Poplar Crescent The west side of Poplar Crescent from Lake Avenue to Willow 2021.00 Crescent (2019.62) Poplar Crescent from the south boundary of the walkway between 2 and 4 Poplar 2021.00 Crescent around the cul-de-sac to the boundary between numbers 3 and 5 Poplar Crescent (2019.62) Poplar Crescent the west side of Poplar Crescent from the north boundary of the walkway between 16 Poplar Crescent and the public park to Lake Avenue (2019.62)
Page 151 of 154 Agenda Item #2021.27
Street Location Amended By: Poplar Crescent the east side of Poplar Crescent from the north boundary of the 2021.00 walkway between 15 and 17 Poplar Crescent to the boundary between 29 and 31 Poplar Crescent (2019.62) Poplar Crescent Permit Parking Only on the west side from the northerly 2021.00 boundary of 4 Poplar Crescent south to the southerly boundary of 16 Poplar Crescent Poplar Crescent east side from Willow Crescent north and around the cul-de-sac 2021.00 to the southerly boundary of the walkway between 2 and 4 Poplar Crescent Poplar Crescent west side from Lake Avenue to Willow Crescent 2021.00 Poplar Lane both sides from Park Lane Crescent to the end of the road 2021.00 Prospect Avenue The east side of Prospect Avenue from the intersection of Fern Resort Road south to a disance of 152 metres. Ramara Road 47 both sides from the south boundary of the Township at the Talbot 2012.42 River bridge, to 15 meters north of Stone Gate Road (2012.42)
Ramara Road 47 north side from the intersection of Highway 12, 35 metres west; 2008.30 and the south side from the intersection of Highway 12, 52 metres west (2008.30) Ridge Avenue both sides from Lake Avenue to Simcoe Road 2021.29 Riverleigh Drive both sides from Poplar Lane to Park Lane Crescent 2021.00 Simcoe Road north side of Simcoe Road from the east projection of Lone Birch 2021.29 Drive, 32 metres east (2012.89) Simcoe Road North side from Ridge Avenue to the lot line between numbers 4 2021.29 and 6 Simcoe Road Simcoe Road South side from Ridge Avenue to 15 meters west of Lakeshore 2021.29 Drive Simcoe Road 15 minute limit on the south side from Lakeshore Drive 15 2021.29 meters west Simcoe Road South side from Lakeshore Drive east 50 meters 2021.29 Spyglass Point Road both sides from Concession Road B south for 100 metres 2021.00
Unopened Road north side a distance of 33 metres west from Fawn Bay Road 2004.42 Allowance between (2004.42) the former Townships of Mara and Rama
Page 152 of 154 Agenda Item #2021.27
SCHEDULE "B" TO BYLAW 2003.52 NO PARKING BYLAW
Seasonal No Parking Areas
Street Location Amended By Anderson Ave South side from the intersection east from 2021.29 50 meters east of Courtland Street, 156 metrers east of Courtland Street Bluebird Street north side from 911 sign #6332, 200 metres 2021 west to 911 sign #6284 Church Road all sides of the cul de sac Concession Rd A north side from Lakeshore Avenue to Lake 2019.78 Simcoe Fairgrounds Road north side from the interesection of Cronk Sideroad, 300 metres east Graham Sideroad both sides from the intersection of Rama 2003.98 Road to Lake Couchiching (2003.98) Maple Avenue both sides from the intersection of Rama Road, 900 metres west Quarry Point Road both sides from the intersection of Rama Road, 350 metres west Ridge Road both sides from Lake Avenue to Simcoe 2021.29 Road (2019.78) Shady Court both sides from the intersection of Southwood Beach Blvd., 200 metres south Southwood Beach Blvd all sides of the cul de sac Southwood Beach Blvd south side from the interseciton of Rama Road, east 1,400 metres
Page 153 of 154 Agenda Item #2021.28
BILL NO. 2021.28
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF RAMARA
BYLAW NO. 2021.
A BYLAW TO AMEND BYLAW 2003.48 BEING A BYLAW TO REGULATE THE CARRYING ON AND OPERATION OF PITS AND QUARRIES IN THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF RAMARA
WHEREAS the Municipal Act, 2001, confers on municipalities the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority;
AND WHEREAS the Municipal Act, 2001, Section 124 provides that municipalities may regulate the operation of a pit and a quarry;
AND WHEREAS the Council of the Township of Ramara desires to amend the permitted hours of operation of quarries within the Township of Ramara;
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Ramara hereby enacts as follows:
1. THAT Bylaw 2003.48 be amended by adding "...or after 12:30 p.m. on any Saturday" at the end of Section 5:
2. THAT this bylaw come into force and effect on the date of passing.
BYLAW READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS DAY OF .
Page 154 of 154