Township of East Garafraxa Council Agenda Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 2:00 P.M. Administration Office, Amaranth ON
1. Opening of Meeting
2. Added Items (Late Submissions)
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest with Reasons
5. Approval of Minutes 5.1. Regular Council Meeting Minutes for August 20, 2019
5.2. Special Council Meeting Minutes for September 4, 2019 at 6:30p.m.
5.3. Special Joint Council Meeting Minutes for September 4, 2019 at 7:00p.m.
5.4. Special Council Meeting Minutes for September 9, 2019
5.5. Business arising from Minutes
6. Public Question Period
*A maximum of 10 minutes will be set aside for Public Question Period, with each speaker limited to two minutes.
7. Delegations/Presentations – None at this time.
8. Public Meeting(s) – None at this time.
9. Unfinished Business 9.1. Nature’s Landing West Park – Block 36 9.1.1. Update
9.2. Township of East Garafraxa Incorporation 9.2.1. Sesquicentennial (150 years) Event, Saturday August 24, 2019 9.2.1.1. Report to Council – Revenues and Expenses
9.3. Mainstreet Funding Project Discussion 9.3.1. County Signage RPF Update 9.3.2. Municipal Signage Discussion
9.4. Other
10. Planning Department 10.1. Development Update(s)
Council Agenda September 24, 2019 Page 2 of 5
10.2. Provincial Policy Statement Review – Proposed Policies 10.2.1. Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) #019-0279 Comment Period July 22, 2019 to October 21, 2019
10.3. Bill 108 10.3.1. Watson & Associates - Comments on Draft Regulations 019-0183 - Community Benefits Charge 10.3.2. Watson & Associates – Comments on Draft Regulations 019-0184 – Changes to the Development Charges Act 10.3.3. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing – More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019 10.3.4. Parks and Recreation Ontario – Impact on Municipal Parks and Recreation
10.4. County of Dufferin 10.4.1. Building Permit Listing Sent to MPAC – July 2019 10.4.2. County’s Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR) Report to Council
10.5. Forest Hill Estates Proposed Subdivision 10.5.1. Proposed Street Names
10.6. Trailer Request 10.6.1. 143161 15 Sideroad – Concession 15, Pt Lot 16 RP 7R5790 Part 2
10.7. Unopened Road Allowance – Marsville 10.7.1. Resident Request – 063011 County Road 3
10.8. Town of Orangeville 10.8.1. Minor Variance – 64 Glengarry Road
10.9. Other
11. Public Works Department 11.1. Director of Public Works Report(s)
11.2. Steel Guide Beam Tender 11.2.1. Tender Report
11.3. Bridge No. 7 11.3.1. Update
11.4. Brookhaven Park Discussion 11.4.1. Vandalism 11.4.2. Resident Request – Basketball Court
11.5. Other
12. Treasury and Accounts 12.1. Roads and General Bills and Accounts
Council Agenda September 24, 2019 Page 3 of 5
12.2. Minister of Infrastructure 12.2.1. Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program: Community, Culture and Recreation Stream – Application deadline November 12, 2019
12.3. Federal Gas Tax Program 12.3.1. Additional Funding – Email September 13, 2019
12.4. Other
13. County Council Business 13.1. County Council, September 12, 2019 13.1.1. Council Addendum
13.2. Annual Emergency Exercise 13.2.1. Monora Park – Wednesday, October 23 – 8:30a.m. to 4:30p.m.
13.3. Other
14. Committees 14.1. Credit Valley Conservation Authority 14.1.1. Draft 2020 Budget 14.1.2. Modernizing Conservation Authority Operations – CA Act and Bill 108 – August 28, 2019 14.1.3. Conservation Ontario Briefing Note – September 9, 2019
14.2. Grand River Conservation Authority 14.2.1. Summary of the General Membership Meeting – August 23, 2019
14.3. Grand Valley and District Community Centre 14.3.1. Town of Grand Valley – Resolution
14.4. Grand Valley and District Fire Board 14.4.1. Meeting Minutes for July 15, 2019
14.5. Upper Grand Watershed Committee 14.5.1. Meeting Minutes for May 23, 2019
14.6. Other
15. General Business and Correspondence 15.1. AMO 15.1.1. August 15, 2019 Watch File 15.1.2. August 22, 2019 Watch File 15.1.3. August 29, 2019 Watch File 15.1.4. September 5, 2019 Watch File 15.1.5. September 12, 2019 Watch File 15.1.6. September 19, 2019 Watch File
Council Agenda September 24, 2019 Page 4 of 5
15.2. Office of the Solicitor General 15.2.1. Public Reports Regulation – Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997
15.3. Enforcement for Safety on Family Farms 15.3.1. Municipality of Mississippi Mills 15.3.2. Municipality of Chatham-Kent
15.4. Municipal Amalgamations 15.4.1. Township of Resolution Papineau-Cameron 15.4.2. Town of Wasaga Beach 15.4.3. Town of Mono Request for Support 15.4.3.1. Town of Grand Valley Resolution of Support
15.5. Fisheries and Oceans Canada 15.5.1. Listing of Aquatic Species under the Species at Risk Act – August 21, 2019
15.6. Township of Zorra 15.6.1. Conservation Authorities Programing
15.7. Town of Mono 15.7.1. MTO Highway Traffic Act Set Fines
15.8. AMCTO 15.8.1. Consultations and Regulations Available for Comment
15.9. Municipality of Chatham-Kent 15.9.1. Resolution Regarding Provincial Funding Cuts to Legal Aid Ontario
15.10. City of Kitchener 15.10.1. Resolution – Reducing Litter and Waste in our Communities
15.11. Township of Larder Lake 15.11.1. Resolution Regarding Electronic Delegation
15.12. Grove Cemetery Board 15.12.1. Support Thank You Letter – August 21, 2019
16. Added Items (Late Submissions – if any)
17. New Business 17.1. 2018 Health and Safety Review Report
17.2. Dufferin Board of Trade 17.2.1. Business Excellence Awards Nominees (nominees names to be provided at the meeting)
17.3. Other
18. Closed Meeting(s)
Council Agenda September 24, 2019 Page 5 of 5
18.1. Personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees.
18.2. Advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose.
18.3. Closed Meeting Minutes
19. By-Laws – None at this time.
20. Confirming By-Law
21. Adjournment 21.1. Next meeting Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. or at the call of the Mayor. East Garafraxa Township Council Meeting Minutes August 20, 2019
The Council of the Township of East Garafraxa held the regular meeting of Council at the Administration Office, Amaranth ON at 2:00 p.m., on August 20, 2019. Councillors Lenora Banfield, Fran Pinkney, Tom Nevills, and Deputy Mayor John Stirk were in attendance with Mayor Guy Gardhouse presiding. Susan Stone, CAO/Clerk-Treasurer, Karen Canivet, Acting CAO/Clerk, Dave Menary, Director of Public Works, and Jessica Kennedy, Deputy Clerk were in attendance.
1. Opening of Meeting Meeting called to order.
2. Added Items – Nothing at this time.
3. Approval of Agenda - Motion passed to approve agenda as circulated.
4. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest with Reasons – None at this time.
5. Approval of Minutes 5.1. Regular Council Meeting Minutes for July 16, 2019 – Motion passed to approve as circulated.
5.2. Special Council Meeting Minutes for July 25, 2019 - Motion passed to approve as circulated.
5.3. Special Council Meeting Minutes for July 31, 2019 – Motion passed to approve as circulated.
5.4. Special Council Meeting Minutes for August 13, 2019 – Motion passed to approve as circulated.
5.5. Business arising from Minutes – Nothing at this time.
6. Public Question Period – Nothing at this time.
7. Delegations/Presentations 7.1. 2:15 p.m. 2019 Development Charges Study Sean-Michael Stephen, Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. (in attendance to answer questions) 7.1.1. Addendum to 2019 Development Charges Background Study 7.1.2. Proposed Development Charges By-Law for the Township of East GarafraxaDRAFT
Sean-Michael Stephen, Senior Project Coordinator for Watson & Associates Economists was in attendance regarding the proposed Development Charges By-Law. Discussion ensued regarding exemption for agricultural buildings at lower rate.
Discussion regarding the square footage and associated number of employees for agricultural buildings which came from other rural municipalities. Mayor Gardhouse stated the number seemed low. Lowering the number would lower the non-residential charge for agricultural. Sean- Michael Stephen noted any changes made regarding the calculated charge for exemptions would not impact the proposed development charge by-law, the by-law could be amended at a later date. Staff directed to look into the matter further.
Motion passed to approve the 2019 Development Charges Background Study as amended and that no further public meetings are required on the matter.
Motion and By-Law 32-2019 for the Imposition of Development Chagres passed.
Meeting Minutes August 20, 2019 Page 2
7.2. 3:00p.m. RSSB - C Site Alteration Request (471360 County Road 11 and 065243 County Road 3) Paul Sandhu, RSSB-C and Jeff Akitt, Tatham Engineering Ltd. 7.2.1. RSSB - C Request Letter dated July 25, 2019 7.2.2. Tatham Engineering Letter dated July 25, 2019 7.2.3. Email and Revised Topsoil Stockpile Location 7.2.4. Site Alteration Request Notice to Area Residents dated July 31, 2019 7.2.5. Comments Received – Nothing at this time.
Paul Sandhu, RSSB-C and Jeff Akitt, Tatham Engineering Ltd. were in attendance and provided an update of the development of the RSSB-C site. Excess of topsoil is due to grading on the site. Drainage matter raised by Township Engineers has been addressed with the revised stockpile location. Applicant has spoken to neighbours in the area to advise of the request, no issues were raised. Project to be completed within the next few weeks.
Motion passed to approve request.
8. Public Meeting(s) – 4:00p.m. 8.1. Zoning By-Law Amendment File Z5-19; to permit an accessory building with an increased height and to permit an increased lot coverage percentage (032794 9th Line – Concession 9, East Part Lot 24, RP 7R2799 Part 2 – Steven Moniz, Applicant) 8.1.1. Notice of Complete Application and Public Meeting 8.1.2. Planning Report Dated Aug. 16, 2019 – RBA Planning Consultants Ltd. 8.1.3. Additional Comments Received
Applicant, Steve Moniz was in attendance. No public were in attendance. Susan Stone, CAO/Clerk-Treasurer presented the Planning Report dated August 16, 2019 prepared by RBA Planning Consultant, Bob Black, B.E.S. The purpose of the application is to allow an increased lot coverage area from 5% to 5.87% and an increased building height from 4.5m to 6.02m for an accessory building. Planning report contained agency comments that had been received. Recommendation to receive the Planning Report and to approve the application noting that MDS is not required to establish a garage as an accessory use for the existing use on the property. Motion toDRAFT adjourn Public Meeting and resume regular business passed.
Motion to receive the Planning Report and approve Zoning By-Law Amendment Application Z5-19 passed.
Motion and Zoning By-Law Amendment 33-2019 passed.
9. Unfinished Business 9.1. Nature’s Landing West Park – Block 36 9.1.1. RFP Discussion
Council discussed the email dated August 9, 2019 from Mark McPhee of R.J. Burnside & Associates Ltd. regarding the Yard Weasels contract for the development of the Nature’s Landing park. More details need to be provided regarding the multi-use court. Matter deferred and to be dealt with at a Special Council meeting.
9.2. Township of East Garafraxa Incorporation 9.2.1. Sesquicentennial (150 years) Event, Saturday August 24, 2019 9.2.1.1. Update
Councillor Banfield provided an update on the upcoming event. Final details have been organized. All bus tours have sold out. Meeting Minutes August 20, 2019 Page 3
9.3. Mainstreet Funding Project Discussion 9.3.1. County Signage Information
Township is able to coordinate the park signage with the County of Dufferin RFP. Signage details to be provided to the County.
9.4. Other – Nothing at this time.
10. Planning Department The following were received and/or dealt with: 10.1. Development Update(s)
Discussion regarding Minimum Distance Separation inquiries as the Township does not currently have a staff person who can do theses calculations. Farm Data sheets have had to be sent to a consultant. Matter will need to be addressed going forward.
Discussion regarding retaining planning services from Steve Wever, Associate Senior Planner of GSP Group Inc. Mr. Wever’s office would provide services remotely. Staff directed to move forward with retaining services.
10.2. Planning Act Decisions 10.2.1. Zoning By-Law Amendment File Z5-19 to permit an accessory building with an increased height and to permit an increased lot coverage percentage (032794 9th Line – Concession 9, East Part Lot 24, RP 7R2799 Part 2 – Steven Moniz, Applicant)
Matter discussed under Item 8.1.
10.3. Provincial Policy Statement Review – Proposed Policies 10.3.1. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Letter – PPS Review – Draft Policies 10.3.2. Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) #019-0279 Comment Period July 22, 2019 to October 21, 2019
Mayor Gardhouse reported that there is an AMO Alert out regarding concerns with respect to proposed Development Charges changes and the Community Benefits Charge.
10.4. Bill 108 10.4.1. Draft RegulationsDRAFT for the Development Charges Act and Planning Act (Community Benefits Charge Related) – Watson & Associates
10.5. Agreement Extension Request 10.5.1. Request dated August 12, 2019 - Concession 12, West Part Lot 1, RP 7R1763 Part 2 (022159 Erin-East Garafraxa Townline)
Request was provided to Council at the meeting.
Motion passed to approve the request to further extent their agreement.
10.6. County of Dufferin 10.6.1. Notice of Decision – East Garafraxa OPA 7 10.6.1.1. Declaration of No Appeal 10.6.2. Building Permit Listing Sent to MPAC – July 2019
10.7. Town of Erin 10.7.1. Notice of Complete Application and Public Meeting for Zoning By-Law Amendment File Z19-03 – 30 Orangeville Street
10.8. Town of Orangeville 10.8.1. Notice of Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law – Cachet Developments (Orangeville) Inc. on behalf of Transmetro Ltd. OPZ3/19 Meeting Minutes August 20, 2019 Page 4
10.9. Other – Nothing at this time.
11. Public Works Department The following were received and/or dealt with: 11.1. Director of Public Works Report(s) – Nothing at this time.
11.2. Bridge No. 7 11.2.1. Update
Dave Menary, Director of Public Works reported on Bridge No. 7. Site meeting with contractors and Township Engineers has been scheduled. Project needs to be completed this year in order to comply with funding requirements.
11.3. Speed Sign Discussion
Three quotes were obtained for speed signs. Signs can be moved to various locations.
Motion passed to purchase one speed sign from Cedar Signs.
11.4. Brookhaven Park Vandalism Discussion
Park vandalism took place last week. Fire damage to the paly equipment. Orangeville Fire Department and Orangeville Police attended the scene. The youth involved have been charged. Snow fencing has been put up around the equipment. Township insurance company has been notified.
11.5. Other
Flag poles at the Marsville Community Hall have been removed.
CID is in the process of replacing the streetlight located by the Marsville pumphouse which was broken underground.
12. Treasury and Accounts The following were received and/or dealt with: 12.1. Roads and General Bills and Accounts Motion passed to approve Roads and General Bills and Accounts.
12.2. Budget Summary DRAFT Revised budget summary was provided and discussed.
12.3. Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP) 12.3.1. Reconstruction of Bridge No. 8 – Funding Email (not nominated for Federal review)
Councillor Nevills questioned whether the Grand Valley Community Centre Board would be pursuing funding under ICIP as the letter indicated further available funding under the community, culture and recreation stream.
12.4. Ontario Cannabis Legalization Implementation Fund 12.4.1. Third Payment – Allocation Notice
12.5. Other
13. County Council The following were received and/or dealt with: 13.1. County Council Update
13.2. Electric Vehicle Charging Station Partnership 13.2.1. Email Requesting Letter of Support 13.2.1.1. Example Letter of Support Meeting Minutes August 20, 2019 Page 5
Discussion regarding request for support, Council would like to support the initiative. Staff directed to send letter and to add a note regarding being on property owned and/or leased by the Township.
Motion passed to support the Electric Vehicle Charging Partnership.
13.3. Community Emergency Management Coordinator 13.3.1. Update 13.3.2. 2018 EMCPA Compliance Letter dated June 24, 2019
Township is in compliance for 2018.
13.4. Shared Services Review 13.4.1. Mulmur Resolution
13.5. Community Safety and Well-Being Plan 13.5.1. Melancthon Resolution 13.5.1.1. Grand Valley Resolution of Support 13.5.2. County Report to Community Services/Dufferin Oaks/Museum Committee – August 22, 2019 13.5.3. Community Safety and Well-Being Planning Framework – Government of Ontario
13.6. County Committee Meetings August 22, 2019 13.6.1. Infrastructure & Environmental Services – Closed Session at 9:00 am and Open Session at 1:00 p.m. 13.6.2. General Government Services – 3:00 p.m. 13.6.3. Community Services/Dufferin Oaks/Museum – 6:30 p.m.
13.7. Other – Nothing at this time.
14. Committees The following were received and/or dealt with: 14.1. Orangeville Fire Services 14.1.1. Addendum to Agreement for Fire Protection Services 14.1.1.1. Email dated August 2, 2019
Motion and By-Law 34-2019 passed.
14.2. Dufferin Provincial Offences Act Board (POA) 14.2.1. 2019 – 2ndDRAFT Quarter Payments – Reconciliation & Disbursements
Discussion regarding Township POA revenue as it appears low in comparison to the other municipalities.
14.3. Other – Nothing at this time.
15. General Business and Correspondence The following were received and/or dealt with: 15.1. AMO 15.1.1. July 18, 2019 Watch File 15.1.2. July 25, 2019 Watch File 15.1.3. August 8, 2019 Watch File 15.1.4. August 15, 2019 Watch File 15.1.5. Ontario Releases Remainder of Municipal Cannabis Funding
15.2. Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Rural Affairs 15.2.1. Municipal Drain Petition Procedure (for information)
15.3. Enforcement for Safety on Family Farms 15.3.1. Township of Warwick Resolution 15.3.1.1. Municipality of McDougall Resolution of Support 15.3.1.2. Town of Plympton-Wyoming Resolution of Support Meeting Minutes August 20, 2019 Page 6
15.3.1.3. Municipality of South Huron Resolution of Support
Council directed staff to bring forward a motion of support to the next meeting.
15.4. City of Stratford 15.4.1. Opposition to Changes in the 2019 Provincial Budget and Planning Act – Resolution
15.5. Town of Halton Hills 15.5.1. Reducing Litter and Waste in Our Communities Resolution
15.6. Norfolk County 15.6.1. Request for Provincial Response to address Gas Well Issues Resolution
16. Added Items – Nothing at this time.
17. New Business 17.1. Other
Motion passed to retain Robert Black of RBA Planning Consultants Ltd. for planning services for the Township of East Garafraxa.
18. Closed Meeting(s) 5:05 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. – Motion to go into Closed Meeting passed.
18.1. Personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees.
18.2. Litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board.
18.3. Advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose.
18.4. Closed Meeting Minutes
Motion passed to come out of Closed and resume regular business. Staff instructed in accordance with Closed Meeting discussions.
Motion and By-Law 35-2019 passed to appoint Karen Canivet as Acting CAO/Clerk during Susan Stone, CAO/Clerk-Treasurer’s leave.
19. By-Laws DRAFT Notice of Intention to pass the following By-Laws: 19.1. Being a By-Law for the Imposition of Development Charges for the Township of East Garafraxa
Matter discussed and By-Law 32-2019 passed under Item 7.1.
19.2. Being a By-Law to amend Zoning By-Law 60-2004 as amended; to permit an accessory building with an increased height and to permit an increased lot coverage percentage (Zoning By-Law Amendment File Z5-19 – Moniz)
Matter discussed and Zoning By-Law Amendment 33-2019 passed under Item 8.1.
19.3. Being a By-Law to Authorize an Amendment to an Agreement Between the Township of East Garafraxa and the Town of Orangeville for the Provision of Fire Services
By-Law 34-2019 passed under Item 14.1.1.
20. Confirming By-Law Motion and By-Law 36-2019 passed.
Meeting Minutes August 20, 2019 Page 7
21. Adjournment 21.1. Next meeting Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. or at the call of the Mayor.
The following resolutions were passed:
Moved by Stirk, Seconded by Nevills Be it resolved that the agenda be approved as circulated. Carried. Moved by Nevills, Seconded by Pinkney Be it resolved that the minutes of the Regular Council Meeting held July 16, 2019 be adopted as circulated. Carried.
Moved by Banfield, Seconded by Pinkney Be it resolved that the minutes of the Special Council Meeting held July 25, 2019 be adopted as circulated. Carried.
Moved by Pinkney, Seconded by Banfield Be it resolved that the minutes of the Special Council Meeting held July 31, 2019 be adopted as circulated. Carried.
Moved by Stirk, Seconded by Nevills Be it resolved that the minutes of the Special Council Meeting held August 13, 2019 be adopted as circulated. Carried. Moved by Pinkney, Seconded by Banfield Be it resolved Council approve the 2019 Development Charges Background Study as amended; And further that Council have determined that no further public meetings are required on the matter. Carried. Moved by Nevills, Seconded by Stirk Be it resolved that Leave be given to introduce a by-law for the Imposition of Development Charges and that it be given the necessary readings and be passed and numbered 32-2019. Carried.
Moved by Pinkney, Seconded by Banfield Be it resolved Council approve the purchase of one speed radar signs from Cedar Sign in the amount of $3,624.60 plus applicable taxes, plus hardware. Carried.
Moved by Banfield, Seconded by Pinkney Be it resolved Council approveDRAFT the request for Site Alteration dated July 25, 2019 to relocate an estimated amount of 18,500 cubic metres of excess topsoil from 471360 County Road 11 to 065243 County Road 3, both properties being owned by the applicant, Radha Soami Society Beas Canada (RSSB-C) 2542533 Ontario Ltd; And that the stockpile be in accordance with the alternate stockpile location provided on August 9, 2019 pursuant to site visit and comments provided by the Township Engineer. Carried.
Moved by Stirk, Seconded by Nevills Be it resolved that Council now hold a Public Meeting regarding the following application:
Zoning By-Law Amendment Application Z5-19; to permit an accessory building with an increased height and to permit an increased lot coverage percentage for Concession 9, East Part Lot 24, RP 7R2799 Part 2 (032794 9th Line – Applicant Steven Moniz). Carried.
Moved by Banfield, Seconded by Pinkney Be it resolved that Council do now adjourn Public Meeting and resume regular business. Carried.
Moved by Nevills, Seconded by Stirk Be it resolved that the Planning Report dated August 16, 2019 be received;
And that Zoning By-Law Amendment Application Z5-19; to permit an accessory building of 30’ by 40’ with a maximum height of 6.02m and to permit a maximum lot coverage percentage of 5.87% for Concession 9, East Part Lot 24, RP 7R2799 Part 2, 032794 9th Line, Applicant Meeting Minutes August 20, 2019 Page 8
Steven Moniz be approved noting that MDS is not required to establish a garage as an accessory use for the existing residential use on the property. Carried.
Moved by Pinkney, Seconded by Banfield Be it resolved that Leave be given to introduce a by-law to amend Zoning By-Law 60-2004 as amended; to permit an accessory building with an increased height and to permit an increased lot coverage percentage, Concession 9, East Part Lot 24, RP 7R2799 Part 2, and that it be given the necessary readings and be passed and numbered 33-2019. Carried.
Moved by Banfield, Seconded by Pinkney Be it resolved that Whereas the owners of Concession 12, West Part Lot 1 requested permission of Council to reside within the existing second storey of the garage, and,
And Whereas the owners requested permission to retain the existing farm house for storage purposes only, until the new dwelling is constructed, which was approved by Council resolution of June 20, 2017 and extended until August 26, 2019 pursuant to Council resolution dated February 26, 2019;
And Whereas the owners are now requesting a further extension to reside above the detached garage while building new house progresses, and retain the existing house for storage until such time as they are able to utilize the basement of the new house for storage;
Now Therefore, Council of the Township of East Garafraxa agree to allow the owners to retain the farm house for a further period of one year or until the new dwelling is erected, whichever occurs first.
And Further that the owners be allowed to reside above the detached garage for a further period of one year or until the new dwelling is erected, whichever occurs first, following which the residence above the garage and the existing farm house are to be removed. Carried.
Moved by Banfield, Seconded by Pinkney Be it resolved that Bills and Accounts be paid in the amount of: General 2019 $ 210,734.23 Roads 2019 $ 116,734.20 Carried.
Moved by Pinkney, Seconded by Banfield Be it resolved that Council agree in principle with the request from the County of Dufferin regarding the Electric Vehicle Charging Station Partnership;
And further that Council direct staff to send the letter of support to the County of Dufferin. Carried. DRAFT Moved by Stirk, Seconded by Nevills Be it resolved that Leave be given to introduce a by-law to Authorize an Amendment to an Agreement Between the Township of East Garafraxa and the Town of Orangeville for the Provision of Fire Services and that it be given the necessary readings and be passed and numbered 34- 2019. Carried.
Moved by Nevills, Seconded by Stirk Be it resolved that Council retain Robert Black of RBA Planning Consultants Ltd. for planning services for the Township of East Garafraxa. Carried.
Moved by Pinkney, Seconded by Banfield Be it resolved that Council move to a Closed Meeting pursuant to Section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended for the following reason(s): Personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees; Litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board; Advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose and Adoption of Closed Meeting Minutes. Carried. Moved by Stirk, Seconded by Nevills Be it resolved that Council do now rise and report from Closed Meeting, and resume regular business. Carried.
Meeting Minutes August 20, 2019 Page 9
Moved by Banfield, Seconded by Pinkney Be it resolved that Council retain Karen Canivet as Acting CAO/Clerk during Susan Stone, CAO/Clerk- Treasurer’s, upcoming leave. Carried.
Moved by Pinkney, Seconded by Stirk Be it resolved that Leave be given to introduce a by-law to appoint an acting CAO/Clerk for the Township of East Garafraxa and that it be given the necessary readings and be passed and numbered 35-2019. Carried.
Moved by Nevills, Seconded by Stirk Be it resolved that Leave be given to introduce a by-law to confirm the regular meeting of Council of the Township of East Garafraxa for August 20, 2019 and that it be given the necessary readings and be passed and numbered 36-2019. Carried. Moved by Pinkney, Seconded by Banfield Be it resolved that Council now adjourn to meet again for the Regular Meeting of Council on Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 2:00 p.m., or at the call of the Mayor. Carried.
______Clerk Head of Council
DRAFT East Garafraxa Township Special Council Minutes September 4, 2019
The Council of the Township of East Garafraxa held a Special Meeting of Council at the Township Administration Office, Amaranth, ON at 6:30 p.m. on September 4, 2019 for the purpose of the Nature’s Landing Park contract. Councillors Tom Nevills, Fran Pinkney and Lenora Banfield were in attendance with Deputy Mayor John Stirk presiding. Mayor Guy Gardhouse was absent with notice. Susan Stone, CAO/Clerk-Treasurer, and Jessica Kennedy, Deputy Clerk were also in attendance.
1. OPENING OF MEETING Deputy Mayor Stirk called the meeting to order.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion passed to approve agenda as circulated.
3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST WITH REASONS – None at this time.
4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 4.1. Nature’s Landing West Park – Block 36 4.1.1. Award of contract
Discussion regarding the colour scheme. Multi-use sports court should coordinate and blend with the colours of the play equipment.
Motion passed to accept the contract for Nature’s Landing Park Development with Yard Weasels Inc.
5. CONFIRMING BY-LAW
Motion and By-Law 37-2019 passed.
6. ADJOURNMENT 1.1. To meet again for the Special Meeting of Council on Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 7:00 p.m., and the Regular Meeting of Council on Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 2:00 p.m., or at the call of the Mayor.
Motion to adjourn passed.
The following resolutions were passed: MOVED BY NEVILLS, SECONDED BY PINKNEY BE IT RESOLVED THAT the agenda be approved as circulated. CARRIED.
MOVED BY PINKNEY, SECONDED BY BANFIELD BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council accept the contract for Nature’s Landing Park Development (10 Nature’s Landing Drive) with Yard Weasels Inc. (YWI Landscapes) in the amount of $289,600 plus applicable taxes; DRAFT
And further that the contract prepared by R.J. Burnsides & Associates Limited (Contract No. 300043501.0000) be executed by the CAO/Clerk;
And further that the costs be paid from the Township Park Dedication Reserve Account. CARRIED.
MOVED BY NEVILLS, SECONDED BY PINKNEY BE IT RESOLVED THAT Leave be given to introduce a by-law to confirm the Special Meeting of Council of the Township of East Garafraxa for September 4, 2019 and that it be given the necessary readings and be passed and numbered 37-2019. CARRIED.
MOVED BY BANFIELD, SECONDED BY PINKNEY BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council now adjourn to meet again for the Special Meeting of Council on Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. and the Regular Meeting of Council on Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 2:00 p.m., or at the call of the Mayor. CARRIED.
______Clerk Mayor East Garafraxa Township Special Council Minutes September 4, 2019
The Council of the Township of East Garafraxa held a Special Meeting of Council at the Township Administration Office, Amaranth, ON at 7:00 p.m. on September 4, 2019 for the purpose of holding a Joint Council Meeting with the Township of Amaranth regarding the Joint Administration. Councillors Tom Nevills, Fran Pinkney, Lenora Banfield and Deputy Mayor John Stirk were in attendance with Mayor Guy Gardhouse presiding. Susan Stone, CAO/Clerk-Treasurer, Karen Canivet, Acting CAO/Clerk, and Jessica Kennedy, Deputy Clerk were also in attendance.
1. OPENING OF MEETING Mayor Gardhouse called the meeting to order.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion passed to approve agenda as circulated.
3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST WITH REASONS – None at this time.
4. CLOSED MEETING(S) – 7:05 p.m. to 7:57 p.m. - Motion to go into Closed Meeting passed.
4.1. Personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees
4.2. Labour relations or employee negotiations
Motion passed to come out of Closed and resume regular business. Staff instructed in accordance with Closed Meeting discussions.
5. CONFIRMING BY-LAW
Motion and By-Law 38-2019 passed.
6. ADJOURNMENT 6.1. To meet again for the Regular Meeting of Council on Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 2:00 p.m., or at the call of the Mayor.
Motion to adjourn passed.
The following resolutions were passed:
MOVED BY PINKNEY, SECONDED BY BANFIELD BE IT RESOLVED THAT the agenda be approved as circulated. CARRIED.
MOVED BY STIRK, SECONDED BY NEVILLS BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council move to a Closed Meeting pursuant to Section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended for the following reason(s): Personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees; Labour relations or employee negotiations. CARRIED. DRAFT MOVED BY BANFIELD, SECONDED BY PINKNEY BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council do now rise and report from Closed Meeting, and resume regular business. CARRIED.
MOVED BY BANFIELD, SECONDED BY PINKNEY BE IT RESOLVED THAT Leave be given to introduce a by-law to confirm the Special Meeting of Council of the Township of East Garafraxa for September 4, 2019 and that it be given the necessary readings and be passed and numbered 38-2019. CARRIED.
MOVED BY NEVILLS, SECONDED BY STIRK BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council now adjourn to meet again for the Regular Meeting of Council on Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 2:00 p.m., or at the call of the Mayor. CARRIED.
______Clerk Mayor East Garafraxa Township Special Council Minutes September 9, 2019
The Council of the Township of East Garafraxa held a Special Meeting of Council at the Township Works Yard, East Garafraxa, ON at 7:00 p.m. on September 9, 2019 for Closed Meeting matters. Councillors Tom Nevills, Fran Pinkney, Lenora Banfield and Deputy Mayor John Stirk were in attendance with Mayor Guy Gardhouse presiding. Susan Stone, CAO/Clerk-Treasurer, Karen Canivet, Acting CAO/Clerk, Jessica Kennedy, Deputy Clerk, and Dave Menary, Director of Public Works, were also in attendance.
1. OPENING OF MEETING Meeting called to order.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion passed to approve agenda as circulated.
3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST WITH REASONS – None at this time.
4. CLOSED MEETING(S) - 7:00 p.m. to 9:16 p.m. – Motion passed to go into Closed Meeting. 4.1. Personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees
4.2. Labour relations or employee negotiations
4.3. Advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose Motion passed to come out of Closed and resume regular business. Staff instructed in accordance with Closed Meeting discussions.
5. CONFIRMING BY-LAW Motion and By-Law 39-2019 passed. 6. ADJOURNMENT 6.1. To meet again for the Regular Meeting of Council on Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 2:00 p.m., or at the call of the Mayor.
Motion to adjourn passed.
The following resolutions were passed:
MOVED BY STIRK, SECONDED BY BANFIELD BE IT RESOLVED THAT the agenda be approved as circulated. CARRIED.
MOVED BY NEVILLS, SECONDED BY PINKNEY BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council move to a Closed Meeting pursuant to Section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended for the following reason(s): Personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees; Labour relations or employee negotiations; and Advice that is subject to solicitor-clientDRAFT privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose. CARRIED.
MOVED BY BANFIELD, SECONDED BY STIRK BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council do now rise and report from Closed Meeting, and resume regular business. CARRIED.
MOVED BY STIRK, SECONDED BY PINKNEY BE IT RESOLVED THAT Leave be given to introduce a by-law to confirm the Special Meeting of Council of the Township of East Garafraxa for September 9, 2019 and that it be given the necessary readings and be passed and numbered 39-2019. CARRIED.
MOVED BY NEVILLS, SECONDED BY STIRK BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council now adjourn to meet again for the Regular Meeting of Council on Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 2:00 p.m., or at the call of the Mayor. CARRIED.
______Clerk Mayor EAST GARAFRAXA 150TH AUGUST 24TH, 2019 REPORT TO COUNCIL
REVENUES Book revenue $ 320.00 Grant $ 1,500.00 not included in event financials Bar $ 1,824.95 Dinner $ 2,481.00 16 books @$20 Bus tour $ 960.00 $ 6,765.95 EXPENSES Fireworks $ 1,500.00 Bar $ 1,097.15 Dinner $ 2,279.92 Bus $ 333.32 Supplies $ 176.38 Band $ 300.00 Chantlers $ 259.90 $ 5,946.67
Return on event $ 819.28
Recommendations Pavilion rent Friday $ 100.00 Saturday $ 200.00 Ashton hall rent $ 200.00 $ 500.00
Donation to Lions $ 250.00 $ 250.00
Final profit from event $ 69.28
August 21, 2019
John Ballantine, Manager Municipal Finance Policy Branch Municipal Affairs and Housing 13th Floor, 777 Bay St. Toronto, ON M5G 2E5 Canada
Dear Mr. Ballantine:
Re: Comments on Draft Regulations 019-0183 - Community Benefits Charge
On behalf of our many municipal clients, we are providing our comments on the draft Ontario Regulation 019-0183 regarding the proposed Community Benefits Charge (C.B.C.). Generally, our questions and commentary follow the format of the draft regulation along with general discussion at the end of the letter.
1. Transition
The specified date for municipalities to transition to community benefits is January 1, 2021.
• A 12-month transition period may appear sufficient, however, there are more than 200 municipalities in the Province with current development charge (D.C.) by-laws. It will take some time for municipalities to consider the new C.B.C. methodology, evaluate the approach to these studies, collect background data (i.e. property value information), carry out the study, undertake a public process and pass a by-law. Based on our experience, the time frame is limited and should be extended to at least 18 months. This time period is consistent with major changes made in the past to the Development Charges Act (D.C.A.) (1989 and 1997).
Proposed Subsection 51.1 (6) of the Planning Act states that a community benefits charge by-law cannot be imposed if the approval of a plan of subdivision is the subject of a condition that is imposed under subsection (1) on or after the effective date.
Non-application of by-law under s. 37(6) The development or redevelopment of land within a plan of subdivision is not subject to a community benefits charge by-law under section 37, if the approval of the plan of subdivision is the subject of a condition that is imposed under subsection (1) on or after the effective date. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 12, s. 15 (7).
Plaza Three Office: 905-272-3600 101-2000 Argentia Rd. Fax: 905-272-3602 H:\DCA-GEN\Bill 108\Aug 21 2019 Letter to Province on O Reg 019- Mississauga, Ontario www.watsonecon.ca 0183.docx L5N 1V9
The effective date is proposed to be January 1, 2020.
“effective date” is the day section 9 of Schedule 12 to the More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019 comes into force.
• The implications of subsection 51.1(6) and 37.1(1) is that municipalities requiring the provision of land as a condition of a subdivision agreement after the “effective date” but before a Community Benefits Charge by-law has been put in place will lose the ability to use Community Benefits Charges to recover other growth related costs from that development.
2. Reporting on Community Benefits
“The Minister is proposing to prescribe reporting requirements that are similar to existing reporting requirements for development charges and parkland under section 42 of the Planning Act. Municipalities would be required annually to prepare a report for the preceding year that would provide information about the amounts in the community benefits charge special account, such as: • Opening and closing balances of the special account • A description of the services funded through the special account • Details on amounts allocated during the year • The amount of any money borrowed from the special account, and the purpose for which it was borrowed • The amount of interest accrued on money borrowed.”
In regard to the above: • Confirm that “special account” and reserve fund have the same meaning. If they don’t please provide a definition for “special account”. • In regard to “amounts allocated”, within the context of the legislation where 60% of funds must be spent or allocated annually, can amounts be allocated to a capital account for future spending (i.e. recreation facility in year 5 of a forecast period) or are they to be allocated for immediate spending only? • Similar to D.C. reserve funds, can the funds in the special account only be used for growth-related capital costs (i.e. cannot be used as an interim financing source for other capital expenditures)?
3. Reporting on Parkland
“The amendments to the Planning Act in Schedule 12 of the More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019 provide that municipalities may continue using the current basic parkland provisions of the Planning Act if they are not collecting community benefits charges. Municipalities would be required annually to prepare a report for the preceding year that would provide information about the amounts in the special account, such as: • Opening and closing balances of the special account
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2 Aug 21 2019 Letter to Province on O Reg 019-0183
• A description of land and machinery acquired with funds from the special account • Details on amounts allocated during the year • The amount of any money borrowed from the special account, and the purpose for which it was borrowed.”
• In regard to the amount of interest accrued on money borrowed, confirm that the “special account” and reserve fund have the same meaning. • This section of the regulation is introduced to allow municipalities to continue using the current basic parkland provisions of the Planning Act. However, in contrast to the current reporting under s. 42 (15) of the Planning Act which allows funds to be used “for park or other public recreation purposes”, the scope in this regulation is for “land and machinery.” Confirm whether the scope of services has been limited or continues to be the same.
4. Exemptions from Community Benefits
“The Minister is proposing that the following types of developments be exempt from charges for community benefits under the Planning Act: • Long-term care homes • Retirement homes • Universities and colleges • Memorial homes, clubhouses or athletic grounds of the Royal Canadian Legion • Hospices • Non-profit housing.”
• Confirm whether “for-profit” developments will be entitled to exemptions similar to “not-for-profit” developments. • Will the regulations prescribe that exemptions must be funded from non-C.B.C. sources, similar to D.C.s, or can these exemptions be funded from the special account and incorporated into the calculation methodology? • Will there be definitions provided for each of the development types noted above and will these definitions link to legislation or accreditation for the various facilities provided above. • Does the phrase “universities and colleges” relate only to the academic space? Housing and commercial developments can occur on university/college owned lands and hence, should not be exempted by this provision. Moreover, would private institutions be included within these definitions?
5. Community Benefits Formula
“Provides the authority for municipalities to charge for community benefits at their discretion, to fund a range of capital infrastructure for community services needed because of new development.”
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3 Aug 21 2019 Letter to Province on O Reg 019-0183
• The regulation notes that, “This capital infrastructure for community services could include libraries, parkland, daycare facilities, and recreation facilities.” Is the inclusion of libraries, parkland, daycare facilities, and recreation facilities as capital infrastructure for community services intended to be exhaustive or are all other “soft” services (e.g. social and health services) eligible to be included as community benefits? • What capital costs will be eligible as capital infrastructure for community services? The D.C.A. has an existing definition for capital costs which includes land, buildings, capital leases, furnishing and equipment, various types of studies and approvals, etc. Will these capital costs continue to be eligible as capital infrastructure under a C.B.C.? • Will the cost of land appraisals, including annual appraisal studies, required for the C.B.C. be an eligible cost to be recovered through the C.B.C.? • Will existing (and future) growth-related debt payments and all outstanding/existing D.C. credits for soft services be an eligible cost to be recovered through the C.B.C.? • For parkland dedication, most municipalities have a local service policy which defines the minimum standard of development on which the land will be dedicated (i.e. graded, seeded, fenced, etc.). Will the local service policy be allowed to continue? If not, how will this matter be handled policy wise or cost wise? • Will the D.C.A. mandatory 10% discount still apply to capital costs for services under a C.B.C.? • The C.B.C. payable could not exceed the amount determined by a formula involving the application of a prescribed percentage to the value of the development land. The value of land that is used is the value on the day before the building permit is issued to account for the necessary zoning to accommodate the development. Will a range of percentages be prescribed to take into account varying values of land for different types of development or will the C.B.C. strategy require a weighting of the land values within the calculations? • Will the range of percentages be prescribed to account for geographic differences in land values (i.e. municipal, county, regional, etc.)? • Will the prescribed percentage account for differences in land use or zoning? • Will the same percentage apply to both residential and non-residential lands be different? Will the formula also deal with mixed use properties? • The Ministry is not providing prescribed percentages at this time. Can the Province confirm that no prescribed percentages will be proclaimed during the transition period? • How will the formula deal with redevelopment (i.e. where buildings are demolished and replaced with another building, this could include conversions from residential to non-residential, vice versa, intensification, etc.)? Is there a prescribed planning horizon for calculating the C.B.C. (i.e. 10 years)?
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4 Aug 21 2019 Letter to Province on O Reg 019-0183
• Will municipalities be required to express the C.B.C. as a percentage of land value or will the percentage simply be used to determine if the applicable charge fits within the maximum percentage of land value? For example, a municipality could impose C.B.C.s as a charge per unit, based on the unit type, similar to how D.C.s are currently imposed. When a developer applies for a building permit, a determination would need to be made whether the charge payable based on the type of dwelling being developed exceeds the maximum permissible percentage of land value. Allowing C.B.C.s to be imposed as a charge per unit would provide for a tighter nexus between the charge and the increase in need for service resulting from the development, by reflecting underlying differences in occupancy levels between different unit types. If the C.B.C. is expressed as a percentage of value then the C.B.C. would be more akin to a tax, since there is no clear relationship between land value and increase in need for service.
6. Appraisals for Community Benefits
It is proposed that, • “If the owner of land is of the view that the amount of a community benefits charge exceeds the amount legislatively permitted and pays the charge under protest, the owner has 30 days to provide the municipality with an appraisal of the value of land. • If the municipality disputes the value of the land in the appraisal provided by the owner, the municipality has 45 days to provide the owner with an appraisal of the value of the land. • If the municipality’s appraisal differs by more than 5 percent from appraisal provided by the owner of the land, the owner can select an appraiser from the municipal list of appraisers, that appraiser’s appraisal must be provided within 60 days.”
• Is the third appraisal binding? Can this appraisal be appealed to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (L.P.A.T.)? • Can the costs for land appraisals be included as eligible costs to be funded under the C.B.C.? • Do all municipalities across the province have a sufficient inventory of land appraisers (i.e. at least 3) to meet the demands and turnaround times specified within the regulations? • A potential loophole may arise where a developer sells their land to a related company at a deeply discounted value. Is the market value what the land sold for in this transaction or will market value be defined differently by the regulation? Can the definition of market value be established to overrule this situation?
7. Excluded Services for Community Benefits
“The following facilities, services or matters are to be excluded from community benefits: • Cultural or entertainment facilities
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 5 Aug 21 2019 Letter to Province on O Reg 019-0183
• Tourism facilities • Hospitals • Landfill sites and services • Facilities for the thermal treatment of waste • Headquarters for the general administration of municipalities and local boards.”
• This would be consistent with the ineligible services currently included in the D.C.A. Is there a distinction between services defined as “the thermal treatment of waste” and incineration? • Will there be any limitation to capital costs for computer equipment or rolling stock with less than 7 years’ useful life (present restrictions within the D.C.A.)? • Are these services exhaustive, relative to the description of community services referenced in item 5 above.
8. Community Planning Permit System
Amendments to the Planning Act will allow conditions requiring the provision of specified community facilities or services, as part of the community planning permit system (which combines and replaces the individual zoning, site plan and minor variance processes). It is proposed, “that a community benefits charge by-law would not be available for use in areas within a municipality where a community planning permit system is in effect and specified community services are identified.”
• The above suggests different charges to different lands. It is unclear as to the amount of recovery provided under the C.B.C. and that allowed under the community planning permit system. • Will the community planning permit system have the same percentage of land value restrictions as the C.B.C.?
9. Other Matters
The following are questions arising from the new cost recovery approach which is not clearly expressed in the draft legislation.
• Will upper-tier municipalities (i.e. Counties and Regions) be allowed to continue the collect for their “soft” services under C.B.C.? How will the prescribed percentage of the land value be allocated between upper- and lower-tier municipalities? If they are required to provide an averaged percentage across their jurisdiction, how are they to recover their costs if their percentage of land value can be absorbed within the urban area municipalities but not absorbed within the rural area municipalities? • How are mixed use developments which include exempt development types to be handled? For example, exempt institutional uses are planned for the first floor of a high-rise commercial/residential building.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 6 Aug 21 2019 Letter to Province on O Reg 019-0183
• Will ownership or use determine the ability to impose the C.B.C.? • In situations where large industrial or commercial properties are purchased for long-term purposes and only small portions of the full site are initially developed, is the C.B.C. calculated for the entire property or only the portion being developed at that time (with lot coverage provisions)? As the property continues to develop, is the percentage applied to the existing and undeveloped portion of the land? • D.C. by-laws must be revisited at least every 5 years. Is there a similar time period to be established for the Community Benefits Strategy underlying the C.B.C.? • The Act requires that “In preparing the community benefits charge strategy, the municipality shall consult with such persons and public bodies as the municipality considers appropriate”. Will the regulations further define a public process to be followed? • As the province will most likely consider the C.B.C. percentage in light of past practice, will all of the above noted costs be included in the determination of the C.B.C. percentage? • Currently, many municipalities enter in agreements where the developing land owner either develops the park (and receives a credit for the work) or pre-pays the D.C. to advance the funds to develop the park. Will similar types of arrangements be allowed under the C.B.C.? Also, if the land owner wants to enhance the park at a standard in excess of the municipal standard, can this overcontribution be allowed without a monetary recovery from the C.B.C.?
We trust that the aforementioned information and questions assist the Province in developing the appropriate regulations for municipalities to continue to collect the required funding needed for these important services.
Yours very truly,
WATSON & ASSOCIATES ECONOMISTS LTD.
Gary D. Scandlan, BA, PLE Andrew Grunda, MBA, CPA, CMA Director Principal
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 7 Aug 21 2019 Letter to Province on O Reg 019-0183
August 21, 2019
John Ballantine, Manager Municipal Finance Policy Branch Municipal Affairs and Housing 13th Floor, 777 Bay St. Toronto, ON M5G 2E5 Canada
Dear Mr. Ballantine:
Re: Comments on Draft Regulations 019-0184 – Changes to the Development Charges Act
On behalf of our many municipal clients, we are providing our comments on the draft Ontario Regulation 019-0184 regarding the proposed changes to the Development Charges Act (D.C.A.). Generally, our questions and commentary follow the format of the draft regulation.
1. Transition of Discounted Soft Services
Provides for transition to the Community Benefits Charge (C.B.C.) authority during the period of January 1, 2020 to January 1, 2021.
• Confirm that all D.C.A. provisions of Bill 108 will be effective at the municipality’s discretion during the transition period (i.e. by January 1, 2021), such that development charge (D.C.) by-law amendments for collections and statutory exemptions can take effect at the same time as the transition of soft services to a C.B.C.
2a. D.C. Deferral
Provides for the deferral of D.C.s for rental housing development, non-profit housing development, institutional, industrial, and commercial development until occupancy.
• The draft regulation speaks to “until occupancy;” however, it is proposed to be collected during a term (5 or 20 years) beyond occupancy. Clarify that this means period “from the date of occupancy.” • How would date of occupancy be defined in the case of a commercial strip mall or industrial condo building where many businesses occupy portions of the building over time?
Plaza Three Office: 905-272-3600 101-2000 Argentia Rd. Fax: 905-272-3602 H:\DCA-GEN\Bill 108\Aug 21 2019 Letter to Province on O Reg 019- Mississauga, Ontario www.watsonecon.ca 0184.docx L5N 1V9
• As land ownership may change during the deferral period, how will municipalities track the changes in ownership? Is there an ability to place a notice on title of the land? • Can security be taken to ensure recovery of the payments, or will municipalities only be entitled to recover this as taxes on default? • Are municipalities allowed to collect the totality of the charge upfront if requested by the developing landowner (currently allowed for by section 27 of the D.C.A.)?
2b. Deferral Definitions
“‘Non-profit housing development’ means the construction, erection or placing of one or more buildings or structures for or the making of an addition or alteration to a building or structure…”
• This appears to cover both new developments as well as redevelopments. Need to consider how the application of D.C. credits would apply on redevelopments.
“‘Rental housing development’ means…four or more self-contained units that are intended for use as rented residential premises.”
• Definition speaks to “intended.” What requirement is in place for these units to remain a “rented residential premises” and over the deferral period? • Can municipalities impose requirements to maintain status over the term of installments? • Will municipalities be entitled to collect remaining installments and interest if the use is changed? • How will this be substantiated at the time of occupancy?
“‘Non-profit housing development’ means…by a non-profit corporation.”
• What requirement is in place for the development to remain a “non-profit corporation” over the deferral period? • Can municipalities impose requirements to maintain status over the term of installments? • Will municipalities be entitled to collect remaining installments and interest if the use is changed? • How will this be substantiated at the time of occupancy?
“‘Institutional development’ means…long-term care homes; retirement homes; universities and colleges; memorial homes; clubhouses; or athletic grounds of the Royal Canadian Legion; and hospices.”
• Long-term care homes and retirement homes are considered in some municipalities as residential development types with charges imposed based on the number of dwelling units. Does this require these developments to be
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2 Aug 21 2019 Letter to Province on O Reg 019-0184
charged as non-residential developments based on the gross floor area of development? Does the phrase “universities and colleges” relate only to the academic space, as many municipalities impose D.C.s on the housing related to the institution. • Many colleges and universities own land but provide long-term leases for the land. Use of the buildings should be the basis for imposing the D.C. not ownership of the land.
“‘Commercial development’ means…office buildings as defined under subsection 11(3) in Ontario Regulation 282/98 under the Assessment Act; and shopping centres as defined under subsection 12(3) in Ontario Regulation 282/98 under the Assessment Act.”
• This would appear to apply to a subset of commercial types of development. The Assessment Act defines a shopping centre as: o “i. a structure with at least three units that are used primarily to provide goods or services directly to the public and that have different occupants, or o ii. a structure used primarily to provide goods or services directly to the public if the structure is attached to a structure described in subparagraph i on another parcel of land.” o “‘Shopping centre’ does not include any part of an office building within the meaning of subsection 11 (3).” • Office includes: o “(a) a building that is used primarily for offices, o (b) the part of a building that, but for this section, would otherwise be classified in the commercial property class if that part of the building is used primarily for offices.” • Confirm all other types of commercial will continue to be charged fully at the time of building permit issuance. • Will municipalities be entitled to collect remaining installments and interest if the use is changed? • Will these definitions require D.C. background studies to further subdivide the growth forecast projections between shopping centre, office and other commercial development for cash flow calculation purposes?
Administration of deferral charges in two-tier jurisdiction.
• Regulation does not speak to policies for upper- and lower-tier municipalities. Areas where variation could occur including collection of installments (i.e. who monitors and collects installments), commonality for processing payment defaults, interest rates, etc.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3 Aug 21 2019 Letter to Province on O Reg 019-0184
3. D.C. Freeze for Site Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment
The D.C. quantum would be frozen “until two years from the date the site plan application is approved, or in the absence of the site plan application, two years from the date the zoning application was approved.”
• D.C.s are frozen from the date of site plan or zoning bylaw application up to a period of 2 years after approval. In the situation where the planning application is appealed by the applicant, would they still be entitled to the rates at the date of planning application submission? • This provision may provide for abuse where landowners may apply for minor zoning changes or provide incomplete planning applications in order to freeze the D.C. quantum for several years. • Are municipalities able to recover the lost revenue due to differences in rates between site plan/zoning application and building permit issuance within the DC calculations?
4. Maximum Interest Rates on D.C. Deferrals for Freeze
Minister is not proposing to prescribe a maximum interest rate that may be charged on D.C. amounts that are deferred or on D.C.s that are frozen.
• Municipalities will need to consider what rates are to be used in this regard (i.e. annual short-term borrowing rates, long-term debenture rates, maximum rates on unpaid taxes, etc.). • Should there be consistency between upper- and lower-tier municipalities? • If interest rate selected is too high, would it discourage paying installments?
5. Additional Dwelling Units
It is proposed that the present exemption within existing dwellings be expanded to allow “…the creation of an additional dwelling in prescribed classes of residential buildings and ancillary structures does not trigger a D.C.” Further, in new single, semi and row dwellings (including ancillary structures), one additional dwelling will be allowed without a D.C. payment. Lastly, it is proposed that, “…within other existing residential buildings, the creation of additional units comprising 1% of existing units” would be exempted.
• All the noted exemptions should be granted once, so as to not allow for multiple exemptions in perpetuity. • The regulation should define a “row dwelling.” Does a row dwelling include other multiples such as stacked townhouses and back-to-back townhouses?
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4 Aug 21 2019 Letter to Province on O Reg 019-0184
We trust that the aforementioned information and questions assist the Province in developing the appropriate regulations for municipalities to continue to collect the required funding needed for funding DC services.
Yours very truly,
WATSON & ASSOCIATES ECONOMISTS LTD.
Gary D. Scandlan, BA, PLE Andrew Grunda, MBA, CPA, CMA Director Principal
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 5 Aug 21 2019 Letter to Province on O Reg 019-0184 Ministry of Ministère des Municipal Affairs Affaires municipales and Housing et du Logement
Office of the Minister Bureau du ministre
777 Bay Street, 17th Floor 777, rue Bay, 17e étage Toronto ON M5G 2E5 Toronto ON M5G 2E5 Tel.: 416 585-7000 Tél. : 416 585-7000
19-4093
Dear Head of Council: Our government believes everyone deserves a place to call home. Inadequate supply and high housing costs have made housing unattainable for too many people in Ontario. We want to put affordable home ownership in reach of more Ontario families, and provide more people with the opportunity to live closer to where they work. That is why I am pleased to provide you with an update on the More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019, which was passed by the Legislature on June 6, 2019. In Effect Date Schedule 12 of the More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019 makes changes to the Planning Act. All changes, except for those related to community benefits charges, came into force on September 3, 2019, as specified by proclamation. This includes changes to: • Broaden the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal’s jurisdiction over major land use planning matters (i.e., official plans and zoning by-laws) and give the Tribunal the authority to make a final decision on appeals of these matters based on the best planning outcome; • Reduce timelines for municipalities to make planning decisions; • Remove certain “third party” appeals; • Authorize the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to mandate the use of a community planning permit system in or around specific locations to promote intensification around transit; • Require municipalities to authorize in their official plans and zoning by-laws additional residential units in both a primary dwelling and ancillary building or structure; and • Promote the development of affordable housing near transit by focusing the use of inclusionary zoning. Regulations To help implement the Planning Act changes, amendments to existing regulations under the Act also came into force at the same time as the related legislative provisions. These regulations were filed on August 29, 2019 and include changes to: • Set out transition rules for planning matters that are in process; • Remove or update certain redundant or out-dated provisions and references; • Remove the ability to appeal (except by the province) the implementing by-law when a municipality is required to establish a community planning permit system through a Minister’s order; and
…/2
-2-
• Clarify that the new community benefits charge by-law will not apply in areas within a municipality where a community planning permit system is in effect. A new regulation for additional residential units (ARUs) was also filed on August 29, 2019 and helps remove certain zoning barriers to the creation of additional residential units by establishing the following requirements and standards: • One parking space for each ARU, which may be provided through tandem parking as defined; • Where a municipal zoning by-law requires no parking spaces for the primary residential unit, no parking space would be required for the ARUs; • Where a municipal zoning by-law is passed that sets a parking standard lower than a standard of one parking space for each ARU, the municipal zoning by-law parking standard would prevail; • An ARU, where permitted in a zoning by-law, may be occupied by any person regardless of whether the primary residential unit is occupied by the owner of the property; and • An ARU, where permitted in a zoning by-law, would be permitted without regard to the date of construction of the primary or ancillary building. Our proposal for the new and amended regulations was posted on the Environmental Registry of Ontario. All comments received were carefully considered. You can view copies of the new and amending Planning Act regulations on Ontario’s e- Laws: • New Ontario Regulation 299/19 – “Additional Residential Units” • Ontario Regulation 296/19 – amending Ontario Regulation 174/16 “Transitional Matters - General” • Ontario Regulation 297/19 – amending Ontario Regulation 543/06 “Official Plans and Plan Amendments” • Ontario Regulation 298/19 – amending Ontario Regulation 544/06 “Plans of Subdivision” • Ontario Regulation 301/19 – amending Ontario Regulation 173/16 “Community Planning Permits” • Ontario Regulation 300/19 – amending Ontario Regulation 232/18 “Inclusionary Zoning”
If you have any questions about the changes to the Planning Act and related regulations, please email [email protected]. Sincerely,
Steve Clark Minister c: Chief Administrative Officer
From: Parks and Recreation Ontario
Important information about the Impact of Bill 108 on municipal parks and recreation
To: Head of Council From: Parks and Recreation Ontario
As you are aware, the Provincial Government, through the More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019 (Bill 108), has introduced significant changes to how Ontario’s municipalities will plan and fund parks and recreation facilities in their communities. On June 6, 2019, Bill 108, the More Homes, More Choice Act, received royal assent. The Province describes this legislation as a plan to increase the amount of housing in Ontario by boosting supply. After careful review, Parks and Recreation Ontario (PRO), through consultation with its membership and key stakeholders, determined this Act could have a significant negative impact on how municipalities deliver parks and recreation facilities in their communities.
From our consultation, we have developed four key recommendations that we will be submitting to the Province as they review and prepare for implementation of the Act. These are:
1. The community benefits approach must meet the funding needs of all municipalities today and into the future; 2. Develop a Community Benefits Charge (CBC) cap and formula that is responsive to community-specific and growth-related needs; 3. Provide clarity on transition for in-progress planning applications; and 4. Ensure sufficient time and capacity for municipalities to transition to new CBC authority.
The issues and recommendations are described in further detail in our submission.
We are sharing recommendations with you as a resource to consider in your discussions with the Provincial Government, your local council, staff and key stakeholders. We are also aware that many of you may be meeting with provincial representatives at the upcoming annual AMO Conference and wanted to ensure that this information was available for these potential meetings. We ask that you please share this information with staff who may be preparing submissions on behalf of your municipality.
We appreciate your attention to this matter and your support to advance PRO’s mission to provide every person equitable access to vibrant communities, sustainable environments, and personal health.
About PRO PRO is a provincial association that works to advance the health, social and environmental benefits of quality recreation. We represent over 6,500 members in municipalities across the province. Our members provide vital services and facilities to more than 85% of Ontarians. In all of PRO’s submissions, we use evidence-based practices, resources and collaborative partnerships to ensure sound recommendations that reflect the unique voices of the variety of municipalities across Ontario.
prontario.org | [email protected]
© 2019 Parks and Recreation Ontario | 1 Concorde Gate, Suite 302 | Toronto, ON, M3C 3N6
Click here to unsubscribe from future mailings or send an email to [email protected] with 'Unsubscribe' in the subject line.
Permits Submitted to MPAC between 9/2/2019 and 9/8/2019
Property Address Last Sent Occupied Permit # Work Description Roll # Issued Completed Revoked Final Inspect.
East Garafraxa (5 permits) F-007-17-0116 Deck + Pavilion 22-01-000-003-25300-0000 39 BROOKHAVEN CRES9/5/2019 4/21/2017 8/19/2019 8/19/2019 F-031-19-0283 Deck 22-01-000-002-22912-0000 063225 COUNTY ROAD 39/5/2019 8/2/2019 8/14/2019 8/14/2019 F-032-19-0292S Sewage Disposal System 22-01-000-002-05150-0000 31557 9TH LINE 9/5/2019 8/6/2019 F-033-19-0306S Sewage Disposal System For Stable 22-01-000-002-06050-0000 071262 10TH LINE (E. 9/5/2019 8/15/2019 F-034-19-0331 Interior Renovations 22-01-000-002-05150-0000 31557GARAFRAXA) 9TH LINE 9/5/2019 8/20/2019
9/5/2019 10:41:20 AM Page 1 of 1
REPORT TO COUNCIL
To: Warden Darren White and Members of County Council
From: Darrell Keenie, Director Planning, Economic Development and Culture
Meeting Date: September 12, 2019
Subject: Dufferin County “Municipal Comprehensive Review” (MCR)
In Support of Strategic Plan Priorities and Objectives: Economic Vitality – promote an environment for economic growth and development Inclusive and supportive community – support efforts to address current and future needs for a livable community
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to provide an updated outline of the tasks and process that must be undertaken to complete the County’s Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR), as required by the policies of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 (the “2019 Growth Plan”).
Background & Discussion
The memo attached from WSP, the County’s consulting planners, provides details of the MCR process including major tasks, timeline and budget allocations. (The MCR timeline and budget summary are attached as Attachment 2.) A similar memo was provided by WSP in 2018 in advance of substantial changes that have now been made to Ontario’s planning legislative framework. In order to proceed with the County’s MCR process, it was necessary to await approval of such changes, now reflected in the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019. The 2019 Growth Plan came into effect on May 16th of this year, revising the 2017 Growth Plan.
The purpose of the MCR is to bring the upper-tier official plan into full conformity with the Growth Plan through various processes and supporting studies. The MCR Process will involve the County undertaking, in co-operation with local municipalities, a series of Dufferin County Municipal Comprehensive Review Page 2 of 3
studies and activities including background research, public consultation, and policy formulation. It is anticipated that the MCR Process will be approximately two years in duration.
The County is required to submit an official plan or official plan amendment implementing the MCR that has been adopted by Council for approval by the Minister under the Planning Act, by 2022. Lower-tier municipalities are required to bring their official plans into conformity with the applicable upper-tier official plan and the Growth Plan, 2019 within one year of the County MCR being approved and in effect. The timely initiation and completion of the MCR Process is also necessary in view of local municipal plan amendments and planning applications in Dufferin that are pending the completion of the County’s MCR.
County staff and consultants will necessarily be working in conjunction with local planning staff and consultants throughout the MCR process in light of the studies and activities to be undertaken, and the requirement for lower tier municipalities to bring their official plans into conformity with the County official plan within one year of the MCR being approved and in effect.
Financial, Staffing, Legal, or IT Considerations
The MCR process timeline and budget summary are included with this report as Attachment 2. Staff have worked with WSP to break down the total MCR cost by year, from 2020 to 2023. These annual figures will be included in the County’s draft 2020 budget for Council’s review. It is important to note that a significant portion of costs associated with completing the MCR Process will be offset by the County’s development charges.
Recommendation
THAT the report of the Director of Planning, Economic Development and Culture, dated September 12, 2019, regarding Dufferin County Municipal Comprehensive Review be received;
THAT the memo from WSP, dated August 16, 2019, regarding Dufferin County MCR Scope be received and the workplan contained therein be adopted;
AND THAT the MCR budget figures provided by WSP be included in the draft 2020 County Budget for Council’s review and approval;
Dufferin County Municipal Comprehensive Review Page 3 of 3
AND THAT the County of Dufferin enter into a contract with WSP for the work outlined in the workplan;
AND THAT the necessary By-law by adopted.
Respectfully Submitted By:
Darrell Keenie Director of Planning, Economic Development and Culture
Attachments: Attachment 1 – MCR Proposal Final Attachment 2 – Schedule A to MCR Proposal Final
MEMO
TO: Darrell Keenie, Director | Planning, Economic Development and Culture | County of Dufferin FROM: Chris Tyrrell, WSP Greg Bender, WSP SUBJECT: Dufferin County Municipal Comprehensive Review Scope DATE: August 16, 2019
Dufferin County (“the County”) is expected to grow to approximately 85,000 people and 32,000 jobs by 2041, representing an increase in 23,265 people and 7,646 jobs according to the 2016 Canada Census data. To plan for and accommodate this growth, Dufferin County is reviewing and updating its Official Plan through a process called a Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR) to comprehensively implement the policies of the new Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (the “2019 Growth Plan”). The 2019 Growth Plan came into effect on May 16, 2019, revising the 2017 Growth Plan. Similar to the previous version of the Growth Plan, the MCR process must be initiated by the upper-tier municipality (i.e., County) and approved by the Province. The MCR represents a substantial integrated planning study for the County to provide planning direction to the local municipalities when updating their Official Plans, in accordance with the 2019 Growth Plan. The County is required to bring its Official Plan into conformity with the Growth Plan by 2022 and implement other new Provincial Plans (i.e., the Greenbelt Plan, 2017, the Oak Ridges Conservation Plan, 2017, and the Niagara Escarpment Plan, 2017). The MCR process of the 2019 Growth Plan requires an integrated approach to planning for complete communities to 2041, addressing such matters as:
⎯ A provincially mandated land needs methodology; ⎯ Growth forecasts and allocations ⎯ Intensification targets within Built up areas; ⎯ Major transit station areas; ⎯ Employment areas; ⎯ Greenfield area density targets; ⎯ Settlement boundary expansions; ⎯ Natural heritage systems; and, ⎯ Agricultural systems.
Page 1
The following table summarizes key policies of the 2019 Growth Plan which are to be completed as part of the County MCR. Addressing a number of these policies areas will require input from lower tier municipalities as reflected in the workplan.
Policy Area Policy Requirements Where and Managing Growth Integrated planning to manage growth to 2041 How to Grow based on required Provincial land needs methodology. Built Up Areas Establish a minimum intensification target for the delineated built-up area based on maintaining or improving upon the minimum intensification target contained in the current County Official Plan. In a change that restores language from the 2006 Growth Plan, intensification is now encouraged throughout the built-up area, in lieu of achieving the desired urban structure as was required in the 2017 Growth Plan (2.2.2.3). This policy change has the potential to allow density to be more broadly applied across the municipality. Transit Corridors and Delineate and provide minimum densities for Major Station Areas (not Transit Station Areas on priority transit corridors. applicable to the County) Employment Designate employment areas in the County Official Plan and establish minimum employment density targets. The 2019 Growth Plan now permits upper- and single-tier municipalities to set varying density targets for employment areas across the municipality (in lieu of a single employment area density target), provided that the targets (2.2.5.13): a. are measured in jobs per hectare; b. reflect the current and anticipated type and scale of employment that characterizes the employment area to which the target applies; c. reflects opportunities for the intensification of employment areas on sites that support active transportation and are served by existing or planned transit; and d. will be implemented through official plan policies and designations and zoning by-laws. Of note, policy 2.2.5.13(d), above, aligns with the new policy direction, which permits the designation of employment areas at any time before the next MCR, by eliminating the requirement to implement employment area density targets only through an MCR. Employment conversions are generally encouraged to occur through an MCR; however, the 2019 Growth Plan allows municipalities a one-time opportunity to convert existing employment areas
Page 2
Policy Area Policy Requirements to a designation that permits non-employment uses prior to the next MCR, subject to certain conditions established in Section 2.2.5.9 Designated Plan for a minimum density target of 40 people and Greenfield Areas jobs per hectare for designated greenfield areas (unless an alternative designated greenfield area density target is approved by the Province, which maintains or improves the existing minimum density target). The minimum density target will be measured over the entire designated greenfield area of each upper- or single-tier municipality, excluding certain features as outlined in policy 2.2.7.3. Existing targets are to remain in effect until such time as the MCR is approved. Settlement Area Settlement area boundary expansions may occur Boundary Expansions through the MCR including a 2041 land needs assessment undertaken in accordance with approved current Provincial methodology and subject to numerous specific policy assessments. Feasibility of an expansion and the most appropriate location for the proposed expansion will be identified based on the criteria outlined in section 2.2.8.3. The 2019 Growth Plan permits municipalities to adjust the settlement area boundary outside of an MCR if there is no net increase in land within the given settlement area, subject to criteria (2.2.8.4). Further, municipalities are now permitted to undertake settlement area boundary expansions outside of an MCR, so long as they do not exceed 40 hectares (2.2.8.5 and 2.2.8.6). Infrastructure Integrated Planning Planning for new or expanded infrastructure will to Support occur in an integrated manner, including Growth evaluations of long-range scenario-based land use planning, environmental planning, financial planning, and will be supported by relevant analysis involving: - leveraging infrastructure investment to direct growth and development in accordance with the policies and schedules of this Plan, including the achievement of the minimum intensification and density targets in this Plan; - providing sufficient infrastructure capacity in strategic growth areas; - identifying the full life cycle costs of infrastructure and developing options to pay for these costs over the long-term; and - considering the impacts of a changing climate. Water and Municipal water and wastewater systems and Wastewater private communal water and wastewater systems will be planned, designed, constructed, or expanded Page 3
Policy Area Policy Requirements to optimize the existing systems and serve growth in a manner that achieves targets, and is supported by strategies for energy and water conservation and water demand management. These systems should be guided by a water or wastewater master plan or equivalent which is informed by watershed planning to identify impacts of development, preferred options for servicing growth and development, as well as associated costs. Transportation Transportation system planning, land use planning, and transportation investment will be co-ordinated to implement the Growth Plan.
Municipalities are to develop and implement transportation demand management policies in official plans or other planning documents or programs to reduce trip distance and time, increase modal share, consider the needs of major trip generators, prioritize active transportation, transit and goods movement and expand infrastructure to support these priorities. Moving People Municipalities will ensure that active transportation networks are comprehensive and integrated into transportation planning. Moving Goods Municipalities will provide for the establishment of priority routes for goods movement, where feasible, to facilitate the movement of goods into and out of employment areas, including prime employment areas, and other areas of significant commercial activity and to provide alternate routes connecting to the provincial network. Infrastructure Planning, location, and design of planned corridors Corridors and the land use designations along these corridors will support the policies of the Growth Plan, in particular that development is directed to settlement areas. Protecting Natural Heritage Implement Provincial Natural Heritage System What is Systems mapping with refinements only permitted through Valuable the MCR. For upper-tier municipalities, the initial implementation of provincial mapping may be done separately for each lower-tier municipality. Agricultural Systems Implement Provincial Agricultural System mapping with refinements only permitted through the MCR. Integrated planning for growth management, including goods movement and transportation planning, will consider opportunities to support and enhance the Agricultural System.
Page 4
Policy Area Policy Requirements A Culture of Municipalities are to develop and implement Conservation official plan policies and other strategies in support of: water conservation (water demand management and water recycling); energy conservation; air quality improvement and protection; and, integrated waste management. Implementation Coordination Through the MCR, provide policy direction around intensification and density targets, strategic growth areas, employment areas and densities, and forecast growth allocations to local municipalities. Growth Forecasts Through the MCR, apply the growth forecasts to 2041 in the Growth Plan. Targets Changes to minimum density and intensification targets can only occur through the MCR by requesting Provincial approval for alternative targets. Through the MCR, required to delineate built up areas, urban growth centres, major transit station areas, and other strategic growth areas (where applicable).
To employ an integrated approach, a number of functional, interrelated analyses are required to inform the allocation of population and employment growth through the MCR, as well as a number of parallel processes to ensure land use planning is aligned with existing and future infrastructure conditions and associated finances. Following the release of the 2017 Growth Plan, the Province released guidance documents to support these analyses, including:
⎯ Draft Technical Guidance on the Municipal Comprehensive Review Process; ⎯ Draft Technical Guidance on the Application of Intensification and Density Guidelines; ⎯ Watershed Planning in Ontario: Draft Guidance for Land Use Planning Authorities; ⎯ Agricultural System Mapping and Implementation Procedures (currently in effect); ⎯ Agricultural Impact Assessment Draft Guidance; and ⎯ Criteria, Methods, and Mapping of the proposed Regional Natural Heritage System for the Growth Plan (currently in effect). These guidance documents have not been updated with the release of the 2019 Growth Plan; however, the general principles continue to apply and will help inform the County’s MCR process and scope of work outlined herein. WSP, in association with urbanMetrics, MetroEconomics, and PRIME Strategy and Planning, has prepared a preliminary scope of work for the County’s MCR to address the needs outlined above through a five-phased approach, expected to be completed by 2022 (Figure 1). This scope of work is an update to that which was presented to County Council on March 14, 2019 based on updates to the 2019 Growth Plan. This approach is rooted in three areas of focus, being: 1 Growth Management; 2 Integrated Planning; and, 3 Environment and Sustainability.
Page 5
The proposed scope of work and budget outlined in this memo represents our Project Team’s current understanding of the work required to undertake the MCR to address the requirements of the 2019 Growth Plan. It is anticipated that based on further discussions with the County, Steering Committee, and the Province, while working through the MCR process, the scope of work and level of effort required may evolve and some level of flexibility will be required. Additionally, it is assumed that the County Project Manager will be responsible for day-to-day inquires and administrative tasks as they arise. Sections 1 – 8 outlines a scope of work, inclusive of an approach and detailed work plan. Section 9 contains the relevant project teams for each work plan. Section 10 contains a work schedule and budget estimate summary, which are supplemented in more detail in Appendix A and B. The relevant meetings and presentation for each work plan have been included in their respective sections. Please refer to Appendix A for a complete set of all meetings throughout the MCR. Following review, discussion, and confirmation with the County and Steering Committee, WSP will finalize these work programs and provide a detailed project schedule and consultation strategy for undertaking the MCR.
Page 6
1 PLANNING AND ENGAGEMENT
This section provides a work plan for the planning and consultation tasks to undertake the MCR process and ultimately result in an update to the County Official Plan, which will be implemented as a comprehensive Official Plan Amendment (OPA), per Provincial requirements. Our approach to engagement is grounded in developing context appropriate plans and strategies that are created in collaboration and consultation with the County and its local municipalities. We routinely design, lead and implement effective, meaningful and authentic engagement strategies for municipal clients throughout Ontario. This experience has afforded our team a wealth of knowledge on consultation best-practices and techniques from many jurisdictions and contexts. We have appropriated the internationally recognized engagement methods of the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) and will apply these methods to all of our engagement activities. This work plan proposes seven approaches to engagement and consultation which capture all key project participants and stakeholders and allow for different forms of engagement tailored toward the expertise, interests, and responsibilities of these different groups: 1 Steering Committee (SC) Meetings – comprised of WSP’s Planning Team, the County – represented by the County Project Manager who will be reponsible for the overall study coordination and the primary liason with the Study Team Project Manager throughout the Project – and Planning representatives and CAO’s from each local municipality. The SC will be responsible for the core planning components and overall project direction of the MCR through broader discussions regarding progress, implications of technical findings of the MCR process, and overarching issues and policy recommendations that will arise throughout the process. 2 Techincal Advisory Committee (TAC) Workshops – comprised of representatives from the Province, County (including the Public Works Department, Community Services Department and our Economic Development Officer), local municipalities, Conservation Authorities, and relevant agencies. Three TAC working groups are proposed – being a Growth Management Techinical Committee, Infrastructure Techincal Committee, and Environment and Sustainability Technical Committee – these meetings will allow for tailored discussion between practioners related to each focus area, in order to consolidate technical meetings where appropriate and engage with the appropriate technical experts and agencies on related matters and areas of expertise. 3 Stakeholder Workshops – project stakeholders will be comprised of special community interest groups (similar to the stakeholder groups consulted for the Official Plan projects, e.g. environmental groups, BIAs, agricultural organizations, home builders associations etc.) and internal experts (e.g. representatives from the Public Works Department and Community Services Department), identifed through a Stakeholder Sensitivity Analysis, who will meet following all TAC meetings to discuss similar issues/progress points at a higher level to provide information and comment on major deliverables. 4 Open Houses and Public Information Centres (PIC) – targeted to the general public, these broader consultation opportunities will provide updates and obtain input throughout the MCR process through discussions, comment forms, and visioning exercises, as appropriate; these meetings will satisfy all Planning Act and Environmental Assessment Act requirements. 5 Joint Council Meetings – County Council and local municipal Councils will be consulted at key milestones throughout the Project to provide input, direction, and required approval(s)/authorization(s), when necessary.
Page 7
6 Provincial Meetings – the Province will be consulted directly at key milestones to meet Provincial requirements for the MCR; these checkpoints are outlined in their related work plans. Appropriate representatives from the Province will also be consulted through the TAC Focus Group Workshops. 7 Online Engagement: An online presence will be established for the Project through the County’s “Join in Dufferin” platform and social media outlets to allow for updates, public meeting notices, and to make project documents available. Furthermore, surveys will be developed at different points throughout the Project, accessed through the project webpage, to obtain additional input from the public. It is our understanding that the County is using their Bang the Table website for this initiative. This is a great platform as it offers an online community engagement software called Engagement HQ, which greatly extends the capacity of our online engagement efforts. Bang the Table is a one stop shop offering a variety of innovative engagement and reporting tools that can be used to consult with the public, such as interactive maps, surveys, forums, and polls. WSP is currently working with the City of Kingston on the Central Kingston Growth and Infill Strategy, where the project website will be hosted on Bang the Table. Please see the following link to Bang the Table’s website, which provides an overview of the comprehensive services that they provide: http://www.bangthetable.com/. The Project Team will work with the County to use their Bang the Table website for this engagement. The manner in which we use the platform will be outlined in detail in the Communications and Engagement Strategy. The County Project Manager should be present at all meetings. The attendance of other staff will be contingent on the type of meeting and topics of discussion at each meeting (e.g. Technical Advisory Committee meetings should involve all technical staff). The Engagement Strategy will clearly identify who should be invited to each meeting. We will consult the County and local municipalities on our approach for the engagement strategy, and ask for input regarding the identification of stakeholders. Section 1 presents an overarching framework for planning, consultation/engagement, and the MCR process as a whole. The sections to follow outline the technical components of the MCR process which feed into the broader planning work required to update the County Official Plan; all meetings related to SC, TAC and PIC engagement and consultation in Sections 2 – 10 will fall within the meetings outlined in this section’s engagement framework to provide an over-arching and coordinated engagement strategy.
1.1 PHASE ONE: CONTEXT
1.1.1 STEERING COMMITTEE PROJECT INITIATION MEETING (SC #1)
This initial meeting will be held with the Steering Committee to finalize the work plan for the project, determine a schedule of dates for the duration of the project through a detailed project calendar and schedule, and discuss the research methodology and public consultation approach. We will obtain the necessary background information, studies and reports to assist in our review. The project initiation meeting also provides an opportunity to discuss in greater detail the County’s and local municipalities expectations and issues to be addressed through the MCR. We will present a draft of the Engagement Strategy and use this meeting to discuss the framework and consultation techniques to be included in the scope of the Strategy.
Page 8
1.1.2 STAKEHOLDER SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
The purpose of this analysis is to identify who has a stake in the project, how they may be directly or indirectly affected by the project (and to what degree) and the management approach that will be implemented throughout the project. This analysis aims to build an engagement approach that is inclusive, transparent, and meaningful and is important to revisit as part of this project as the stakeholder members and their interests may have changed. Note that consultation with Indigenous communities will be undertaken based on their preferred approach, which will be determined during the Stakeholder Sensitivity Analysis. We will reach out to Indigenous communities in writing to confirm their preferred level of involvements and how they want to be engaged.
1.1.3 ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY
We will develop a draft Engagement Strategy in association with the detailed project calendar, which will be provided to the County for review. The Strategy will include the schedule, manner and protocol for all team communications (County and Consultant Team) as well as for all contact with stakeholders, technical advisors and the community. It will serve as the overarching communications roadmap to the Project Team prior to engaging in public outreach efforts. We have expertise in the design and facilitation of public workshops, event booths, open houses, and public meetings, which incorporate the use of innovative tools and techniques aimed at building mutual recognition and respect with the community. Within the Strategy, we will also outline steps to work with the County to build a strong “identity” for the Project, like “MCR – My Community Rediscovered”. This will include a cohesive study logo, colour palette, and design scheme which would be used consistently across promotional materials in both digital and traditional print media formats.
1.1.4 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) PROJECT KICK- OFF MEETING (TAC #1)
The purpose of these meetings will be to review the roles of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) members, and to initiate discussion and scoping of key issues and review the respective work programs. The TAC will be comprised of key representatives from the three main subject areas of the municipal comprehensive review, including: Growth Management, Infrastructure, and Environment and Sustainability. The entire TAC Committee will meet once in Phase 1; following this meeting, TAC members will participate in separate TAC Focus Groups throughout Phases 2 – 4.
1.1.5 STAKEHOLDER KICK-OFF MEETING (SW #1)
The purpose of the first stakeholder meeting will be to introduce the Project Team, provide an overview of the Project process and key deliverables, and facilitate discussion on the background work completed to date as well as key issues / concerns that they may have regarding the MCR.
1.1.6 PLANNING FRAMEWORK REVIEW
We will undertake a thorough review of all applicable Provincial, County and lower-tier municipality legislation and policy initiatives to inform the preparation of the Draft Discussion Paper. This will include, but not be limited to: Provincial Policy Statement, 2014; the Growth Plan
Page 9
for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019, new Provincial Plans, the County of Dufferin and lower- tier municipal official plans, and Provincial legislation related to Bill 73 as it amends the Planning Act, the Clean Water Act, the Strong Communities Through Affordable Housing Act, and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. A detailed review of the County’s existing planning regime will be undertaken as it relates to the County’s current Official Plan (including OPA No. 1) and relevant studies, as well as local municipal planning initiatives. To complete the background review, internal protocols and input from other departments and initiatives will be obtained to ensure that the recommendations are in-line with the policies and procedures in other departments in the County. This policy review will identify matters of non- conformity with the existing Official Plan and recent legislation and policies, with clear direction on identifying key issues which will need to be addressed and proposed policy options to align with the current planning regime. This work will form the basis for the preparation of the draft Phase 1 Background Report.
1.1.7 DRAFT BACKGROUND REPORT
Based on the background information review and stakeholder consultation, the Project Team will prepare a Draft Background Report which will outline the Planning team’s policy review as well as preliminary reviews and findings of the different technical teams. The Draft Background Report will be circulated for review and comment prior to the Public Open House.
1.1.8 STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING (SC #2)
The Steering Committee will meet with all study team leads participating in the upcoming Project Kick-off Public Open House to discuss the structure and content planned for the meetings.
1.1.9 SECTION 26 MEETING (SPECIAL MEETING OF COUNCIL) (COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING #1)
We will hold a Statutory Special Meeting of Council under Section 26 of the Planning Act, to officially initiate the Official Plan Review and present the preliminary issues to be addressed. This meeting will serve to further identify the issues that should be addressed through the Official Plan review and recommended policy approaches. Additionally, all background technical work completed to-date will be discussed at this meeting. The comments obtained from this meeting will be used to draft the Background Report.
1.1.10 PROJECT KICK-OFF PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE (PIC #1)
We will hold an open house to inform the public about the MCR process and present the preliminary issues to be addressed. This meeting will serve to further identify the issues that should be addressed through the municipal comprehensive review. The comments obtained from this meeting will be used to finalize the Background Report.
1.1.11 FINALIZE BACKGROUND REPORT
Upon consultation feedback, the Project Team will finalize the background report, including an additional section on findings from the consultation sessions.
Page 10
1.2 PHASE TWO: ASSESSMENT
1.2.1 STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING (SC #3)
The Steering Committee will meet with all study team leads participating in the upcoming agency and stakeholder meetings, and public meeting to discuss the structure and content planned for these meetings.
1.2.2 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOCUS GROUP WORKSHOPS (TAC #1)
The purpose of these workshops is to consult with the three TAC Focus Groups through interactive activities to gather input on key issues identified through the MCR to-date, solicit input, and obtain relevant comments / additional information from technical staff. We also intend on using these sessions to manage the input provided on the Natural Heritage and Agricultural System mapping.
1.2.3 STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP (SW #1)
The purpose of these workshops is to consult with the Stakeholder Committee through interactive activities to gather input on key issues identified through the MCR to-date and solicit input on issues that we have determined through our background review to assist in the preparation of the following technical studies:
⎯ Land Needs Assessment and associated Growth Management Framework; ⎯ Transportation Master Plan; ⎯ Natural Heritage System Strategy; and ⎯ Agricultural System Strategy. 1.2.4 PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE MEETING (PIC #2)
The second Public Information Centre will be held to in accordance with the requirements of the MCEA process, in coordination with the Transportation Master Plan. Additionally, the first PIC will also present an opportunity to discuss issues related to the preliminary work we are doing on the Land Needs Assessment and Growth Management Strategy . Interactive exercises will be conducted at this PIC to generate ideas and discussion around the three strategies.
1.3 PHASE THREE: DELINEATION
1.3.1 STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING (SC #4)
The Steering Committee will meet with all study team leads participating in the upcoming agency and stakeholder meetings, and public meeting to discuss the structure and content planned for these meetings.
1.3.2 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOCUS GROUP WORKSHOPS (TAC #3)
The purpose of these workshops is to consult with the TAC Focus Groups using interactive activities to gather input on the three Strategies for Employment, Intensification, and Housing, as well as the on-going infrastructure and transportation work.
Page 11
1.3.3 STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP (SW #3)
The purpose of these workshops is to consult with the Stakeholder Committee using interactive activities to gather input on Growth Management Strategy, as well as the on-going transportation work. The Stakeholder Committee will be held with stakeholders which have been identified for the following:
⎯ Land Needs Assessment and Growth Management Strategy; ⎯ Transportation Master Plan; and, ⎯ Mapping related to the Natural Heritage and Agricultural Systems 1.3.4 JOINT COUNCIL WORKSHOP #1 (JCW #1)
At this point, we would suggest engaging with County Council as well as local councils through a Joint Council Workshop, to review the study process and progress, discuss how input from the TAC Focus Groups and Stakeholder Workshops have been integrated into the work, and solicit input on key issues/deliverables produced to-date.
1.3.5 STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING (SC #5)
The Steering Committee will meet with all study team leads participating in the upcoming public meeting to discuss the structure and content planned for these meetings.
1.3.6 PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE MEETING (PIC #3)
The third Public Consultation Centre will be held to discuss the land needs assessment, growth management framework, and infrastructure framework.
1.4 PHASE FOUR: APPLICATION
1.4.1 DRAFT DISCUSSION PAPER
The Discussion Paper will outline the findings of the MCR to-date, as well as policy options and recommendations under different topic areas, including but not limited to:
⎯ Settlement Area Hierarchy and Settlement Area expansions; ⎯ Natural Heritage and Environment; ⎯ Agriculture and Rural Areas; ⎯ Cultural Heritage/Archaeology; ⎯ Sustainability and Climate Change; ⎯ Affordable Housing and Community Infrastructure; ⎯ Housing Mix and Type; ⎯ Intensification Study Areas; ⎯ Employment Lands; ⎯ Transportation and Infrastructure; and ⎯ Aggregate Resources and Management. This Report will incorporate and consolidate the findings and recommendations of the master plans, strategies, and reports from the MCR. One of the key deliverables of this Phase is to outline the
Page 12
policy recommendations to be implemented in the new Official Plan based on these background reports. Any need for alterations to Official Plan policies, or schedules also be identified.
1.4.2 STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING (SC #7)
The Steering Committee will meet with all study team leads participating in the upcoming agency and stakeholder meetings, and public meeting to discuss the structure and content planned for these meetings.
1.4.3 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOCUS GROUP MEETINGS (TAC #4)
The purpose of these workshops is to consult with the TAC Focus Groups using interactive activities to gather input on the Discussion Paper.
1.4.4 TECHNICAL ADVISORY FOCUS GROUPS (TAC #3) AND STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS (SW #3)
The purpose of this workshop is to consult with relevant stakeholders using interactive activities to gather input on the Discussion Paper.
1.4.5 JOINT COUNCIL WORKSHOP #2 (JCW #2)
At this point, we would suggest engaging with County Council as well as local councils through strategic workshops, to review the study process and progress, discuss how input from the TAC Focus Groups and Stakeholder Workshops have been integrated into the work, and solicit input on key issues/deliverables produced to-date.
1.4.6 FINALIZE DISCUSSION PAPER
Upon consultation feedback, the Project Team will finalize the discussion paper, including an additional section on findings from the consultation sessions.
1.4.7 COUNCIL PRESENTATION (COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING #6)
The Project Team will present the findings and recommendations of the Discussion Paper, as well as the concurrent master plans completed in Phase 4, at a meeting of County Council.
1.5 PHASE FIVE: UPDATE
Phase 5 will proceed with the drafting of the Official Plan Amendment (OPA) to update the County’s Official Plan. This Phase will involve consultation with the public, stakeholders and Council to review the draft Official Plan policies.
1.5.1 DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND CIRCULATION
Using the various master plans, strategies, and reports from previous stages, as well as input from TAC/Stakeholder engagement, the Project Team will prepare Draft OPA to update the County’s existing Official Plan, complete with the necessary schedule mapping. The Draft OPA will be consistent with / conform to Provincial policies, as required, and align with findings and directions of the MCR reports and master plans, and address identified key issue areas. The Official Plan
Page 13
update will identify all Planning Act requirements with respect to establishing goals, objectives and policies to manage and direct physical changes and effects on social, economic development, agriculture and the natural environment. The Draft Official Plan will be circulated to the SC, TAC (including the Province), and all stakeholders for review and comment, prior to preparing a revised Draft OPA to be brought forward to a Statutory Public Open House.
1.5.2 STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING (SC #8)
Following staff and stakeholder review of the Draft OPA, the Project Team will meet to review the Official Plan and discuss comments, in order to prepare a revised Draft OPA for public consultation.
1.5.3 JOINT COUNCIL WORKSHOP #3 (JCW #3)
Based upon the direction and comments from the SC, and comments on the Draft OPA from the TAC and SW, the Project Team will prepare a presentation for a Joint Council meeting to highlight the key policy recommendations outlined in the Draft OPA. Based on the feedback, we will prepare a revised Draft Official Plan for presentation at the Statutory Public Open House.
1.5.4 STATUTORY PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE (PIC #4)
The Public Open House will be held to present the Draft OPA to the community. As with previous public meetings, all materials presented at the meeting will be provided to the County prior to the meeting, to be posted on their website. Additionally, the Draft OPA will be circulated to the Province 90 days prior to the Statutory Open House, in accordance with the Planning Act. To assist in obtaining feedback regarding the Draft OPA, a questionnaire will be provided to participants (both hard copy and online).
1.5.5 FINAL OPA
Based upon the public comments received and additional feedback from the Province and stakeholders, we will prepare a revised Final OPA to bring forward to County Council at a Statutory Public Meeting.
1.5.6 STATUTORY PUBLIC MEETING (COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING #7)
The final OPA will be presented to Council along with any additional public comments to date (between Open House and Statutory Public Meeting). Any delegations will be recorded and added to the public record (summary of comments) already prepared.
1.5.7 COUNCIL ADOPTION AND PROVINCIAL CIRCULATION
Following the Statutory Public Meeting, the Project Team will undertake any required revisions to the Official Plan Amendment to address matters identified by the community and Council at the Statutory Public Meeting. We will attend a meeting with Council to bring forward the Final OPA for consideration for Council for adoption. We will assist the County in circulating the Adopted OPA to the Province for final review and approval.
Page 14
2 LAND NEEDS ASSESSMENT & GROWTH MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
This MCR process is centred around the need for appropriately managing growth, which is conducted primarily through the Land Needs Assessment (LNA) and related strategies. The project and supporting studies will determine the amount of land needed in the County (considering the amount of growth accommodated within the built-boundary through intensification, and growth within the designated greenfield areas, and any required settlement area expansions) to accommodate the forecasts in Schedule 3 of the Growth Plan. In addition to the LNA, the Study Team will also rely on input from local municipalities to indicate whether area-specific boundary expansions are required based on local studies to justify the expansion(s). This LNA and the supporting studies will inform the policies of the County’s new Official Plan by addressing the key land use planning issues and opportunities facing the County and member municipalities and establish innovative and contextually-appropriate growth management policies. Based on WSP’s work in preparing the first County Official Plan, it is anticipated that through this MCR process, settlement area expansions may need to be assessed and appropriately justified for the Urban Settlement Areas of Shelburne (west side lands) and the urban area of Grand Valley. Additional population and employment growth may also be allocated to the Town of Orangeville. However, we have not budgeted for this level of work as part of this proposal as the need and scope should be confirmed at a later date once the LNA has been prepared. It is also recognized that existing servicing constraints have resulted in an ‘unallocated’ population and employment growth forecast to the Urban Settlement Areas, as such the MCR process will need to coordinate closely with the local municipalities in identifying servicing solutions to address these constraints and plan for and allocate the Growth Plan forecasts to the 2041 planning horizon. It is anticipated that expansions to the Community Settlement Areas may not be required, as these areas generally have sufficient land designated to accommodate more limited growth on private and communal wastewater systems; however, the allocation of growth to the Community Settlement Areas to the year 2041 will need to be assessed. Key determinants are the intensification target for the delineated built-up areas, the density target for the designated greenfield areas, the projected density of newly developing employment areas, and the overall population and employment forecasts. The key deliverables from this process are:
1. Establishing the County’s settlement structure (i.e., Urban and Community Settlement Areas); 2. Preparing Baseline Population, Dwelling and Employment Projections for all planning time horizons; 3. Determining the available Land Supply in the Settlement Area, split into Community Area and Employment Area; 4. Undertaking a Baseline Target Analysis and Scenario-based Analysis to determine alternative targets, which includes: a. Designated greenfield area analysis to assess the baseline Greenfield Density Area Target of 40 people and jobs per hectare, and determine the appropriate designated greenfield area density targets; b. Intensification area analysis to assess the baseline intensification target of 40% and determine an appropriate intensification target for each Urban Settlement Area’s built boundary; c. Employment analysis to determine an employment density target for designated employment lands; and Page 15
d. Housing analysis to determine an appropriate range and mix of housing for the County and each local municipality. 5. Preparing the Land Needs Assessment in accordance with the Province’s Methodology; 6. Consulting and seeking approval from the Province on the County’s Land Needs Assessment; 7. Reviewing and assessing any requests for settlement area boundary expansions, and/or employment conversions from lower tier municipalities, if required; 8. Establishing the final urban structure; 9. Developing a Growth Management Strategy, which will consider intensification, employment, housing, and community services within the County; and 10. Integrating the findings of the Land Needs Assessment and Growth Management Strategy into the Official Plan update. Based on existing policy and guidance documents, we anticipate that additional technical studies will be required in support of any Urban Settlement Area expansion, as outlined in Section 2.4.1.1. These studies will be required to inform Deliverables #7 - #8, which will need to be coordinated by the County and the local municipalities. The additional studies that are needed to support settlement area expansions will be confirmed through the LNA process and in consultation with the Province and local municipalities. As these elements are contingent on the LNA, they will be reassessed during Phase 3 of the MCR. Additionally, the estimated budget assumes local municipalities will initiate discussions around area-specific proposals for expansions and have the necessary studies prepared, which could then follow a typical process and be consolidated into the MCR program. This process must be conducted based on the land needs assessment methodology, and the draft intensification and density target guidance document issued by the Province. Given that this process is still developing under the direction of a new government, we have provided a draft scope and estimated budget that will be flexible to changes that may arise through the process. Additionally, this process may be largely affected by consultations with the Province, as well as the Province’s upcoming Implementation Working Groups related to MCR matters. These variables will have to be taken into consideration as the project progresses. Based on the phases mentioned above, we anticipate that this Growth Management phase will take approximately 7 months to complete. WSP will partner with MetroEconomics and urbanMetrics to undertake this work. We propose the following work plan to undertake the provincial methodology and complete the Growth Management component of this MCR.
2.1 PHASE ONE: CONTEXT
2.1.1 PREPARATORY WORK
This initial phase will allow the Project Team to confirm methodology, collect all required background data and documents, and determine the County’s preliminary urban structure to provide a basis for this analysis.
2.1.1.1 STEERING COMMITTEE PROJECT INITIATION MEETING (SC #1) This initial meeting will be held with the Steering Committee to discuss the methodology for and sequencing of the land needs assessment and finalize the work plan and schedule. Additionally, the Project Team will also discuss required data inputs and identify the appropriate contacts to provide these inputs.
Page 16
2.1.1.2 MEETING WITH THE PROVINCE (PM #1) Following the Steering Committee Project Initiation meeting, the Study Team will meet with the Province to discuss the methodology for and sequencing of the land needs assessment and obtain Provincial approval on our approach.
2.1.1.3 BACKGROUND DATA The Project Team will obtain and verify datasets, including but not limited to parcel data, property codes, land use designations, the natural heritage system and agricultural system, pits and quarries, rights-of-way and cemeteries. The Project Team will also obtain development data to determine net new unit development data (completions and demolitions) to inform the LNA.
2.1.1.4 ESTABLISH AN URBAN STRUCTURE The Project Team will establish a preliminary urban structure to prioritize where forecasted growth will be directed, in accordance with Policy 2.2.1.3 a) of the 2019 Growth Plan. This will include delineation of the urban area and agricultural/rural area, including within the urban area:
⎯ Delineated Built Boundary; ⎯ Designated Greenfield Area; ⎯ Employment Areas; and ⎯ Strategic Growth Areas. The Project Team will work closely with the local municipalities in identifying areas which constitute employment areas, based on the Growth Plan definition, as these employment areas will need to be designated in the County Official Plan, in addition to any identified Strategic Growth Areas.
2.1.1.5 MEETING WITH PROVINCE (PM #2) AND FINALIZE PRELIMINARY URBAN STRUCTURE Upon establishing a preliminary urban structure, the Project Team is required to consult with the Province to obtain and integrate input accordingly. Following this meeting, the Project Team will finalize the existing urban structure as an input within the land needs assessment. It should be noted that determination of the final urban area and areas within the urban area where growth is to be focused may be an iterative process as additional analysis is undertaken through this process. The final urban structure – including any settlement area boundary expansions, employment area conversions, if required – will be established at the end of this process.
2.1.2 MARKET BASELINE – POPUALTION, DWELLING & EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
This stage will establish County-wide population and employment demand, based on the projections of Schedule 3 of the Growth Plan, and allocate this demand based on the preliminary urban structure. This will be established for the 2016 Census year, the MCR Base Year (2019), and then forecasted to 2041, with estimates for each 5-year planning period (i.e. 2021, 2026, 2031, and 2036).
Page 17
2.1.2.1 ESTABLISH POPULATION FIGURES The Project Team will establish the following estimates, in chronological order, to characterize population demand:
⎯ Estimated 2016 Census population, total population, household population & undercount by settlement area and agricultural/rural area for the County and local municipalities; ⎯ Estimated 2016 households, dwellings, usually occupied dwellings & breakdown of dwellings by type for the settlement area and agricultural/rural area for the County and local municipalities; ⎯ Estimated 2019 population, households and dwellings; and, ⎯ Forecasted 2021, 2026, 2031, 2036 and 2041 Census population, total population and household population for the County and local municipalities. This step must also account for the unallocated population from the County’s previous land needs process, and how this unallocated growth may be distributed to 2041.
2.1.2.2 ESTABLISH EMPLOYMENT FIGURES The Project Team will establish the following estimates, in chronological order, to characterize employment demand:
⎯ Estimated 2016 and 2019 employment by Place of Work (POW) employment, with No Fixed Place of Work (NFPW) and Work from Home (WFH), by settlement area and agricultural/rural area for the County and local municipalities; and, ⎯ Forecasted 2021, 2026, 2031, 2036 and 2041 employment by POW – including Work from Home (WFH) and No Fixed Place of Work (NFPW) employment – for the County and local municipalities.
2.1.2.3 ALLOCATE FORECASTS Once forecasts have been derived, the Project Team will allocate the forecast to the different growth areas within the settlement areas and the agricultural/rural areas in each municipality for each planning period.
2.2 PHASE TWO: ASSESSMENT
2.2.1 LAND SUPPLY ANALYSIS
This stage will determine the land needs of the community area, which accommodates population and population-serving jobs, as well as the employment area, which accommodates employment- serving jobs. For reference, the Province defines the “Community Area” and “Employment Area” as the following: “Community Area: Areas where the vast majority of housing required to accommodate forecasted population will be located, as well as the majority of population-related jobs, most office jobs and some employment land employment jobs. Community areas include delineated built-up areas and the designated greenfield area (excluding employment areas) Employment Area: Areas where most of the employment land employment (employment in industrial-type buildings) jobs are, as well as some office jobs and some population-related jobs, particularly those providing services to the employment area.
Page 18
Employment areas (including prime employment areas) may be located in both delineated built-up areas and the designated greenfield area.”
2.2.1.1 COMMUNITY AREA SUPPLY To characterize community area supply, the Project Team, in consultation with the local municipalities, will:
⎯ Identify existing residential, commercial, institutional, employment and mixed-use designations within the local Official Plans; ⎯ Inventory built residential, non-residential and mixed-use parcels, including those that are built, approved, proposed and have development potential; ⎯ Inventory redevelopment sites to determine the degree of increased potential from redevelopment (intensification analysis); and ⎯ Apply net out areas to the designated greenfield area land supply, as outlined in the Growth Plan, to determine the net land area applicable to this analysis.
2.2.1.2 EMPLOYMENT AREA SUPPLY To characterize employment area supply, the Project Team, in consultation with the local municipalities, will:
⎯ Inventory employment area parcels, including those that are built, approved, proposed, and have development potential; and ⎯ Inventory employment area redevelopment sites to determine the degree of increased potential from redevelopment (employment analysis). 2.2.2 BASELINE TARGET LAND SUFFICIENCY ANALYSIS
This stage involves determining if the existing land supply is sufficient to meet forecasted population and employment demands, based on meeting the Growth Plan baseline intensification and density targets, which will be further evaluated, to assist in identifying appropriate targets for the settlement areas.
2.2.2.1 COMMUNITY AREA SUFFICIENCY To evaluate community area land sufficiency, the Project Team will:
⎯ Allocate residential forecasts to the community area land supply by applying the baseline Growth Plan targets, based on housing mix and density assumptions (housing analysis) – this will be derived by using estimated supply of available low, medium, and high-density units; ⎯ Estimate non-residential community area development densities for population-serving jobs; and ⎯ Allocate non-residential forecasts to the Community Area land supply by applying the baseline Growth Plan targets.
2.2.2.2 EMPLOYMENT AREA SUFFICIENCY To evaluate employment land area sufficiency, the Project Team will:
⎯ Estimate employment area development densities (employment strategy); and ⎯ Allocate employment area forecasts to employment area land supply using baseline Growth Plan targets.
Page 19
2.2.2.3 GAP ANALYSIS From the land supply sufficiency analysis, the Project Team will identify residential and non- residential gaps in the community area, and non-residential gaps in the employment area, if any. More specifically, the Project Team will identify whether the Growth Plan Targets are met, whether any quantitative gaps that might exist relative to meeting the targets and the magnitude of any land surplus or deficit that may exist. The presence of gaps indicates that the County will not be able to achieve baseline Growth Plan targets.
2.3 PHASE THREE: DELINEATION
2.3.1 LAND NEEDS ASSESSMENT SCENARIOS AND REPORTING
To address the gaps identified from the stage above, the Project Team will adjust assumptions and inputs to test alternative targets and growth scenarios, including:
⎯ Level of intensification, and an appropriate intensification target within the delineated built- up areas; ⎯ Appropriate type and mix of housing; ⎯ Designated greenfield area density target, and an appropriate density target within the designated greenfield areas; ⎯ Intensification target; and ⎯ Employment Area density targets. The Study Team will identify and provide rationale for any refinements to municipal allocations and population, employment and dwelling forecasting assumptions, and intensification and density targets that might be necessary. Requirements for this request will address Growth Plan criteria outlined in Section 2.2.7.4 (Designated Greenfield Area) and Section 2.2.2.5 (Intensification Area).
2.3.1.1 ALTERNATIVE TARGET SCENARIOS Based on the revisions to the Growth Plan, which favour lower targets in Dufferin County, the Study Team is unable to determine if alternative targets will be required at this time. If, through this analysis, it is determined that alternative targets are required, the Study Team will investigate and provide the County with a scope of work to complete this.
2.3.1.2 STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING (SC #4) The Study Team will meet with the Steering Committee to discuss the structure and content planned for the upcoming agency/stakeholder and joint council meetings.
2.3.1.3 GROWTH MANAGEMENT TAC FOCUS GROUP (TAC #3) AND STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP (SW #3) The Study Team will present the alternative scenarios at the TAC Growth Management Focus Group and Stakeholder Meeting to obtain feedback and determine a preferred scenario.
2.3.1.4 JOINT COUNCIL WORKSHOP (JCW #1) The Study Team will present the alternative scenarios at the first Joint Council Workshop to obtain feedback and determine a preferred scenario.
Page 20
2.3.1.5 CONSULTATION WITH THE PROVINCE (PC #3) The Study Team will consult the Province, on these alternative scenarios to obtain comments/feedback and determine if any of the approaches would be preferred/accepted.
2.3.1.6 DRAFT LAND NEEDS ASSESSMENT The Land Needs Assessment Methodology document requires this process to be documented through standard reporting, as provided by a Provincial template, as well as a detailed report. The minimum results that will be required to be reported on are summarized in Appendix 4 of the Land Needs Assessment Methodology document. We recognize that this document will likely be updated given the recent release of the 2019 Growth Plan. However, at this time, this is the only document available which details a methodology in this regard. The Study Team has been advised by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing that we are to follow this document until a revised Methodology document is available. Additionally, the Province requires that the County allocate forecasted population and employment growth to the Growth Plan horizon to lower-tier municipalities, as a means of implementing the final urban structure, and identify intensification and designated greenfield area density targets for lower-tier municipalities as well. Targets may differ among lower-tier municipalities, provided the overall target is planned to be achieved within the time horizon of the Growth Plan at the upper-tier level. The Study Team will determine allocations and targets for each lower-tier municipality. Stakeholders from these municipalities will be consulted during the process – upon an initial draft of allocations and targets – to determine the final allocations and targets (subject to Provincial approval). The key outputs of the Land Needs Assessment will be a total quantum (either shortage or surplus) of community area land need across the County and a separate total quantum (either shortage or surplus) of employment area land need across the County. Settlement area boundary expansions may only occur where it is demonstrated that: a. based on the minimum intensification and density targets in this Plan and a land needs assessment undertaken in accordance with policy 2.2.1.5, sufficient opportunities to accommodate forecasted growth to the horizon of this Plan are not available through intensification and in the designated greenfield area within the upper- or single-tier municipality, and within the applicable lower-tier municipality; b. the proposed expansion will make available sufficient lands not exceeding the horizon of this Plan, based on the analysis provided for in policy 2.2.8.2 a), while minimizing land consumption; and; c. the timing of the proposed expansion and the phasing of development within the designated greenfield area will not adversely affect the achievement of the minimum intensification and density targets in this Plan, as well as the other policies of this Plan If there is a shortage of land, the Study Team will justify a settlement area boundary expansion based on the Provincial requirements stated above. At this point, this will only address the quantum of land needed to meet population and employment projections; the following stage will address the adjustments needed to the urban structure to accommodate this additional amount of land.
Page 21
2.3.1.7 DRAFT GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
INTENSIFICATION Concurrently with the above work, the Study Team will assess intensification as part of the Growth Management Strategy to help inform decision-making in the determination of the minimum annual intensification target, including the request for an alternate intensification target than that prescribed by the Growth Plan, if determined that an alternate is required. This strategy will:
⎯ Support opportunities for intensification and redevelopment; ⎯ Provide a general assessment of the capacity of the delineated built-up area within the Growth Plan horizon, in consultation with the local municipalities; ⎯ Establish and examine “Strategic Growth Areas”, if delineated in the urban structure, and determine the ability of the municipality to appropriately service and facilitate development of such lands; ⎯ Assess the implications of the residential intensification targets; ⎯ Consider the implementation of measures through policies, regulations and guidelines; and, ⎯ Assist with community engagement to better understand the shift to a more compact built form and a more diverse range and mix of housing options resulting from achieving higher rates of intensification. EMPLOYMENT Concurrently with the above work, the Study Team will assess employment as part of the Growth Management Strategy to determine where and how targets may be applied. Concurrently with the above work, the Study Team will prepare an Employment Strategy, in consultation with lower-tier municipalities, the Province and other appropriate stakeholders. The Strategy will:
⎯ Establish a minimum density target for all employment areas, measured in jobs per hectare, that reflects the current and anticipated type and scale of employment that characterizes the employment areas and aligns with policy 2.2.5.1; ⎯ Identify opportunities for the intensification of employment areas on sites that support active transportation and are served by existing or planned transit; and, ⎯ Provide recommendations for implementation measures through a municipal comprehensive review, including official plan policies and designations and zoning by-laws regulations. To help inform decision-making on employment area conversions, the Employment Strategy should involve assessing how the local economy is changing and setting priorities for which employment areas require long-term protection and which (if any) may be appropriate to consider for conversion (subject to policy 2.2.5.9). It is anticipated that this review will address the requests and proposals for employment area conversions that have been identified, particularly in the Town of Orangeville, and the County as whole. Our work plan anticipates that up to three areas will be considered for employment area conversion requests. Additional level of effort may be required depending upon the number and complexity of requests for employment conversions.
HOUSING Concurrently with the above work, the Study Team will prepare a housing analysis that considers the existing housing stock and plans to diversify the overall range and mix of housing options that are available. This analysis will inform the assumptions required for the land needs analysis (e.g. average number of persons per unit forecasted to occupy new units in the delineated built-up area and the designated greenfield area), and will include:
Page 22
⎯ An analysis of the anticipated composition of households (i.e. size, age of occupants, income, and family versus non-family households) for planning periods to the Growth Plan horizon; ⎯ An analysis of the existing housing stock in terms of the range and mix of housing options (including unit size and numbers of bedrooms), as well as the needs of future households; ⎯ A specific mix of housing units for any new designated greenfield areas; ⎯ Specific land use planning and financial tools that will be used to achieve the objective of diversifying the overall range and mix of housing options available. We understand that the County’s Community Services Department is currently undertaking an update to the County’s Housing and Homelessness Plan, as part of the five-year review, and are currently in the background, research, and collection stages of the review process. This analysis will be informed by the County’s current work to update the Housing and Homelessness Plan as part of the five-year review. The Project Team will work closely with the County’s Community Services Department to ensure this strategy incorporates and aligns with the update and outcomes of the Housing and Homelessness Plan.
COMMUNITY SERVICES ASSESSMENT The 2019 Growth Plan defines “Public Service Facilities” as, “Land buildings and structures for the provision of programs and services provided or subsidized by a government or other body, such as social assistance, recreation, police and fire protection, health and educational programs, and cultural services. Public service facilities do not include infrastructure. (PPS, 2014)”. The requirement for integrated infrastructure planning extends to ensuring sufficient public service facilities capacity is available or planned in appropriate locations to accommodate forecasted growth. Furthermore, the 2019 Growth Plan requires municipalities to collaborate and consult with service planning, funding, and delivery sectors to facilitate the co-ordination and planning of community hubs and other public service facilities. The Study Team proposes to undertake a Community Services assessment as part of the Growth Management Strategy to facilitate this integration of land use planning with planning and investment in public service facilities, including integrated service delivery through community hubs. This work will be informed by the Land Needs Assessment; as such, it will not commence until Phase 3, at which time there will be enough information on growth outlooks to commence this work. This review will consider all existing and on-going guidance for these focus areas, including the following Community Services Department Projects:
⎯ Children’s Service 5-year Plan (to be completed by June 2019); ⎯ Corporate Age Friendly Strategy (to be completed by the end of Summer 2019); and, The Study Team will consult the Community Services Department within Phase 4 to obtain feedback and incorporate their on-going work into this Plan. Findings from the existing conditions review and mapping as well as the public consultation feedback will be used to draft a community services policy review based on three key result areas, being:
⎯ Programs and Service Priorities; ⎯ Diversity and Inclusion; and, ⎯ Connecting Communities and Neighbourhoods.
Page 23
The Community Services Assessment will plan for future community services in a manner which aligns with the urban structure and settlement hierarchy that results from the land needs assessment, as well as the policy directions and recommendations of the associated strategies.
SERVICING The 2019 Growth Plan requires that infrastructure be planned in a manner that is integrated with the planning process for managing growth. This includes ensuring sufficient infrastructure and public service facilities capacity is available or planned in appropriate locations (e.g., settlement expansion areas, designated greenfield areas, intensification areas, strategic growth areas, etc.) to accommodate forecasted growth. The County is not directly responsible for the provision of municipal services, and as such, it is recognized that assessing the capacity of infrastructure to accommodate growth will depend on input from the local municipalities. Municipal water and wastewater services are currently provided for the Urban Settlement Areas of Orangeville, Shelburne, and the Grand Valley urban area, while the balance of the County is serviced through private or communal wastewater systems. The majority of forecasted growth is to be directed to the Urban Settlement Areas with full municipal services, and will be subject to addressing current capacity issues. The proposed scope of work related to water and wastewater infrastructure planning will include a high-level review and assessment of existing and proposed infrastructure throughout the County utilizing the servicing plans and designs completed by the local municipalities for settlement areas, as well as on-going infrastructure initiatives including:
⎯ The Dufferin County Background, Issues and Options Report (February 2014), including Appendix B – Community Settlement Area Characteristics; ⎯ The Capacity Report for the Grand Valley Wastewater Treatment Plan (May 2015); ⎯ Town of Orangeville Land Needs Assessment (March 2016); ⎯ Town of Shelburne Sewage Capacity Allocation Executive Summary (May 2016) and Assimilative Capacity Study (ACS) for increasing the rated wastewater treatment capacity of the water pollution control plant (WPCP); ⎯ The Grand Valley Capacity Allocation Policy, adopted by resolution on December 3rd, 2016; ⎯ The Grand valley WPCP Re-Rating Feasibility Study – Summary of Capacity Assessment and Re-Rating Potential (December 2016); and, ⎯ Documents related to the Grand Valley Water and Wastewater Servicing Master Plan Class Environmental Assessment. The proposed scope of work accounts for climate change impacts and mitigation measures to the extent to which the information and analyses provided by local municipalities has incorporated these factors. Our work will culminate in the preparation of an Infrastructure Assessment Analysis as part of the Growth Management work to consolidate and summarize the infrastructure initiatives completed by the local municipalities, which are required to support the County’s allocation of forecasted growth to the Urban Settlement Areas. If additional detailed analysis of infrastructure is required, the Project Team will engage qualified staff to assess the proposal and provide this to the County for consideration of the additional scope.
Page 24
2.3.1.8 STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING (SC #6) The Study Team will meet with the Steering Committee to discuss the structure and content planned for the upcoming public information centre.
2.3.1.9 PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE (PIC #3) The Study Team will present the draft Land Needs Assessment and associated strategies at the second public information centre to obtain feedback on the approach, findings, and recommendations.
2.3.1.10 COUNTY PRESENTATION (COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING #4) The Study Team will present the Draft Land Needs Assessment and Growth Management Strategy at a meeting of County Council to obtain approval for forwarding it to the Province for review, comment, and approval.
2.3.1.11 MEETING WITH THE PROVINCE (PC #4) Upon drafting the standard report and background documents, the Study Team will submit these materials to the Province for review. Following Provincial review, the Study Team will meet with the Province to discuss the background work and the rationale provided for all required key inputs (e.g. targets), and address any issues or concerns, whether technical or related to the report.
2.3.1.12 FINAL LAND NEEDS ASSESSMENT REPORT Following discussions with the County, Local Municipalities and Province, the Study Team will finalize the Land Needs Assessment Report. The Growth Management Strategy will be completed during the final phase of the Growth Management work as they will need to consider the final urban structure.
2.4 PHASE FOUR: APPLICATION
2.4.1 IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORTING
As mentioned, the key outputs of the Land Needs Assessment will be a total quantum (either shortage or surplus) of community area land need across the County and a separate total quantum (either shortage or surplus) of employment area land need across the County. The results of the Land Needs Assessment will be used by the County to determine whether:
⎯ Settlement area boundary expansions are required to accommodate forecasted growth; ⎯ If the County has excess lands; and, ⎯ Whether any lands within designated employment areas can be considered for conversion to non-employment uses (i.e., confirmation that the County and local municipality will maintain sufficient employment lands to accommodate forecasted employment growth to 2041). At this point, it is anticipated that settlement area expansions will be required for the Shelburne and Grand Valley Urban Settlement Areas, and we will need to assess, determine excess lands (if applicable), and make recommendations on employment conversion requests in light of the LNA and the locational characteristics of the lands, etc. However, the details of these elements will require further detailed work (as outlined in the table in Section 2.3.1). It will require coordination/work from the local municipalities. This will need to be scoped further in consultation
Page 25
with the local municipalities, Province and County, and in coordination with the work already undertaken (i.e., Shelburne West Secondary Plan area), and any on-going work being undertaken by the local municipalities. As such, these additional elements are not currently scoped or budgeted within this work plan. If the preferred growth scenario identifies an expansion, conversion, or excess lands, the Study Team will then prepare a scope and budget for undertaking this additional work in consultation with the local municipalities, to augment the existing work already undertaken. The following section presents a high-level breakdown of the work required in this stage; the report writing and meetings associated with this stage have been budgeted but the determination of these elements and supporting work required to justify them have not been budgeted at this time (refer to the budget in Appendix A for a detailed breakdown).
2.4.1.1 IMPLEMENTATION OF PREFERRED GROWTH SCENARIO AND SUPPORTING WORK If the preferred growth scenario identifies an expansion or conversion, the Project Team will rely on local municipalities to prepare the necessary documents, per Provincial requirements, to justify the need for the request(s). The Project Team will then provide a peer review of the expansion justification and make recommendations for the implementation of the proposed expansion. The following table identifies the analysis needed to justify each of these undertakings. This will need to be scoped further in consultation with the local municipalities, Province and County.
Request Requirements
Settlement Area When a need for a settlement area boundary expansion has been justified, the feasibility of the proposed expansion will be determined and the most appropriate Boundary location for the proposed expansion will be identified based on the following: Expansion a. there are existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities to support the achievement of complete communities; b. the infrastructure and public service facilities needed would be financially viable over the full life cycle of these assets, based on mechanisms such as asset management planning and revenue generation analyses; c. the proposed expansion would align with a water and wastewater master plan or equivalent that has been completed in accordance with the policies in subsection 3.2.6; d. the proposed expansion would align with a stormwater master plan or equivalent that has been completed in accordance with the policies in subsection 3.2.7; e. watershed planning or equivalent has demonstrated that the proposed expansion, including the associated servicing, would not negatively impact the water resource system, including the quality and quantity of water; f. key hydrologic areas and the Natural Heritage System should be avoided where possible; g. for settlement areas that receive their water from or discharge their sewage to inland lakes, rivers, or groundwater, a completed environmental assessment for new or expanded services has identified how expanded water and wastewater treatment capacity would be addressed in a manner that is fiscally and environmentally sustainable; h. prime agricultural areas should be avoided where possible. An agricultural impact assessment will be used to determine the location of the expansion based on avoiding, minimizing and mitigating the impact on the Page 26
Request Requirements
Agricultural System and evaluating and prioritizing alternative locations across the upper- or single-tier municipality in accordance with the following: i. expansion into specialty crop areas is prohibited; ii. reasonable alternatives that avoid prime agricultural areas are evaluated; and iii. where prime agricultural areas cannot be avoided, lower priority agricultural lands are used; i. the settlement area to be expanded is in compliance with the minimum distance separation formulae; j. any adverse impacts on agricultural operations and on the agri-food network from expanding settlement areas would be avoided or, if avoidance is not possible, minimized and mitigated as determined through an agricultural impact assessment; k. the policies of Sections 2 (Wise Use and Management of Resources) and 3 (Protecting Public Health and Safety) of the PPS are applied; l. the proposed expansion would meet any applicable requirements of the Greenbelt, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation, Niagara Escarpment, and Lake Simcoe Protection Plans and any applicable source protection plan;
Employment If the results of the land needs assessment indicate a surplus of land in employment Lands areas, further analysis must be undertaken to determine the appropriate approach to Conversion planning for currently designated employment area lands. If there is no shortage of community area land, a municipality may consider lands for conversion subject to meeting specific criteria in accordance with policy 2.2.5.9. If there is a shortage of community area land, municipalities will need to consider whether any employment area land is appropriate for conversion prior to undertaking a settlement area boundary expansion. However, a conversion could only occur if the municipality could demonstrate that it satisfied policy 2.2.5.9. Among other matters, this policy requires demonstration that the lands to be converted are not required over the horizon of the Growth Plan for the employment purposes for which they are designated and that the proposed uses would not adversely affect the overall viability of the employment area.
Approval by the Province of any employment area or prime employment area conversions will be based on review of appropriate documentation prepared by the municipality demonstrating that the proposed conversion conforms with policy 2.2.5.9. Policy 2.2.5.9 states the conversion of lands within employment areas or prime employment areas to non-employment uses may be permitted only through a municipal comprehensive review where it is demonstrated that:
a. there is a need for the conversion;
b. the lands are not required over the horizon of this Plan for the employment purposes for which they are designated;
c. the municipality will maintain sufficient employment lands to accommodate forecasted employment growth to the horizon of this Plan;
d. the proposed uses would not adversely affect the overall viability of the employment area or prime employment area or the achievement of the
Page 27
Request Requirements
minimum intensification and density targets in this Plan, as well as the other policies of this Plan; and
e. there are existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities to accommodate the proposed uses.
2.4.1.2 DRAFT URBAN STRUCTURE DELINEATION AND IMPLEMENTATION REPORT Following the determination of the location of any proposed settlement area boundary expansions, employment lands conversions, and/or excess lands, the Project Team can finalize the delineation of any changes in settlement area boundaries, the designated greenfield area and the identification of any excess lands, if applicable. The Study Team will indicate (through accompanying mapping) a clear delineation between which lands were counted as designated greenfield area, delineated built-up area, and employment area in the final calculations.
2.4.1.3 REFINE STRATEGIES The analysis from the Draft Growth Management Strategy will be refined based on the outcomes of the draft Urban Structure Delineation and Implementation Report.
2.4.1.4 STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING (SC #7) The Study Team will meet with the Steering Committee to discuss the structure and content planned for the agency/stakeholder and joint council meetings.
2.4.1.5 GROWTH MANAGEMENT TAC FOCUS GROUP (TAC #4) The Growth Management Technical Committee will meet during the fourth set of technical committee meetings to discuss the draft reports, obtain comments/feedback, and answer questions that may arise from them.
2.4.1.6 GROWTH MANAGEMENT TAC FOCUS GROUP (TAC #3) AND STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP (SW #3) A Stakeholder workshop will be held to discuss the draft reports, obtain comments/feedback, and answer questions that may arise from them.
2.4.1.7 JOINT COUNCIL WORKSHOP (JCW #2) The Study Team will present the proposed urban structure and associated strategies at the second Joint Council Workshop to obtain feedback and determine method for implementation.
2.4.1.8 COUNCIL PRESENTATION (COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING #5) Per Provincial requirements, the Project Team will present at County Council to obtain Council endorsement of the Urban Structure Delineation and Implementation Report as supplementary work, as well as land needs assessment/growth management strategies prior to submitting to the Province for approval.
Page 28
2.4.1.9 MEETING WITH THE PROVINCE (PC #5) After all the reports have been drafted, the Study Team will meet with the Province to discuss any issues of compliance with the Provincial methodology and discuss reasonableness of applicable assumptions and requests.
2.4.1.10 FINALIZE STRATEGIES AND FEASIBILITY REPORT Following discussions with the County, Local Municipalities and Province, the Study Team will finalize the Urban Structure Delineation and Implementation Report and land needs assessment/ growth management strategies.
Page 29
3 TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN
The 2019 Growth Plan, refers to the adequate provision of community facilities, infrastructure, and need for transportation demand management approaches beyond Official Plan policies (Page 40 of the MCR Guidance document). The Transportation Master Plan (TMP) will be prepared to satisfy the County MCR requirements under the 2019 Growth Plan. A Transportation Master Plan (TMP) satisfying the requirements of the Growth Plan is being proposed. Any requirements under Schedule B of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment would be deemed complete once the TMP has been approved. However, should the County prefer to have a TMP completed, we can provide an additional scope of work in accordance with the requirements of Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) process, and in coordination consultation with the Local Municipal infrastructure EAs.
3.1 PHASE ONE: CONTEXT
3.1.1 STEERING COMMITTEE PROJECT INITIATION MEETING (SC #1)
This initial meeting will be held with the Steering Committee to finalize the work plan for the project and determine a schedule of dates for the duration of the project through a detailed project calendar and schedule. We will obtain the necessary background information, studies and reports to assist in our review. The project initiation meeting also provides an opportunity to discuss in greater detail the County’s and local municipalities expectations and issues to be addressed through the MCR.
3.1.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION COLLECTION AND REVIEW
We will conduct a thorough review of background documents to understand existing Provincial, County and Local policies and objectives. We will map the existing road, transit, and active transportation network, and undertake a policy analysis to determine where gaps may exist. Previously proposed roads and active transportation routes will be studied within the local and County context. We will also analyze the Growth Management Strategy to assess potential opportunities for enhanced connectivity and coverage of roads, transit, and active transportation facilities. We will also review existing truck corridors used for goods movement and analyze MTO highway data to understand the demand along busy roads. Building upon existing conditions and background information review, we will develop an opportunity statement to meet Phase 1 of the MCEA process translated into a community vision and set of principles that will steer the TMP’s recommendations. The following subtasks will be undertaken as part of the background information collection and review, and will be conducted over Phase 1 and 2 of the Project:
3.1.2.1 REVIEW EXISTING POLICY DOCUMENTS, PLANS, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT The Study Team will conduct a thorough review of background documents to understand the Provincial, County and Local policies and planning vision. Key background documents include:
⎯ Dufferin County Official Plan (2017); ⎯ Dufferin County Active Transportation and Trails Master Plan (2010); ⎯ Dufferin County Road Network Rationalization Plan (2015); ⎯ Dufferin County Development Charges Background Study (2017); and
Page 30
⎯ Local Municipal Official Plans. ⎯ Analyze existing and future forecasts population and employment data. The Study Team will examine existing and future population and employment forecasts in order to assess impacts on the future road network. They will study existing and proposed sites for development and key employment and residential niches.
3.1.2.2 REVIEW EXISTING LAND USES AND MOBILITY PATTERNS Part of this work will be to review the current modal split between auto driver, auto passenger, transit and active transportation. The Study Team will review the County’s land use planning and policies related to traffic engineering to study how they might impact mode choices and trip frequency. The analysis will be used to make policy recommendations for improving mobility for all modes of transportation and mobility options for the County residents. Existing municipal Official Plans will also be used as reference for land use analysis.
3.1.2.3 COLLECT SECONDARY DATA AND REVIEW EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA ON MAIN COUNTY ROADS For an assessment of road capacity on County roads, the traffic operations study will use link volume data obtained from the County and will conduct a screenline analysis to determine north- south and east-west utilized and residual capacity of the road network. The results will form a baseline for future capacity analysis when growth rates/projection are applied to the existing volumes.
3.1.2.4 REVIEW EXISTING ROAD CLASSIFICATION; IDENTIFY NEEDS AND CONNECTIVITY OPPORTUNITIES Through this process, we will identify existing capacity deficiencies in the County road network as well as missing links. The Study Team will also update the County’s existing road classification map to include information about recommended speed limits, right-of-way widths, cross-sectional elements to create complete streets that also consider active transportation, on-street parking (whether it should be permitted or prohibited), and transit, where applicable.
3.1.2.5 REVIEW OF EXISTING AND PLANNED ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE, IDENTIFICATION OF NEEDS AND NETWORK GAPS Our active transportation planning work will begin by reviewing existing studies relevant to walking and cycling including the Dufferin County Active Transportation and Trails (DCATT) Master Plan, the Dufferin County Official Plan and other planning initiatives undertaken by the County, Headwaters’ Trails Working Group and local municipalities. The Study Team will build upon and update the DCATT GIS data to map existing local and County trails and active transportation facilities (pedestrian and cycling routes). They will also review the route information available from the Headwaters’ Trails Working Group which we expect will be an important piece of existing background information to identify gaps and needs within the County and its local municipalities. The Study Team will also review current guidelines and design standards for trails and active transportation infrastructure, including the possibility of trails in abandoned or active rail corridors. This will also include maintenance and enforcement procedures. These research findings and map analysis will be used throughout the study to identify barriers, opportunities and discontinuities, as well as to develop the recommended network, phased implementation plan and construction costs. Page 31
3.1.2.6 REVIEW EXISTING REGIONAL AND LOCAL TRANSIT OPERATIONS AND EXPANSION OPPORTUNITIES As part of our transit planning work, the Study Team will review current local and regional transit routes and provide high level recommendations on next steps to determine high-level recommendations on how transit routes could be extended for improved connectivity and whether new routes should be added to the transit network. Any recommendations for transit planning will consider the likelihood of transfers and how transfers would impact travel times and ridership. The transit analysis will also include a consideration of ridesharing services to meet travel needs.
3.1.2.7 REVIEW EXISTING GOODS MOVEMENT OPERATION AND TRUCK ROUTES The Study Team will examine, at a high level, existing route options including by-passes to improve goods movement and reduce the impact of heavy truck “through-traffic” entering roads primarily intended for urban traffic. Local TMPs will be reviewed and historically expressed priorities of local councils will be considered. The analysis will build upon our findings of the County’s Road network, considering socio-economic, environmental, safety and costs impacts.
3.1.3 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) KICK-OFF MEETING (TAC #1)
The Study Team will be present at the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Kick-off Meeting to go over the technical approach of the TMP, confirm schedule and project milestones, roles and responsibilities, as well as confirm the scope of the tasks at hand. The Study Team expects to define data sources that could be used to conduct the technical analyses for the different transportation components and complete the project workplan. The Study Team will also define important aspects of the public consultation and engagement strategy. This meeting will bring together all three TAC Focus Groups (i.e. Infrastructure; Growth Management; Natural Environment); the following TAC workshops will be separated by focus groups.
3.1.4 STAKEHOLDER KICK-OFF MEETING (SW #1)
A member of the Study Team will present at the Stakeholder Kick-off Meeting to provide context and answer transportation-related questions.
3.2 PHASE TWO: ASSESSMENT
3.2.1 STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING (SC #3)
The Study Team will meet with the Steering Committee to discuss the structure and content planned for the agency/stakeholder meetings and public meeting.
3.2.2 INFRASTRUCTURE TAC FOCUS GROUP WORKSHOP (TAC #2)
The Infrastructure Focus Group will meet during the first set of TAC focus group workshops to discuss the findings of the background review and approach moving forward.
Page 32
3.2.3 STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP (SW #2)
The first Stakeholder Workshop will be held with relevant stakeholders and technical staff to present the TMP objectives, preliminary findings, policy framework, existing conditions, as well as transportation network challenges and opportunities. This will allow the transportation team to gather input on key issues which should be addressed through the TMP.
3.2.4 PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE (PIC #2)
The Study Team will present at PIC #2 to fulfil the master planning requirements of the MCEA process. The Study Team will present the TMP objectives, preliminary findings, policy framework, existing travel conditions, as well as transportation network challenges and opportunities. This will allow the transportation team to gather input on key issues which should be addressed through the TMP. We recommend launching a parallel online survey to gather input from residents and stakeholders who are not able to attend the PIC and /or workshop meeting. The survey will be as consistent as possible with the engagement activities that are conducted at the workshop and PIC.
3.2.5 ROADS IMPROVEMENTS STRATEGY AND ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT
Once input from PIC #1 is processed, the Study Team will use that input to steer the recommendations of the study and develop alternatives to address future growth. They will review short, medium, and long-term needs of the County road network building upon previously identified road links from the Roads Rationalization study and based on the screenline analysis of the corridors. This exercise will be done in tandem with land use analysis in order to have a coordinated strategy aligned with future residential and employment areas as anticipated by the Growth Plan. The Study Team will also look at traffic volumes along main highways and arterial roads based on data provided by MTO. They will conduct a high level screenline analysis to assess for capacity constraints based on current trends, population, and employment projection data. If there are projected capacity constraints along County roads, they will identify suitable solutions, recognizing that those solutions must include all modes of transportation and do not always default to road widening or focused on automobiles. The Study Team will base our criteria on effective access to residential and employment areas, mobility options for people and goods, protection of roadside amenities including natural assets, and land development support. The Study Team will also assess whether additional road improvements or new links will be needed to improve connectivity with future residential and employment growth zones within the main Urban Settlement Areas of Dufferin County. They will assess three alternatives of future transportation scenarios in order to address Phase 2 of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) process. Our analysis of alternative future scenarios will consider if nothing is done to improve the transportation network (Do Nothing) and two additional scenarios in order to arrive at a preferred future scenario.
3.2.6 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION (AT) STRATEGY
The Study Team will identify potential candidate active transportation routes based on a set of route selection criteria, background information collected and input received during the first round of engagement. A careful balance of quantitative data such as right-of-way/pavement width and posted Page 33
vehicle speeds, and qualitative information such as most desired route and connectivity, will be derived for each corridor or zone to ensure that priority is appropriately assigned. The Study Team will digitally map the updated DCATT draft network, including key entry points and destinations, on and off-road cycling facilities (signed-only routes, bike lanes/buffered bike lanes, boulevard trails, etc.) and missing pedestrian links in the trail and sidewalk system. In addition, the Study Team will go into the field to investigate existing conditions and roads / locations where potential new AT routes are being recommended. During the field work we will collect a digital photo inventory and record GPS waypoints at photo locations and where road right-of-way measurements have been taken. This information will form part of a GIS tool that will be delivered to the County after the study. The GIS tool from the 2010 study will be updated and will include all the elements mapped in shapefile format throughout the study. In addition to the facility types, a hierarchy of routes will be determined based on the field work completed and the vision set out by the County. We will build upon our field work findings to recommend a preferred Trails and Active Transportation Route network and identify appropriate facility types. The Study Team will complement the network development process by identifying recommendations for supportive policies, trails and AT design guidelines and maintenance practices. The recommendations are intended to reflect emerging trends and standards identified in the following guidelines:
⎯ Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM) Book 18: Cycling Facilities ⎯ Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM) Book 15: Pedestrian Crossings ⎯ National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO): Designing for All Ages & Abilities: Contextual Guidance for High-Comfort Bicycle Facilities, ⎯ Transportation Association of Canada’s (TAC): Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads ⎯ Goods movement strategy Based on the truck traffic data analysis, the Study Team will examine how to best accommodate anticipated demand along existing and future corridors. In consultation with the County, a high- level review will be undertaken of all County Roads with a more detailed review of the role of up to four County Roads and Provincial Highways 9, 10, and 89 in the overall goods movement network. They will provide, if needed, alternatives of possible future routes to reduce the impact of heavy truck “through-traffic” entering the downtown nodes of local municipalities. Our recommendations will also include high-level policies to manage commercial delivery trucks and how to best facilitate the movement of goods into and out of commercial areas including vital employment zones. As part of the transportation goods movement strategy, the Plan will provide recommendations on how to support and enhance the agricultural system via accommodation of agriculture equipment.
3.2.7 TRANSIT STRATEGY
The Study Team will conduct a high-level transit strategy study to determine the opportunities that exist to integrate local transit such as Orangeville Transit to other destinations in the County and connect with other existing GO bus services. They will examine existing land uses, locations with high trip-generating capacity, as well as projected population growth nodes to suggest the right threshold for a traditional transit initiative to expand to other urban areas. The objective will be to combine land use planning and multi-modal transportation criteria to supports existing or planned transit and active transportation networks. For this we will leverage from the two transit studies conducted by the Town of Shelburne that were submitted to Metrolinx in 2016. They will also study
Page 34
similar case studies in the province to weigh comparative potential estimated operational and capital investments that the County would likely have to support to allow for a transit expansion of Orangeville Transit. The Study Team will also investigate the viability of contemporary ride-sharing system to supplement transit services – an example of how emerging technology may change travel patterns and transportation mode use in the future. Recently, the Town of Innisfil partnered with a ridesharing provider to deliver local subsidized trips to high-demand destinations as an alternative to a traditional fixed-bus route operation. While this scheme has proven significantly much more cost- effective for the Town with reduced administrative and operational responsibilities, its impact for the medium and long-term future has yet to be evaluated.
3.2.8 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT SUPPORTING POLICIES
The Study Team will develop a transportation demand management framework to offer a balance of transportation choices that reduces reliance upon the automobile and promotes transit and active transportation. In the short and medium term, the TDM framework will set modal goals and recommend a set of guidelines to be adopted by the County to encourage more sustainable travel behaviour including supportive actions such as enhanced partnerships with agencies, organizations and businesses throughout the County.
3.3 PHASE THREE: DELINEATION
3.3.1 IMPLEMENTATION, PHASING, AND COSTING STRATEGY
Finally, the Study Team will develop an implementation strategy and identify strategic priorities for roads and active transportation improvements from the preferred alternatives. The Study Team will work with County staff to understand future planned work and other planning initiatives to develop an implementation schedule, identify phasing horizons and key priorities that are realistic and reflective of current schedules.
3.3.2 STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING (SC #4)
The Study Team will meet with the Steering Committee to discuss the structure and content planned for the agency/stakeholder meetings and public meeting.
3.3.3 INFRASTRUCTURE TAC FOCUS GROUP WORKSHOP (TAC #3)
The Infrastructure Focus Group will meet during the second set of TAC focus group workshops to discuss the various transportation analyses.
3.3.4 STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP (SW #3)
The third Stakeholder Workshop will be held with relevant stakeholders and technical staff to present an overview of work completed to date, a summary of stakeholder feedback, and gather input on the various transportation analyses.
Page 35
3.3.5 PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE (PIC #3)
The Study Team will present at PIC #3 to fulfil the master planning requirements of the MCEA process. This will consist of presenting the recommendations for the various transportation analyses at PIC #3.
The second round of online engagement will present the draft recommendations to the public and further collect user input through a survey. The survey will be available online for at least one month, providing ample time for the public to provide comments, regardless as to whether or not they were able to attend the PIC.
3.4 PHASE FOUR: APPLICATION
3.4.1 DRAFT TMP
The Study Team will produce a final draft report documenting all of the public engagement and technical analyses completed as part of this study. The Study Team TMP report will contain the recommendations and supporting technical analyses and graphic material of the research, analysis and findings. The Draft Report will be submitted to the County for review and updated based on the County’s comments prior to circulation.
3.4.2 STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING (SC #7)
The Study Team will meet with the Steering Committee to discuss the Draft TMP, as well as the structure and content planned for the agency/stakeholder meetings.
3.4.3 INFRASTRUCTURE TAC FOCUS GROUP (TAC #4)
The Infrastructure Focus Group will meet during the third set of TAC focus group workshops to discuss the findings of the Draft TMP and obtain feedback.
3.4.4 STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP (SW #4)
The fourth Stakeholder Workshop will be held with relevant stakeholders and technical staff to discuss the findings of the Draft TMP and obtain input.
3.4.5 FINAL TMP
The Study Team will provide ample time for County staff to review the draft report and will incorporate any feedback prior to submitting the final TMP report. At the end of the project, we will be in a position to present to the Council the findings of the final TMP report and how the public responded through the various methods of engagement. Finally, as mentioned in the Communication and Public Consultation Process, we will post the TMP report for the statutory 30-day period that begins with the Notice of Study Completion. If necessary, we will accommodate as best as possible any last public comments in the final version of the TMP report.
Page 36
4 COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY & CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCY (CSCCR) FRAMEWORK
Dufferin County is the home to the headwaters of four major Ontario rivers, being the Nottawasaga, Humber, Credit and Grand River. The County’s three Urban Settlement Areas are nested within the boundaries of three separate Conservation Authority jurisdictions, which include:
⎯ Orangeville – Credit Valley Conservation Authority; ⎯ Shelburne – Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority; and ⎯ Grand Valley – Grand River Conservation Authority. As Dufferin County grows, so will the overall demand for water, energy, air, and land, and the impact on the natural features it contains. The ongoing availability of these natural resources is essential for the sustainability of all communities. The Growth Plan recognizes and supports the role of municipal policy in providing leadership and innovation to integrate infrastructure, supporting a culture of conservation, and addressing climate change. Furthermore, policies in the Growth Plan, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, and Greenbelt Plan require that upper and single tier municipalities, in partnership with Conservation Authorities, as appropriate, shall ensure that watershed planning is undertaken to support a comprehensive, integrated, and long-term approach to the protection, enhancement or restoration of the quality and quantity of water within a watershed. The intent of the Community Sustainability & Climate Change Resiliency (CSCCR) Framework is to provide policy direction for the County for a long-term approach to energy use management, watershed planning, and conservation of resources to increase awareness, reduce consumption and emissions, and encourage the use of innovative technology and energy systems. This work will be informed by the Land Needs Assessment; as such, it will not commence until Phase 3, at which time there will be enough information on growth outlooks to commence this work. The following tasks will be undertaken to support the MCR and establish sustainability and climate change policy direction for the County.
4.1 PHASE THREE: DELINEATION
4.1.1 BACKGROUND REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
We will meet with the Climate Change Coordinator and coordinate review County and local municipal reports and policy, including sustainability, energy, water, natural heritage, infrastructure, health and equity, as they relate to climate adaptation and mitigation. Our review and analysis will focus on the long-term goals for low carbon communities and will coordinate with the progress of the Climate Change office to advance the five milestones of the Partners for Climate Protection ICLEI process and mandate, to reflect best information on vulnerabilities and risk. We will assess the growth strategy and related details from the MCR process, to support the analysis of impacts and policy objectives.
4.1.2 BEST PRACTICES REVIEW
We will conduct a benchmarking best practice review to support policy formulation. We will target similar municipalities across the Province and within the outlying Greater Toronto Area as well as
Page 37
other leading North American jurisdictions. We will focus on a maximum of five other plans for targeted subject areas.
4.2 PHASE FOUR: APPLICATION
4.2.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE TAC FOCUS GROUS (TAC #4)
The Study Team will bring together the Natural Environment and Infrastructure Focus Groups to workshop goals, objectives and targets from our policy review and best practice examples. This will align with the Climate Change Coordinator’s milestone process for mitigation, vulnerability and risk assessment process. We will present focused goals and actions across key asset and priority areas of energy, water, natural heritage, mobility and health. We will include most relevant considerations for official plan policy, to address equity and the impact of technology as important emerging trends and areas of focus for climate change and resiliency. The outcome of this focus group will be a refined set of policy areas and draft direction.
4.2.2 STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP (SW #4)
We will bring the draft climate policy areas and preliminary direction to the stakeholder workshop. We, with the Climate Change Coordinator, will present the draft material in table format, providing a summary overview of the research and rationale for what the proposed direction is. We will seek input from stakeholders to refine policy direction.
4.2.3 DRAFT CSCCR FRAMEWORK
Based on above work, we will prepare a draft framework. This strategy will reflect considerations of the long-term goal of low-carbon communities. Key considerations will identify how the County can support local economic development and community objectives related to energy and greenhouse gas emissions through policy recommendations. The framework will summarize the climate considerations, risks and vulnerabilities and the areas of policy that can be supported through the MCR for the Official Plan.
4.2.4 DEVELOP POLICY DIRECTION
We will bring the TAC together to review the draft climate change and resiliency direction before finalizing it. Based on the direction from this group we will finalize policy direction to support climate change and local economic direction for areas such as healthy communities, energy systems, watershed planning, agriculture, conservation and related greenhouse gas emission.
4.2.5 FINAL CSCCR FRAMEWORK
Based on above work, we will finalize the framework to reflect considerations of the long-term goal of low-carbon communities. This work scope will be included in the overall policy development prepared for council review and approval.
Page 38
5 NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM STRATEGY
Dufferin County contains lands designated under the Niagara Escarpment Plan, the Greenbelt Plan and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan; additionally, it comprises headwater areas for the Nottawasaga, Grand, Credit and Humber River watersheds. A Natural Heritage System Strategy (NHSS) is needed for Dufferin County to acknowledge and integrate the natural areas and establish complementary land use planning implementation guidance for the long-term sustainability of its natural heritage system and communities. The NHS for Dufferin County will be based on the Regional NHS for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (MNRF 2018), and on mapping of key natural heritage resources in the County provided by local municipalities. This will provide direction on implementation for the long-term sustainability of a County-wide Natural Heritage System. It should be noted that there may be changes to the implementation of the Regional NHS for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe as a result of the Implementation Working Group initiative being undertaken by the Province. At this time, it is unknown what the outcome of these Implementation Working Groups may be, or the potential implications on the NHS component of this work plan. As such, the County’s MCR process and scope of work outlined below, is based on the Growth Plan requirements and “The Regional Natural Heritage System for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe” report, which is currently in effect. This work is anticipated to begin at the outset of the MCR process; a Technical Work Plan will be provided to the County and Province for review at the outset of this work to ensure the approach is appropriate and meeting Provincial standards. The Study Team will work with the County and Province throughout this process to discuss implementation changes if/when they arise, and re-scope the work plan accordingly.
5.1 PHASE ONE: CONTEXT
5.1.1 STEERING COMMITTEE PROJECT INITIATION MEETING (SC #1)
The Study Team will participate in the first SC meeting to confirm project communication plans, timeline, objectives and the Technical Work Plan.
5.1.2 TECHNICAL WORK PLAN
A draft Technical Work Plan will be developed and submitted for approval by the County. The Technical Work Plan will outline the approach and general methodologies to be employed in the development of the Natural Heritage System and Natural Heritage System Strategy.
5.1.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS SECONDARY SOURCE INFORMATION COLLECTION
All available secondary source data will be collected, reviewed and synthesized for use during the refinement of the Natural Heritage System (NHS) and the development of a Recommended Dufferin County NHS. Data will be sourced from Provincial-level sources (e.g. SOLRIS v2, Land Information Ontario), local municipalities, Conservation Authorities and other sources as available. The Provincial NHS, as well as any other available NHS information, such as Town of Mono OPA 41 NHS, will be used to for the base-data. SOLRIS v2, a provincial land cover dataset will be used
Page 39
as a base where other land cover data is not available. The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and the Natural Heritage Reference Manual will be consulted for guidance for the identification of the NHSS will also be reviewed and considered.
5.1.4 DRAFT NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM REFINEMENT ANALYSIS
A refinement analysis of the Natural Heritage features and elements to be included in the County NHS will be conducted with local municipal staff. Definitions and criteria for NHS features will be based on guidance from the Regional NHS for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (MNRF 2018), and utilize the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and the Natural Heritage Resource Manual (MNRF), along with existing approved NHS systems in other municipalities, Conservation Authority Jurisdictions, and County-specific considerations. Under the Regional NHS for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (MNRF 2018), possible refinements to the NHS for Dufferin County may include minor technical adjustments to adjust for distortion in mapping at a finer scale than the provincial NHS, the addition of natural features continuous with the boundary of the provincially mapped NHS, removal of small portions of the provincial NHS where there is built-up impervious development or infrastructure that would act as barriers, and the removal of small, isolated portions of the NHS that protrude from the Greenbelt Plan boundary or Settlement Area provided these areas have no natural features and are not connected to the larger provincial NHS.
5.1.5 TECHINCAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC #1)
The Study Team will be present at the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Kick-off Meeting and Stakeholder Kick-off Meeting to review the results of the data collection process and discuss the Draft NHS Criteria. This is a critical point for the project as the definitions and criteria set out at this stage will be the methodology by which the NHS system is mapped and upon which the Implementation Plan is built.
5.1.6 STAKEHOLDER KICK-OFF MEETINGS (SW #1)
The Study Team will be present at the Stakeholder Kick-off Meeting to review the results of the data collection process and discuss the Draft NHS Criteria. This is a critical point for the project as the definitions and criteria set out at this stage will be the methodology by which the NHS system is mapped and upon which the Implementation Plan is built.
5.1.7 PROJECT KICK-OFF OPEN HOUSE (PIC #1)
At the Project Kick-off Open House, the Study Team will describe the NHSS process, the content and purpose of the Project, background work on existing conditions, and to seek initial input from area residents and landowners interested in the study.
5.2 PHASE TWO: ASSESSMENT
5.2.1 FINALIZE NHS REFINEMENTS
Comments received during the Study Team and Advisory Committee Meetings will be incorporated, as appropriate and refinement recommendations will be finalized. Refinements to the NHS will be as accurate as possible while using desktop analysis, and will not involve ground-truthing of natural Page 40
heritage features. The Implementation Plan may include policy recommendations that would require an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) in specific refinement areas at the development stage.
5.2.2 DRAFT NHS AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The NHS will integrate Provincial Plan designations, land use designations and policies with the County NHS. It will establish complimentary policies and land use planning guidelines for the long- term protection and sustainability of the County’s Natural Heritage. The Implementation Plan will specifically consider implementation of the NHS through land use planning policies and requirements, resulting in a Draft County Official Plan Amendment and supporting schedules to implement the NHS.
5.2.3 STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING (SC #3)
The Study Team will meet with the Steering Committee to discuss the structure and content planned for the agency/stakeholder meetings and public meeting.
5.2.4 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT TAC FOCUS GROUP (TAC #2)
The Study Team will attend the first Natural Environment Focus Group workshop and Stakeholder Workshop to present and discuss the Draft NHSS and Implementation Plan (including Draft County Official Plan Amendment). We will also discuss materials for presentation at the first PIC.
5.2.5 STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP (SW #2)
The Study Team will attend the first Natural Environment Focus Group workshop and Stakeholder Workshop to present and discuss the Draft NHSS and Implementation Plan (including Draft County Official Plan Amendment). We will also discuss materials for presentation at the first PIC.
5.2.6 REVISED NHSS & IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Incorporation of comments and revisions, as appropriate in preparation for presentation to the public at PIC #1.
5.2.7 PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE (PIC #2)
The Study Team will attend the first PIC to present the draft NHSS, the methodology and criteria used to develop the NHS and to receive feedback.
5.2.8 PROJECT TEAM MEETING
We will coordinate a conference call to discuss key comments from the TAC Workshop, Stakeholder Workshop, and PIC #1. Incorporation of comments or revisions to the NHS and Official Plan Amendment will be discussed with the County, as appropriate.
5.2.9 MEETING WITH THE PROVINCE (PC #2)
Per Provincial requirements of the MCR process, the Study Team will meet with the Province to discuss the proposed refinements to the NHS.
Page 41
5.2.10 FINAL DRAFT NHSS AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Incorporation of comments received from Stakeholders and the Public, as appropriate, and final revisions from the Province, Study Team, and Advisory Committee. The final draft of the NHS and Implementation Plan (including Draft Official Plan Amendment), prepared for presentation to Council will be the major deliverable.
5.2.11 PRESENTATION TO COUNTY COUNCIL (COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING #2)
We will present the Final Draft NHS and Implementation Plan (including Draft Official Plan Amendment), to County Council, and respond to any questions. We will prepare the accompanying Staff Report to County Council outlining the key recommendations and a summary of the draft implementing Official Plan Amendment. At this time, we anticipate that the Report will be received or endorsed by County Council, and we will defer Council’s consideration of the implementing Official Plan Amendment to Phase 5 of the work program.
Page 42
6 PROJECT TEAMS
6.1 PLANNING, ENGAGEMENT, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT
WSP
Chris Tyrrell, MCIP, RPP | Project Director
Chris is WSP’s National Vice President of Planning, Landscape Architecture and Urban Design. He has played a key leadership role in most of WSP’s recent municipal planning projects. Chris has consulted on more than 75 municipal and infrastructure planning projects, and has a broad range of leading and contemporary design, policy, infrastructure, and community revitalization planning experience. Chris’ utmost commitment to high-quality client service is the key to his success. His experience and strength lie in synthesizing and analysing complex issues, and integrating and organizing input from multiple technical disciplines, municipal staff, and the public. His involvement in community planning has led to multiple provincial and national level awards and recognition. Chris has prepared numerous contemporary Official Plans and growth management strategies, recently including Dufferin County, United Counties of Leeds and Grenville, the Town of Lakeshore, County of Brant, Norfolk County, the City of Brockville and the District of Manitoulin.
Gregory Bender, MCIP, RPP | Project Manager
Gregory Bender (Greg) is the Manager of Municipal Planning at WSP. As a municipal planning consultant, and a Registered Professional Planner with an extensive depth and range of project experience, Greg is highly qualified to successfully manage this assignment as he has been the Project Manager on a variety of planning projects ranging from small to over a million dollars. Greg’s most recent experience includes the Town of Lakeshore OP Review and multiple Secondary and local Neighbourhood Plans, County of Perth Official Plan (OP) Review, City of Brockville Employment Lands Secondary Plan, Town of Kingsville OP Review, Town of Penetanguishene OP Review, Town of Wasaga Beach Downtown Master Plan Implementation, Fort Erie Industrial Lands Assessment, and Prince Edward County Short Term Accommodation OP and Zoning By-law Amendments and Licencing By-law. Greg also has significant experience before the former Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), as well as assisting municipalities to prepare for the LPAT, since many clients are still dealing with the OMB on certain files.
Sabrina Coletti, MCIP, RPP | Lead Facilitator
Sabrina is an Engagement Practitioner and Manager of Planning in WSP’s Planning, Landscape Architecture and Urban Design Thornhill office. Sabrina has 16 years of professional planning experience and benefits from exposure to various facets of the planning process. Having worked in the legal industry, she specializes in planning policy analysis and development and has led and provided strategic advice on numerous development applications, planning studies and disputes. Sabrina is an accomplished communicator and facilitator, and has extensive experience in the translation of technical information for the lay person, having acted as the Class EA lead for several large-scale water and wastewater infrastructure projects. Sabrina has designed, led and facilitated numerous community engagement programs in support of a broad range of city planning projects, such as Official Plans, Heritage Conservation District Studies, Zoning By-law projects and Strategic Plans. She holds a Certificate in P2 Foundations from the International Association for Public
Page 43
Participation (IAP2) and is leading a group of community engagement professionals within WSP with a mandate to develop innovative tools and techniques for public and stakeholder engagement. Some of her recent and on-going projects include:
⎯ Engagement Lead, Age Friendly Community Plan, City of Brampton; ⎯ Facilitator and Co-Project Manager, Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review, City of Vaughan; ⎯ Facilitator, New Official Plan, Perth County; ⎯ Communications Lead, Watermain Rehabilitation and Cathodic Protection Program, City of Toronto; ⎯ Engagement Coordinator, West Queen West Heritage Conservation District Study, City of Toronto; ⎯ Facilitator and Engagement Lead, Development Opportunity Study for the Former Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital, City of Hamilton; ⎯ Class EA and Consultation Lead, Water and Wastewater Master Plan Review, City of Barrie; and ⎯ Consultation Lead, Front Street Pumping Station and Wastewater Flow Diversion Class EA, Region of Peel.
Shawn Chow, MCIP, RPP | Growth Management Coordinator and Advisor
Shawn is a Senior Project Manager at WSP with over 10 years’ experience in the preparation and review of official plans, master plans, redevelopment and revitalization strategies, and in undertaking a variety of planning investigations for public and private sector clients. Shawn‘s strengths in GIS and socio-economic analysis have proven invaluable in the development and ongoing improvement of WSP’s PRIME web platform and spatial and statistical analysis tools, as well as a number of public sector planning, environmental assessment, and socio-economic impact / demand estimation studies. Shawn regularly applies his knowledge of databases and GIS to a variety of municipal, Statistics Canada and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation data as well as commercial and proprietary datasets available to WSP. Shawn has played key roles undertaking:
⎯ Growth and socio-economic impact analysis in support of infrastructure planning for public and private-sector clients in Ontario, such as Bell Canada, Metrolinx, and the Toronto Parking Authority; ⎯ Socio-economic trend and policy performance monitoring work for public and private-sector clients such as Bell Canada, the Ontario Growth Secretariat and the Columbus Centre; ⎯ Various land needs analysis assignments for various public and private sector clients in Ontario and Alberta; ⎯ Program, real-estate and asset portfolio advisory for Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada, Holcim Canada, Halifax Regional Municipality and, the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto; and, ⎯ Redevelopment strategy and economic impact analysis for various public and private sector clients in the Greater Toronto Area, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Matt Alexander, MCIP, RPP | Senior Planner
Matt is a Senior Planner with 8 years experience in the public and private sectors. He has led the review of over a dozen official plans and official plan amendments in an approval authority role. His experience has been focused on rural and northern jurisdictions such as the Manitoulin Island
Page 44
Planning Area, Town of Parry Sound and Municipality of Whitestone. Matt has also provided consulting services to development proponents and OMB/LPAT appellants throughout southern Ontario and has extensive experience interpreting zoning by-laws to advise clients of development potential of specific sites. He has provided expert planning evidence at the OMB/LPAT on behalf of municipalities including the Township of King and Township of Brock
Michi McCloskey | Engagement Coordinator
Michi is a Project Planner in WSP’s Planning, Landscape Architecture and Urban Design group. Michi has assisted with the design and facilitation of numerous engagement initiatives for projects across Ontario, ranging from large-scale, mixed use development proposals to community plans. Michi holds a Certificate in P2 Foundations from the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2). Through her IAP2 training and collaborative design experience, she has developed versatile communication approaches and techniques to respond to the diverse needs and voices of the communities in which she works. She currently provides strategic communication support to the City of Toronto’s Watermain Rehabilitation Program; a city-wide capital works renewal project, where she serves as a liaison between a multidisciplinary project team, contractors, and the local community/stakeholders. In addition, she has experience working on the development and execution of engagement plans for municipal projects such as Official Plan and Zoning By-law Reviews, Transit Service Strategies, Growth Strategies, Strategic Plans, Heritage Conservation District Studies, and Floodplain Mapping Updates. urbanMetrics
Craig Ferguson | Land Economist
Craig is an Associate Partner at urbanMetrics and a seasoned Project Manager. Since joining urbanMetrics in 2012, Craig has developed extensive experience working on real estate and policy- related consulting projects. Craig’s work with urbanMetrics includes: project feasibility analysis; employment land budgeting; market forecasting; municipal finance, commercial policy/strategy studies; site selection strategies; economic impact analyses; survey research and analysis; community engagement; and financial feasibility analyses. Craig has worked on projects across Canada. In doing so, he has developed an extensive network of collaborative partners in the development field including: planners, designers, and engineers. Craig has completed numerous land use, market and feasibility studies in support of a variety of mixed office, employment, residential, and retail/service commercial developments in communities across Canada and has extensive experience in the areas of market research, data compilation and public engagement consultations. Craig holds memberships with the Association of Ontario Land Economists (PLE).
Geoff Schwartz | Market and Financial Analyst Geoff is an Associate Consultant with urbanMetrics inc. Prior to joining urbanMetrics in the Fall of 2016, Geoff previously worked as a researcher with the Centre for Urban Research & Land Development focusing on a number of housing related policy issues, including inclusionary zoning policy in the City of Toronto. Prior to that he worked with the Calgary Municipal Land Corporation, where he was involved in the redevelopment of Calgary’s East Village community. Geoff is a graduate of the Masters of Urban Development program at Ryerson University. He also holds a Bachelor of Commerce and Bachelor of Arts (Urban Studies) from the University of Calgary.
Page 45
MetroEconomics
Tom McCormack | Projection Specialist
Tom is a recognized authority on Canada's economic and demographic prospects. He has provided economic and demographic advice to clients in all sectors of the economy for more than a quarter century through his economic consultancy MetroEconomics (formerly Strategic Projections):
⎯ MetroEconomics regularly produces and updates detailed long-term projections to 2071 of output, employment, households, and personal income for both the United States and Canada, at the national, state/provincial and sub state/provincial level. ⎯ MetroEconomics’ clients include municipalities, provincial government departments, retailers, property developers, utilities, transportation service providers and planning consultants. Tom’s past professional experience includes:
⎯ The Premier’s Task Force on the Future of the Greater Toronto Area (the Golden Task Force). ⎯ The Province of Ontario’s Panel on Smart Growth Strategy. ⎯ The Ontario Jobs and Investment Board. ⎯ The Province of Ontario’s Who Does What Panel. ⎯ He is a former member of the board of directors of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority. In addition, he is currently a contributing member to the following:
⎯ He is a current member and past-president of the Canadian Association for Business Economics and is a past-president of the Ottawa Economics Association and of the Toronto Association for Business and Economics. ⎯ He is a current member and past Chairman of Pragma Council, a multi-disciplinary group of planning and legal professionals that meets twice annually at the University of Waterloo School of Planning to discuss land planning and related issues. ⎯ He is a member of the Simcoe Chapter of Lambda Alpha International, an honorary society for the advancement of land economics. Tom’s recent consulting assignments include:
⎯ Developing a detailed model of Ontario at the Census Sub-Division level that develops projections of the population by age and gender, households by age of head, and employment and GDP by detailed industry driven by projections of Canada’s and Ontario’s trade with the rest of the world; the model includes projections of the population, employment by industry and GDP by industry for all 50 US states and each of Canada’s provinces; the model forms the front end of a major transportation model being developed for the entire province; ⎯ Assessing the economic impact on a suburban GTA municipality of establishing a satellite campus of a major Ontario University; ⎯ Serving as an economic advisor to a team of consultants led by CDM Smith assessing the need for increased bridge capacity in the Detroit-Windsor corridor; ⎯ Developing detailed population, dwelling and employment projections for the Capital Region Board of Edmonton to inform the Board’s consideration of alternative land development strategies across the Region’s 24 constituent municipalities to the year 2047; ⎯ Providing alternative employment by industry projections to 2041 for the City of Toronto to a team of consultants led by Malone Given Parsons assessing the need for future employment lands in the City.
Page 46
6.2 TRANSPORTATION
Wali Memon, PMP, LEED AP, P. Eng | Transportation Lead
Wali has more than 22 years of experience in public and private sectors and with institutions in transportation planning and design, parking policy, sustainable transportation, land use planning / urban design, road safety, traffic analysis, ITS, traffic signals and transit priority. Wali has a thorough understanding of how transportation services are planned and provided by all levels of governments. His extensive experience includes planning and designing transportation infrastructures; developing and managing capital and operating budgets; preparing as well as reviewing development applications, including development permits, secondary plans, subdividing etc., from a transportation perspective; and preparing and updating development cost charges and levies for transportation infrastructures needed due to the impacts of new developments.
David McLaughlin, MCIP, RPP | Active Transportation Lead
David is a Senior Project Manager based out of WSP’s Thornhill office and has more than 25 years of experience in the transportation and land use planning fields. The scope of his experience includes active transportation planning and facility design, mobility hub planning, traffic impact assessments, community traffic studies, environmental assessments, municipal transportation studies, public consultation/workshop design and facilitation, transportation master plans, Class Environmental Assessments, parking studies, public opinion surveys and strategic transportation policy. Dave is the Manager of our Canadian Active Transportation Planning and Design Practice which includes bicycle, pedestrian, trail and transit system access planning, bike share system and Complete Streets related functional design and policy development as well as transportation demand management (TDM). Dave led the completion of the County’s Active Transportation and Trails Master Plan in 2010, and is thus familiar with the context for the proposed scope of work. Dave is a full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners and Institute of Transportation Engineers, a member of ITE’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Council and Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP). He also sits on the Board of the Share the Road Coalition, a leading not-for-profit provincial cycling advocacy organization and is currently on the Ontario Ministers’ Cycling Working Group advising the provincial government on #CycleON Action Plan 2.0. He regularly advises public and private sector clients on land development and site plan designs, including those seeking LEED accreditation for sustainable and active transportation planning and infrastructure design. In addition to his extensive experience Project Managing assignments, Dave often provides technical support to all levels of government, agencies and many of the firm’s multi- disciplinary teams for transportation assignments across Canada.
6.3 NATURAL HERITAGE
Margaret Pugh | Ecology Lead
Margaret is an ecologist with more than 14 years of experience specializing in terrestrial, wetland and aquatic ecosystems. Margaret is an experienced project manager in Environmental Impact Studies, Natural Heritage System Strategy (MCR), Aggregate Resource Applications and general applications for development, Ministry of Transportation Class Environmental Assessments, and Renewable Energy projects. Margaret has negotiated permits under the Conservation Authorities Act, Fisheries Act and the Endangered Species Act and routinely works with both provincial and federal legislation mandates. Margaret has extensive experience dealing with Species at Risk (SAR) Page 47
concerns for large-scale projects, including permits for SAR bats under the Endangered Species Act, Notice of Activity Registrations for Bobolink, Eastern Meadowlark, and Barn Swallow. Margaret is proficient in flora and fauna inventories, mammal tracking, land bird migratory stop-over surveys, breeding bird surveys, raptor wintering areas surveys, bat habitat and acoustic monitoring, amphibian and reptile surveys, rare species monitoring programs and sediment/ erosion control evaluation. Margaret is an Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) qualified wetland evaluator, certified in ecological land classification (ELC) and an MNRF qualified Butternut Health Assessor (BHA).
Ewa Kielasinska | GIS Lead
Ewa is an experienced GIS analysist with a solid understanding of how spatial analytical concepts complement and enhance ecological applications. Her M.A. in Geography and Earth Science, coupled with her GIS training, has allowed her to develop a specialized expertise is in assessing the impacts of development using surveyed drawings to visualize plans and analyze impacts. She has over 7 years of experience working with the ArcGIS suite of software, creating, managing, and analyzing data, including the use of ArcCatalog Geodatabases. Ewa has developed Natural Heritage System systems for municipal and provincial level projects, with specific focus on utilizing high- level impact analyses to inform and refine core features such as significant wildlife habitats, species at risk habitat, wetlands, landscape linkages, and wildlife corridors. Ewa has spearheaded the development of in-house digital data collection for the Ecology team by streamlining processes which has allowed to produce exceptional quality products with great efficiency.
6.4 SUSTAINBILITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCY
Lisa Prime, MCIP, RPP, LEED AP | Climate Change Director
Lisa is a sustainable communities expert. Lisa has over 20 years’ experience in sustainability policy and implementation and leading teams for complex infrastructure projects. Her experience includes development of the sustainability policy for Toronto’s waterfront, as part of the senior management team at Waterfront Toronto. Lisa’s work includes guidelines and policy, supporting business plans for district energy, neighbourhood planning and carbon tool for low carbon development, and creating market transforming Minimum Green Building Requirements (MGBR), which included introduction of LEED into the Toronto market at scale. The Toronto Waterfront MGBR informed the development of the City of Toronto Green Development Standard (TGS) where Lisa was also engaged on the TGS steering committee. Lisa is currently working on projects which include municipal sustainability policy and low carbon community-based energy systems where she is managing the partnership collaboration with the developer, municipality and the energy service provider.
Page 48
7 FEES AND SCHEDULE
7.1 PROPOSED WORK SCHEDULE
Our proposed Work Schedule in Appendix A provides a timeline for the completion of the Project and the individual phases and associated tasks. We are prepared to begin work in accordance with the Project timelines and anticipate the Project may be completed by early 2022 for submission to the Province (and subject to timing of Provincial approval). However, it is difficult to predict the timing for the work needed to justify the implementation of the Land Needs Assessment (i.e. settlement area boundary expansion, excess lands, and employment conversions) as well as confirmation of provincial mapping refinements. As much of this work will need to be completed by the local municipalities, the Project Team will need to adjust the Work Schedule accordingly at such time, to meet these needs. Additionally, the timing of the Project may also be altered if additional growth scenarios and meetings/review time, with the Province are needed beyond what has been identified in this scope of work. The Project Team will update the Work Schedule accordingly through the process to adjust for any delays along the way.
7.2 PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULES
Our proposed Fee Schedules in Appendix B provide our estimated time allocation and proposed budget estimates for each work plan. It is assumed, the County will be responsible for:
⎯ the day-to-day administration of the Project and responding to public inquiries and requests; ⎯ scheduling and coordination of meetings and booking venues, including associated costs; ⎯ costs associated with publishing notices, newsletters, etc.; and ⎯ maintaining a Project website to disseminate information and reports. The following table presents a summary of the budget estimates and provides and overall budget that we anticipate may be required for the Project. We will work with the County and Local Municipalities to scope the work program, to ensure the MCR requirements are appropriately addressed. We will need to work closely with the Local Municipalities to provide required input into the Project, particularly with respect to potential settlement area expansions and supporting technical justification. We would suggest that the County anticipate to carry a budget in the order of $200,000/year, over the course of two and a half years.
Page 49
Estimated Budget Summary Estimated Budget (excluding Schedule Task HST) 1 Planning & Engagement $162,520.00 2 Growth Management $133,792.50 Infrastructure (Water and 3 $- Wastewater) 4 Municipal Fiscal Impact $- 5 Transportation Master Plan $134,330.00 6 Sustainability and CCR Framework $47,303.00 7 Community Services Master Plan $- 8 Natural Heritage System $44,015.00 9 Agricultural System $- Watershed Planning Terms of 10 $- Reference Total Estimated Budget $521,960.50
*includes disbursements and excludes HST We would be pleased to discuss the proposed work program and budget estimate outlined in this memo.
Page 50
Appendix A: Proposed Work Schedule Dufferin County MCR Proposal
ESTIMATED TIMELINE PARTICIPANTS TASKS Q3 2019 Q4 2019 Q1 2020 Q2 2020 Q3 2020 Q4 2020 Q1 2021 Q2 2021 Q3 2021 Q4 2021 Q1 2022
Phase 1 - Context PL/GM/IN/TR/NH Steering Committee Project Initiation Meeting (SC #1) M GM Provincial Consultation (PC #1) M PL Engagement Strategy PL/GM/IN/TR/NH Commenctment of Existing Conditions / Preparatory Work for all Focus Areas PL/GM/IN/TR/NH Technical Advisory Committee Kick-off Meeting (TAC #1) M PL/GM/IN/TR/NH Stakeholder Project Kick-off Meeting (SW #1) M PL Planning Framework Review PL Draft Background Report PL S. 26 Special Meeting of County Council (County Council Meeting #1) M PL/NH Steering Committee Meeting (SC #2) M PL/NH Project Kick-off Open House (PIC #1) M GM Provincial Consultation M PL Final Background Report D Phase 2 - Assessment GM Land Supply Analysis GM Baseline Target Analysis TR Transportation Background Review Analysis NH Draft NHSS and Implementation Plan PL/GM/IN/TR/NH Steering Committee Meeting (SC #3) M PL/GM/IN/TR/NH Technical Advisory Committee Focus Groups Meeting (TAC #2) M PL/GM/IN/TR/NH Stakeholder Workshop (SW #2) M PL/TR/NH Public Information Centre #2 (PIC #2) M NH/ Provincial Consultation (PC #2) M NHS Final NHSS and Implementation Plan D PL/NH Council Presentation (County Council Meeting #2) M Phase 3 - Delineation TR Transportation Assessment and Alternatives EP Community Energy and Emissions Baseline Analysis PL/GM/IN/TR Steering Committee Meeting (SC #4) M PL/GM/IN/TR Technical Advisory Committee Focus Groups Meeting (TAC #3) M PL/GM/IN/TR Stakeholder Workshop (SW #3) M PL Joint Council Workshop (JCW #1) M GM Provincial Consultation (PC #3) M PL/GM Steering Committee Meeting (SC #5) M GM Council Presentation (County Council Meeting #3) and Provincial Circulation M PL/GM Draft Land Needs Assessment and associated strategies PL/GM/TR Steering Committee Meeting (SC #6) M PL/GM/TR Public Information Centre (PIC #3) M GM Council Presentation (County Council Meeting #4) and Provincial Circulation M GM Provincial Consultation (PC #4) M GM Final Land Needs Report D Phase 4 - Application GM/IN/AS Implementation of Preferred Growth Scenario and Supporting Work TBD GM Draft Urban Structure Delineation and Implementation Report TBD GM Refinements to the Land Needs Assessment Strategies PL Draft Discussion Paper TR Draft Transportation Master Plan PL/GM/IN/TR/EP/CS Steering Committee Meeting (SC #7) M PL/GM/IN/TR/EP/CS Technical Advisory Committee Focus Groups Meeting (TAC #4) M PL/GM/IN/TR/EP/CS Stakeholder Workshop (SW #4) M PL Joint Council Workshop (JCW #2) M PL/GM Council Presentation (County Council Meeting #5) and Provincial Circulation M PL/GM Provincial Consultation (PC #5) M GM Final Urban Structure Delineation and Implementation Report and Land Needs Strategies D EP Final Community Energy Plan D TR Final Transportation Master Plan D PL Final Discussion Paper D PL/GM/IN/TR Council Presentation (County Council Meeting #6) M Phase 5 - Policy Update PL Draft OPA and Crirculation PL Steering Committee Meeting (SC #8) M PL Joint Council Workshop (JCW #3) M PL Statutory Open House (PIC #4) M PL Final OPA D PL Statutory Public Meeting (County Council Meeting #7) M PL Council Adoption and Provincial Circulation M Appendix B: Time-Task Matrices Dufferin County MCR Proposal
Estimated Budget Summary
Schedule Task Estimated Budget (excluding HST) 1 Planning & Engagement $ 162,520.00 2 Growth Management $ 133,792.50 3 Infrastructure (Water and Wastewater) $ - 4 Municipal Fiscal Impact $ - 5 Transportation Master Plan $ 134,330.00 6 Sustainability and CCR Framework $ 47,303.00 7 Community Services Master Plan $ - 8 Natural Heritage System $ 44,015.00 9 Agricultural System $ - 10 Watershed Planning Terms of Reference $ - Total Estimated Budget $ 521,960.50 Schedule 1: Planning and Engagement Time-Task Matrix Dufferin County MCR Proposal
PERSONNEL AND TIME COMMITMENT (HOURS) TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS
Engagement Task Cost Project Director Project Manager Project Support Facilitator Staff Time Coordinator Disbursements Labour Cost (Labour and (Hours) Disbursements) TASKS Chris Tyrrell Greg Bender Matt Alexander Sabrina Coletti Michi McCloskey
1.0 Phase 1 - Context 1.1 Steering Committee Project Initiation Meeting (SC #1) 4.00 4.00 2.00 10.00 $ 200.00 $ 1,960.00 $ 2,160.00 1.2 Provincial Consultation (PC #1) 5.00 5.00 1.00 11.00 $ 200.00 $ 2,270.00 $ 2,470.00 1.3 Prepare Project Design Palette and Standard Graphics 7.50 7.50 $ - $ 900.00 $ 900.00 1.4 Stakeholder Sensitivity Analysis 5.00 6.00 11.00 $ - $ 1,280.00 $ 1,280.00 1.5 Engagement Strategy 2.00 5.00 6.00 13.00 $ - $ 1,800.00 $ 1,800.00 1.6 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Kick-off Meeting (TAC #1) 5.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 21.00 $ 150.00 $ 2,730.00 $ 2,880.00 1.7 Stakeholder Kick-off Meeting (SW #1) 5.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 21.00 $ 150.00 $ 2,730.00 $ 2,880.00 1.8 Planning Framework Review 4.00 5.00 15.00 24.00 $ - $ 3,690.00 $ 3,690.00 1.10 Draft Background Report 10.00 15.00 25.00 50.00 $ - $ 8,150.00 $ 8,150.00 1.11 Steering Committee Meeting (SC #2) 4.00 4.00 1.00 4.00 13.00 $ 200.00 $ 2,480.00 $ 2,680.00 1.9 S. 26 Special Meeting of County Council (County Council Meeting #1) 5.00 5.00 10.00 $ 200.00 $ 2,150.00 $ 2,350.00 1.12 Project Kick-off Open House (PIC #1) 10.00 6.00 15.00 6.00 3.00 40.00 $ 300.00 $ 6,620.00 $ 6,920.00 1.13 Final Background Report 4.00 5.00 10.00 19.00 $ - $ 3,090.00 $ 3,090.00 2.0 Phase 2 - Assessment 2.2 Steering Committee Meeting (SC #3) 4.00 4.00 1.00 9.00 $ - $ 1,840.00 $ 1,840.00 2.3 TAC Focus Groups - Workshops (x3) (TAC #2) 15.00 15.00 15.00 12.00 57.00 $ 200.00 $ 7,710.00 $ 7,910.00 2.4 Stakeholder Workshop (SW #2) 5.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 21.00 $ 200.00 $ 2,730.00 $ 2,930.00 2.5 Public Information Meeting (PIC #2) 6.00 12.00 6.00 3.00 27.00 $ 300.00 $ 3,660.00 $ 3,960.00 2.6 Council Presentation (County Council Meeting #2) 4.00 4.00 8.00$ 200.00 $ 1,720.00 $ 1,920.00 3.0 Phase 3 - Delineation 3.2 Steering Committee Meeting (SC #4) 4.00 4.00 1.00 9.00$ - $ 1,840.00 $ 1,840.00 3.3 TAC Focus Groups - Workshops (x3) (TAC #3) 15.00 15.00 15.00 12.00 57.00 $ 200.00 $ 7,710.00 $ 7,910.00 3.4 Stakeholder Workshop (SW #3) 5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 22.00 $ 200.00 $ 2,810.00 $ 3,010.00 3.5 Joint Council Workshop #1 (JCW #1) 8.00 8.00 8.00 5.00 29.00 $ 200.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,200.00 3.6 Steering Committee Meeting (SC #5) Time captured in Schedule 2 0.00$ 200.00 $ - $ 200.00 3.7 Council Presentation (County Council Meeting #3) and Provincial Circulation Time captured in Schedule 2 0.00$ 200.00 $ - $ 200.00 3.8 Steering Committee Meeting (SC #6) Time captured in Schedule 2 0.00$ 200.00 $ - $ 200.00 3.9 Public Information Meeting (PIC #3) 6.00 12.00 6.00 3.00 27.00$ 300.00 $ 3,660.00 $ 3,960.00 3.10 Council Presentation (County Council Meeting #4) and Provincial Circulation Time captured in Schedule 2 0.00$ 200.00 $ - $ 200.00 3.11 Provincial Consultation and Approval (PC #4) Time captured in Schedule 2 0.00$ 200.00 $ - $ 200.00 4.0 Phase 4 - Application 4.2 Draft Discussion Paper 8.00 20.00 35.00 63.00 $ - $ 9,680.00 $ 9,680.00 4.3 Steering Committee Meeting (SC #7) 4.00 4.00 2.00 10.00 $ 200.00 $ 1,960.00 $ 2,160.00 4.4 TAC Focus Groups - Workshops (x3) (TAC #4) 15.00 15.00 15.00 12.00 57.00 $ 200.00 $ 7,710.00 $ 7,910.00 4.5 Stakeholder Workshop (SW #4) 5.00 5.00 5.00 10.00 25.00 $ 200.00 $ 3,050.00 $ 3,250.00 4.6 Joint Council Workshop (JCW #2) 5.00 5.00 2.00 5.00 11.00 28.00 $ 200.00 $ 4,070.00 $ 4,270.00 4.7 Council Presentation (County Council Meeting #5) and Provincial Circulation Time captured in Schedule 2 0.00$ 200.00 $ - $ 200.00 4.8 Provincial Consultation and Approval (PC #5) Time captured in Schedule 2 0.00$ 200.00 $ - $ 200.00 4.9 Final Discussion Paper 6.00 8.00 15.00 29.00 $ - $ 4,720.00 $ 4,720.00 4.10 Council Presentation (County Council Meeting #6) 4.00 5.00 9.00$ 200.00 $ 1,890.00 $ 2,090.00 5.0 Phase 5 - Policy Update 5.2 Draft OPA and Circulation 15.00 25.00 40.00 80.00 $ - $ 12,950.00 $ 12,950.00 5.3 Steering Committee Meeting (SC #8) 5.00 5.00 2.00 12.00 $ 200.00 $ 2,390.00 $ 2,590.00 5.4 Joint Council Workshop (JCW #3) 5.00 5.00 10.00 $ 200.00 $ 2,150.00 $ 2,350.00 5.5 Statutory Open House 6.00 6.00 15.00 6.00 3.00 36.00 $ 300.00 $ 5,580.00 $ 5,880.00 5.6 Final OPA 4.00 10.00 13.00 27.00 $ - $ 4,300.00 $ 4,300.00 5.7 Statutory Public Meeting (County Council Meeting #7) 5.00 5.00 10.00 $ 200.00 $ 2,150.00 $ 2,350.00 5.8 Council Adoption and Provincial Circulation 3.00 3.00 6.00 $ - $ 1,290.00 $ 1,290.00 Project Management All Tasks 30.00 40.00 70.00 $ - $ 14,600.00 $ 14,600.00 Total Hours 160.00 292.00 304.50 121.00 111.00 960.00 $ 6,500.00 $ 156,020.00 $ 162,520.00 2019 Hourly Rate $ 260.00 $ 170.00 $ 120.00 $ 160.00 $ 80.00 TOTAL (excludes HST): $ 162,520.00 Total Fees per Personnel $ 41,600.00 $ 49,640.00 $ 36,540.00 $ 19,360.00 $ 8,880.00 0.166666667 0.304166667 0.3171875 Schedule 2: Growth Management Time-Task Matrix Dufferin County MCR Proposal - Appendix B
Project Land Needs Research, Project GIS & Manager Assessment Reporting Projections Growth Management Director Excel & Policy Coordinator & Policy
Chris Greg Shawn Tom Craig Geoff Hours Disbursment Labour Phase One: Context 1 Preparatory Work 1.1 Create & Enable GeoDatabase 0.5 0.5 $ 38 1.2 Provincial Consultation (PC #1) Time captured in Schedule 1 - Planning and Engagement 5.0 5.0 $ 100.00 $ 925 Obtain & verify input datasets 1.3 (Parcels, Prop Codes, Land Use Designations, NHS, Aggregates, ROWs, Cemetaries) 1.0 5.0 6.0 $ 505 Compile Settlement Area Hierarchy (by date), Delineated Built Boundary, 1.4 Designated Greenfield Area, Employment Areas & possibly Strategic Growth Areas 2.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 9.0 $ 1,075 Confirm net new unit data 1.5 (completions and demolitions) 4.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 11.0 $ 1,200 1.6 Provincial Consultation (PC #2) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 $ 300.00 $ 4,100
Phase Two: Assessment Population, Dwelling & Employment Projections 2 (Market Baseline) Estimate 2016 Census Population, Total Population, Household Population 2.1 & Undercount by Settlement Area (& Rural Area), Local Municipality & for County 3.0 7.5 2.0 12.5 $ 1,253 Estimate 2016 Households, Dwellings, Usually Occupied Dwellings & 2.2 Breakdown of Dwellings by Type by Settlement Area (& Rural Area), Local Municipality & for County 3.0 7.5 2.0 12.5 $ 1,253 2.3 Estimate 2019 Population, Households & Dwellings 2.0 0.5 2.0 7.5 1.0 1.0 14.0 $ 1,733 Estimate 2016 POW Employment with NFPW and WFH components by 2- 2.4 digit NAICS by Settlement Area (& Rural Area), Local Municipality and for County 3.0 7.5 2.0 1.0 1.0 14.5 $ 1,558 Estimate 2019 POW Employment with NFPW and WFH components by 2- 2.5 digit NAICS by Settlement Area (& Rural Area), Local Municipality and for County 0.5 2.0 7.5 2.0 1.0 1.0 14.0 $ 1,513
Forecast 2021, 2026, 2031, 2036 and 2041 Census Population , Total 2.6 Population and Household Population by Local Municipality and for County 4.0 4.0 10.0 1.0 1.0 20.0 $ 2,625 Forecast 2021, 2026, 2031, 2036 and 2041 POW Employment by Local 2.7 Municipality and for County 4.0 4.0 10.0 1.0 1.0 20.0 $ 2,625
Phase Three: Delineation 3 Community Area Supply Isolate Residential, Commercial, Institutional, Employment & Mixed Use 3.1 Designations 0.5 2.0 2.0 4.0 8.5 $ 1,030 Inventory Built Residential, Non-residential & Mixed Use Parcels (Built, 3.2 Approved, Proposed, Potential) 0.5 2.0 7.5 5.0 4.0 19.0 $ 2,560 Inventory Redevelopment Sites 3.3 (Intensification Stgy) 0.5 5.0 8.0 3.0 7.5 15.0 39.0 $ 5,433 3.4 Apply Net Outs to Greenfield Supply 0.5 1.0 1.0 4.0 6.5 $ 730 4 Employment Area Supply
4.1 Inventory Employment Area Parcels (Built, Approved, Proposed, Potential) 0.5 2.0 4.0 10.0 7.5 15.0 39.0 $ 4,928 4.2 Inventory Employment Area Redevelopment Sites (Employment Stgy) 0.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 7.5 15.0 29.0 $ 4,068 5 Baseline Targets Analysis Allocate Residential Forecast to Community Area Land Supply using 5.1 Baseline Targets ( Assumed Market Dwelling Type Mix ) 0.5 2.0 15.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 26.5 $ 3,625 5.2 Estimate Non-residential Community Area Development Densities 0.5 2.0 4.0 3.0 7.5 15.0 32.0 $ 4,403 Allocate Non-residential Forecast to Community Area Land Supply using 5.3 Baseline Targets 0.5 2.0 7.5 3.0 1.0 1.0 15.0 $ 1,975 5.4 Estimate Employment Area Development Densities 0.5 2.0 4.0 3.0 7.5 15.0 32.0 $ 4,403 Allocate Employment Area Forecast to Employment Area Land Supply 5.5 using Baseline Targets 0.5 2.0 7.5 3.0 1.0 1.0 15.0 $ 1,975 5.6 Identify Community Area Residential Gap 0.5 2.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 11.5 $ 1,520 5.7 Identify Community Area Non-Residential Gap 0.5 2.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 11.5 $ 1,520 5.8 Identify Employment Area Gap 0.5 2.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 11.5 $ 1,520 6 Land Needs Assessment Scenarios and Reporting 6.1 Provincial Consultation (PC #3) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 $ 4,325 6.2 Steering Committee Meeting (SC #5) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 $ 300.00 6.3 Council Presentation (County Council Meeting #3) and Provincial 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 $ 300.00 $ 4,325 Draft Land Needs Assessment Report Intensification Stgy 6.4 Housing Stgy Employment Stgy 5.0 15.0 40.0 16.0 10.0 7.5 40.0 70.0 203.5 $ 28,375 6.5 Steering Committee Meeting (SC #6) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 20.0 $ 300.00 $ 3,460 Council Presentation (County Council Meeting #4) and Provincial 6.6 Circulation 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 23.0 $ 300.00 $ 4,085 6.7 Provincial Consultation (PC #4) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 $ 300.00 $ 4,325 6.9 Final Land Needs Assessment Report 3.0 5.0 10.0 7.0 20.0 10.0 55.0 $ 7,705 Phase Four: Application 7 Implementation and Reporting 7.1 Implementation of Preferred Growth Scenario and Supporting Work TBD - based on feedback from Province on Land Needs Methodology - $ - 7.2 Draft Urban Structure Delineatoin and Implementation Report TBD - based on feedback from Province on Land Needs Methodology - $ - 7.3 Steering Committee Meeting (SC #7) Time captured in Schedule 1 - Planning and Engagement 4.0 4.0 $ 100.00 $ 740 7.4 Refine Strategies TBD - based on feedback from Province on Land Needs Methodology - $ - Council Presentation (County Council Meeting #5) and Provincial 7.5 Circulation 4.0 4.0 5.0 13.0 $ 300.00 $ 2,645 7.6 Provincial Consultation (PC #5) 5.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 20.0 $ 300.00 $ 3,655 Finalize Urban Structure Delineation and Implementation Report and Land 7.7 Needs Assessment Strategies 2.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 10.0 20.0 53.0 $ 7,465 Total Hours 61.0 99.0 190.5 145.0 63.0 39.5 169.5 179.0 926.5 $ 2,600.00 $ 131,193 2018 Hourly Rate $ 260 $ 170 $ 130 $ 75 $ 120 $ 150 $ 185 $ 120 TOTAL $ 133,793 Costs $ 15,860 $ 16,830 $ 24,765 $ 10,875 $ 7,560 $ 5,925 $ 31,358 $ 21,480 (Labour + Disb.) Schedule 5: Infrastructure - Transportation Time-Task Matrix Dufferin County MCR Proposal
Time Commitment (Hours) Fees
Traffic Operations Project Active Project Work Tasks & Goods Transit Manager Transportation
Task No. Task Movement Denny Yip Wali Memon Cristina Valente Total Cost Total
Sujeepan Kalandan Hours Total Disbursements Total Staff Fees Staff Total 1.0 Project Initiation 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 $ 2,470.00 $ 250.00 $ 1,960.00 1.1 Steering Committee Project Initiation Meeting (SC 1) 4.0 4.0 $ 760.00 $ 150.00 $ 910.00 1.2 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Kick-off Meeting (TAC #1) 5.0 5.0 $ 950.00 $ 100.00 $ 1,050.00 1.3 Stakeholder Kick-off Meeting (SW #1) 4.0 4.0$ 760.00 $ 100.00 $ 860.00 2.0 Review of Background Information and Data Collection 39.0 91.0 96.0 49.0 275.0 $ 35,710.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 36,710.00 Review of existing policy documents, plans, planned 2.1 development 4.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 28.0$ 3,560.00 $ 3,560.00 Analyze existing and future forecasts population and 2.2 Phase 1 employment data 4.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 49.0$ 6,010.00 $ 6,010.00 Context 2.3 Review existing land uses and mobility patterns 5.0 8.0 4.0 17.0 $ 2,430.00 $ 2,430.00 Collect secondary data and review existing traffic volume data 2.4 on main County roads 5.0 20.0 8.0 33.0$ 4,390.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 5,390.00 Review existing road classification; identify needs and 2.5 connectivity opportunities 6.0 16.0 16.0 10.0 48.0$ 6,140.00 $ 6,140.00 Review of existing and planned active transportation 2.6 infrastructure, identification of needs and network gaps 7.0 40.0 47.0$ 6,530.00 $ 6,530.00 Review existing regional and local transit operations and 2.7 expansion opportunities 4.0 5.0 16.0 25.0$ 3,010.00 $ 3,010.00 2.8 Review existing goods movement operation and truck routes 4.0 24.0 28.0$ 3,640.00 $ 3,640.00 3.0 Preliminary Consultation 29.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 37.0 $ 6,910.00 $ 3,950.00 $ 10,860.00 3.1 Steering Committee Meeting (SC #3) 4.0 $ 760.00 $ 150.00 $ 910.00 3.2 TAC Focus Group Workshop (TAC #2) 5.0 5.0 $ 950.00 $ 100.00 $ 1,050.00 3.2 Stakeholder Workshop (SW #2) 4.0 4.0 $ 760.00 $ 100.00 $ 860.00 Prepare and develop material for workshops, PIC event, and 3.3 online survey 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 11.0$ 1,650.00 $ 1,650.00 3.4 Public Information Centre (PIC #2) 6.0 6.0 $ 1,140.00 $100 $ 1,240.00 Phase 2 3.5 Prepare and develop material for online survey 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 11.0 $ 1,650.00 $3,500 $ 5,150.00 Assessment 4.0 Assessment and Deveopment of Alternatives 24.0 125.0 115.0 48.0 312.0 $ 39,310.00 $ - $ 39,310.00 4.1 Roads improvement strategy and alternatives assessment 4.0 30.0 25.0 8.0 67.0 $ 8,410.00 $ 8,410.00 4.2 Active transportation strategy 4.0 45.0 49.0 $ 6,610.00 $ 6,610.00 4.3 Goods movement strategy 4.0 50.0 54.0 $ 6,760.00 $ 6,760.00 4.4 Transit strategy 4.0 16.0 20.0 $ 2,360.00 $ 2,360.00 Transportation demand management strategy and supporting 4.5 policies 4.0 15.0 15.0 8.0 42.0$ 5,310.00 $ 5,310.00 4.6 Implementation, phasing, and costing 4.0 30.0 30.0 16.0 80.0 $ 9,860.00 $ 9,860.00 5.0 Second Round of Consultation 43.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 49.0 $ 9,570.00 $ 3,950.00 $ 13,520.00 5.1 Steering Committee Meeting (SC #4) 6.0 $ 1,140.00 $ 150.00 $ 1,290.00 5.2 TAC Focus Group Workshop (TAC #3) 6.0 6.0 $ 1,140.00 $ 100.00 $ 1,240.00 Phase 3 5.3 Stakeholder Workshop (SW #3) Delineation 7.0 7.0 $ 1,330.00 $ 100.00 $ 1,430.00 Prepare and develop material for workshops, PIC event, and 5.4 online survey 8.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 14.0$ 2,220.00 $ 2,220.00 5.5 Public Information Centre (PIC #3) 8.0 8.0 $ 1,520.00 $100 $ 1,620.00 5.6 Prepare and develop material for online survey 8.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 14.0 $ 2,220.00 $3,500 $ 5,720.00 6.0 Evaluation and Draft TMP 37.0 63.0 53.0 32.0 180.0 $ 24,680.00 $ 550.00 $ 25,230.00 6.1 Selection of prefered alternatives 7.0 15.0 15.0 8.0 45.0 $ 5,880.00 $ 5,880.00 6.2 Prepare and submit draft TMP report 10.0 40.0 30.0 16.0 96.0 $ 12,200.00 $200 $ 12,400.00 6.3 Steering Committee Meeting (SC #7) 5.0 $ 950.00 $ 150.00 $ 1,100.00 Phase 4 6.4 TAC Focus Group Workshop (TAC #4) 5.0 5.0 $ 950.00 $ 100.00 $ 1,050.00 Application 6.5 Stakeholder Workshop (SW #4) 5.0 5.0 $ 950.00 $ 100.00 $ 1,050.00 6.6 Review of draft TMP report 5.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 29.0 $ 3,750.00 $ 3,750.00 7.0 Presentation to Council, Final Public Meeting 12.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 47.0 $ 6,530.00 $ 150.00 $ 6,680.00 7.1 Final Report 7.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 42.0 $ 5,580.00 $ 5,580.00 7.2 Presentation to Council (County Council Meeting #6) 5.0 5.0$ 950.00 $ 150.00 $ 1,100.00 887.0 $ 125,180.00 $ 9,150.00 $ 134,330.00
Professional Honorarium Total Prof. Honorarium Summary 1 Total Hours 197 302 287 142 928 Total Staff Fees $ 125,180.00 2 Percentage Hours 21% 33% 31% 15% 100% Disbursements $ 9,150.00 3 Hourly Rate $ 190.00 $ 120.00 $ 130.00 $ 100.00 $ 540.00 TOTAL $ 134,330.00 4 Total Fees $37,430 $ 36,240.00 $ 37,310.00 $ 14,200.00 $ 125,180.00 5 Percentage of Fees 30% 29% 30% 11% 100% Schedule 6: Community Energy Plan Time-Task Matrix Dufferin County MCR Proposal PERSONNEL AND TIME COMMITMENT (HOURS) TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS
Project Director Technical Director Senior Consultant Analyst Task Cost Staff Time (Hours) Disbursements Labour Cost (Labour and Disbursements) TASKS Lisa Prime Jenny McMinn Phase Three and Four Community Sustainability & CCR 1 Review Background Policy and Research 15.00 8.00 22.00 45.00$ - $ 8,275.00 $ 8,275.00 2 Best Practice Review 13.00 10.00 23.00 46.00$ - $ 8,395.00 $ 8,395.00 3 TAC and Stakeholder Workshop #4 8.00 12.00 12.00 18.00 50.00$ 800.00 $ 9,412.00 $ 10,212.00 4 Develop Draft Framework 10.00 12.00 16.00 24.00 62.00$ - $ 11,406.00 $ 11,406.00 5 Devlop Policy Direction 15.00 10.00 25.00$ - $ 4,875.00 $ 4,875.00 6 Finalize Framework 12.00 10.00 22.00 $ - $ 4,140.00 $ 4,140.00 Total Hours 73.00 42.00 28.00 107.00 250.00 $ 800.00 $ 46,503.00 $ 47,303.00 2019 Hourly Rate**$ 245.00 $ 245.00 $ 196.00 $ 120.00 TOTAL (excludes HST): $ 47,303.00 Total Fees per Personnel $ 17,885.00 $ 10,290.00 $ 5,488.00 $ 12,840.00 Schedule 8: Natural Heritage System Time-Task Matrix Dufferin County MCR Proposal Planning Ecology & Consultation GIS
Total Staff Disburse- Tasks Ecology Lead- GIS Lead - Ewa Labour Greg Bender Ecologist GIS Technician Time (Hours) ments Margaret Pugh Kielasinska
TASK 1: Project Initiation and Technical Work Plan 1.1 Steering Committee Project Initiation Meeting (SC #1) ** 4.00 4.00$ 100.00 $ 520.00 1.2 Technical Work Plan 0.50 2.00 4.00 6.50 $ - $ 745.00 TASK 2: Existing Conditions Secondary Source Information Collection & Review Phase 1 Context 2.1 Existing Conditions Secondary Source Information Collection 1.00 4.00 10.00 15.00 4.00 34.00$ 20.00 $ 3,550.00 2.2 Draft Natural Heritage System Criteria and Approach 2.00 10.00 35.00 47.00 $ - $ 5,140.00 2.3 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Kick-off Meeting (TAC #1) 5.00 5.00 $ 75.00 $ 650.00 2.4 Stakeholder Kick-off Meeting (SW #1) 4.00 4.00 $ 75.00 $ 520.00 2.5 Steering Committee Meeting (SM #2) ** 4.00 $ 100.00 2.6 Project Kick-off Open House (PIC #1) 6.00 6.00$ 100.00 $ 780.00 TASK 3: Develop Scientific Criteria, Methodology for NHS Mapping 3.1 Finalize NHS Criteria & Develop GIS Methodology 2.00 4.00 7.50 7.50 15.00 36.00 $ - $ 3,710.00 3.2 GIS Analysis and Draft NHS Mapping 2.00 4.00 15.00 50.00 71.00 $ - $ 6,860.00 3.3 Draft NHSS and Implementation Plan 5.00 15.00 40.00 15.00 75.00 $ 125.00 $ 8,150.00 3.4 Steering Committee Meeting (SM #3) ** 4.00 $ 100.00 3.5 TAC Focus Group Workshop (TAC #2) 5.00 5.00 $ 75.00 $ 650.00 Phase 2 3.6 Stakeholder Workshop (SW #2) 4.00 4.00 $ 75.00 $ 520.00 Assessment 3.7 Revised NHSS & Implementation Plan 3.00 6.00 15.00 10.00 34.00 $ 50.00 $ 3,690.00 3.8 Public Information Centre (PIC #2) ** 6.00 6.00 $ 100.00 $ 780.00 TASK 4: Final Natural Heritage System Strategy 4.1 Project Team Meeting 3.00 3.00 6.00 $ 900.00 4.2 Provincial Consultation (PC #2) 5.00 5.00 10.00 $ 200.00 $ 1,500.00 4.3 Final NHSS and Implementation Plan 1.00 2.00 7.50 10.50 $ 25.00 $ 1,180.00 4.4 Presentation to County Council (County Council Meeting #2) ** 5.00 7.50 4.00 16.50 $ 150.00 $ 1,760.00 Total Number of Hours 24.50 102.00 126.50 37.50 98.00 380.50 $ 1,370.00 $ 42,645.00 Hourly Rate $ 170.00 $ 130.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 90.00 TOTAL (Labour + Disb):$ 44,015.00 Total Fees per Personnel$ 4,165.00 $ 13,260.00 $ 12,650.00 $ 3,750.00 $ 8,820.00
** Time captured in Schedule 1 - Planning and Engagement Jessica Kennedy
Subject: FW: Road Names
From:
Hi Karen, I have spoken with Dave in regard to the street names. 1.) Change Northridge Crescent to Northridge Drive 2.) Dave would like to name the second street (short street) Rai Lane. If this is unacceptable to Council, then Forest Hill Lane.
Thanks, Miriam
Miriam Vasni, MCIP, RPP
Plan Wells Associates, 40 Connor Avenue, Collingwood, Ontario, L9Y 5K6 Telephone 705 445 7332
www.planwells.com [email protected]
Virus-free. www.avg.com
1 Jessica Kennedy
Subject: FW: Trailer on property
From: Doug Pollard Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 7:42 PM Subject: Trailer on property
Council of The Township of East Garafraxa ,
We are requesting permission to place a trailer on our property during construction of the dwelling. We will be living in it during this time period. The property is located at 143161 15th side road , East Garafraxa L9W 7L2 . I can be contacted at or through email.
Thank you Doug Pollard
Sent from my iPad
1 Jessica Kennedy
Subject: FW: Unopen Road Allowance
From: PAUL FRAM Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 11:13 PM Subject: Re: Unopen Road Allowance
Hi Jessica and the East Garafraxa Town Council;
I had a brief discuss with Jessica Kennedy about my interest in acquiring the land that is immediately behind my property at 63011 Dufferin County Road 3. Since that chat, I've also discussed this with some of my neighbours. They've expressed a strong interest in learning about each of us acquiring this unopened road allowance, to add to the depth of our individual properties.
Please accept this as my formal request to have council consider this.
Any information about what the next steps in this process are, would be appreciated. thanks, Paul Fram
1 Town of Orangeville Gommittee of Adjustment Secretary-Treasurer sEP l6 2019 87 Broadway, Orangeville, ON LgW 1K1 mffi Tel: 51 9-941-0440 Ext. 2256 RECEIVED Toll Free Line: 1-866-941-0440 Historic Ckarnr em ai I : co m m itteeofad i ustment@o ranqevi I le. ca
File No. A-16/19 ln the matter of an application by Chad and Sandy Critchley for a minor variance to Zoning By)aw 22- 90, as amended, on property described as Lot 21,Plan7M-11, municipally known as 64 Glengarry Road, in the Town of Orangeville, in the County of Dufferin (see map on reverse), under the provisions of Section 45 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended. The subject property is zoned "Residential Fourth Density" (R4) Zone, 5.P.24.124."
Notice of Hearing
The Committee of Adjustment of the Town of Orangeville hereby appoints the 2nd day of October, 2019 at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Ghambers, Municipal Building, 87 Broadway, Orangeville, Ontario, for the hearing of all parties interested in supporting or opposing this application. ln accordance with Ontario Regulation 200t96, written comments may be delivered to the undersigned prior to the above Hearing date. Such written comments will become part of the public record. The applicant or any authorized person acting on behalf of the applicant should attend this meeting.
Additional information regarding the application can be obtained by contacting Tracy Macdonald, Acting Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment, at (519) 941-0440 extension2256. Reports will be available for public inspection on Monday, September 30, 2019. lf you wish to be notified of the Decision of the Committee of Adjustment in respect of this application, you must submit a written request to the Secretary-Treasurer, Gommiftee of Adjustment, 87 Broadway, Orangeville, ON LgW 1K1 or email [email protected]. This will also entitle you to be advised of a possible Tribunal Hearing. Even if you are the successful party, you should request a copy of the Decision since the Decision of the Committee of Adjustment may be appealed to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal by the appliczrnt or another member of the public. lf a person or public body that files an appeal of a decision of the Committee of Adjustment in respect of the proposed minor variance does not make written submission to the Committee of Adjustment before it approves refuses the request for a minor variance, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal may dismiss the appeal.
Local Planning Appeal Tribunal: A decision of the Committee of Adjustment may be appealed to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. Only individuals, corporations and public bodies may appeal decisions with respect to the application for minor variance to the Local Flanning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT). A Notice of Appeal may not be filed by an unincorporated association or group. However, a Notice of Appeal may be filed in the name of an individual who is a merrnber of the association or group on its behalf. lf you wish to appeal a decision of the Committee of Adjustment to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, a copy of the appeal form is available from the LPAT website at www.elto.qov.on.ca. An appeal form must be accompanied by a certified cheque or money order in the amount of $300.00 plus $25 for each additional consent/variance appeal filed by the same appellant against connected applications payable to the Minister of Finance.
Dated at Orangeville this 13th day of September, 2019.
Explanatory Note:
The applicants are requesting a minor variance to reduce the easterly interior side yard setback from 1.2 metres to 0.4 metres to construct a deck and staircase.
(See drawing attached.) Map Location N File: A-1.6179 Applicants: Chad and Sandy Critchley A & f ^4.2 h\ ^t\ jb & & "? 9$ & h$ p p a DF + gh h\ hb p & ,9 D9 $ D.S * & E DF q hb 63 ht 65 6L 6l u1c 64 69
Or 66 -qc F.) 1\ 4 (oo 6g g s 10 Spencer Avenue 4 Elementary School g, $ t Ll) a g) 3 enu o h{ o o 5 e\' o\ 15 jr t' q Q x o q "n" \ lo 3 s) B I a, 5 \p * $ 1 1$ g I + I1 + 13 7 9^ d o 15 \a d tt s * fi,e'{T ?*fer4 LIJA' r! fr 24.1+b :r ihtr
1l t1 Dect<. ttrl zt .11$ o'4nd 3 -3Et '0 $o' 7 .qrt tL0 7oov. 1,6 a Dfr 'LO Io rr t4! a D . d ),-J .a r fl -L--rlO bra I,1A t 5pn o$ ksfie lA.lr- @ wrr$ I Toal- 1 V ssr (-q ApA6bL?-1 QD. tao0zr'004 07 /?A/aOOZ WED 11: 01 FA-X oa/?g/Oz 10:r12 FAX SO5 4EO 87"i16 c21 & oozloo4 p,fiQr6d 416 G5 EEl5 m 19aFE456FZ i JUN 25 ?EVA L7I4 FR EtsJ. HBFILIT? !,g'lEfttc E5la6E?s ' rlf.r z@f !g lfq
lHl NU !Ea alIl rytp ?{rr4 .r6h:tDt ;'fr -cNr
-\dgal tb 1'!|taft!*ritr ,Flr t.
'rlillra r!IFF..l't fit r.t Zl .&9 10url6 3?;. ,toj .i'*;. jo? llSqdnlE' l f,r-;.: '4 -tdl; tO \tl tr),a4 t7 to1 gt&=Eiffi:
!-i o ttlEoqst Eilt a afiEro
r I fi* a r{ t; H I F .? I ! f I
rnf \.\-" r-i'o?d ^t,$ig"'
Eil auSum feDilt Frh _-h i . -'L 002 - 1 66E
I I t Lgl o I I t. I sIFlgFtnS I )g lglir -Fi't d *llH -FA*r-r
Township of East Garafraxa Administration Office 374028 6TH Line Amaranth ON L9W 0M6 TEL: (519) 928-5298 or 941-1007 FAX: (519) 941-1802 David Menary, CRS.I., Director of Public Works e-mail: [email protected]
REPORT TO COUNCIL
To: Council
From: Dave Menary, Director of Public Works
Report Date: Friday, September 20, 2019
Meeting Date: Tuesday, September 24, 2019
Subject: Tender for Steel Beam Guide Rail
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the following tender opening:
• Steel Beam Guide Rail
Background & Discussion
Tender For Steel Beam Guide Rail
Tenders were circulated to three companies and closed at 12:00 p.m. on Friday, September 20, 2019. Two tenders were received and were opened following the closing.
Results as follows:
Bidder Subtotal Before Taxes Royal Fence Limited $23,320.00 Peninsula Construction Inc. $27,005.00
The tender meets the criteria as set out in the tender document issued by the Director of Public Works.
Recommendation
THAT report to Council for Steel Beam Guide Rail from the Director of Public Works dated September 20, 2019 be received;
And further that the tender be awarded to Royal Fence Limited in the amount of $212.00 per linear metre for a subtotal of $23,320.00 plus taxes. Jessica Kennedy
Subject: FW: Council meeting
From: Travis Enns Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 3:51 PM Subject: Council meeting
Hello, my name is Travis Enns. I live in East Garafraxa and want to discuss the basketball/tennis court at Brookhaven park.
The basketball/tennis court at Brookhaven park is in poor shape, not being used for tennis or basketball and is instead being used as a bike ramp. This is unfortunate as it is in a beautiful community surrounded by expensive houses.
I would like to propose that the basketball/tennis court be turned into a full time tennis court. Myself and several other East Garafraxa residents play tennis together and have no where to play. I believe that finishing the tennis court would make Brookhaven park much more appealing and would be welcomed by the Brookhaven community.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Travis Enns
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
1 2019.08.158.09759 TOWNSHTPOFEASTGARAFRAXA 0911912019 11:39AM Accounts Payable GENERAL BILLS & ACCOUNTS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 24,2019 Vendor 000000 Through 999999 lnvoice Entry Date 08/15/2019 to 09/18/2019 Paid lnvoices Cheque Date 08/15/2019 to 09/18/2019
Vendor lnvoice Number lnvoice Entry Chq Nbr Account Number Name Item Description Date Date Item
Department Summary
01-0't 1 9 OHRP LOANS REC/DEVELOPMENT DEPOSITS 22,264.87 01-0123 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE & ACCRUED CHA 43,014.57
01 -01 55 GENERAL GOVERNMENT REVENUES 100.00
01 -01 61 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 75,499.97 01-o't62 PROTECTION TO PERSONS/PROPERTY 35,237.67 01 -01 64 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 2,056.61 01-0165 HEALTH SERVICES 904.00 01-0167 RECREATIONAL & COMMUNITY SERVICES 16,550.99
01 -01 68 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 46,643.13
01 -051 6 REVENUE & EXPENDITURES 3,553.45 Report Total 245,825.26
Page 16 0911912019 11:03AM 2019.08.15 8.0 9759 TOWNSHIP OF EAST GAMFRAXA Accounts Payable ROAD BILLS & ACCOUNTS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 24,2019 Vendor 000000 Through 999999 lnvoice Entry Date 08/15/2019 to 09/18/2019 Paid lnvoices Cheque Date 08/15/2019 to 09/18/2019
Vendor lnvoice Number lnvoice Entry Chq Nbt Dete Date Item Account Number Name Item Description
Department Summary 01.0163 TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 317,002.33 Report Total 317,002.33
Page 5 Jessica Kennedy
Subject: FW: A Message from the Minister of Infrastructure / Un message du Ministre de l'Infrastructure
From: Minister of Infrastructure
Dear Mayor/Chief/Sir or Madam:
As Minister of Infrastructure, I am proud our government is investing in predictable, secure infrastructure funding to address community needs, while reducing the administrative burden on municipal partners and local government.
That is why I am pleased to announce that the Community, Culture and Recreation (CCR) stream of the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP) will launch on September 3, 2019.
Municipalities, First Nations and off-reserve Indigenous communities, broader public sector and non-profit organizations are all eligible to apply.
To be eligible for funding, projects must be community-oriented, non-commercial and open to the public.
The province is anticipating extremely high demand for funding under this program. You are encouraged to review program guidelines carefully to ensure projects align with federal parameters and to submit project proposals that maximize federal and provincial dollars and achieve the best value for money.
You can find detailed information about the CCR stream as well as guidelines on the Transfer Payment Ontario (formerly Grants Ontario) website at: www.grants.gov.on.ca/GrantsPortal/en, by clicking on Grant Opportunities.
The application deadline is November 12, 2019 at 11:59 pm EST.
Thank you for your support as we continue to fund and build better infrastructure for the people, and make smarter infrastructure investments for municipalities, Indigenous communities, broader public sector and non-profit organizations across Ontario.
I look forward to working with you to invest in infrastructure across our province and in your community.
Sincerely,
[original signed by]
The Honourable Laurie Scott Minister of Infrastructure
777 Bay Street 5th floor
1 Toronto, Ontario M7A 2E1
About Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP)
The Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP) is a 10-year federal-provincial infrastructure program that will invest up to $30 billion in combined federal, provincial, municipal and other partner funding for infrastructure.
ICIP supports community, culture and recreation, green, public transit, and rural and northern infrastructure investments. It is bringing major infrastructure investments to communities across Ontario. It is growing our economy and ensuring Ontario is open for business and open for jobs.
To date, the province has nominated over 350 priority projects to the federal government for funding under ICIP’s Rural and Northern and Transit infrastructure streams, and some projects have already received federal approval to begin construction.
The province is also currently accepting applications for transit projects from 11 municipalities inside the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) and continues to pursue expedited project approvals from the federal government.
2 From: Federal Gas Tax Program
Date: September 13, 2019 at 12:38:52 PM EDT Subject: Federal Gas Tax surplus administration funds
Dear Mayor Gardhouse,
As I announced at the AMO conference in August, AMO will distribute over $12 million in surplus federal Gas Tax administration fees to municipalities in October.
Your municipality will receive $1,539.37. A brief Q&A regarding the release of these funds can be found here.
This is in addition to the $82,653.23 you received in July as part of the one-time doubling of the Fund, and the $78,237.15 for your regular 2019 amount.
As a sector we are proud of how we have been able to use federal Gas Tax funding for priority projects. However, municipalities should delay any announcements about projects that received federal funding until after the election on October 21.
Sincerely, Jamie McGarvey AMO President cc: Susan Stone CAO/Clerk-Treasurer
911312019
credit volley Conservqtlon s insplred by noture
Draft 2O2O Budget
To Credit Valley Conservation Board of Directors
September 13, 2019
By Jeff Payne t
Outline
. Budget Authority . Budget Process o Overview of Draft Budget r Budget Pressures and Risks . Budget Forecast
2
1 9t13t2019
Budget Authority
3
Conservation Authority Budgets
Conservation Authorities Act - S.2T (2) and (3)
after determining the approximate maintenance (2) [and administration (3)] costs for the succeeding year, the authority shall apportion the costs to the participating municipalities according to the benefit derived or to be derived by each municipality, and the amount apportioned to each such municipality shall be levied against the municipality.
4
2 911312019
Conservation Authority Budgets
Ontario Regulation "l 39/96 1. (1) ln this Regulation, "non-matching levy'' means a levy approved by a weighted majority of the members at a meeting for which 30 days notice was provided to the affected municipalities and at which a recorded vote was taken; "weighted majority'' means the votes of 51 per cent of those represented after the votes are weighted by the percentage that applied under this definition in 1997 for each municipality.
(2) For the purpose of the definition of "weighted majority", the weighting for a municipality may not exceed 50 per cent of the total weighting, except where the majority of the members of a conservation authority are appointed by one municipality.
5
Conservation AuthoritY Budgets
Ontario Regulation 670/00
Municipaltty MPAG X 100 = %CVA x OperatingBudget = GeneratLerry* Watershed MPAG
General tow Speclal Lew Speclal Ben€ffttlno Seff€enorated (Open0ng Budger) (GaplhlBudgdt) Lew Revenuo (Capltrl Eudgotl Shared on besis of Sharsd on basls of Benefi tthg munlcipalities Grants, FE€s, w€tersh€d-wide CVA watershed-wide CVA sharo costs Donalions
Budget
. Conseruation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 190, (27)
5
3 911312019
Conservation Authority Budgets
Conservation AuthoritiesAct - S.21.1 NOT pROCLAIMED 21.1 (1) An authority shall provide the folrowing programs or services... 1 . ... and that has been prescribed by the regulations: i' Programs and services related to the risk of natural hazards. ii. Programs and services related to the conservation and management of lands owned or controlled by the authority, including any interests in land registered on tiile. iii. Programs and services related to the authority's duties, functions and responsibilities as a source protection authority under the Clean Water Act, 200G. iv. Programs and services related to the authority's duties, functions and responsibilities under an Act prescribed by the regulations. 2. A program or service, other than a program or service described in paragraph 1 , that has been prescribed by the regulations.,.
7
Conservation Authority Budgets
Conservation Authorities Act - S.21.1.1 NOT PROCLAIMED
21.1.1 (1) An authority may provide withln its area of jurisdiction municipal programs and services that the authority agrees to provide on behalf of a municipality situated in whole or in part within its area of jurisdiction under a memorandum of understanding or such other agreement as may be entered into with the municipality in respect of the programs and services.
8
4 9t1312019
Implications of New CA Act on CVC Budget iW,lm ryffit 2ffiffi tt#r*#t - prtn*roto2l8uds.t 'oi;HF Pt?Fra2o2rardeat n*trsu't
a Cfid&non- l.Int€mal .Irple*rnt muotry/ r rdlcbneab nsnmddl . Dlllnr tboddqy lld fiqt. mauFtqy aglr€mats tgflvltY Ddmn${atuts i(runu, ll nmdddYProersffind resa0 pft9nnE r lnlud d*udms trllt s{t10.8 d.irlucr rnd ser{c!e} mnldl*tcs Dt5$$lorE tdh m,nldp.llls te als(hd illh 2020 pragtrrrtF ild sefiitlsu i il{drb nrd0rt l0nemnbr' I . Rdnebudget L-_ --dlloriruqls--'
, Regsl.tfis . Reglolditlur{dpal @ernane revlen lmdlciuons'--'-' Ddrycd !.ls . Tra*l0m . l,lunldprllths do naa negdl.te h dlr ltrdlnes '----'--'- pcrlod $dtcn€d . unknottl Provtfldrl adons
9
Budget Process
10
5 9113t2019
CVC's 2O2O Budget Cycle
Mar/May June Flnrnce eiaf prcpare Drsft 2020 July/August budg€t frarmwtxk. September Budg€t Complote vrrlous lntemsl budoat 3uffinthlly Board ofDirrctoE l*./A budget tomplates & gndorte dellborrtonrwlih CvC v conDlsted pr€$ntltlon mal3rlql + to drfr !ffirflumgonrent, Afi[sl tor Peel, Halton & 2020 brdget lnclude! Po€l Rl3k P,ogt€ls CVC Bo{rd. rnothodology for cllmrts Report to Peol change Eccountt Gouncll
StarUEnd
DeclJan Nov/Dec Budgot pro$ntod Budget Feb prE€tiled . to Counclls ot to SepUOc't Board of Dlrector! to <= rsmalntng s 1-1 Peel R3glon rpprove2020 budget. ' watoGhod \-r Councll & Peol and Halton rnrrinlcipallllot Halton Rogion Reglon Senlor Flnanco !t fimo€th€ Gommlttee
TT
Budget Overview - ongoing savings
Ongoing Cost Savings: . Registered Charity Status (CRA approved Q1 2019) . Region of Peel bulk fuel purchase contracts . Region of Peel for routine fleet maintenance services . Region of Peel Public Sector Network (PSN) for fibre . Provincial and municipally neg otiated contract/service rates
L2
6 911312019
Budget Overview ' new savings
2020 Cost Savings (125k): . Telecommunications savings ($60k) . Copier, print savings and mail ($14k) . Consolidation of propane contracts ($13k) . Consolidation of HVAC contracts ($5k) . Energy savings from new computers ($8k) . Other miscellaneous savings ($25k)
13
Leveraging Funding - CVC and CVCF
Totalby Funding 201 8 year-end Additional lnformation Sources total($) CAs ($1.4 million) Planning ($1.0 million) Self-Generated 3.4 million Education ($0.3 million) Nursery ($0.7 million) Grants, Donations, PartnershiPs, Service Agreements, Lakeview Alternative Sources 2.6 million Province (Transfer Payments Source Waterand WECI) Feds (NDMR CWWF, FCM) Total $6.0 million
t4
7 9113t2019
Overview of Draft Budget
15
Budget Overview CVC Budget Compared with Municipal Operating Budgets
Proposed 2020 2019 Municipal CVC 2020 Budget cvc Municipality Operating Budgets as % Share of 2019 Budget $ (ooo) Municipalily Eudgei $ (000) Region of Peel (and local $2,496,064 $24,689 0.9890/o municipalities)
Region of Halton (and local $937,652 $600 0.0840/o municipalitles)
Town of Orangeville $35,603 $295 0.8280/o
Town of Erin $11,556 $76 0.6570/o
Town of Mono $1 1,1 83 $14 o.1220
Township of East Garafraxa $2,423 $7 0.283o/o
Township of Amaranth $3,383 $1 0.039%
16
8 9t1312019
Budget Overview
Munlclpal Apportionment for CVC.2020 Qggllgg1 and $oecidlgw based on 2019 CVA
General Levy Shared Special Levy % s % 2020 2020 S o/o ot 2019 $ Change Change Change Change Municipality $ based based on CVA over 2019 over over over on CVA- CVA- 201 I 201 9 201 9 Peel Region 91.7767 $8,879,908 $291,964 3.40o/o $2,191 ,868 $72,073 3.400/o
Halton Region 4.9699 $480,866 $15,810 3.40o/o $11 8,694 $3,903 3.40o/o
Orangeville 2.4435 $236,422 $7,773 3.40o/o $58,357 $1,919 3.40o/o
Erin 0.6293 $60,888 $2,002 3.400/o $15,029 $494 3.400/o
Mono 0.1128 $10,914 $359 3.40o/o $2,694 $8e 3.40o/o
East Garafraxa 0.0568 $5,496 $181 3.400/o $1,357 $45 3.40o/o
Amaranth 0.0110 $1,064 $35 3.400h $263 $e 3.400/o TOTAL 100o/o s318.125 3.AOo/" s2.388.262 s78.531 ?.aoo/" .2019 CVA apportionment t7
Budget Overview Special Benefitlnq Lew by Municlpality
$ % Munici 2019 2020 c Cha Peel Reqion $ 13.169.340 $ 13.617.097 447.757 3.4Oo/"
TOTAL $ 13.169.340 13.6,17.097 $ 447.757 3.40o/o
GVC Emerald Ash Borer (!dplfg4g[4g $ Munici 2019 2020 Chan Chan Peel Reoion s460.000 $420.000 -8.7Oo/o Halton Reqion 211.130 216,000 2.31o/o
TOTAL $ 671.130 s 636.000 -35.130 -5.23o/"
18
o 911312019
Budget Overview
Year-Over-Year Proposed CVG Total Lew lncrease
Municipality 2019 Total Levy 2020 Total Levy % Change $ Change
Peel Reolon s23.877.078 $24.688.873 3.400/" $81 1 .795 Halton Reoion s579.846 $599.560 3.400/6 s1s.713 Orandeville $285.087 s294.779 3 4lJ0/" $9.692 Erin s73 A21 $75.9'18 3.400/^ s2.496 Mono s1 3.161 s13.608 ? 40-0/" s447 East Garafraxa s6.627 $6.852 3.400/6 s225 Amaranth $1.283 s1.327 3 40,0/" s44 Total Lew s24.836-50l! $25.680.9{7 3.4004 sa44.A13 (Note for Peel and Halton - this labte does not include EAB funding)
19
Budget Overview ett' P Levy Budget by Departmont t
CVG Department 2020 Total Levy Corporate Services 9,098,627 - Parks & Lands Management 4,013,307 - Education and Outreach 3,896,615 - Centralized Corporate Seryices 1,188,705 Watershed Knowledge 7,087,373 Watershed Management 6,474,539 Planning & Development Services 2,154,926 GAO's Office (inclHR, BOD) 865,452 Grand Total 25,680,917
20
10 911312019
Budget Pressures and Risks
27
Budget Pressures - Addressed by 2O2O Budget
. Offset reduction of $89,000 I in annual Provincial Sec. 39 I Hazard Funding I . Maintains programs currently provided (no cuts) . Sustains service levels . Includes 2o/o COI,A . Contributes to reserves
22
11 911312019
Budget - Unfunded Pressures
. Capital for Belfountain CA (dam and public space) o Credit Valley Trail (land secu rement/i nfrastructu re) . Asset Management - $50 million in portfolio . Facility Development (Island Lake CA new facility required) o Forest Management (address sustainability and health of forested lands) Photo Credit: Hiking the GTA
23
Budget - Possible Funding Risks
. Limitation to programs and services (CA Act/MOU's) o Governance changes (municipal/reg ion review) . Floodplain mapping (accelerated by Fed funds) o Watershed Plan (advancing work in partnership with Region of Peel) . New invasive species (funding to address future threats)
24
12 911312019
Budget Forecast
25
CVC Budget and Forecast $OOOs and o/o
General Levy $9,676 $10,049 $10,390 $10,732 3.400/o 3.860/o 3.39% 3.30% Special Levy $16,005 $16,624 $17,260 $17,971 3.40o/o 3.86% 3,83% 4.12o/o
Peel Special $420 $420 $4oo $380 - Levy EAB -8.70o/o 0.00% -4.760/o -5.00% Halton Special $216 $220 $224 0.00 Levy - EAB 2.310/o 1.85o/o 1.82o/o -100%
26
13 9113t2019
27
questicns?
28
14
August 28, 2019
The Honourable Jeff Yurek Minister of the Environment Conservation and Parks 777 Bay Street, 5th Floor Toronto, ON M7A 2J3
Dear Minister,
Re: Correspondence Dated August 16, 2019 to Conservation Authorities
We are writing today in response to correspondence received from your office on Friday August 16th that appears intended to provide direction to Conservation Authorities (CA’s) subsequent to the passing of Bill 108 and changes to the Conservation Authorities Act.
We find the content of your letter very troubling. It provides direction that is not consistent with the Act, as just passed by your government. It suggests that we begin preparations to wind down activities that are outside the scope of the core mandate activities, that we do not develop new policies and that we do not increase fees or levies. It suggests that you are undertaking a review of legislation and regulations that govern the CAs. Your position is premature as the process of determining the scope and content of the regulations that will define our mandated programs and services is still in process. Any change in programs and services needs to occur after these regulations are in place and agreements with our supporting municipalities have been finalized.
First, we want to address the issue of fees and levies. CVC initiates preparation of its budget in May, and it is largely completed by the end of June so that our municipal partners have the inputs they need to prepare their own budgets for the following year. We have received guidance from our two regional governments that contribute over 95% of our total levy. This included council approved targets based on inflation and growth. Our Board of Directors is entirely made up of elected officials who are accountable not only to their respective councils, but also to the taxpayers who elected them. Following their guidance, our budget has already been prepared and submitted to our regional partners. In addition, we have had to contend with the loss of $89,000 of transfer payment from the province for one of our mandatory programs – hazard management (approximately 1% of our levy).
We will continue to work with our member municipalities to finalize our 2020 budget and the scope of the activities that are included therein. We would appreciate the province confirming its continuing financial support for Source Protection program funding until the transition period is completed to avoid any in-year budget adjustments. We are very proud of how CVC works with our municipalities to align our work with their needs and meet the targets that are
P a g e | 2 set out. In my years on the board we have had unanimous support for the budget from all our member municipalities.
Regarding the direction provided in your letter, the CA Act is vague on details as to what programs and services will be included under each of the mandatory program areas, leaving the details to be prescribed by regulations as noted below:
21.1 (1) An authority shall provide the following programs or services within its area of jurisdiction: 1. A program or service that meets any of the following descriptions and that has been prescribed by the regulations
In our comments on the proposed Act, CVC and Conservation Ontario identified the various programs and services that must be included in the regulations under the Act for the mandatory program areas (Attachment 1). Staff have yet to be consulted on the regulations and there have been no drafts circulated that would allow us to begin to identify what activities will be considered by the province as falling within mandatory programs and services.
Next, your letter does not acknowledge Sections 21.1.1 and 21.1.2 of the Act that allows CAs to work with municipalities to provide programs and services via an MOU or agreement for those activities that do not fall into the mandatory list.
“21.1.1 (1) An authority may provide within its area of jurisdiction municipal programs and services that the authority agrees to provide on behalf of a municipality situated in whole or in part within its area of jurisdiction under a memorandum of understanding or such other agreement as may be entered into with the municipality in respect of the programs and services.” 21.1.2 (1) Subject to subsection (2), in addition to programs and services described in sections 21.1 and 21.1.1, an authority may provide within its area of jurisdiction such other programs and services as the authority determines are advisable to further its objects.
Again, until the regulations have been drafted and approved, we can only have conceptual discussions with our municipalities about the need and scope of MOUs. Further, until the outcome of the regional governance review is completed, the municipalities in our jurisdiction have indicated that they are unwilling to start or continue discussions on agreements and MOUs.
The act explicitly outlines that CAs shall develop and implement a transition plan to comply with the legislation that will be prescribed by regulation.
21.1.3 (1) Every authority shall develop and implement a transition plan for ensuring that it will be in compliance with subsection 21.1.2 (2) by the day prescribed by the regulations for the purpose of that subsection.
P a g e | 3
We want to emphasize the importance of the transition plan as we move forward. We cannot stop doing certain activities while we negotiate. We need at least 24 months to rearrange the budget allocations into mandatory and non-mandatory buckets, work through the budget details with municipalities, complete agreements and prepare and submit our 2022 budget by mid 2021 for municipal approval by the end of 2021. Only by January 2022 at the earliest would we be ready to implement the changes you have made to the act. The results of the regional governance review, however, could result in the need for extended timelines.
Therefore, as no regulations have been approved and there is no transition plan, we are not yet prepared to make any change in our activities. We await your consultation with CA staff who are most familiar with the standards and requirements that need to be included in the regulation and how to modify our administrative processes to ensure we can meet the requirements as outlined in the Act.
Your recent public comments responding to questions about your letter provided some insight into the type of activities that you would not consider to be part of a core mandate. The conservation and management of CA owned lands is a mandatory activity under the new act. Our objects (Section 21 (1)(m)) include the provision to “use lands…for park or other recreational purposes”. Our conservation areas have been a fixture on the landscape for over 50 years. But over the past 2 decades, our parks have had to become more self reliant with respect to revenue generation. We are also responding to the desires of our residents in providing a range of activities within conservation areas, like getting married or attending events, such as maple syrup festivals. They are run on a cost recovery basis that provide revenue to reduce the tax burden on municipalities. The visitation to our parks, and others in the GTA, has doubled since 2010 and the numbers continue to climb. We draw residents from the densely populated areas of the GTA where access to natural parkland is challenging. The conservation areas and the available activities provide accessible, affordable options to the people of Ontario to learn, recreate and engage with nature.
Let me assure you that Credit Valley Conservation delivers programs and services that our municipalities value. CAs have the scope, expertise and capacity to address several critical environmental problems facing Ontario today. We are the only organization with the skills and boots on the ground to help deliver on all our mandates. We like to think of ourselves as also being an essential partner of the province to deliver a safe and protected environment for Ontarians. We will continue to work together as we negotiate the regulations under the new Act to ensure the good work is not lost and the benefit to our communities continues.
Our challenge to you Minister is to engage in meaningful consultation with our CAs, to learn more about what we do and to ensure that the voices of our communities are reflected in the scope of the mandatory and non-mandatory activities. We need to work together to make sure we get it right.
In conclusion, the new Act directs our Board members (Section 14.1) to act honestly and in good faith with a view to furthering the objects of the authority. That is just what our Board intends to do. The elected officials who make up our Board of Directors ensure that CVC works closely with each of our municipal partners to deliver a variety of locally supported programs and services valued by residents. We look forward to working with the province to define the
P a g e | 4 governing regulations and to continuing our long-standing partnerships with both the Province of Ontario and our local municipalities.
Sincerely,
Karen Ras, Chair, CVC Tom Adams, Vice Chair, CVC City of Mississauga and Town of Oakville and Region of Peel Councillor Ward 2 Region of Halton Councillor Ward 6
Cc: Deborah Martin-Downs, Chief Administrative Officer, CVC Bob Currie, Mayor, Township of Amaranth Patrick Brown, Mayor, City of Brampton Allan Thompson, Mayor, Town of Caledon Guy Gardhouse, Mayor, Township of East Garafraxa Allan Alls, Mayor, Town of Erin Rick Bonnette, Mayor, Town of Halton Hills Bonnie Crombie, Mayor, City of Mississauga Laura Ryan, Mayor, Town of Mono Rob Burton, Mayor, Town of Oakville Sandy Brown, Mayor, Town of Orangeville John Brennan, CVC Board Member, Councillor, Town of Erin Stephen Dasko, CVC Board Member, Ward 1 Councillor, City of Mississauga Johanna Downey, CVC Board Member, Ward 2 Regional Councillor, Town of Caledon Ann Lawlor, CVC Board Member, Ward 4 Town Councillor, Town of Halton Hills Matt Mahoney, CVC Board Member, Ward 8 Councillor, City of Mississauga Martin Medeiros, CVC Board Member, Ward 3 and 4 Councillor, City of Brampton Tom Nevills, CVC Board Member, Councillor, Townships of Amaranth, East Garafraxa and Town of Mono Michael Palleschi, CVC Board Member, Ward 2 and 6 Councillor, City of Brampton Grant Peters, CVC Board Member, Councillor, Town of Orangeville Ron Starr, CVC Board Member, Ward 6 Councillor, City of Mississauga Nando Iannicca, Chair, Region of Peel Gary Carr, Chair, Region of Halton Susan Stone, Chief Administrative Officer, Township of Amaranth and East Garafraxa Joe Pittari, Chief Administrative Officer, City of Brampton Mike Galloway, Chief Administrative Officer, Town of Caledon Nathan Hyde, Chief Administrative Officer, Town of Erin Brent Marshall, Chief Administrative Officer, Town of Halton Hills Janice Baker, Chief Administrative Officer, City of Mississauga Mark Early, Chief Administrative Officer, Town of Mono Ray Green, Chief Administrative Officer, Town of Oakville
P a g e | 5
Ed Brennan, Chief Administrative Officer, Town of Orangeville Jane MacCaskill, Chief Administrative Officer, Region of Halton Nancy Polsinelli, Chief Administrative Officer, Region of Peel Kaleed Rasheed, Member of Provincial Parliament, Mississauga-East Cooksville Nina Tangri, Member of Provincial Parliament, Mississauga-Streetsville Natalia Kusendova, Member of Provincial Parliament, Mississauga-Center Sheref Sabawy, Member of Provincial Parliament, Mississauga-Erin Mills Rudy Cuzzetto, Member of Provincial Parliament, Mississauga-Lakeshore Deepak Anand, Member of Provincial Parliament, Mississauga-Malton Kevin Yarde, Member of Provincial Parliament, Brampton-North Prabmeet Sarkaria, Member of Provincial Parliament, Brampton-South Amarjot Singh Sandhu, Member of Provincial Parliament, Brampton-West Sara Singh, Member of Provincial Parliament, Brampton-Center Parm Gill, Member of Provincial Parliament, Milton Stephen Crawford, Member of Provincial Parliament, Oakville Effie Triantafilopoulos, Member of Provincial Parliament, Oakville North-Burlington Ted Arnott, Member of Provincial Parliament, Wellington-Halton Hills Sylvia Jones, Member of Provincial Parliament, Dufferin-Caledon Kim Gavine, General Manager, Conservation Ontario Bonnie Fox, Manager, Policy and Planning, Conservation Ontario Wayne Emmerson, Chair, Conservation Ontario John MacKenzie, Chief Administrative Officer, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Hassan Basit, Chief Administrative Officer, Halton Region Conservation Authority Mike Walter, Chief Administrative Officer, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Doug Hevenor, Chief Administrative Officer, Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority
Attachment: Letter to MECP from CVC on Bill 108/ CA Act Comments
ATTACHMENT 1 PAGE 1
May 17, 2019
Carolyn O’Neill Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Land and Water Division Great Lakes and Inland Waters Branch Great Lakes Office 40 St Clair Avenue West, Floor 10 Toronto, ON M4V 1M2
Dear Ms. O’Neil,
RE: Modernizing Conservation Authority Operations – CA Act and Bill 108 – Schedule 2 ERO # 013-5018
We are taking this opportunity to provide comments on the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks’ proposals to amend the Conservation Authorities Act (CA Act) as well as Bill 108, Schedule 2 amendments to the CA Act. It is understood the anticipated amendments are in effort to further improve the ability of conservation authorities (CAs) to modernize and improve delivery of their core programs and services – consistent with the government of Ontario’s ‘Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan’. The proposed amendments were reviewed by the CVC Board of Directors at the May 10, 2019 Board of Directors meeting and comments were endorsed by the CVC Board of Directors.
Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) has an on-going interest in the development and implementation of these proposed amendments given our role as:
• Regulators under Section 28 of the CAA; • Public commenting body under the Planning Act and Environmental Assessment Act; • Representing the provincial interest in natural hazards for planning and development related matters (as per MOU with province, dated 2001); • Service providers to municipal partners; and • Landowners
CVC has a proud 65-year history of partnerships with the province, municipalities, watershed residents, development and consulting industries, and other agencies and watershed stakeholders. Together, we continue to work collaboratively to protect people and property from flooding and other natural hazards, and to conserve natural resources. We own 7100 acres of land in our watershed, a significant amount of which are forests, wetlands and grasslands, in addition to our more active conservation areas open for public enjoyment.
For 65 years CVC has been undertaking the core mandate established in 1946 of delivering programs and services that further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources on a watershed scale. In addition, after Hurricane Hazel, the mandate to control floods and pollution was added. Watersheds, natural resources and
ATTACHMENT 1 PAGE 2 hazards – a simple, unique and effective model. Some suggest we should just stick to hazards and leave the rest to someone else. While municipalities have overall planning responsibilities under the PPS, there is virtually no one else out with boots on the ground undertaking work to restore, monitor and manage our natural resources.
Some suggest that the management of hazards can somehow be separated from the watershed. The landscape influences the quality and quantity of water to our watercourses and ground water. The hazards will get bigger if we do not manage the natural resources that absorb and filter water, apply effective storm water management to developed lands, or mitigate and adapt to climate change, We can work to maintain natural resources and reduce hazards with watershed management plans and actions.
Please consider the following comments on the proposed amendments. These comments cover both the proposals and the specific amendments to the CA Act.
PROPOSED CHANGE 1 – Defining Core Mandatory Programs and Services
Bill 108 Schedule 2 provides a new clause 21.1 (1):
21.1 (1) If a program or service that meets any of the following descriptions has been prescribed by the regulations, an authority shall provide the program or service within its area of jurisdiction: 1. Programs and services related to the risk of natural hazards. 2. Programs and services related to the conservation and management of lands owned or controlled by the authority including any interests in land registered on title. 3. Programs and services related to the authority’s duties, functions and responsibilities as a source protection authority under the Clean Water Act, 2006. 4. Programs and services related to the authority’s duties, functions and responsibilities under an Act prescribed by the regulations.
Response: While CVC supports the province’s continued efforts to more clearly define CA core mandatory programs and services, we are confident that the programs and services CVC provides are focused on delivering our core mandate. They support delivery of our hazard management role, our natural resource management role and conservation and management of CA lands. Some programs and services are provided at the request of, or to support our partners, for which additional resources are provided. Over 90% of our budget supports the core mandate as it currently exists in the CA Act.
Hazards Response: The wording regarding the hazard mandate in the proposals is different than the wording that has now been included in the Act - ‘natural hazard protection and management’ versus ‘risk of natural hazards’. We find the terminology in the act to be too vague as to provide guidance as to the intent. CAs undertake work to provide protection from and manage natural hazards. CAs have built up significant skills in understanding these hazards and understand the measures that need to be taken to both manage them and provide protection from them.
Recommendation 1: Change the terminology from “Programs and services related to the risk of natural hazards” to “programs and services for the protection from and management of natural hazards”.
To undertake our hazard management role there are many critical activities and programs undertaken to support this function including:
ATTACHMENT 1 PAGE 3
o Operations, inspections, maintenance or reconstruction of dams, channels, and erosion and ice control structures o Flood forecasting and warning (hydrometric monitoring, data management, models, communications) o Drought forecasting and warning (ground water monitoring; low water response teams) o Emergency operations with municipalities (data support, communications, media, vulnerability assessments; post event assessments) o Plan input and review for hazards, storm water management and feature protection (planning, engineering; ecology) o Regulation (permitting and enforcement) o Watershed planning to input to hazard management and planning decisions; determine effective mitigation measures including protection and expansion of natural areas and wetlands o Floodline/Hazard and Risk Mapping (hydraulic and hydrologic modelling; base mapping; air photography, field assessment) o Watercourse, shoreline and slope erosion control o Hazard land securement o Training/ Communications and Education
As well, restoration activities (tree planting, wetland restoration, forest management) and monitoring of watershed health have been long standing activities that have ensured that the impacts of land use change on hazards have been minimized. These activities should be reflected in the scope of programs and services in the Regulations to follow.
Conservation of Natural Resources Response: The proposed core mandatory programs as outlined in the proposals for consultation and now the CA Act amendments are inconsistent with provincial acts and plans. One of the objects of CAs is to ‘provide, in the area over which it has jurisdiction, programs and services designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources…’ (CA Act, Sec. 21(1)(a)).
The province’s Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan supports conservation and environmental planning outlining the province’s commitment to ‘…Work in collaboration with municipalities and stakeholders to ensure that conservation authorities focus and deliver on their core mandate of protecting people and property from flooding and other natural hazards and conserving natural resources’ (Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan, Conserving Land and Greenspace, 2018 emphasis added).
The reference to natural resources is missing from the core mandatory programs and services.
Recommendation 2: that the conservation of natural resources be added to the core mandatory programs.
The following programs and services have long been part of a CAs core work, including:
o inventory and monitoring, o watershed/subwatershed planning o tree planting and forest management, o natural heritage systems planning, o habitat restoration and creation, o invasive species management and o landowner stewardship/ outreach activities
ATTACHMENT 1 PAGE 4
These items would need to be included in the scope of programs and services outlined in the Regulations to follow.
Together, hazard and natural resource management, directly support the purpose and objects of CAs in the act and the province’s Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan – in coordinating the protection of life and property from natural hazards and conserving natural resources at a watershed scale.
To manage hazard lands, one needs to be able to manage the contributions from the lands within the watershed to the water. The natural hazards function mandate must also include the natural resources functions and watershed-based jurisdiction.
Conservation and Management of Conservation Authority Lands The conservation and management of Conservation Authority lands are included in the core mandate 21.1 (1).
Response: CVC owns and/or manages 7100 acres of land on 61 properties and operate four active conservation areas. Some of the lands we manage are on behalf of the Ontario Heritage Trust by agreement. We agree with maintaining it as our core mandate for these lands are available to the people of Ontario and provide them with many recreational and ecosystem benefits of clean water, clean air, biodiversity and water management.
We do not have access to other sources of revenue to develop, maintain and manage our parks and therefore rely on the levy to be able to continue offering access to our lands and improving experiences for our visitors.
Recommendation 3: Support for including conservation and management of Conservation Authority lands as a core mandate in the CA Act.
Some of the components of the programs and services related to the conservation and management of lands include: o Land planning (management plans) o Land securement and acquisition o Conservation area operations and management o Property management (maintenance, management agreements) o Facilities maintenance and capital works o Hazard assessments (hazard trees, weather, trail inspections) o Inspection and enforcement (risk and liability)
These items would need to be included in the scope of programs and services outlined in the Regulations to follow.
Drinking Water Source Protection (as prescribed under the Clean Water Act). The province has added the programs and services related to Drinking Water Source Protection to the mandate of the CAs (CA Act 21.1 (1) 3.)
Response: The CAs have been engaged in the Drinking Water Source Protection Program since 2006 and agree with considering it a core mandate under the CA Act. However, we are concerned that this means that the costs to operate the program will be shifted to the municipalities. This will have a direct impact on the taxpayer in the watershed as the costs for the program will now be added to the levy.
There are also some challenges with allocating the costs for the drinking water program as three CAs participate in a source protection region. The lead CA, in our case Toronto and
ATTACHMENT 1 PAGE 5
Region CA, undertakes activities on behalf of all three CAs (CTC) as supported in the provincially funded program. As CVC has numerous wells in our jurisdiction, the CTC staff disproportionately work in our area.
Further, the province has not committed any funding past March of 2020. There needs to be transition funding to ensure no break in program services should the province cease funding the program and before the regulations and MOUs required in the act are completed.
Many tools developed for the source protection assessment reports, such as the ground water models and Lake Ontario Collaborative Model, have significance beyond the local jurisdiction. The investment made by the province in their development and maintenance should still be valued and supported financially by the province.
Recommendation 4: Drinking water source protection be added to the CA core mandate but that the province should maintain some level of funding for the program in recognition of the significant cross boundary resources developed and the impact on municipal taxes.
Recommendation 5: A cost sharing model be developed to recognize the current source protection region structure and resource sharing undertaken by the CAs participating in the Source Protection Region.
Recommendation 6: Transition funding for the Source Water Protection program be provided until regulations and MOUs are completed.
PROPOSED CHANGE 2 – Increase Levy Transparency
New clauses have been added to the Act (21.1.1 (1-4)) to require the development of Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) between the CA and the member municipality for the non-mandatory programs and services. The MOUs would be reviewed periodically and be made public.
Response: CVC supports the province’s effort to further enable transparency on how CAs levy municipalities for mandatory and non-mandatory programs and services. However, it should be noted that CVC’s current municipal levy and budgeting process for mandatory (levy) and non-mandatory (special levy) programs and services goes through a rigorous, transparent and public process led by each of our municipal partners. CVC seeks levy-budget approval from each municipal council, provides detailed information on special levy scope and deliverables, as well as obtaining final approval by CVC’s Board of Directors (made up of municipally elected representatives of watershed municipalities). We annually make a public report to each of our funding partners and report on our budget in our annual report posted on our website. For some of our services such as plan review, MOUs are in place with the municipalities which are in various stages of renewal. While there may not be an overall MOU, the intent of the process is transparency about the programs and services we offer to the municipalities for which they have a say in approving.
It should be noted that the Conservation Authorities also deliver other services in support of provincial programs, such as management of provincial lands form the Ontario Heritage Trust, water quality monitoring of provincial stations and the ground water monitoring program. Funding is rarely included in the agreements. Should these functions not be supported by the municipalities in the future in their MOUs, a separate MOU with the province for funding needs to be included in the Act in order that CVC may continue to support the province in a cost efficient and effective manner.
ATTACHMENT 1 PAGE 6
We would suggest that requiring a MOU would add greater bureaucracy to manage and to continue to deliver the programs that municipalities appreciate and benefit from.
The province should provide a framework to ensure consistency among CAs for developing the MOUs.
Recommendation 7: The province to provide a framework to ensure consistency among CAs for developing the MOUs.
Recommendation 8: MOUs should not be restricted to the municipalities for funding. The province should be named as CAs deliver additional services to them, often without funding attached.
PROPOSED CHANGE 3 – Establish Transition Period for Delivery of Non-Mandatory Services
The province proposes to establish a transition period (e.g. 18 to 24 months) and process for conservation authorities and municipalities to enter into agreements for the delivery of non- mandatory programs and services to ensure compliance with CA Act Section 21.1.2 (2).
Response: CVC has, or is currently working on developing and updating, service agreements/memorandum of understanding with all our municipal partners. It should also be noted all of CVC’s updated service agreements have been endorsed or approved by the affected municipal council as well as CVC’s Board of Directors.
While the suggested timeline for implementation new MOUs of 18 to 24 months may be acceptable, much depends on the outcome of the Regional governance review and the timing for any of those changes. We have to know who we are negotiating with and we may not be the highest priority should change to their operations be significant.
Recommendation 9: The suggested transition timeline of 18 to 24 months be flexible based on the circumstances of individual CAs.
PROPOSED CHANGE 4 – Provincial Investigator
The province proposes to enable the Minister to appoint an investigator to investigate or undertake an audit and report on a conservation authority (CA Act Section 23.1 (4 – 8)).
Response: CVC has no concerns with the province’s proposal to amend the CA Act to appoint an investigator to undertake audits of CAs. However, it should be noted that CVC currently prepares annual financial statements reviewed by an independent auditor which are posted to CVC’s website. Additionally, a CA’s Board of Directors retain their right to request additional audits or investigations as deemed necessary – in accordance with their fiduciary duties to the organization. The Act could establish limits as to who can ask for an audit or a process before the board to ensure that frivolous requests are not made to be carried out at the expense of the CA (time and/or financial).
Section 23.1 (8) suggests that the CA may be required to pay all or part of the cost of an audit. Given the limitations being placed on mandatory and non-mandatory programs and services, the province must either make it eligible for mandatory recovery or be responsible for paying for it.
Operational audits, such as undertaken at Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, are unusual but nonetheless an important tool in the Act to ensure that the best interests of the
ATTACHMENT 1 PAGE 7 province are realized through the management of the CA. We have no concerns with adding measures to the act to allow for operational audits.
Recommendation 10: The Act could establish limits as to who can ask for an audit or a process before the board to ensure that frivolous requests are not made to be carried out at the expense of the CA.
Recommendation 11: Include audit expenses in the mandatory administrative recovery items.
PROPOSED CHANGE 5 – Clarify the Duty of Conservation Authority Board Members
The province has inserted Section 14.1 into the CA Act to clarify that the duty of conservation authority board members is to act in the best interest of the conservation authority similar to not-for-profit organizations.
Response: CVC supports the province’s proposal to amend the CA Act to clarify the duty of CA Board members to act in the best interest of the CA.
Board of Director responsibilities are outlined in CVC’s administrative by-laws recently updated to comply with the December 2017 CA Act requirements. Further, all CVC Board Members are required to sign a ‘Code of Conduct’ which includes a clause that all Board members act in the best interest of CVC. Prospective members are provided with the Code of Conduct prior to seeking a board appointment and all have willingly signed it upon appointment.
PROPOSED CHANGE 6 – Proclaim all Un-proclaimed Provisions
The province is also proposing to proclaim un-proclaimed provisions of the Conservation Authorities Act related to: • fees for programs and services; • transparency and accountability; • approval of projects with provincial grants; • recovery of capital costs and operating expenses for municipalities (municipal levies); regulation of areas over which conservation authorities have jurisdiction (e.g. development permitting); • enforcement and offences; and • additional regulations.
Response: CVC generally supports the initiative of the province to proclaim previously un- proclaimed provisions in the CAA. However, some of the un-proclaimed provisions lack detail to comment on as it is to be provided in a regulation. Of particular concern is the detail around fees for programs and services. Increasingly, CA’s have had to increase the proportion of cost recovery to ensure that programs and services can continue to meet the service delivery standards or make up for insufficient funding resources. CAs need to maintain their flexibility while maintaining transparency on the fees charged. CVC’s fee schedules are approved by our board and posted on our website for public review.
We welcome the proclamation of the enforcement provisions of the act as these have been long overdue as a tool in our toolbox. The opportunity exists to add an order to comply to the new enforcement provisions.
Recommendation 12: Maintain flexibility around fees for programs and services to reflect local circumstances.
ATTACHMENT 1 PAGE 8
In summary we have made the following recommendations for consideration by the government in Bill 108, Schedule 2:
Recommendation 1: Change the terminology from “Programs and services related to the risk of natural hazards” to “programs and services for the protection from and management of natural hazards” (21.1 (1) 1.)
Recommendation 2: that the conservation of natural resources be added to the core mandatory programs. (21.1 (1))
Recommendation 3: Support for including conservation and management of Conservation Authority lands as a core mandate of the CA Act (21.1 (1) 2.).
Recommendation 4: Drinking water source protection be added to the CA core mandate, but that the province should maintain funding for the program in recognition of the significant cross boundary resources developed and the impact on municipal taxes. (21.1 (1) 3.).
Recommendation 5: A cost sharing model be developed to recognize the current source protection region structure and resource sharing undertaken by the CAs participating in the Source Protection Region.
Recommendation 6: Transition funding for the Source Water Protection program be provided until regulations and MOUs are completed.
Recommendation 7: The province to provide a framework to ensure consistency among CAs for developing MOUs.
Recommendation 8: MOUs should not be restricted to the municipalities for funding. The province should be named as CAs deliver additional services to them, often without funding attached
Recommendation 9: The suggested transition timeline of 18 to 24 months be flexible based on the circumstances of individual CAs.
Recommendation 10: The Act could establish limits as to who can ask for an audit or a process before the board to ensure that frivolous requests are not made to be carried out at the expense of the CA.
Recommendation 11: Include audit expenses in the mandatory administrative recovery items.
Recommendation 12: Maintain flexibility around fees for programs and services to reflect local circumstances.
The reality of our role and mandate is that, over the last 25 years, we have worked continually with our municipalities, landowners, residents and other organizations to deliver programs effectively and efficiently. At times, it was not by choice, but by necessity. We have adapted, just as our environment does over time. There are no other organizations like conservation authorities who have boots on the ground, fingers in the soil and hands in the water. If we don’t, then who will?
ATTACHMENT 1 PAGE 9
Credit Valley Conservation staff would be pleased to discuss these comments and other important opportunities to modernize the Conservation Authorities Act – particularly related to operations and governance.
If you have any questions or wish to meet to discuss further, please feel free to contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Regards,
Karen Ras, Chair, Credit Valley Conservation
Tom Adams Vice-Chair, Credit Valley Conservation
Deborah Martin-Downs BES, MSc, PhD Chief Administrative Officer, Credit Valley Conservation
c.c. Conservation Ontario Hon. Rod Phillips, Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks Hon. John Yakabuski, Minister of Natural Resources MPP Kaleed Rasheed MPP Nina Tangri MPP Natalia Kusendova MPP Sheref Sabawy MPP Rudy Cuzzetto MPP Deepak Anand MPP Kevin Yarde MPP Prabmeet Sakaria MPP Amarjot Singh Sandhu MPP Sara Singh MPP Parm Gill MPP Stephen Crawford MPP Effie Triantafilopoulos MPP Ted Arnott MPP Sylvia Jones Region of Peel Region of Halton City of Mississauga
ATTACHMENT 1 PAGE 10
City of Brampton Town of Caledon Town of Oakville Town of Orangeville Town of Mono Town of Erin Township of Amaranth Township of East Garafraxa Town of Mono
Conservation Ontario Briefing Note Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks September 9,2019 Conservation ONTARIO Natural Chanpions lntroduction: Conservation Ontario and the Conservation Authorities (CAs) want to work with the Province to respond to the many changes that have occurred over the last few months including an amended Conservation Authorities Acf, anticipated regulations, funding cuts and extreme 2019 flooding that continues in some parts of the province even today. We are committed to work with the province to improve client service and accountability in order to increase the speed of planning and development reviews and approvals and reduce regulatory burden.
Our Request:
L Pre-consultation with GAs and municipalities: Request that the Province hold a separate, pre- consultation with conservation authorities and municipalities in order to enable us an opportunity to outline the delineation between mandatory and non-mandatory services and activities, how these are currently funded, and their connections and benefits to local municipalities' priorities and the Made-in-Ontario Environmental Plan 2. No further provincial funding cuts to Transfer Payments: Request that the Province maintain provincial transfer payments for the hazard and source water protection programs because no further cuts can be managed by conservation authorities with no impact to municipal levy or delivery of programs and services that protect public health and safety 3. Provide an adequate transition time: Request the proposed 18-24 months transition time to implement changes to mandatory and non-mandatory programs and services so that conservation authorities can meet with their watershed municipalities to identify and confirm the non-mandatory programs and develop CA-municipality MOUs and agreements 4. lnvitation to Conservation Ontario Council: Request the presence of the Honourable Jeff Yurek, Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks at Conservation Ontario's Council meeting on September 30th 5, ldentify opportunities for Gonservation Authority visits: Request future meetings with conservation authorities in their local watersheds to see their work first-hand
Changes to Gonseruation Authorities' Focus / Mandatory vs Non-Mandatory Programs
a Conservation Ontario and the Conservation Authorities want to work with the Province to implement the changes outlined in Bill 108,
Given the current funding and accountability frameworks, we feel that conservation authorities, municipalities and the Province should have the first conversations exploring what should comprise the mandatory and non-mandatory programs and services of CAs. lt was our understanding that the details of the mandatory programs and services would be outlined in regulations and that there would be adequate opportunities for Conservation Ontario and the CAs to provide an overview of current programs and services and then discuss, with municipalities and the Province, which of these should be deemed mandatory and non-mandatory.
ConservationOntarioBriefingNotefortheMinistryof Environment,ConservationandParks September2019 llPage a Consistency, accountability and transparency will be achieved more easily across conservation authorities if the Province continues to invest in the mandatory programs and services, and also continue to provide technical guidance, policy and training support to CAs.
The Relationships between Mandatory and Non-Mandatory Programs and Services
a Conservation Authorities are concerned that some services and activities that support the delivery of mandatory programs, may be classified as non-mandatory and therefore may not be supported. As an example, if watershed-based monitoring (such as water quality) wasn't considered as a component of the source water protection mandatory program and not supported by either the Province or individual municipalities, the other legislated activities could not be undertaken thus resulting in increased environmental risks and liabilities for CAs, municipalities and the Province.
a Many popular and revenue generating activities such as local festivals, recreational activities or using conservation areas as wedding venues are actually self-sustaining and often generate a profit that can be redirected to support environmental work of mandatory programs. These events are very popular locally with municipalities and residents and often provide spillover economic and tourism opportunities for local communities.
Provincial Support for Conservation Authorities
a The Provincial spring budget announced a 50 percent reduction to Conservation Authorities' provincial transfer payments for natural hazards. This has affected conservation authorities in different ways with more significant impacts being experienced by the smaller and mid-sized CAs who rely more heavily on provincial support. lt was also problematic in that the cuts were announced mid-year, making it very difficult to cover off the losses.
a Conservation Authorities are finding funds internally by eliminating programs or relying on reserves where possible and sometimes in combination with an increase to their municipal levy to help offset the loss without reducing activities.
a Another reduction of the remainder of the provincial transfer payments for either natural hazards or drinking water source protection could potentially increase risk and liability for the conservation authorities, their member municipalities and the Province.
Conservation Authorities' Accountability and Transparency
Conservation authorities share the Province's commitment to accountability and transparency particularly in relation to municipalities who provide significant financial support for CA programs and services.
a Municipalities have a strong governance role with CAs. Member municipalities appoint municipal representatives to CA Boards of Directors and almost all of them are municipally elected officials. CA Board members are responsible for reviewing and approving CA annual work plans, budgets and audited financial statements as well as any broader strategic directions.
a CA programs and services information is provided to member municipalities and is also available to the general public through annual audits, CA Board reports, municipal presentations, special reports and/or postings on conservation authorities' websites.
Conservation Ontario Briefing Note for the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks September 2019 2 | p a g e CA Glient Service and Streamlining lnitiative Supports the Provincial Housing Strategy
a All 36 conservation authorities have passed resolutions stating their commitment to taking steps locally and collaboratively with CO to improve client service and accountability, increase speed of approvals and reduce red tape and regulatory burden.
a Working with CAs, municipalities, and the development community, Conservation Ontario developed three guidance documents for CAs that will help CAs to make changes in order to improve consistency and to deliver streamlined reviews and approvals in conservation authority planning and regulations functions. Plus, work is ongoing.
a Over 300 conservation authority staff have participated in eight Client-Centric Customer Service Training sessions.
For more information, please contact: Kim Gavine, General Manager, Conservation Ontario Tel: (905) 895-0716 ext 231 [email protected]
Conservation Ontario Briefing Note for the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks September 2019 3 | P a g e From: Eowyn Spencer Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 2:16 PM Subject: Summary of the General Membership Meeting – August 23, 2019
Grand River Conservation Authority Summary of the General Membership Meeting – August 23, 2019
To GRCA/GRCF Board and Grand River watershed municipalities - Please share as appropriate.
Action Items The Board approved the resolutions as presented in the agenda: • GM-08-19-76 - Residential Program Wind-down – Demolitions The recommendation in this report contained three properties and was amended to vote on each property separately. 1. Leishman Residence – Deferred to September 27, 2019 2. Kagera Residence – Carried 3. Laurel Superintendent - Carried • GM-08-19-80 - Financial Summary • GM-08-19-82 - Region of Waterloo Memorandum of Understanding for Plan Review Services • GM-08-19-84 - Centre Wellington Tier 3 Water Budget Study - 2019-20 Budget Update • GM-08-19-81 - New Hamburg Flood Mitigation Study Contract • GM-08-19-C13 - Grant of Easement - Township of Centre Wellington (closed meeting agenda)
Information Items The Board received the following reports as information: • GM-08-19-77 - Cash and Investment Status • GM-08-19-79 - Environmental Assessments • GM-08-19-78 - Current Watershed Conditions • GM-08-19-85 - Provincial Update to Conservation Authorities (Addendum)
Delegations The Board heard from the following delegations: • Julia Morrison and Leonard Chaplinsky - re: Residential Wind-down
Correspondence The Board received the following correspondence: • Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing – National Disaster Mitigation Program Funding • Halton Region – 2020 Budget Direction • City of Hamilton – 2020 Budget Direction • City of Guelph – 2020 Budget Direction (Addendum) • Julie McCann – Residential Wind-down (Addendum)
For full information, please refer to the August 23 Agenda Package. Complete agenda packages and minutes of past meetings can be viewed on our online calendar. The minutes of this meeting will be posted on our online calendar following the next meeting of the General Membership scheduled on September 27, 2019.
You are receiving this email as a GRCA board member, GRCF board member, or a Grand River watershed member municipality. If you do not wish to receive this monthly summary, please respond to this email with the word ‘unsubscribe’.
Kind regards,
Eowyn Spencer | Executive Assistant | Grand River Conservation Authority www.grandriver.ca Jessica Kennedy
Subject: FW: Resolution of Grand Valley Council - arena upgrades
From: Meghan Townsend Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 10:56 AM Subject: Resolution of Grand Valley Council ‐ arena upgrades
Hello everyone, At their September 10, 2019 regular meeting, Council for the Town of Grand Valley passed the following resolution:
2019‐09‐16 Moved by E Taylor, Seconded by R Taylor WHEREAS the Town of Grand Valley sees value in maintaining the Grand Valley and District Community Centre to provide recreational opportunities for our community into the future, AND WHEREAS by Resolution 2019‐06‐67, Council expressed their desire for the reconstruction of the ice surface floor to take place in 2020 to prevent the possibility of ice surface failure, which would have a significant impact on the financial viability of the Centre as well as a significant detriment to our community, AND WHEREAS the arena manager has presented options for expanding the change room facilities; AND WHEREAS Council has been presented with an opportunity to apply for funding that would provide a substantial portion of the costs associated with these projects, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council for the Town of Grand Valley agrees to serve as the Lead Applicant in a joint application to the Community Culture and Recreation stream of the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program, and invites the Townships of Amaranth and East Garafraxa to partner with the Town as joint applicants, given their involvement with the operation of the Centre, AND FURTHER THAT Council acknowledges that in applying for the grant, the ice surface floor project will not be completed until 2021, contrary to their desires expressed in Resolution 2019‐06‐67, but acknowledges that waiting for the results of the grant will be financially beneficial to all communities involved in the operation and use of the Centre.
We look forward to the responses of our partner municipalities and hope to work together on this project to improve our community centre. Should you have any questions, please contact us at your convenience.
Thank you,
Meghan Townsend, MPS, BSc | Deputy Clerk Town of Grand Valley | 5 Main Street North, Grand Valley, ON L9W 5S6 Tel: (519) 928‐5652 | Fax: (519) 928‐2275 | [email protected]
1
Upper Grand Watershed Gommittee Meetinq Thursdav Mav 23rd. 2019 at 6:30 p.m. Town of Grand Val ev Municioal Office
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lenora Banfield, Christine Winder, Barbara Dobreen, Peter Turrell, Wayne Hannon, Chris Gerrits, Guy Gardhouse, Heather Foster, Steve Soloman, Nancy Davy, Dave Bennett and Doreen Still, Secretary.
Regrets: Fred Natolochny
1. Gall to order/Pecuniary/Gonflict of lnterest: Chair Lenora Banfield called the meeting to order and asked if there were any pecuniary or conflict of interest.
None were declared at this meeting
2. Added Agenda ltems: None
3. Approval ofAgenda:
#2019-05-01 MOVED BY CHRIS WINDER SECONDED BY BARBARA DOBREEN BE lT RESOLVED THAT the agenda dated May 23'd, 2019 be approved as circulated ..CARRIED'' 4. Minute Approval:
#2019-05-02 MOVED BY HEATHER FOSTER SECONDED BY CHRIS GERRITS BE lT RESOLVED THAT the minutes of March 281h,2019 meeting be approved as circulated .,CARRIED'' 5. Unfinished Business: a) Grassland Habitat-Luther Marsh Davy gave an update on the grassland management plan. The grassland management plan includes monitoring on 350 hectares scattered around the Luther Marsh, Damascus and surrounding areas. The grassland vegetation is only on GRCA and MNR land and not on privately owned property.
Turrell brought up the bobolinks and ask for delayed hay cutting for ground nesting birds. Gardhouse is going to present this to the Dufferin County council to be on the rural water program for an incentive to be added for delayed cutting of hay. b) Terms of Reference A history of the UGWS committee was discussed. The committee is a communication link between GRCA and surrounding Town and Townships who share information and education on any issues that may happen in their area. The e-mailfrom Wellington North was discussed, and as a result of the discussion with the committee members the following resolution was passed:
#2019-05-03 MOVED BY CHRIS WINDER SECONDED BY BARBARA DOBREEN BE lT RESOLVED THAT the Township of Wellington North be removed from the list in the terms of reference as instructed by the Township of Wellington North and that the Township of Wellington North be invited to participate at anytime in the future. "CARRIED" 6. New Business: a) Soloman asked GRCA about the damages that beavers are causing. The Town of Grand Valley purchased beaver baffles to deter the beavers because of flooding and crop damages to farm owners. He asked GRCA if they would look into the issue with the beavers as some of these are on GRCA lands. b) Soloman asked GRCA about the storm sewer piped and the riverbed filling in with sediments and erosions of the river in Grand Valley to see if there was anything that could be done. Davy will ask Natolochny to look at sediment control and erosion measures.
7. Deputation-None
8. Gommittee Orientation a) GRCA services and programs Davy handed out a pamphlet on the GRCA Strategic Plan 2019-2021 and talked about the 4 strategic priority in this pamphlet.
1. Protecting life and minimizing property damage from flooding and erosion 2. lmproving the health of the Grand River watershed. 3. Connecting people to the environment through outdoor experiences. 4. Managing land holdings in a responsible and sustainable way.
A question was brought up about a dam in Grand Valley. There was one at the ball diamond years ago. GRCA said there would be multiple approvals needed by various authorities and agencies. lt was determined there would be no dam built in Grand Valley.
With changes to Bill 108-Schedule 2-Conservation Authorities Act from the Province with core mandate services, there are a lot of unknowns in this bill. 9. Board Discussion & Gorrespondence-None
10. Pending ltems a) LPAT/Saiah properties-upd'ate-ongoing discussion ensued A case management meeting was held on April 3, the meeting ended with the member taking all the material that was presented that day and another case management hearing would be held in the fall.
b) Amaranth Fill lssues-update-ongoing discussion ensued There are 3 properties with fill issues: 1- property one has a court order issued by GRCA with 2 years to comply 2- property two is proceeding in court 3- property three has allowed Burnside to test the soil.
11. Adiournment
12. Next Meeting Date
#2019-05-04 MOVED BY CHRIS GERRITS SECONDED BY STEVE SOLOMAN BE lT RESOLVED THAT we do now adjourn this meeting of the committee to meet again at the Luther Marsh on August 22nd,2019 at 5:30 p.m. or at the call of the Chair "CARRIED"
Chair - Lenora Banfield Secretary - Doreen Still Solicitor General Solliciteur général
Office of the Solicitor General Bureau de la solliciteure générale
25 Grosvenor Street, 18th Floor 25, rue Grosvenor, 18e étage Toronto ON M7A 1Y6 Toronto ON M7A 1Y6 Tel: 416 325-0408 Tél.: 416 325-0408 [email protected] [email protected]
August 26, 2019
As you may be aware, the Public Reports Regulation (O. Reg. 377/18) under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, was scheduled to come into force on January 1, 2020. The regulation was established to standardize the reporting of fire department response time data and make this information available to the public.
Our government has heard concerns about the Public Reports Regulation, including the system updates that would be required for operationalization and the scope of the reporting requirements. After hearing this feedback, our government has decided to repeal the regulation effective August 26, 2019.
Repealing the regulation will allow the ministry to work with stakeholders on a broader review of how fire service data is collected by the province. After this review is completed, we will develop balanced options and decide about the potential publication of fire service data, to best meet the needs of all our fire safety partners.
We are committed to listening to municipalities and our first responders as we work to create a public safety regime that puts people first and provides our frontline heroes with the tools and resources they need to keep communities safe.
Should you have any questions or comments, please contact [email protected].
Sincerely,
Sylvia Jones Solicitor General
COUNCIL RESOLUTION August 27, 2019
Township of Warwick – Request for Support Re: Ensure Enforcement for Safety on Family Farms
Resolution No. 480-19 Moved by Councillor Ferguson Seconded by Councillor Holmes THAT Council support the resolution from the Township of Warwick requesting that the Hon. Doug Downey work with his fellow MPP’s and agricultural leaders to find a better way forward to ensure stronger enforcement of existing laws – or new legislation - to ensure the safety of Ontario’s farm families, employees and animals for the very reasons cited in the Warwick Motion adopted at its Regular Meeting of June 17, 2019;
AND THAT this motion be circulated to Hon. Doug Downey, Ministry of the Attorney General; Hon. Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario; Hon. Sylvia Jones, Solicitor General; and Hon. Ernie Hardeman, Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs; and all Municipalities in the Province of Ontario, AMO, and ROMA.
CARRIED
I, Jeanne Harfield, Deputy Clerk for the Corporation of the Municipality of Mississippi Mills, do hereby certify that the above is a true copy of a resolution enacted by Council.
______Jeanne Harfield Deputy Clerk
Town of Mono S472og Mono Centre Road Mono, Ontario L9W 653
August 30th,2019
Hon. Steve Clark Minister of Municipal Affairs Ministry of MunicipalAffairs and Housing 17th Floor, 777 Bay St. Toronto, ON MsG 2E5
RE: Municipal Amalqamations
Minister Clark,
Our Council has recently received Council Resolutions from the Township of McKellar and the Municipality of Hasting Highlands, regarding forced amalgamations of Ontario municipalities. Our Councilsupporls the intent of these resolutions which generally request that where the Province is considering forced amalgamations of municipalities, that the Province hold a local referendum to determine support for amalgamation; that evidence based studies are prepared to justify amalgamations, and to allow municipalities to prepare collaborative agreements for amalgamation under their own timelines and not forced by arbitrary deadlines.
Over the past 25 years, the County of Dufferin has seen three significant major reviews or challenges of the governance model for the County, including single-tier County; Orangeville as a separated city; and amalgamation of local municipalities within the County system. lt has always been determined that the status quo has the most significant financial and social benefits for the residents of Dufferin County.
Bigger is not always better, and I would suggest to you that the requests that you are seeing today from municipalities for organizational change are coming from the communities forced into regional governments in the 1970's onward, and the municipalities forced into amalgamations during the days of the previous Harris Conservative government in the late 1990's.
The Town of Mono and its municipal partners in Dufferin County have been able to ensure cost efficient government not only through service agreements and joint service boards, but also the sharing of personnel, machinery and infrastructure. Not only does the Town of Mono have service agreements within the County of Dufferin, we have agreements for services with municipalities in Peel Region and Simcoe County. We have always found that where opportunities exist the option of contracting for services, and participating on joint boards for services, provides a much more cost-efficient approach to
Telephone: Slgg4r-B1gg Fax'. gtg94r-949o E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.townofmono.com Page 2 of 2
providing services such as library, arenas, fire and emergency services to our community Our service delivery models transcend municipal boundaries.
As indicated previously, Dufferin and the local municipalities have not supported amalgamation of local governments over the last 25 years, however, we have continually met to address our residents' need for cost efficient service delivery. Today is no different. I would like to take this opportunity to advise you that the County of Dufferin and the local municipalities are utilizing monies from the Municipal Modernization funding to complete a service review, This service review aims to investigate opportunities to increase existing cooperation between our municipalities in hopes of finding newer or better opportunities to deliver our local community services to the residents of Dufferin in an efficient, accountable and cost-effective fashion.
I trust we are following the path that your government initiated with you Municipal Modernization funding announcements.
Regards,
TOWN OF MONO
Laura Ryan Mayor
Copies Premier Ford Hon, Sylvia Jones, Solicitor General, MPP Dufferin-Caledon County of Dufferin, Clerk Dufferin Municipalities, Clerks
Telephone: 5rg{,4r-3599 Fhx3 519941-949o E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.townofmono.com Jessica Kennedy
Subject: FW: Support for letter from Town of Mono - municipal amalgamations Attachments: 12.5 Mono - municipal amalgamations.pdf
From: Meghan Townsend Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 11:47 AM Subject: Support for letter from Town of Mono ‐ municipal amalgamations
To the Town of Mono, At their September 10, 2019 regular meeting, following review of the attached letter from the Town of Mono, Council for the Town of Grand Valley passed the following motion:
2019‐09‐17 Moved by P Rentsch, Seconded by R Taylor BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council supports the letter sent to Minister Clark by the Town of Mono, and asks that this be circulated to all relevant parties. CARRIED
Should you have any questions, please contact us.
Thank you,
Meghan Townsend, MPS, BSc | Deputy Clerk Town of Grand Valley | 5 Main Street North, Grand Valley, ON L9W 5S6 Tel: (519) 928‐5652 | Fax: (519) 928‐2275 | [email protected]
1 Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 10:38 AM Subject: Listing of Aquatic Species under the Species at Risk Act - August 21, 2019
Greetings,
This email is to inform you that the Governor in Council (GIC) is anticipating publishing in Canada Gazette, Part II on August 21, 2019, its decisions regarding the listing under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) for the aquatic species below. Fisheries and Oceans Canada has previously consulted with you on the potential listing of one or more of these species that may be of interest to you.
You may find the listing decisions for the aquatic species below published in the Canada Gazette, Part ll. For further information on aquatic species at risk, you may also wish to view Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Aquatic Species at Risk website or the Species at Risk Public Registry.
Yours sincerely, Melanie Toyne Regional Manager Species at Risk Program, Central and Arctic Region
Aquatic species for which listing decisions are being made by the Governor in Council (GiC) under the Species at Risk Act: Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in GiC Decision Species Canada (COSEWIC) Classification Fishes Channel Darter (St. Lawrence) Special Concern List Cutlip Minnow Special Concern List Lake Sturgeon (Southern Hudson Bay Special Concern List – James Bay) Northern Sunfish (Great Lakes – St. Special Concern List Lawrence) Silver Lamprey (Great Lakes – Upper Special Concern List St. Lawrence) Black Redhorse Threatened List Pugnose Minnow Threatened List Pugnose Shiner Threatened List Silver Shiner Threatened List Channel Darter (Lake Erie) Endangered List Channel Darter (Lake Ontario) Endangered List Silver Chub (Great Lakes – Upper St. Endangered List Lawrence) Spotted Gar Endangered List Molluscs Eastern Pondmussel Special Concern List Mapleleaf (Great Lakes – Upper St. Special Concern List Lawrence) Rainbow Special Concern List Threehorn Wartyback Threatened List Fawnsfoot Endangered List Hickorynut Endangered List Lilliput Endangered List
Amy BoykoSpecies at Risk Biologist, Species at Risk Program Fisheries and Oceans Canada/Government of Canada
Jessica Kennedy
Subject: FW: Township of Zorra Resolution of Council re: UTRCA
From: Karen Martin Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 3:11 PM Subject: Township of Zorra Resolution of Council re: UTRCA
Good afternoon,
Please be advised the Township of Zorra Council passed the following resolution at the September 4, 2019 Council Meeting:
“WHEREAS the Township of Zorra is an environmentally conscious community;
AND WHEREAS the Township of Zorra is a member of the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) and has a representative on the board of directors of the UTRCA;
AND WHEREAS the board of directors determines the policies, priorities and budget of the UTRCA;
AND WHEREAS the UTRCA provides the Township of Zorra with expert advice on the environmental impact of land use planning proposals and that the Township of Zorra does not have staff with comparable expertise or experience;
AND WHEREAS the UTRCA provides programs to the residents of Zorra and other member municipalities that include recreation, education, water quality monitoring, reduction of vegetation loss and soil erosion, preservation of species at risk as well as protecting life and property through a variety of measures;
Therefore, be it resolved, that the Township of Zorra supports continuation of the programs of the UTRCA, both mandatory and non-mandatory, and that no programs of the UTRCA or of the other Conservation Authorities in Ontario be “wound down” at this time.
And that, the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks give clear direction as to what programs are considered mandatory and non-mandatory and how those programs will be funded in the future;
And that this resolution be forwarded to the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, Premier Doug Ford, MPP Ernie Hardeman, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, Conservation Ontario and all Ontario municipalities.”
Thanks,
1
September 10, 2019
Hon. Caroline Mulroney, Minister of Transportation 5th Floor, 777 Bay Street Toronto, ON M7A 1Z8
Dear Honourable Mulroney:
Re: Highway Traffic Act Set Fines
On June 12, 2019 I wrote to the Honourable Lise Maisonneuve, Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice, with a copy to your predecessor as Minister of Transportation, the Honourable Jeff Yurek. In this letter I asked Honourable Maisonneuve to consider increasing the set fines for speeding offences. I suggested that fines for speeding deserve a thorough review as they have not increased in over 20 years.
The Town of Mono, like many municipalities, has seen a marked increase in speeding and aggressive driving. We responded to the problem with increased traffic patrols; however, the deterrent value of the fines is not what they once were. It is time to re-calibrate the fines to bring them in line with today's reality.
In her reply to my letter, Honourable Maisonneuve pointed out that; while she has the authority to specify an amount as the set fines, she would typically do so in response to a request from your Ministry. As this remains a concern in my community, I urge you to undertake a review of the set fines related to the Highway Traffic Act. The amount of the fines should be increased to a level that will provide a deterrent commensurate with the risk such offenders pose to the safety and wellbeing of other drivers and pedestrians.
I look forward to your favourable response to our request.
Regards,
TOWN OF MONO Original signed by: Laura Ryan, Mayor
Laura Ryan Mayor
P: 519.941.3599 E: [email protected] 347209 Mono Centre Road F: 519.941.9490 W: townofmono.com Mono, ON L9W 6S3
Enclosures: 2
Letter from Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice dated July 16, 2019 Letter to Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice dated June 12, 2019 cc: Hon. Sylvia Jones (Dufferin-Caledon), Solicitor General Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice Association of Municipalities of Ontario All Dufferin Municipalities
P: 519.941.3599 E: [email protected] 347209 Mono Centre Road F: 519.941.9490 W: townofmono.com Mono, ON L9W 6S3
THE HONOURABLE LISE MAISONNEUVE !.'HONORABLE USE MAISONNEUVE CHIEF JUSTICE JUGE EN CHEF ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE . COUR DE JUSTICE DE L'ONTARIO
l QUEEN STREET EAST l, RUE QUEEN EST SUITE 2300, BOX 91 BUREAU 2300, CASE 91 TORONTO, ONTARIO MSC 2W5 TORONTO (ONTARIO) MSC 2WS
TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE (416) 327-0612 rAX/TE LECOPIEUR 1416) 326-4787
July 16, 2019
Laura Ryan Mayor 347209 Mono Centre Rd. Mono, Ontario L9W 683
Dear Mayor Ryan:
Re: Set fines under the Highway Traffic Act:
This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated June 12, 2019 as well as your request, pursuant to the passing of the council resolution regarding a review of the set fines for speeding under the Highway Traffic Act.
I understand the safety concerns that you have conveyed on behalf of your community. I have considered your request and in response would outline the following procedure that our court adheres to in determining set fines under the Provincial Offences Act.
The Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice has been given the authority to specify an amount as the set fine for the purpose of proceedings under Part I or II of the Provincial Offences Act through s. 91.1 (1) of the Provincial Offences Act. However, in the usual course, that authority is exercised in response to a request from the Ministry responsible for the pertinent provincial legislation. In that regard, I note that you have copied the Minister of Transportation on your request to have the set fines for speeding increased.
I thank you for your letter.
Yours truly,
< r'Yh� LISE MAISONNEUVE Chief Justice I Juge en chef Ontario Gout of Justice I Gour de justice de l'Ontario
June 12, 2019
The Honourable Justice Lise Maisonneuve Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice Ontario Court of Justice - Office of the Chief Justice 1 Queen Street East, Suite 2300 Toronto, ON M5C 2W5
Your Honour:
Re: Highway Traffic Act Set Fines
The Town of Mono is a rural community of under 10,000 residents on the northern edge of the GTA. There are three provincial highways and numerous regional arteries passing through our Town. While many of our residents commute to the large urban centres to our south, many more transit through Mono on their daily commutes or when heading to vacation properties along Georgian Bay.
Over the past few years we have witnessed ever aggressive drivers on our roadways. To combat this, we have increased traffic patrols to well beyond the OPP base level of service. This past Victoria Day long weekend saw our local police lay seven stunt driving charges within our borders. And this is by no means exceptional with many weekends seeing similar charges laid. While this strategy has proven successful in catching speeding drivers, it has not proven nearly as successful in altering their behaviour.
While police enforcement is an essential tool in addressing this safety concern, I am concerned that stiffer penalties are also needed. It is my understanding that set fines for speeding have not increased in over 20 years. I firmly believe that increasing the fines for speeding will have a positive effect on those drivers that insist on putting all of us in danger with their disregard for other's safety.
The Council of the Town of Mono passed the following resolution on June 11, 2019.
Resolution #12-11-2019 Moved by John Creelman, Seconded by Ralph Manktelow
WHEREAS Set Fines for speeding offences under the Highway Traffic Act (Section 128) have not increased in over 20 years or more;
P: 519.941.3599 E: [email protected] 347209 Mono Centre Road F: 519.941.9490 W: townofmono.com Mono, ON L9W 6S3
AND WHEREAS the Town of Mono and other municipalities in Ontario are facing serious road safety issues arising from aggressive speeding and careless driving on local, county and regional roads as well as provincial highways;
AND WHEREAS Set Fines for speeding deserve a thorough review both in terms of appropriateness, given no increases in 20 years or more and the need to establish appropriate deterrence;
AND WHEREAS the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice determines fines under the Provincial Offences Act (Section 91.1 (1)): ‘The Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice may specify an amount as the set fine for the purpose of proceedings under Part I or II for any offence. 2017, c. 34, Sched. 35, s. 17.’;
AND WHEREAS an increase in fines may also require a change in Regulations;
BE IT RESOLVED the Town of Mono requests the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice to review Set Fines under the Highway Traffic Act, especially those involving speeding offences (Section 128) and careless driving (Section 130) with the view to an increase that both takes into consideration the length of time since the last increase as well as establishing appropriate deterrence;
AND THAT this Motion be sent to the Chief Justice, Dufferin County municipalities, MPP Sylvia Jones, the Detachment Commander of the Dufferin OPP and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.
“Carried”
I trust that this is a matter that you find equally concerning. I look forward to your favourable response to our request.
Regards,
TOWN OF MONO
Original signed by: Laura Ryan, Mayor
Laura Ryan Mayor
cc: Hon. Sylvia Jones (Dufferin-Caledon), Solicitor General Hon. Jeff Yurek, Minister of Transportation
P: 519.941.3599 E: [email protected] 347209 Mono Centre Road F: 519.941.9490 W: townofmono.com Mono, ON L9W 6S3
Staff Sgt Nicol Randall, Detachment Commander, Dufferin OPP Association of Municipalities of Ontario All Dufferin Municipalities
P: 519.941.3599 E: [email protected] 347209 Mono Centre Road F: 519.941.9490 W: townofmono.com Mono, ON L9W 6S3
Jessica Kennedy
Subject: FW: Consultations and Regulations Available for Comment
From: AMCTO | The Municipal Experts Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 1:02 PM Subject: Consultations and Regulations Available for Comment
The provincial government has recently put forward a number of items for comment.
About AMCTO | Education & Events | Advocacy & Policy
September 9, 2019
Consultations and Regulations Available for Comment
The provincial government has put forward a number of items for comment. AMCTO regularly encourages its members and their organizations to submit feedback on any relevant proposed regulations and open consultations. Doing so helps provincial policy makers better understand the municipal perspective and hear directly from those responsible for implementing government policy at the local level.
1 During a recent AMCTO meeting with Ontario’s Attorney General Doug Downey, he reiterated the desire of the government to ensure they understand the municipal practitioner’s perspective as they move forward with various policy issues.
The provincial government is currently seeking comment on the following:
Safety Standards for E-Scooters Proposed (Ministry of Transportation):
Deadline: September 12th, 2019. Regulations proposed for the use of electronic-scooters (e-scooters) and safety standards for on-road use.
Read More
Joint and Several Liability Consultations (Ministry of the Attorney General):
Deadline: September 27th, 2019. Consultations are open on the file to look at joint and several liability, insurance costs, and the affect that ‘liability chill’ has on the delivery of public services.
Read More
Speed Enforcement Regulatory Framework Proposed (Ministry of Transportation):
Deadline: October 3rd, 2019. Regulations proposed are designed to prevent speeding through the use of automated speed enforcement (ASE – i.e. photo radar) on municipal roads and streamlining the process to adopt and use red light cameras in school and community safe zones.
Read More
Changes Proposed to the Provincial Policy Statement (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing):
Deadline: October 21st, 2019.
2 The government is proposing changes to the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) to align it with changes to the land use planning system.
Read More
AMCTO | The Municipal Experts 2680 Skymark Avenue, Suite 610, Mississauga, Ontario L4W 5L6
Tel: (905) 602-4294 | Fax: (905) 602-4295 www.amcto.com
Unsubscribe
3
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
September 6, 2019
Dear Municipal Colleagues:
This is to advise that City Council, at a meeting held on August 26, 2019, passed the following resolution regarding producer requirements for packaging in Ontario:
“WHEREAS the Province of Ontario, through the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, has posted a discussion paper entitled “Reducing Litter and Waste in our Communities”; and,
WHEREAS producer responsibility has not been adequately addressed by the Province of Ontario; and,
WHEREAS a successful deposit/return program for single use plastic, aluminum and metal drink containers has been in existence in other Provinces in Canada including Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and British Columbia; and,
WHEREAS these successful programs have eliminated many of these containers from the natural environment; and,
WHEREAS the City of Kitchener is committed to climate action and understanding our role as a municipality in a globalized world and the need to be prepared for the effects of climate change; and,
WHEREAS the City of Kitchener has declared a climate emergency with the directive to provide continued support to corporate and community climate action;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Kitchener call upon the Province of Ontario, through the discussion paper entitled “Reducing Litter and Waste in our Communities”, to review and implement a deposit/return program for recycled plastics, aluminum and metal drink containers; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Province of Ontario be requested to review producer requirements and look for extended producer responsibility for all packaging; and,
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that this resolution be forwarded to the Honourable Premier of Ontario; the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks; the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; the Local Members of Provincial Parliament; the Association of Municipalities of Ontario; the Region of Waterloo and all Municipalities within the Province of Ontario.”
Yours truly,
C. Tarling Director of Legislated Services & City Clerk
AUG Board of Trustees 2I 20te The Grove Cemetery RECEIVE D C/o Jim Roszell 5832 3'd Line RR#l Hillsburgh, ON NOB 120
27 Augtst20l9
Members of Council The Corporation of the Township of East Garafraxa
The Board of Trustees for the Grove Cemetery thanks you for your grant of $430.00 Your continued annual support is very much appreciated and is important to the Board.
The volunteer members of the Board of Trustees are grateful for this continuing support. Your grant is used to pay the annual general liability insurance premium which like most things increased in cost last year but thankfully did not this year.
Thank you for supporting the volunteer Board of Trustees which maintains The Grove Cemetery and keeps it in good condition as a service for the community.
Y truly,
Jim Roszell Secretary - Treasurer The Grove Cemetery
REPORT TO TOWNSHIP OF EAST GARAFRAXA
To: Susan Stone and members of Senior Management Team
From: Shara Bagnell, Health and Safety Advisor
Date: July 16th, 2019
Cc: Richard Duiker, Health and Safety Representative
Subject: 2018 Health and Safety Review
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to provide an update of the health and safety activities for 2018 as well as an overview of initiatives for the current year.
Background & Discussion
In an effort to keep Municipalitieis aware of the initiatives being taken in relation to health and safety, this report will summarize training, Health and Safety Representative activities, incidents and injuries, and special projects that took place in 2018. In addition, it will outline objectives for 2019.
Training
In 2018, 668 County and Municipal staff received training related to workplace safety through the Health and Safety office. As a comparator, there were 465 staff who received training in 2017, and 770 in 2016. Individual municipal training records are available on the Health and Safety site.
We Manage Change, We Deliver Quality Service, We Communicate, We Make Good Decisions 2018 Health and Safety Review Page 2 of 4
Training Completed in 2018 by Municipality
Attendees by Municipality
72 27 22 15 1 46 7 12 467
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Shelburne (72) Mulmur (27) Mono (22) Melancthon (15) Grand Valley (46) East Garafraxa (7) Amaranth (12) Dufferin (467)
East Garafraxa Training by Course
Of the 668 staff that received training in 2018,7 were East Garafraxa staff.
2018 Health & Safety Training 3.5 3 3
2.5 2 2 2
1.5
1
0.5
0
We Manage Change, We Deliver Quality Service, We Communicate, We Make Good Decisions 2018 Health and Safety Review Page 3 of 4
Health and Safety Representative The Health and Safety Representative has put a solid effort into completing monthly workplace inspections as scheduled. In 2018 the Health and Safety Representative completed 12 inspections, with 1 hazard noted. There were no outstanding hazards at the end of 2018.
Incidents and Injuries There were no incidents reported to the health and safety office in 2018, or 2017. County- wide 2018 incident statistics showed that the most frequently reported incidents across all departments were categorized as slip and fall incidents, as well as incidents involving overall exertion/ strain.
Ministry of Labour Updates
Globally Harmonized System The final phase for all labels and safety data sheets in the workplace to be transitioned over to the Globally Harmonized System, and staff to be trained in the Globally Harmonized System under Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) 2015 ended on December 1, 2018.
Municipal Enforcement Initiative In March of 2018, the Ministry of Labour announced that they were launching a 2 year initiative focussing on ergonomics in municipalities having more than 50 workers, and more specifically in Public Works departments, with a secondary focus on ‘struck by’ hazards. The first phase of this initiative, March 2018 to March 2019, was an ‘awareness’ phase, where information was made available to municipalities through safety stakeholders to prepare for phase 2 of the initiative, referred to as the ‘enforcement’ phase. In the ‘enforcement’ phase, the Ministry of Labour Inspectors and Ergonomists will be conducting site visits to monitor for compliance. In preparation for this initiative, a risk analysis process has been undertaken to identify hazards, including ergonomics, related to tasks completed in all departments starting with Public Works. In 2019, a policy supporting ergonomics has been drafted and training in various departments will be delivered to take steps in the prevention of Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs).
2018 Achievements In 2018, County and Municipal Supervisors took the reins in sourcing and delivering safety talks to departmental staff. There were 1,123 safety talk participants in 2018 across all County and Municipal departments. For comparison purposes, there were 1,867 participants in 2017. East Garafraxa participation in safety talks for 2018 came in at 69, compared to 120 in 2017. Although there was a decrease in participation from 2017 to 2018, the rate of supervisory staff sourcing and delivering safety talk sessions independently and without reminders increased, which is considered a success.
We Manage Change, We Deliver Quality Service, We Communicate, We Make Good Decisions 2018 Health and Safety Review Page 4 of 4
There were two creative workshop series sessions offered to County and Municipal Departments, with 14 sessions held, including 2 at Amaranth/ East Garafraxa offices. A total of 14 Amaranth/ East Garafraxa staff participated. These sessions were offered in support of workplace wellness.
The following is a list of other notable achievements by the County and member municipalities with respect to the Health and Safety program in 2018:
• Updated Fire Safety Plans (4 County facility plans, and 2 Municipal plans) • Updated Severe Weather Plans (7 County facility plans, and 1 Municipal plan) • Ergonomic Assessments Completed (20 County assessments, 1 Municipal assessment) • North American Occupational Safety and Health (NAOSH) Week activities and promotions – Daily tidbit! • Electronic Safety Data Sheet (SDS) Management – Updated 414 SDS documents • Policy approval – Reviewed and revised policies 1.02, 7.02 and removed 1.04
2019 Goals The following is a list of some on-going and planned initiatives for the County and its member municipalities with respect to the Health and Safety program in 2019.
• Approval of Musculoskeletal Disorder Prevention policy • Musculoskeletal Disorder Prevention training • Continue to offer low-org wellness initiatives that can be site-driven by a program site champion • Update safety data sheets (SDS) in the summer of 2019 and investigate SDS service for updating SDS info • Review and update health and safety policies
Financial, Staffing, Legal, or IT Considerations
There are no financial, staffing, or legal impacts resulting from this report.
Recommendation
THAT the report of the Health and Safety Advisor dated July 16th, 2019, regarding the 2018 Health and Safety Review, be received.
Respectfully Submitted By:
Shara Bagnell Health and Safety Advisor
We Manage Change, We Deliver Quality Service, We Communicate, We Make Good Decisions From: Diana Morris Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 11:52 AM To: Susan Stone Subject: Amaranth & East Gary Business Excellence Nominees
Hello Susan,
Hope you are well and enjoying your September. As you are likely aware, we are preparing for our annual Business Excellence Awards during Small Business Week in October.
We are doing something a bit different to give our nominees even more recognition this year. In addition to the graphic they all receive electronically recognizing them as a nominee, we will also be creating a certificate for each nominee. In order to help demonstrate the partnership between DBOT and the municipalities, and highlight each Town/Township’s support of their businesses, we would like to give the option for a member of the EDC Committee, Staff, &/or Council to pay a quick visit to the businesses and present their certificates. This could be a great photo and community engagement opportunity, and we would be happy to promote this as well. This year we have three Business Excellence Award nominees from Amaranth and two from East Garafraxa.
Certificates will be ready shortly. If you would please let me know as soon as possible if the township would be interested in delivering these, so that if not we can get them in the mail to the nominees.
Thank you,
Diana Morris, Accredited Chamber Executive
General Manager at Dufferin Board of Trade
C: 519-261-0352 O: 519-941-0490 ext: 202
E: [email protected] W: https://dufferinbot.ca