Township of Centre Wellington Council Agenda Monday, August 30, 2021 1:00 pm Council Chamber, 1 MacDonald Square, Elora
Meeting to be held electronically, no persons will be permitted in the Council Chamber. Should you wish to register as a delegate please contact the Municipal Clerk at [email protected] or 519.846.9691 x243 Page
1. CALL TO ORDER
1.1 Roll Call
2. ADDENDUMS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA
2.1 Addendum # 1 Integrity Commissioner Report of Inquiry - VanLeeuwen 7 - 60 (Agenda Item 8.3) Report re Councillor VanLeeuwen (Centre Wellington) 2021 ONMIC 13
3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST UNDER THE MUNICIPAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT
4. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES
4.1 Council - 26 Jul 2021 - Minutes - Pdf 61 - 68 Recommendation: THAT the minutes of the Council meeting held July 26, 2021 be adopted as circulated.
5. PRESENTATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
5.1 Ed O'Shaughnessy - Petition re St. David Street Reconstruction Project 69 - Email Ed OShaughnessy 101 St David Street petition signatures (Final) St David Street petition comments (Final) St David Street peition signatures by Location (Chart) St. David Street Petition Comments by Category & Location (Chart)
5.2 Mayor's County Council Report
5.3 Councillor's Committee Updates
Page 1 of 228
6. DELEGATIONS
7. CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS
7.1 Grant Application Policy 2021 102 - Report from D. Smith, Manager of Community Development, Festivals, 106 Culture and Tourism CS2021-14 - Pdf Recommendation: THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington approve the recommendation by the Community Services Advisory Committee that the amended Community Grant Application Policy be adopted as presented.
7.2 MacDonald Funding Elora Sculpture Project Update 107 - Report from P. Newson, Managing Director of Community Services 127 CS2021-15 - Pdf Recommendation: THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington delegate to the Managing Director of Corporate Services to invoke Article 3.4 Failure to Comply, of the MacDonald Grant Agreement between the Township and the Elora Sculpture Project Committee, which provides a process to terminate the agreement as requested by the Elora Sculpture Project Committee on March 22, 2021 in their written summary to the Community Services Advisory Committee;
AND THAT Council allow CSAC additional time to review and discuss options once the MacDonald Grant Agreement with the Elora Sculpture Project Committee has been terminated and consider options for how the $25,000 could be reallocated.
7.3 Elora Rocks Hockey Club Agreement 128 - Report from M. Tucker, Manager of Parks & Facilities Operations 132 CS2021-16 - Pdf Recommendation: THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington authorize the Mayor and Clerk to enter into an agreement with The Elora Rocks Hockey Club for the payment of ice rental arrears from past seasons.
7.4 Snow Drainage Works - Maintenance and Repair 2021 133 - Report from K. O’Kane, Manager of Legislative Services & Municipal Clerk 135 COR2021-44 - Pdf Recommendation:
Page 2 of 228 THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington, in accordance with Section 74 of the Drainage Act, R.S.O. 1990 c.D.17, approves the cost of the maintenance and repair work to a portion of the Snow Drain, located at the top end of the drain through Concession 2, as recommended by the Drainage Superintendent, at an estimated cost of $6,500.
7.5 Request for Proposal # 17-21: Phone System 136 - Report from D. Wilson, Managing Director of Corporate Services & Treasurer 140 COR2021-49 - Pdf Recommendation: THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington award Request For Proposal #17-21: Supply, Installation and Support of Cloud Hosted Telephone System to GoCo Technology Limited Partnership as outlined in report COR2021-49 dated August 30, 2021.
7.6 Negotiated Award: BioRem Media Replacement Project 141 - Report from D. Wilson, Managing Director of Corporate Services & Treasurer 142 COR2021-46 - Pdf Recommendation: THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington authorize the negotiated award for the Elora Wastewater Treatment Plant BioRem Odour Control Carbon Media Replacement to BioRem Technologies Inc. at a cost of $255,205.00, excluding HST.
AND THAT the funding for this report be revised as outlined in report COR2021-46 dated August 30, 2021.
7.7 Amendment to Subdivision Agreement, Plan 23T-16003 Storybrook West 143 - Report from B. Salmon, Managing Director of Planning and Development 148 PLN2021-26 - Pdf Recommendation: THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute an amendment to the existing subdivision agreement pertaining to Phase 2A of Plan 23T-16003.
7.8 Tender Award Amendment: Tender #11-21 - Construction of Municipal 149 - Services: St. David Street North (Highway 6) and Sideroad 18, Fergus 152 Report from D. Wilson, Managing Director of Corporate Services & Treasurer COR2021-51 - Pdf Recommendation: THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington authorize the Request for Tender award amendment, Tender #11-21 regarding the Construction of Municipal Services: St. David Street North (Highway 6) and
Page 3 of 228 Sideroad 18, Fergus, as outlined in report COR2021-51 dated August 30, 2021, to be funded from developer contributions.
7.9 Request for Proposal # 22-21: New Well Exploration 153 - Report from D. Wilson, Managing Director of Corporate Services & Treasurer 156 COR2021-47 - Pdf Recommendation: THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington award Request For Proposal #22-21: New Well Exploration to Stantec Consulting Ltd. at a total upset limit of $344,053.00, excluding HST.
7.10 Application for Toll Booth - Elora Firefighters 157 - Report from L. Miller, Supervisor of Customer Service & Deputy Municipal 159 Clerk COR2021-45 - Pdf Recommendation: THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington authorizes the Mayor and Clerk to execute a by-law authorizing a fundraising activity in the form of soliciting by a toll booth on Metcalfe Street in Elora, on Saturday, September 18, 2021 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. by the Elora Firefighters Association on behalf of Muscular Dystrophy Canada.
7.11 Request for Proposal # 32-21: Well F7 Filtration System 160 - Report from D. Wilson, Managing Director of Corporate Services & Treasurer 163 COR2021-23 - Pdf Recommendation: THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington award Request For Proposal #32-21: Supply of Well FPH7 Iron Filtration System to Magnor at a total upset limit of $240,590.90, including provisional items and contingency, excluding HST.
7.12 Application for Noise By-law Exemption - Perchaluk and DiMambro 164 - Report from L. Miller, Supervisor of Customer Service & Deputy Municipal 165 Clerk COR2021-52 - Pdf Recommendation: THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington approves the request from Justin Perchaluk for an exemption to By-law 5001-05, the Noise By-law for the Township of Centre Wellington, to permit the amplification of music at 7248 Wellington Rd 21, Ariss on September 4, 2021 between 11:00 pm and 1:00 am for a Wedding Reception;
AND THAT the applicant ensure neighbouring property owners are notified in advance of the event.
Page 4 of 228
AND
THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington approves the request from Darla Dimambro for an exemption to By-law 5001-05, the Noise By-law for the Township of Centre Wellington, to permit the amplification of music at 7248 Wellington Rd 21, Ariss on September 8, 2021 between 11:00 pm and 1:00 am for a Wedding Reception;
AND THAT the applicant ensure neighbouring property owners are notified in advance of the event.
7.13 Part Lot Control Exemption By-law, Lots 54, 55, and 69 to 72, Plan 61M-235 166 - Report from B. Salmon, Managing Director of Planning and Development 168 PLN2021-28 - Pdf Recommendation: THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington give three readings to a By-law to exempt Lots 54, 55, 69, 70, 71 and 72 of Plan 61M-235 from the part lot control provisions of the Planning Act.
7.14 Consideration Report Draft Plan of Subdivision 23T-18005 169 - Report from B. Salmon, Managing Director of Planning and Development 211 PLN2021-23 - Pdf Recommendation: THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington recommends to the County of Wellington that proposed draft plan of subdivision 23T-18005 be granted draft approval, subject to the conditions set out in staff report PLN2021-23.
8. INFORMATION ITEMS
8.1 Capital Projects Status - June 30, 2021 212 - Report from M. Bradey, Manager of Finance & Deputy Treasurer 217 COR2021-43 - Pdf
8.2 Operating Results - June 30, 2021 218 - Report from M. Bradey, Manager of Finance & Deputy Treasurer 227 COR2021-42 - Pdf
9. BY-LAWS
9.1 2021-39 A By-law to authorize a fund raising activity in the form of soliciting by a toll booth on the Metcalfe Street Bridge in Elora
Page 5 of 228 2021-40 A By-law to exempt Lots 54, 55, 69, 70, 71 and 72 of Plan 61M235, Township of Centre Wellington, from the Part Lot Control provisions of the Planning Act
2021-41 A By-law to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute an Amendment to a Subdivision Agreement between the Corporation of the Township of Centre Wellington and Sorbara/Tribute Nigus Holdings Inc.
2021-42 A By-law to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute a Re-payment of Arrears Agreement between the Corporation of the Township of Centre Wellington and the Elora Rocks Hockey Club Recommendation: THAT By-laws 2021-39 through 2021-42 be read a first, second and third time and passed, signed by the Mayor and Clerk and the Corporate Seal affixed.
10. MOTIONS (WHERE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN)
10.1 Councillor McElwain (notice given July 26, 2021) 228 Councillor McElwain's Motion
11. CONFIRMATORY BY-LAW
11.1 A By-law to confirm the actions of Council Recommendation: THAT By-law 2021-43 to Confirm the Proceedings of Council at its meeting held August 30, 2021 be introduced a first, second and third time and passed in open Council.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Page 6 of 228
TOWNSHIP OF CENTRE WELLINGTON INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER, GUY GIORNO
Citation: Re VanLeeuwen, 2021 ONMIC 13 Date: August 24, 2021
REPORT OF INQUIRY
Page 7 of 228
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Inquiry ...... 3 Summary ...... 3 Background ...... 7 Process Followed ...... 12 Positions Expressed ...... 15 Concerns about Councillor VanLeeuwen’s Comments and Actions ...... 15 Position of Councillor VanLeeuwen ...... 28 Analysis and Findings ...... 32 The Claim that “Lockdowns Cause More Harm than the Virus” ...... 32 The “Happy Balance” ...... 35 Lobbying, Polling and other Non-Public-Health Inputs...... 36 Hear the Other Side ...... 37 The Constitution and the Rule of Law ...... 39 Deputy Mayor VanLeeuwen’s Social Media Posts...... 42 Interference with Law Enforcement / Urging Law Breaking ...... 52 Private Interest...... 52 Compliance with the Law by Councillor VanLeeuwen ...... 52 Conclusions ...... 53 Content ...... 54
Page 8 of 228 3 INQUIRY
1. On February 22, the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington, acting under clause 223.4(1)(a) of the Municipal Act, asked me whether to inquire into whether Councillor Steven VanLeeuwen had breached the Code of Conduct for Council Members and Members of Local Boards. The request was made following public announcement of Councillor VanLeeuwen’s membership in the End the Lockdowns National Caucus.
2. The principal claim of Councillor VanLeeuwen and the End the Lockdowns National Caucus, to which he belongs, is that, “the lockdowns cause more harm than the virus and must be brought to an end.” The central issue in this inquiry was whether, by making this statement and participating in the Caucus, Councillor VanLeeuwen breached the Code.
3. The relevant portion of subsection 223.4(1) of the Municipal Act states: “This section applies if the Commissioner conducts an inquiry under this Part, (a) in respect of a request made by council … about whether a member of council … has contravened the code of conduct applicable to the member.” Upon receiving Council’s request, I commenced an inquiry.
4. Council’s request also mentioned the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, but I determined that only the Code was the applicable to these facts, and I proceeded on that basis.1
SUMMARY
5. The removal of Councillor VanLeeuwen from the office of Deputy Mayor was a political decision that Council was entitled to make, and not a matter on which an Integrity Commissioner should comment. The only issue in this inquiry is whether Councillor VanLeeuwen contravened the Code of Conduct.
6. This inquiry has considered Councillor VanLeeuwen’s participation in the End the Lockdowns National Caucus, including the communication issued by the Caucus. This inquiry has also considered Councillor VanLeeuwen’s social media commentary until his removal from the office of Deputy Mayor.
1 Among my reasons for not considering the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act: The MCIA covers decision making, at a meeting, on a matter in which one has a pecuniary interest (section 5), and attempting to influence the decision or recommendation of a municipal officer or employee on a matter in which one has a pecuniary interest (section 5.2). There was no suggestion of any facts that might trigger the MCIA. Further, section 223.4.1 of the Municipal Act requires the applicant for an Integrity Commissioner’s MCIA inquiry, to provide both a statutory declaration and reasons for believing that a contravention occurred. Given the wording of Council’s resolution, clearly it had not decided to become a section 223.4.1 applicant.
Page 9 of 228 4
7. I find as a fact that, with a few exceptions, the factual claims in Councillor VanLeeuwen’s social media posts were accurate and not misleading. I find that the statements of opinion in his social media posts reflected views that he had a right to express and did not contravene the Code.
8. Most of the lockdown measures were enacted by the Province, partly by statute, but primarily in the form of Cabinet orders (Orders in Council) filed as Regulations. I proceeded on the basis that, by joining the End the Lockdowns National Caucus, Councillor VanLeeuwen was challenging the provincial measures.
9. “Lockdown” is not a static concept. The lockdowns imposed by the Province of Ontario were an evolving set of restrictions. The Province’s principal lockdown instrument, Ontario Regulation 82/20, developed through 72 versions between March 24, 2020, and June 23, 2021 – a different version of restrictions every six days on average.
10. Nobody who provided evidence in the inquiry disputes the existence of adverse effects of provincial lockdown measures including, but not limited to, intimate partner violence, suicide, suicidal ideation and self-harm, child maltreatment, substance use and abuse, food insecurity, poverty, cancellation and delay of vital surgeries, job loss and additional economic impacts, and other results. The Premier of Ontario has called these outcomes “a massive cost to people and their lives.” The issue is not whether adverse effects exist, but whether Councillor VanLeeuwen violated the Code when he said these adverse effects of the provincial lockdown measures exceed the harm caused by COVID.
11. I expressly asked the Province whether the claim of the End the Lockdowns National Caucus – that the lockdowns cause more harm than the virus – is factually incorrect. The Ontario Government responded to my information requests on June 2 and June 15, and detail of the provincial responses appears later in this report. Significantly, the Province “does not have an analysis of the economic impacts that can be specifically traced to COVID-19 restrictions. Other, non-economic, impacts on the citizens of Ontario may not be possible to quantify precisely.”
12. By the Government’s own admission, the effects of the lockdown measures are unquantified. Since the impacts are unmeasured, there is no evidentiary basis to prove or to disprove an assertion that “the lockdowns cause more harm than the virus.”
13. Given the absence – an absence confirmed by the Province – of quantifiable measurement of adverse effects of the lockdowns, I find it impossible to treat “the lockdowns cause more harm than the virus” as a statement of fact. It is a statement of political opinion. In Canada we do not penalize elected representatives who hold political opinions, even political opinions out of step with the mainstream. This is particularly true in light of the guarantee of freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Page 10 of 228 5
14. Councillor VanLeeuwen points out that he has been up front about his beliefs, in contrast to federal and provincial politicians who promote restrictions for others that they do not observe themselves. For example, he commented on photographic evidence that Prime Minister Trudeau (who was not fully vaccinated at the time) and other G7 leaders disregarded physical distance in a social setting, after carefully spacing themselves for the official group portrait.2 3 This incident followed numerous examples, detailed at paragraphs 121 to 128, of federal and provincial politicians failing to practise the restrictions that they instruct ordinary people to follow. (To be clear, the inquiry found no evidence that any Centre Wellington officials said one thing and then did another.) Because federal and provincial leaders are not subject to municipal integrity commissioner inquiries, I cannot make a finding on Councillor VanLeeuwen’s observation that is unfair to penalize honest opposition to pandemic restrictions when those who make and promote the restrictions contravene them with impunity.
2 The G7 summit was held June 11-13. At the time, the official guidance from the Public Health Agency of Canada was that partly vaccinated individuals should wear masks and maintain physical distance in the presence of others, even outdoors. PHAC did not issue new guidance until June 25. According to the new guidance, at outdoor gatherings, individuals who are partly vaccinated (as Mr. Trudeau was at the time of the summit) should “For now, consider wearing a mask if physical distancing cannot be maintained” when they are “Outdoors with people from multiple households who are unvaccinated, partially vaccinated, or their vaccination status is unknown.” 3 In fairness, the official UK Government position is that the event complied with protocols because “there was social distancing” and “there have always been different principles for social entertainment or weddings than for government business.”
Page 11 of 228 6
15. Provincial decisions on lockdown measures are not based solely on the advice of public health experts and other medical experts. They reflect a variety of inputs, including medical-scientific expertise, public opinion polling, political considerations, and lobbying by lobbyists. Premier Ford said as much when he explained that in fashioning restrictions the Government was seeking a “happy balance.” Ultimately, the lockdown measures are subjective policy choices made by provincial politicians. In Canada we do not treat political decisions as inviolate, objective truths that cannot be criticized.
16. Almost never is there only one policy solution to a given problem. The fact that Ontario adopted 72 different versions of lockdown measures is ample evidence that there was more than one way to respond to the pandemic, and I find that the Code of Conduct must be interpreted in light of that reality. The Cabinet clearly was choosing from a range of options, and there is no basis to find that a politician who advocates an unchosen option should be penalized, or, to use a modern expression, cancelled. A municipal representative who happens to disagree with the subjective policy choice of provincial politicians does not contravene the Code of Conduct.
17. The Code of Conduct was adopted by Council under the Municipal Act, a statute of Ontario. In this Province, as across the entire country, our political system presumes that on any question there are different, legitimate positions. As examples, I note the constitutional role of the Official Opposition, and the Legislative Assembly’s motto, audi alteram partem (hear the other side). I am confident that the Municipal Act authority to
Page 12 of 228 7 create codes of conduct was never meant to outlaw disagreement with decisions of the Provincial Cabinet.
18. Once political decision-making leads to the enactment of a law, that law should be obeyed. One may challenge a law through the constitutional, legal process. One may seek to alter a law through the democratic, political process. An elected representative should not, however, advocate law breaking. I find that Councillor VanLeeuwen did not urge anyone to break the law. His actions were limited to seeking to overturn the lockdown measures through constitutional, legal, democratic, and political processes.
19. I also find, based on the available evidence, that Councillor VanLeeuwen did not obstruct, interfere with, or attempt to influence the enforcement of the lockdown measures or other public health measures. (The Wellington County OPP Detachment, upon being asked to address any interference with law enforcement, declined to participate in this inquiry.)
20. Whether Councillor VanLeeuwen failed to obey the law in operating his own businesses or personally is a matter for law enforcement authorities, not an Integrity Commissioner operating under the Code of Conduct. I note, however, that his business was visited by inspectors on two occasions and no charges were laid.
21. Councillor VanLeeuwen and the End the Lockdowns National Caucus also claim that they, “desire to restore dignity and respect for all Canadians by safeguarding our representative democracy and its institutions, defending our Constitution, personal freedoms and responsibilities …” In this context, Councillor VanLeeuwen has commented on the Ontario Provincial Police decision to communicate new lockdown measures, as if they were already in effect, at a stage when they were merely political positions of the governing party. I find that the Councillor did not contravene the Code of Conduct by publicly defending constitutional values in the face of such an apparent departure from the rule of law.
22. I conclude that Councillor VanLeeuwen did not contravene the Code of Conduct.
BACKGROUND
23. Starting in September 2020, Deputy Mayor VanLeeuwen used his personal Facebook page to pose the occasional comment – usually by sharing a link to a news story or someone else’s social media post – about the response to COVID-19. I consider those posts in more detail at paragraphs 201 through 237.
24. Councillor VanLeeuwen subsequently joined four other individuals as the inaugural members of the End the Lockdowns National Caucus, which describes itself as a “non- partisan group seeking to provide formal challenges to current COVID-19 policies with a
Page 13 of 228 8 specific emphasis on ending government’s use of province-wide lockdowns and stay-at- home orders.”4
25. The formation of the End the Lockdowns National Caucus was announced February 4, through the issuance of the following public statement:5 We are current and former elected representatives from municipal, provincial, and federal levels of government across Canada, unified in pursuit of the truth, and resolved to ensure there is open, honest, and public debate regarding the COVID- 19 government response. After careful examination and scrutiny of mitigation measures undertaken by all levels of government, it is now evident that the lockdowns cause more harm than the virus and must be brought to an end. We devote our energy and efforts to the just and compassionate objective of reopening our businesses, schools, places of worship, recreational facilities, along with the full resumption and expansion of efficient medical services. We desire to restore dignity and respect for all Canadians by safeguarding our representative democracy and its institutions, defending our Constitution, personal freedoms and responsibilities, whilst implementing focused protection for the most vulnerable. We hereby voluntarily sign this agreement on the 2nd day of February, 2021.
26. I am treating the words of the End the Lockdowns National Caucus statement as if they are Councillor VanLeeuwen’s own words, and I have considered the impact of those words on Councillor VanLeeuwen’s obligations under the Code of Conduct.
27. The Caucus describes itself and its purpose as follows:6 In response to the unprecedented mass violations of Canadian’s Charter Rights from government across the country in response to the COVID19 pandemic, a group of current and former elected representatives have come together to form the End the Lockdowns National Caucus. The caucus is a non-partisan group seeking to provide formal challenges to current COVID19 policies with a specific emphasis on ending governments use of province- wide lockdowns and stay-at-home orders. All members of the caucus which includes Randy Hillier - MPP, Maxime Bernier - PPC Party Leader, Derek Sloan - MP, Daryl Herlick - Perth East Councillor, and Steve VanLeeuwen - Centre Wellington Councillor, signed the following statement as a means of establishing the caucus. The statement reads as follows: [then follows the statement reproduced at paragraph 25, above]
4 https://www.libertycoalitioncanada.com/end-the-lockdown-caucus 5 The statement is posted online: https://www.libertycoalitioncanada.com/end-the-lockdown-caucus 6 Ibid.
Page 14 of 228 9
28. I note and I have considered the fact that Councillor VanLeeuwen associates his membership in the End the Lockdowns National Caucus with his office as a Council Member of the Township of Centre Wellington.
29. The Caucus’s announcement also states: “The caucus is open to all members, at any level, of representative government and others are encouraged to contact the caucus for more information.”
30. The announcement was accompanied by an undated photograph of the inaugural members of the Caucus. From left to right, the photograph shows: Daryl Herlick, Township of East Perth Councillor (North Easthope); Hon. Maxime Bernier, Leader, People’s Party of Canada; Randy Hillier, Ontario Member of Provincial Parliament (Independent, Lanark-Frontenac-Kingston); Derek Sloan, Member of Parliament (Independent, Hastings-Lennox and Addington); and Mr. VanLeeuwen, at that time the Deputy Mayor of Centre Wellington.
31. Shortly after joining the End the Lockdowns National Caucus, Deputy Mayor VanLeeuwen was interviewed by Guelph Today. The February 9 report of his interview reads, in part, as follows: In a phone interview, VanLeeuwen explained the goal of the group is to reopen the country while protecting vulnerable populations like seniors and those with pre- existing conditions from COVID. He said as time has gone on since the early days of the pandemic and as he’s had more conversations with residents he wanted to speak out against the lockdown. “I would say the effects of the restrictions and the lockdowns seem to be becoming more harmful and demonstratively more harmful than the virus itself,” VanLeeuwen said.
Page 15 of 228 10
“I think receiving and hearing cries from the people constantly and I’ll say people of my riding and around, but I’m like ‘Okay I just can’t remain silent anymore.’” He noted he has also become concerned with a rise in mental health problems, divorce, drug use and financial difficulties based on what he’s heard from people he’s met. What started with five politicians has already grown in numbers, mostly with politicians from Ontario and Alberta. A press release from the group said they’re looking to provide a formal challenge to current COVID policies. “We’re starting with speaking up and also gathering other community leaders and other elected officials together so that we can speak with one voice,” he said. “There will be further actions later on but at this point, you can see that there’s many signatures and different petitions to get started on. We want the voice of the people to be heard.” One petition has gathered nearly 20,000 signatures in less than a week. The province announced on Monday a gradual reopening of the province in certain areas but VanLeeuwen said this isn’t going far enough and is unfair to certain regions. “The difficulty with it is, they also still continue to think that it’s acceptable to lock them back down again if something happens,” he said. “Public health is taking a one-leg approach to dealing with the virus and have really stated that any other symptom that comes out of this, or the effect of these lockdowns, doesn’t matter.”
32. I have quoted from the news report since Mr. VanLeeuwen’s comments to Guelph Today form part of the allegation against him.
33. I find as a fact that Mr. VanLeeuwen’s Guelph Today comments were primarily directed to Government of Ontario decisions and that the measures he criticized were primarily those imposed by the Province.
34. In response to the Deputy Mayor’s decision to join the Caucus, Mayor Linton presented a report on to February 16 meeting of Council in Committee of the Whole, and recommended that Mr. VanLeeuwen be removed from the position of Deputy Mayor. According the report: The Township of Centre Wellington and County of Wellington have declared states of emergency due to the COVID-19 global pandemic. Both the Township and County of Wellington continue to take action and make decisions consistent with the advice received from our local health professionals, including, but not limited to, the Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public Health. During the current state of emergency, I feel it is essential the Mayor and Deputy Mayor are unified in promoting a consistent message to our community of following rules, like physically distancing and wearing
Page 16 of 228 11
masks, to ensure that we slow the spread of COVID, reduce the strain on our healthcare system and save lives. Councillor VanLeeuwen has joined the “End the Lockdown Caucus”, an alliance that maintains the current COVID-19 pandemic restrictions violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This group openly criticizes the Federal, Provincial, County and Township governments. In addition, Councillor VanLeeuwen has publicly criticized our approach of supporting the actions taken by Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public Health (Feb 9, Guelph Today); he has posting/sharing information with questionable accuracy; and he has defied current lockdown rules by participating in a photo op with this Caucus indoors without physical distancing and without masks. I believe during this state of emergency, it is essential the Mayor and Deputy Mayor are unified in promoting a consistent message to encourage our community to continue to follow Provincial government and public health rules and protocols. Since the Deputy Mayor is not directly elected by citizens, Council reserves the right to both appoint and remove. Given the aforementioned, I believe a new Deputy Mayor should be appointed by Council.
35. Mayor Linton began the February 16 discussion by noting the significance of the “declared state of emergency” and stating his view that the Township “cannot afford to have a Deputy Mayor using his title” to criticize public health officials, or to “post and share information with questionable accuracy.”
36. Resident Matt Wood presented a Change.org petition, calling on the Township of Centre Wellington to “Keep Steve VanLeeuwen as Deputy Mayor.” The petition read in full as follows: On Friday February 12, 2021 Mayor Kelly Linton announced that he will be bringing forward a motion at the next council meeting to remove Centre Wellington Councillor Steve VanLeeuwen as Deputy Mayor after VanLeeuwen joined the End The Lockdown Caucus. The caucus is a group of Canadian politicians opposed to the current Covid19 policies, which are in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The group is advocating for “the just and compassionate objective of reopening our businesses, schools, places of worship, recreational facilities, along with the full resumption and expansion of efficient medical services", while also “implementing focused protection for the most vulnerable.” We are a group of concerned Canadians who believe in free speech and DO NOT support Mayor Linton in his decision to punish and silence anyone that does not agree with his point of view. We are asking that Steve VanLeeuwen KEEP his position as Deputy Mayor.
37. The Committee of the Whole then proceeded to discuss Councillor VanLeeuwen’s decision to join the End the Lockdowns National Caucus and debate what, if anything, Council should do in response. Eventually, the Committee of the Whole adopted a motion, moved by Councillor Kitras and seconded by Councillor Foster, to “defer a
Page 17 of 228 12 decision on the position of the Deputy Mayor pending an investigation by the Integrity Commissioner into whether Councillor VanLeeuwen violated the Council Code of Conduct or any other legislation.”
38. The Committee of the Whole report was considered at the February 22 meeting of Council.
39. When the Committee of the Whole recommendation to defer (pending an Integrity Commissioner investigation) a decision on removing Councillor VanLeeuwen as Deputy Mayor was put to a recorded vote, Council Members who voted were equally divided, with three on either side of the question, and Councillor VanLeeuwen not voting.7 Under subsection 246(2) of the Municipal Act, the failure to vote is deemed to be a vote against the motion. As a result of Councillor VanLeeuwen’s deemed negative vote, the motion to adopt the Committee of the Whole recommendation was defeated, 4-3.
40. Councillor Foster then moved, seconded by Councillor McElwain: THAT Council of the Township of Centre of Wellington remove Councillor VanLeeuwen as Deputy Mayor; AND THAT the Integrity Commissioner be requested to initiate an investigation on whether Councillor VanLeeuwen breached Council’s Code of Conduct or the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.
41. That motion carried 5-2, with Councillors Kitras and VanLeeuwen abstaining (counted as negative votes) and everyone else voting in favour.
PROCESS FOLLOWED
42. This report was delayed by my attempt to obtain information from the Government of Ontario. My first inquiry to the Province was made on March 27 and additional inquiries were made by letters on April 15 and April 28. While the Province was under no obligation to cooperate, provincial lockdown measures are central to this case, so I offered it an opportunity to participate.
43. The Government of Ontario replied to my April 15 and April 28 letters on June 2 and June 15, respectively.
44. Typically, in operating under the Code, I follow a process that ensures fairness to both the individual(s) bringing a Complaint and the Council Member responding to the
7 Councillors Foster, Kitras and McElwain voted in favour of the Committee of the Whole recommendation to defer a decision on the position of the Deputy Mayor pending an Integrity Commissioner investigation. Councillors Dunsmore and MacRae and Mayor Linton voted against. Councillor VanLeeuwen did not vote and was deemed to vote against.
Page 18 of 228 13
Complaint. This process is based on the Complaint Protocol that was adopted by Council and is appended to the Code as sections 16 through 43.8
45. Inquiries typically involve Complainants and Respondents who take different, often opposing, positions on the central issues. Section 223.4 of the Municipal Act does not mandate an adversarial (that is, party A versus party B) process, and it is important to note that Integrity Commissioners merely investigate and then report findings and recommendations; they do not decide.9 On the other hand, the Complaint Protocol adopted by Township Council (which is not dissimilar to the protocols and procedures of many other municipalities), bears some of the hallmarks of an adversarial proceeding. The Respondent in an inquiry is entitled to know the substance of the allegations, and to receive the opportunity to respond meaningfully.10 In my experience, the presence of a Complainant helps to bring the allegations into focus.
46. In the absence of a Complainant, I had to consider whether Councillor VanLeeuwen’s words and conduct might potentially have contravened the Code, and then to allow him to respond on specific points. As one part of that process, I used interviews of witnesses to identify potential areas of concern. While no one formally articulated the position that Councillor VanLeeuwen has contravened the Code, nobody who was interviewed agreed with the position of Councillor VanLeeuwen and the End the Lockdowns National Caucus that the lockdowns cause more harm than the virus.
47. Under the next heading, I have grouped various expressions of concern about (and lack of support for) the stance of Councillor VanLeeuwen and the End the Lockdowns National Caucus. These perspectives were shared by individuals who freely accepted my invitation to be interviewed. These individuals were witnesses. None is a Complainant in this proceeding. None bears the burden of proof or is required to establish anything. Except for the Council Members, none is even subject to Centre Wellington’s Code of Conduct or to my jurisdiction as Integrity Commissioner.
48. Section 223.5 of the Municipal Act imposes a secrecy requirement on Integrity Commissioners and their delegates. Because of this requirement, I do not inform witnesses of whom I am investigating, or for what reason. I only communicate (through questions) as much information as is necessary to facilitate witness interviews. One common interview question related to the claim that, “it is now evident that the lockdowns cause more harm than the virus and must be brought to an end.” Witnesses from the Township and County were generally already aware of Council’s request that I conduct
8 The Complaint Protocol is posted here: https://www.centrewellington.ca/en/township- services/resources/Documents/LegislativeServices/Final-Complaint-Protocols-adopted-January27- 2020.pdf 9 Some municipalities have purported to delegate to Integrity Commissioners the authority to decide on penalties for breaches of codes of conduct. That is not the case here. Whether the Municipal Act permits such purported delegation is not relevant to this inquiry. 10 Di Biase v. Vaughan (City), 2016 ONSC 5620 (CanLII), at paras. 146-149.
Page 19 of 228 14 this inquiry, and many of them commented specifically on Councillor VanLeeuwen. The other witnesses spoke generally about lockdowns and the opposition to lockdowns.
49. I conducted some interviews directly. I issued a delegation under subsection 223.3(3) of the Municipal Act to a lawyer who works in my office, and he conducted other interviews.
50. In total, a dozen people were interviewed. Six interviews were of public health officials and representatives from civil society organizations with a direct role in providing public health and social services, or in advocating for health, equity, and justice outcomes, before, during, and after the pandemic.
51. I sought interviews of other important witnesses, as well. An Integrity Commissioner may exercise authority under section 33 of the Public Inquiries Act to issue a summons and to require a person to give evidence on oath or affirmation or to produce relevant documents.11 I chose not to do so, on the basis that the exercise of subpoena power would be disproportionate to the subject matter of the inquiry. Having made this choice, I was unable to compel anyone’s participation.
52. Inspector Paul Richardson, Detachment Commander, Wellington County OPP, was invited, but he declined to participate, claiming, “I truly do not have any information to offer that will aid in your inquiry.”
53. My letter to the Detachment Commander had listed the following topics about which I hoped to interview him: The purpose of the requested interview would be to help me understand topics that include the following, all in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic: the role of the police in enforcing provincial and local orders related to the pandemic; whether there has been actual or attempted interference with the independence of law enforcement by an elected official of the Township of Centre Wellington; more generally, whether the comments and conduct of elected officials in Centre Wellington have had an impact (positive, negative or neutral) on the ability of the OPP to educate about, promote compliance with, and enforce, provincial and local COVID-19 orders; whether any elected officials in Centre Wellington have failed to comply with COVID-19 orders; and the nature of misinformation and its effect on enforcement in the response to the pandemic. [emphasis added]
54. Separately, I invited the Commissioner of the OPP, Thomas Carrique, to respond to the suggestion that the OPP had announced it was enforcing certain lockdown measures, prior to the making of the Order in Council giving effect to those measures. The Commissioner provided responsive information in writing.
11 Municipal Act, subs. 223.4(2).
Page 20 of 228 15
55. I offered each Council Member the opportunity of an interview to share views on whether and how Councillor VanLeeuwen had contravened the Code of Conduct. Councillors Foster and McElwain were interviewed, and I received written comments from Councillor Kitras. Their positions are outlined below.
56. I interviewed Councillor VanLeeuwen twice. He received a meaningful and full opportunity to address whether he had contravened the Code of Conduct, including to address the specific issues covered in this report.
57. This report does not refer to every letter, email, and document that I received, but I have reviewed and taken into account all the documentary evidence. I have also carefully considered all the evidence provided by witnesses.
POSITIONS EXPRESSED
Concerns about Councillor VanLeeuwen’s Comments and Actions
Members of Council
58. In a telephone interview, Councillor Foster expressed clear concern about Councillor VanLeeuwen’s actions.
59. Councillor Foster stated that he had received reports from residents alleging that employees and patrons of Councillor VanLeeuwen’s businesses were inside the building without masks, contrary to public health orders. He did not have particulars, but suggested that I may be able to determine whether the police or public health officials possessed incident reports, an avenue that I did, in fact, pursue.
60. Regarding the broader issue of Councillor VanLeeuwen joining the End the Lockdowns National Caucus, Councillor Foster distinguished between “fair debate” and “unacceptable debate.” Specifically, he stated his view that “real public health experts” need to be able to speak freely in public meetings without having their expertise undermined by opinion “in the dark recesses of the Internet”. He further stated that politicians have an “oath to uphold the laws of the land” and “if the public health officer makes a recommendation to wear masks and we pass a law saying people have to wear one, then we need to abide by that.” He further specified that these “policy decisions need to be made by learned people”, indicating that he does not include Councillor VanLeeuwen in the category.
61. He further stated that the photograph of Councillor VanLeeuwen and the other members of the End the Lockdowns National Caucus must have certainly violated one or
Page 21 of 228 16 more public health orders regarding indoor gatherings and the wearing of masks and he asked me to investigate the circumstances surrounding that photo.
62. Councillor Foster also expressed concern about emails that Councillor VanLeeuwen sent to the rest of Council. On December 10, 2020, Councillor VanLeeuwen sent other Council Members a Rebel News article about RCMP action taken against a drive-in church service in Manitoba. The article included the following cover note from Councillor VanLeeuwen: Hi fellow Councillors. I wanted to pass this article along because sometimes we can imagine that certain things would never happen in our lifetime or under our watch and care of our community. This is no longer a "what if" situation and has become a reality in other areas in Canada. It is not my intention to express that this will happen in Centre Wellington but I am surprised that it is happening in Canada even while such respect and compromise is happening with residents towards the restrictions. I am amazed thus far at the respect of our police force in our community and have had many discussions with them over the last months. With the new restrictions coming into place let us all at least reflect on the fact that we should never be silent on certain things and request safeguards or exemptions from Public Health so that this can't happen here. I know we are limited in our control but we do and should care about all in our community and the virus is only one area of health that we should be concerned with. Yesterday I went through another scare, a second person I know and directly spoke with was very depressed. I have had adult men (middle age) from the community in actual tears speaking in ways that were indicators of suicidal thoughts. Myself and others did immediately take loving action for these residents and they are getting help but I am saddened by what I see happening in the community. It brings me to tears. Just so you are aware, these are not members of our church and they are reaching out to us as community leaders. I am sure we all have such stories of depression coming to us all. Please watch the video and consider. I know we do not all have to agree about things in life but we should strive to understand each other.
63. In subsequent emails, Councillor Foster pressed Councillor VanLeeuwen on whether he had any personal interactions with police and what the outcome of those interactions were.
64. Councillor VanLeeuwen replied by characterizing his communications with the police as “just friendly discussions” related to their enforcement approach, and noted that he believed that the police services were attempting to be respectful.
65. Councillor VanLeeuwen then replied, on December 12, with the following clarification email to all of Council:
Page 22 of 228 17
December 12 Hi fellow Council members I have been pondering my email and may have had a statement in it the email that could cause confusion. I wrote that " I am amazed thus far at the respect of our police force in our community and have had many discussions with them over the last months." and I desire to clarify this statement. As many of you know my occupation, I need to be constantly diligent in regards to theft of recreational toys and such. This brings me in close contact with the police and they tell me many stories and such during these conversations. I am always thankful for their care in the community when I hear how they deal with the residents in all areas of life. They are indeed a blessing to our community. I was worried that somehow based on the article attached that a connection would be made by someone that my conversations with the police were in regards to the Churches in our area and their enforcement. At this time we have never had such conversations and thus I don't want any Councillors to panic. The police are professionals and know their job well based on what I have heard and seen, and that is working for the care of the community. Sorry if I caused any confusion with that statement and have a blessed weekend.
66. Councillor Foster concluded our interview by asking me to investigate Councillor VanLeeuwen’s interaction with police and public health enforcement officers and to consider whether Councillor VanLeeuwen ever tried to obstruct or to undermine their efforts, given that he was on record acknowledging interactions with them
67. Councillor McElwain expressed concern that Councillor VanLeeuwen’s primary interest was the church that he attended. Councillor McElwain felt that Councillor VanLeeuwen was using his title as Deputy Mayor and Councillor to generate publicity and to advance a position to end the lockdown in support of his church. In Councillor McElwain’s view, this raised the question of whether Councillor VanLeeuwen was “improperly advancing a private interest” by advocating for the end of lockdowns in order to support his congregation.
68. Councillor Kitras provided relevant context of Councillor VanLeeuwen’s December 10 email. Councillor Kitras informed me that, on December 11, he replied to Councillor VanLeeuwen’s email of the previous day and warned about sending emails to a quorum of Council. He also cautioned against being seen to advocate that people ignore police and law enforcement.
69. On December 11, Councillor VanLeeuwen replied as follows to Councillor Kitras: I don’t mean to call for anyone to be against the police in enforcement. I do understand your message to me though. Thanks.
Page 23 of 228 18
70. On December 12, Councillor VanLeeuwen emailed the remaining Council Members to clarify that he was not advocating for opposition to the exercise of police law enforcement responsibilities.
71. According to Councillor Kitras, the December 12 clarification email demonstrated that Councillor VanLeeuwen never advocated disobedience of any federal, provincial or municipal law.
72. Councillor Kitras believes that Councillor VanLeeuwen did not harm the interests of the Township by joining the End the Lockdowns National Caucus. He also is concerned about weaponizing disagreement on matters of opinion and policy: I do not believe with the information that I know that he has harmed the interests of the Township. He has different opinions than the majority of Council, but I believe he has the right to express those opinions on the pandemic emergency and lockdown. I don’t believe that the Deputy Mayor needs to agree with the Mayor on all issues. As far as I know he hasn’t advocated being contrary in his role as Deputy Mayor. It is pure speculation to say if he were to be invited to an event that he would not wear the mask or do something contrary to the best interests of the Township. To my knowledge, he has not been invited to participate in public announcements regarding the lock down, mask mandates and I believe the Mayor knows him as a friend and would not ask him to do that.
73. Councillor Kitras conceded that the photograph of Councillor VanLeeuwen with other members of the End the Lockdowns National Caucus might have contravened one or more public health orders, but he declined to state a position without knowing details of the circumstances.
Medical Officer of Health for Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph
74. Dr. Nicola Mercer, Medical Officer of Health for Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph, greatly assisted the inquiry. She made her staff available, arranged for information to be provided, and personally participated in two interviews
75. I began my first interview with Dr. Mercer by asking whether she thought that Councillor VanLeeuwen and other members of the End the Lockdowns National Caucus were making it difficult for her or her agency employees and inspectors to do their job. She was adamant that they did. Further, Dr. Mercer experienced their comments and views as an attack on her personal credibility since she is the one who writes the orders and “cares very much that all [her] orders are evidence-based.” She added that this makes her “ultimately responsible for how well we do in this pandemic.”
76. Dr. Mercer acknowledged that the lockdown measures had other impacts, but strongly believed that the measures saved lives. As for other impacts, she described the
Page 24 of 228 19 situation as a “story of two pandemics”: “Did they [the restrictions] work? Yes. Did they cause other harms? Yes.”
77. She strongly affirmed that the pandemic restrictions were proven to save lives in a pandemic that had already claimed many. For this reason, she felt that it was “inappropriate, disrespectful and hurtful” for a group like the End the Lockdowns National Caucus to state the harms associated with lockdowns outweighed the positive public health impacts.
78. Dr. Mercer acknowledged that individuals are certainly free to “question the evidence” that underlies certain public health decisions, but this cannot be treated as licence, as a public figure, to breach the “sacred trust by stating an opinion that you want to be true as fact.”
79. During her second interview, I invited Dr. Mercer to comment on the changing provincial pandemic-response (for example, the revision of Ontario Regulation 82/20, on average, at least weekly.) Dr. Mercer readily acknowledged that provincial measures changed frequently over the course of the pandemic and her view (which she was clear to state was only an opinion) was that provincial measures at any given time might have reflected the views of “whoever has the ear of the Premier.”
80. She made a point, however, of distinguishing criticism of the provincial selection of lockdown measures from criticism of lockdowns, generally. She was emphatic that while lockdowns are a blunt public policy instrument they are widely-accepted as being the most effective tool for reducing COVID-19 transmission. She stated that the End the Lockdowns National Caucus was criticizing not merely provincial choices in the design of lockdown measures, but lockdowns as a concept. She said this approach served to “criticize what public health experts are doing without offering solutions” and suggested that it reflected a form of “magical thinking.”
81. Dr. Mercer was invited to comment on the photograph of Councillor VanLeeuwen standing with other members of the End the Lockdowns National Caucus. She noted that the participants were standing shoulder to shoulder without wearing masks and, while she did not know the time or location of the photo, he expressed her view that if the photo had been taken recently in Ontario then the participants likely were violating one or more public health measures. In her words, it was “very troubling that they would flout it in a public way.”
Province of Ontario
82. As explained in the “Process Followed” section of this report, the Government of Ontario responded in writing to various questions that I posed. The responses included a
Page 25 of 228 20 summary of the various orders made under the Reopening Ontario (A Flexible Response to COVID-19) Act, 2020, and the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act.
83. The provincial responses emphasized that, “Since the start of the pandemic, the government’s top priority has been and continues to be keeping Ontarians safe and healthy.” According to the Province, “the health of the citizens of Ontario has been and remains the primary concern.”
84. The key issue in this inquiry is whether the statement of Councillor VanLeeuwen and the End the Lockdowns National Caucus, that “the lockdowns cause more harm than the virus,” is demonstrably false. Consequently, I asked the Government of Ontario whether and how it measures harms caused by the lockdown measures. My questions included the following: 1. Is “the lockdowns cause more harm than the virus” factually accurate? 2. In the event the inquiry is required to make a factual finding on whether “the lockdowns cause more harm than the virus” is false or true, would the Province be able to share factual information that would be relevant to such a finding? 3. The claim “the lockdowns cause more harm than the virus” evokes a comparison of the harms caused by the virus to the harms caused by the lockdowns. (Here the question deliberately uses, without endorsing or adopting, the wording of the statement.) Is the Province able to share data that would enable the inquiry to make the comparison evoked by this claim? 4. The previous section listed impacts, identified by witnesses, that this document has collectively labelled Other Impacts. During the pandemic, has the Province been measuring Other Impacts? 5. Is there a statistical comparison, between the tracking of COVID cases and fatalities and the tracking of Other Impacts, that disproves the claim, “the lockdowns cause more harm than the virus”? 6. A counter-suggestion is that “the lockdowns cause more harm than the virus” cannot be proved or disproved empirically and is, consequently, a matter of opinion. Could the Province please help the inquiry to evaluate this counter- suggestion? In other words, it there a response to the assertion that it is impossible to prove or disprove “the lockdowns cause more harm than the virus”
85. The reference to Other Impacts in question 4, above, was explained to include intimate partner violence, child abuse, elder abuse, suicide and suicidal ideation, addiction/substance abuse, other mental health issues, child hunger, poverty, and effects on physical health.
86. The Province did not specifically address whether “the lockdowns cause more harm than the virus” is a factually accurate statement.
87. It did provide a general answer that referred to modelling, and the experiences of other countries. The provincial response also talked about programs in place to address
Page 26 of 228 21 some of the lockdown impacts, which is useful context but does not directly contradict the statement of Councillor VanLeeuwen and the End the Lockdowns National Caucus. According to the Government of Ontario: The experience of other jurisdictions where strong lockdowns have not occurred provides evidence of the significant harms associated with that approach, including India, Brazil, and the United States. In addition, modelling provides projections on different scenarios for Ontario that indicate loosened public health and workplace safety measures would result in more severe COVID-19 related outcomes. For example see slide 8 for an Update on COVID-19 Projections from the Ontario Science Advisory Table which outlines different trajectories of COVID-19 cases based on weak, moderate, and strong public health measures. In considering the modelling, and the positions asserted in the questions, it is important to note that there are significant “Other Impacts” likely associated with the increased morbidity and mortality as a result of COVID-19 in scenarios where public health and workplace safety measures are weaker. • For example, one study in the United States of America states: “The scale of COVID-19 mortality in the United States, including among prime-age adults, merits efforts to continuously track how many children are affected by parental death. Children who lose a parent are at elevated risk of traumatic grief, depression, poor educational outcomes, and unintentional death or suicide, and these consequences can into adulthood. Sudden parental death, such as that occurring owing to COVID-19, can be particularly traumatizing for children and leave families ill prepared to navigate its consequences. Moreover, COVID-19 losses are occurring at a time of social isolation, institutional strain, and economic hardship, potentially leaving bereaved children without the supports they need.” The Ministry of Health and its partners such as Public Health Ontario have been monitoring the impacts of disproportionate harms that may be caused either directly or indirectly by the pandemic. See PHO reports that may be helpful: https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/cong/2020/06/covid- 19-negativeimpacts-public-health-pandemic-families.pdf?la=en https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/he/2021/01/rapid- review-negimpacts-children-youth-families.pdf?la=en The government recognizes that public health and workplace safety measures enacted during the pandemic have had impacts on the population and it has taken action to mitigate these impacts, including but not limited to: • To ensure continued access to mental health and addiction support services, the government has embedded requirements in the Stay-At-Home Order and Reopening of Ontario Act [sic] (ROA), and associated regulations, to ensure services remain in place with some modifications in order to minimize the risk of transmission. • According to the Stay-At-Home Order, people are allowed to leave their home for permitted reasons under the Order, which include assisting others,
Page 27 of 228 22
for health and safety purposes, and to seek mental health and addictions services. • According to the ROA regulations (see above), organizations that provide health care including retirement homes, hospitals, clinics, long-term care facilities, independent health facilities and mental health and addictions counselling supports are permitted to open during the Emergency Brake. In addition, places that are otherwise closed such as meeting and event spaces, facilities for indoor or outdoor sports and recreational fitness activities and public libraries are permitted to open for the purposes of delivering mental health and addiction support services. • Additional government programs and funding have been put in place, which include (but are not limited to): • Ontario Unveils $2 Billion Plan to Keep Schools Safe and Support Learning Recovery and Renewal | Ontario Newsroom • Ontario to Introduce Paid COVID-19 Leave | Ontario Newsroom • Ontario Continues To Support Businesses, Workers and Families during the COVID19 Pandemic | Ontario Newsroom • Ontario Adding More Mental Health Beds and Programs for Seniors | Ontario Newsroom • Ontario Increases Mental Health Funding for Postsecondary Students | Ontario Newsroom • Ontario Helping Keep Seniors Safe and Connected During COVID-19 | Ontario Newsroom • Ontario Supporting COVID-19 Response in High Priority Communities | Ontario Newsroom • Ontario Keeping Seniors Safe and Socially Connected during COVID-19 | Ontario Newsroom • Ontario Supports Expanding Virtual Mental Health Services for Youth | Ontario Newsroom • Province Doubles Support for Parents With New Ontario COVID-19 Child Benefit | Ontario Newsroom
88. While the above response does not specifically address the accuracy or inaccuracy of the claim that “the lockdowns cause more harm than the virus,” the two Public Health Ontario reports referenced in the response contain additional information on impacts, albeit based on literature reviews. According to the January 11, 2021, update from Public Health Ontario: Key Findings • Children’s mental health and behaviour have been overall negatively impacted by the COVID-19 public health measures. Young children and adolescents were affected differently. Parents of young children reported more behavioural difficulties, hyperactivity, and conduct problems, while adolescents were more likely to have increased anxiety and depressive symptoms, increased suicidal ideation, and increased frequency of alcohol consumption for those reporting any use.
Page 28 of 228 23
• Parental stress was a mediator in the association between exposure to COVID- 19 public health measures and negative child outcomes. The level of parents’ perceived stress due to the COVID19 pandemic may exacerbate or buffer mental health and behaviour problems in children. • Other child outcomes negatively impacted by the pandemic included movement behaviours (decreased physical activity, increased sedentary behaviour and screen time), increased food insecurity, negative educational outcomes, increased injuries occurring at home, and increased reports of child maltreatment. • Health service utilization of tertiary care services (emergency department visits and hospitalizations) decreased substantially during the early months of the pandemic. However, it was reported that illness severity increased, and visits for mental health reasons increased in the later weeks of the pandemic. There may have been some parents delaying care for their children due to fear of acquiring COVID-19 infection in the hospital. • Although this review identified many relevant studies, most were convenience samples. As such, families from diverse ethnicities or racialized communities, who are more likely to experience greater social and health inequities which may be exacerbated during the pandemic, are systematically underrepresented. [emphasis added]
89. The Public Health Ontario report, to which the Government directed me, also states: The effects on children, adolescents, and families are particularly concerning as school closures during the spring of 2020 were the longest in modern history. Additionally, the potential negative outcomes including educational loss, increased risk of child maltreatment, and mental health conditions in the critical years of childhood may lead to irreversible effects for this generation of children.
90. The areas of impact covered by the report include: anxiety, depressive symptoms, PTSS, and general mental health outcomes; child behaviour; suicide, suicidal ideation, and self-harm; child maltreatment; substance use; parenting, parental stress, and parent mental health and wellbeing; nutrition and food insecurity; movement behaviours (physical activity, sedentary behaviour, screen time, sleep); education; injury; pediatric emergency department visits and hospitalizations; and access to health and community services.
91. The report concludes: The magnitude and number of negative impacts appears to be increasing as well. The stay-at home orders and school closures enacted in response to COVID-19 are unprecedented in their breadth and duration and this presents a risk to children and families for various physical and mental health problems.
Page 29 of 228 24
92. I emphasize that this is a provincial government report, to which the provincial government referred me when I asked for factual information to address the claim that “lockdowns cause more harm than the virus.” The report identifies numerous impacts of the lockdown restrictions. It neither refutes not confirms the thesis of the End the Lockdowns National Caucus.
93. The Province of Ontario subsequently sent a second set of responses to additional questions. Economic impacts were a significant focus of my further questions. Two of the Province’s answers addressed economic effects of the lockdown: The pandemic has had a negative impact on the economy of Ontario and the employment prospects of its citizens. The latest Ontario Economic Accounts for the October-December 2020 quarter are published here: https://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/economy/ecaccts/. Likewise, the latest Ontario Employment Report is available here: https://www.ontario.ca/document/ontario- employment-reports/january-march-2021. These reports provide insight into the economic impact of COVID-19, but do not specifically quantify the economic impact of the COVID-19 lockdowns. Ontario has not performed any analysis to separate the impact of lockdowns from the other factors influencing the economy during the pandemic. and: Ontario recognizes the costs of COVID-19 restrictions to the citizens of Ontario that cannot be quantified in economic terms, including the impact the COVID-19 restrictions have had on interpersonal relationships and everyday life. As mentioned above, Ontario does not have an analysis of the economic impacts that can be specifically traced to COVID-19 restrictions. Other, non-economic, impacts on the citizens of Ontario may not be possible to quantify precisely. This, however, does not make any of these impacts less factual or real. [emphasis added]
94. My questions to the Province made specific reference to Premier Ford’s repeated references to a “happy balance”12,13,14 and to “balancing Ontarians’ health & the economy.”15 I also referenced the Premier’s acknowledgement that, “every public health
12 Hon. Doug Ford, October 30, 2020: “So there’s a happy balance and we’ll find that happy balance with our health team.” Audio clip online: https://www.98thebeach.ca/2020/10/30/ford-requests-plan-to-ease- hotspot-restrictions/ 13 Hon. Doug Ford, quoted by CBC News, November 2, 2020: “I listen to the health [experts], I listen to the folks who have small businesses, and there has to be a happy balance.” 14 Hon. Doug Ford, quoted by Canadian Press, November 24, 2020: “We’re trying to doing [sic] a happy balance. We have to keep the economy moving and protect the health and well-being of everybody in this province.” 15 Twitter, @fordnation, October 27, 2020, 3:42 p.m.: “We are there for our businesses & those who work there. I’m trying to navigate right down the middle; balancing Ontarians’ health & the economy. We have to have a happy balance, and it's not easy. We’ll get through this together & our economy will come back stronger than ever.”
Page 30 of 228 25 measure we have left, comes with a massive cost to people and their lives.”16 [emphasis added] The above responses were provided to address my questions.
95. I find that the Government of Ontario responses dispose of the central issue in this inquiry. The provincial government, which has enacted most of the lockdown restrictions, has not measured the lockdown impacts, whether economic or non-economic. Consequently, not even the Province is able to establish that “lockdowns cause more harm than the virus” is a false statement.
96. The second set of provincial responses also addressed my questions about the sources of input into government decision-making. I had specifically asked about the government taking into account not just public health advice but also political considerations and public policy considerations other than public health. I also referred to lobbying by business interests. The Government acknowledged that it considered a “range of perspectives” when developing the lockdown measures: Cabinet determines the public health measures that apply to the businesses and organizations subject to Regulation 82/20. As with all government decisions, the regulations reflect policy choices that are informed by the advice and recommendations of experts and advisors, including public health advice from the Science Table and the Office of the CMOH. Ministers do hear from and consider the range of perspectives of constituents and stakeholders. Ultimately, Cabinet relies on the perspectives and input from each of its members in arriving at a consensus decision… … While the health of the citizens of Ontario has been and remains the primary concern, the government is also cognizant of the impact of restrictions on businesses, employees, and students in Ontario, and has endeavoured to strike the right balancing of allowing businesses, schools, and other organizations to operate to the extent that can be justified from the perspective of public health.
97. Councillor VanLeeuwen has argued that the absence of lockdown debate at the provincial level is one reason why he, as a municipal councillor, felt compelled to speak up. I asked the Government of Ontario about the assertion that it has discouraged public debate on the impacts (positive and negative) of the pandemic restrictions. Two of its responses addressed this issue: In a free and democratic society like Ontario, the government values public debate on its policies. Ontario rejects the characterization that it has discouraged public debate on the shape of its pandemic response or the specifics of the COVID-19 regulations.
16 Hon. Doug Ford, news conference, April 17, 2021, transcript online: https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/doug-ford-press-conference-ontario-ca-covid-19-stay-at-home- orders-transcript-april-16
Page 31 of 228 26
The government has welcomed the input of experts from outside the government in its decisionmaking response to the COVID-19 emergency, including the establishment of bodies such as the Science Table. The government has also been transparent in publicizing the information Cabinet has relied on in making decisions, including the recommendations of the Science Table. Government decisions are further scrutinized by the legislature, including the frequent reporting by the Solicitor General in Committee, as well as the report required by the EMCPA within 120 days after a provincial emergency ends, which was tabled in the legislature on November 2, 2020. and: As with all public decisions, Ontario has welcomed input from a wide variety of stakeholders. Public debate on the scope of pandemic restrictions has taken place in a number of forums, from the Legislature to the variety of expert Tables that have been incorporated into the COVID-19 response structure.
98. The Province’s statement that “public debate on the scope of pandemic restrictions has taken place in a number of forums [including] the Legislature” needs to be understood in the context of what happens to MPPs who argued to limit the scope of pandemic restrictions. As detailed at paragraphs 203 through 205 and paragraphs 235 to 236 of this report, the Premier kicked York Centre MPP Roman Baber out of the governing party’s legislative caucus, and subsequently one of his Ministers introduced a motion to slash Mr. Baber’s salary.
Expert Stakeholders
99. The inquiry included interviews with experts from health and social services organizations that provide and fund crucial front-line services. These included the Assaulted Women’s Helpline, the Canadian Mental Health Association Waterloo Wellington, and the Canadian Women’s Foundation.
100. To be clear, none of these experts espouses the position that lockdowns cause more harm than the virus. The stakeholders support the public health measures, and emphatically do not welcome the exploitation of their issues and causes by anti-lockdown activists. Nonetheless, the experts did provide evidence of the impacts that are being felt.
101. During a telephone interview, Yvonne Harding, Manager of Resource Development of the Assaulted Women’s Helpline, provided several alarming statistics. The number of domestic violence calls to the Helpline increased to 55,000 between March and September 2020 alone (up from approximately 4000 in the previous year). There has been an observable uptick in the number of calls from both repeat and first-time callers. Helpline workers reported a significant increase in the number of women calling for the first time, despite experiencing domestic violence in the past, because they were now concerned for the physical safety of children who were not previously targets of violence.
Page 32 of 228 27
There has also been a near four-fold increase in the number of calls to their seniors’ helpline. Many seniors report fear of isolation and health effects of the pandemic and the attendant lockdowns, including worries about hospital capacity and limited access to life- saving medication.
102. Ms Harding confirmed that governments are making efforts to consult with and listen to the social services sector. In her view, the needs of organizations like the Assaulted Women’s Helpline are being heard and the lines of communication with public health officials at all levels remain open.
103. At the same time, she hoped that public discussion precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic might lead to a major overhaul of the amount and nature of support available to individuals in mental and/or physical crisis.
104. Ms Harding stressed that lockdown measures do not cause intimate partner and family violence: The biggest thing for us is to reinforce in public discussion that lockdown and shutdown measures are not the cause or source of domestic violence. It was there. This has bubbled up and captured attention about how challenging isolation can be for these women. Many of these women were isolated before, and now the public is beginning to understand what that isolation feels like. [emphasis added]
105. Helen Fishburn, Executive Director of Canadian Mental Health Association Waterloo Wellington, spoke of the CMHA’s recent campaign, “Everything Is Not OK,” which was meant to draw attention to the fact that pandemic has resulted in a substantial increase in the level of diagnosable mental health conditions, including high rates of episodic mental health conditions. It was this campaign that led me to contact Ms Fishburn in the first place.
106. Ms Fishburn explained that the pandemic has revealed that we need to talk about mental health issues in the same way we discuss other diagnosable health conditions. She advocates establishing a system of wrap-around support services for individuals with mental health conditions, citing Cancer Care Ontario (now part of Ontario Health) as a model
107. She acknowledged that lockdown measures do have a role in the deterioration of mental health, due to the distress the measures cause. However, Ms Fishburn emphasized that these impacts must be understood within the larger context of the pandemic. She says COVID-19 is the root cause of the problem. In her words, “COVID- 19 spreading like wildfire is an even greater source of both physical and mental health issues” than the pandemic restrictions.
Page 33 of 228 28
108. Ms Fishburn added that the emergence of new variants is a further source of mental distress and, as a result, it is now more important than ever to follow public health guidance and orders.
109. Karen Campbell, Director, Community Initiatives & Policy, for the Canadian Women’s Foundation, provided information about about the economic, social and health effects on women as a result of the pandemic.
110. She pointed to a recent RBC report that finds the pandemic is having a significant and disproportionate impact on women in the workforce. Significant burnout has led to record levels of women dropping out of the labour force. According to Ms Campbell, economic indicators suggest that the pandemic threatens to roll back nearly three decades of women’s economic progress.
111. When asked specifically what role lockdowns may play in gender-based violence, Ms Campbell stressed that lockdowns are not a “cause” of gender-based violence, but certainly exacerbate violent behaviour or tendencies. She said that a root-cause analysis would treat lockdown measures as a contextual factor, rather than a cause.
112. Further, her view is that COVID-19 and gender-based violence are both public health concerns and both need to be addressed. This is not a simple “balancing” exercise. Ms Campbell said each must be treated with the policy tools that are proven to work: COVID-19 must be reduced through lockdowns and stay-at-home orders and gender- based violence must be reduced through education, outreach and an array of social and economic supports (many of which are chronically underfunded).
113. When asked specifically about the arguments of groups like the End the Lockdowns National Caucus that lockdown measures exacerbate negative social consequences, her reply was clear and emphatic: Advancing gender-based violence arguments as … anti-lockdown rhetoric is an absolute non-starter, and will not find any support from the women’s sector in Canada.
114. I thank these experts for their contributions to the inquiry.
Position of Councillor VanLeeuwen
115. Councillor VanLeeuwen began our initial interview by standing by the concerns he expressed to Council during debate during the February meetings: We as Council have been excluded from a conversation about the very serious consequences of public health measures like lockdowns. Our role as councillors is to make bylaws, but also to represent our constituents and raise concerns when they ask us to. We must be able to speak publicly about those concerns.
Page 34 of 228 29
116. He stated that the representative role of elected officials is all the more important at the municipal level, since municipal government is closest to the day-to-day lives and concerns of ordinary people. He says this makes him particularly sensitive to what the grassroots are saying, and while he certainly does not wish to override the Province, he believes this is a reason that municipal leadership must “have a role in that conversation.”
117. This does not mean, however, that he was counselling people to break the law: I view my role as being different from the others. I am supposed to listen to people, then stand up for those people. In the meantime, they want to engage with me. … I am not telling people to rebel or ignore orders. I am saying I want to have that conversation and I’m willing to stand for you.
118. Councillor VanLeeuwen believed that governments are collecting data, statistics, and other information on the effects of the pandemic and public health orders, but do not communicate the impacts so municipal leaders and the public can discern whether the policies are working and whether the benefits outweigh the negative effects, such as increased numbers of suicides, or deferred medical treatments. In fact, as discussed earlier, this inquiry has found that the Province is not able to quantify the economic and non-economic impacts of its lockdown measures.
119. I asked Councillor VanLeeuwen about the photograph of him and other members of the End the Lockdowns National Caucus. He stated that he did not record the date of his meeting with the other Caucus members or the exact location where it was held. Asked why he posed for the photo, Councillor VanLeeuwen stated that someone taking a position must also be prepared to defend that position: “I need to stand behind what I say. You can’t lead from a closet and that photo was part of the message.” Other than that, he said that the photo speaks for itself.
120. Councillor VanLeeuwen later pointed out that he has been up front about his beliefs, in contrast to federal and provincial politicians who promote restrictions for others that they do not observe themselves. For example, he commented on photographic evidence that Prime Minister Trudeau (who was not fully vaccinated at the time) and other G7 leaders disregarded physical distance in a social setting, after carefully spacing themselves for the official group photograph.17
121. The G7 incident followed numerous instances of federal and provincial officials failing to practise the restrictions that they instruct ordinary people to follow.
122. Prime Minister Trudeau crossed a provincial border to spend Easter 2020 at his secondary residence, after telling ordinary Canadians to stay home.18
17 See notes 2 and 3. 18 Amanda Connolly, Global News, “Trudeau under fire for Easter trip despite urging Canadians to ‘sacrifice’ plans” (April 14, 2020), online: https://globalnews.ca/news/6815936/coronavirus-justin- trudeau-andrew-scheer-easter-travel/
Page 35 of 228 30
123. Premier Doug Ford visited his cottage over the 2020 Easter weekend, after telling ordinary Ontarians not to do so. The public was not informed until four weeks after the fact.19
124. Federal Health Minister Patty Hadju made 11 trips back to her home in Thunder Bay during the height of the pandemic, including on Easter Weekend, after telling ordinary people Easter “is not the time for gatherings with family and friends.” The full extent of the travel was not revealed for nearly six months.20
125. Premier Ford celebrated Mother’s Day 2020 with two adult daughters who live in different households, contrary to the advice given to ordinary Ontarians.21
126. In August 2020, Premier Ford and members of his Cabinet attended an MPP’s wedding where most guests were photographed maskless, around the same time that the provincial government was calling for a crackdown on large social gatherings.22 (The official Government position is that no rules were broken. 23)
127. Another provincial premier apologized for a maskless, non-distanced dinner party with cabinet ministers.24
128. The mayor of a major city apologized for failing to wear a mask and observe adequate distancing.25
129. In fairness, the inquiry found no evidence that any Centre Wellington politicians said one thing and did another.
19 Adam Carter, CBC News, “Ontario Premier Doug Ford briefly visited cottage after asking residents not to” (May 8, 2020), online: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ford-cottage-covid-19-coronavirus- 1.5561167 20 Brian Lilley, Toronto Sun, “Trudeau health minister flew friendly skies more than thought during COVID lockdown” (November 19, 2020), online: https://torontosun.com/news/national/trudeau-health-minister- flew-friendly-skies-more-than-thought-during-covid-lockdown 21 Shanifa Nasser, CBC News, “Doug Ford admits daughters visited his home on the weekend, contrary to Ontario's COVID-19 rules” (May 11, 2020), online: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ford- physical-distancing-daughters-1.5564756 22 Fil Martino and Caryn Ceolin, CityNews, “Ford, under fire for attending wedding, wants police to crack down on prohibited parties” (September 8, 2020), online: https://toronto.citynews.ca/2020/09/08/ford- under-fire-for-attending-wedding-wants-police-to-crack-down-on-prohibited-parties/ 23 Abby Neufeld, Narcity, “Ford Insists Nobody Broke Any Rules At that Wedding He Went To Last Month (PHOTO)” (September 16, 2020), online: https://www.narcity.com/toronto/doug-ford-wedding- photo-doesnt-show-any-rules-being-broken-insists-premier 24 Emily Mertz, Global News, “‘I regret that’: Kenney apologizes for Sky Palace dinner that broke COVID- 19 rules” (June 7, 2021), https://globalnews.ca/news/7927987/kenney-sky-palace-dinner-apology- covid-19/ 25 Premila D’Sa, Huffington Post, “Toronto Mayor John Tory Apologizes For Not Wearing His Mask Properly: He was spotted talking to people at Trinity Bellwoods Park” (May 24, 2020), online: https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/john-tory-toronto-mask- coronavirus_ca_5ecb202fc5b6f6ac2c62b3a2
Page 36 of 228 31
130. Councillor VanLeeuwen’s position is that he has been open and transparent about his opposition to lockdown measures, in contrast to politicians who promote pandemic restrictions for ordinary people and then fail to practise them personally.
131. The Councillor was asked about his December 2020 emails to other Council members, including his email to Councillor Foster about possible interactions with police or public health officials. He said that he was puzzled by Councillor Foster’s questioning, since he felt his initial email never suggested that he was advocating for individuals to ignore public health orders or guidance, and was instead intended to begin a conversation about what should be matters of public importance to Council.
132. Councillor VanLeeuwen said he sent a clarification email on December 12 because the response from Councillor Foster made him think his initial email might be subject to misinterpretation.
133. Asked what he meant by the email reference to “just friendly discussions” with the police about enforcement, Councillor VanLeeuwen said that he had one, casual interaction with a police constable who, on an unrelated traffic matter, happened to be outside Councillor VanLeeuwen’s business. According to the Councillor, this was merely a friendly chat about how members of the OPP were doing during the difficult situation caused by the pandemic.
134. In a subsequent interview, Councillor VanLeeuwen was invited to comment on two visits to his business by public health inspectors. (Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public Health assisted the inquiry by responding to my request for any inspection or incident reports involving Councillor VanLeeuwen or his businesses. I received two reports, arising from July 25, 2020, and January 29, 2021, visits by WDG Public Health inspectors in response to calls about potential violations of Dr. Mercer’s Face Coverings Section 22 Class Order26 made under the Health Protection and Promotion Act. The July 25 report noted that “all staff claim medical exemption” and “no further action” was taken, with the resolution recorded as, “Information Provided.” The January 29 report indicates the resolution as “Resolved.”)
135. Councillor VanLeeuwen confirmed his awareness of the inspections but stated he was not present during either one. Asked whether all the employees at work on those two days qualified for a medical exemption, Councillor VanLeeuwen replied that he believed he was not entitled to ask them for proof. Indeed, the orders in effect at the time of the July 2020 and January 2021 inspection stated, “owners and operators shall not
26 As Medical Officer of Health for Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph, Dr. Mercer issued the first order on face coverings on June 10, 2020. The order was updated June 12. Subsequent, superseding orders were issued July 17, September 18, and March 15.
Page 37 of 228 32 require employees or members of the public to provide proof that they qualify for any of the exemptions ...”27 28
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
136. Findings of fact are based on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities.
The Claim that “Lockdowns Cause More Harm than the Virus”
137. In Ontario, while many municipalities adopted by-laws related to the pandemic, and medical officers of health issued orders under the Health Protection and Promotion Act, the most prominent and far-reaching restrictions were those made by the provincial Cabinet under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act and the Reopening Ontario (A Flexible Response to COVID-19) Act.
138. “Lockdown” is not a static concept. The Province did not adopt a single, consistent set of pandemic restrictions. Instead, the rules have continued to change. The Province’s principal lockdown instrument, Ontario Regulation 82/20, developed through 72 versions between March 24, 2020, and June 23, 2021 – a different version of restrictions every six days on average.
139. The rules themselves never imposed universal restrictions or prohibitions – the restrictions were always subject to exceptions. For example, for a long period of time, stores selling groceries could also sell books and CDs, while large and small book retailers could not. At one point earlier this year, many construction projects were closed, but any construction project even partly funded by government was not. A business that washed and cut humans’ hair needed to be shut, but a salon that shampooed and groomed pets could remain open. Decisions about what to lock down and what to exempt from the lockdown have always been policy choices of government.
140. At various times, the Ontario restrictions have included so-called stay-at-home orders.29 As did other restrictions, the stay-at-home orders contained a variety of exemptions. One exemption permitted an individual to travel to a second residence provided the stay was less than 24 hours or more than 14 days.30
27 Dr. Nicola Mercer, Medical Officer of Health, Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph, Section 22 Class Order, issued and effective July 17, 2020. 28 Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public Health, “Face Coverings” (updated November 6, 2020). 29 O. Reg. 11/21, O. Reg. 265/21. 30 O. Reg. 11/21, Schedule 1, subs. 1(1), para. 19.
Page 38 of 228 33
141. In Ontario, a lockdown is a bundle of shifting government policy choices, including restrictions and exemptions, based on input from lobbyists as well as public health experts.31
142. Not only did the design of lockdowns and lockdown exemptions reflect government policy choices, but the prioritization of lockdowns over other strategies (e.g., paid sick days, speedier vaccine procurement, widespread asymptomatic testing, prohibiting flights from global hotspots) also reflected provincial and federal government policy choices since the pandemic began.
143. In this context, labelling people as either “for” or “against” “lockdowns” is overly simplistic. There have been, and are, differing opinions among different Ontarians about the choices that governments have made. Some Ontarians agreed and some Ontarians disagreed with the prioritization of certain policy options over other policy options. Some Ontarians believed there were too many exemptions. Some Ontarians believed there were too few. Some Ontarians believed the exemptions were random or unfair. Some Ontarians believed the exemptions were influenced too much by lobbying and not enough by science.32
144. Given that the Province modified its own restrictions 71 times after first introducing them, clearly it was not unreasonable for Councillor VanLeeuwen and the Caucus to question the merits, and to critique the content, of the rules. Even the Province could not settle on the content of its lockdown measures, so it is unfair to fault Councillor VanLeeuwen, or anyone, for being dissatisfied with one or more particular versions. If Ontario Regulation 82/20 were sacrosanct, then it would not have been amended on a weekly basis on average.
145. I am mindful of Dr. Nicola Mercer’s observation that Councillor VanLeeuwen and the Caucus opposed all lockdown measures, not just particular versions, and were criticizing public health measures without offering solutions. I accept her expert assessment that criticism without alternatives is no way to develop public health policy. The issue under the Code, however, is not whether Councillor VanLeeuwen offered a comprehensive policy position; the issue is whether he violated the standards of ethical conduct. Criticism of policy, without offering an alternative, is not unethical, and is not contrary to the Code.
31 The Province’s lobbyist registry reveals the extent of lobbying on the Government’s COVID decision- making: https://lobbyist.oico.on.ca/Pages/Public/PublicSearch/ 32 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Official Report of Debates (Hansard), 1st Session, 42nd Parliament, No. 212A (November 24, 2020), p. 10677, quoting Catherine Fife, MPP, online: https://www.ola.org/sites/default/files/node-files/hansard/document/pdf/2020/2020-11/24-NOV- 2020_L212A.pdf
Page 39 of 228 34
146. Nobody who provided evidence in the inquiry disputes the existence of adverse effects of provincial lockdown measures.33 Economic impacts include lost jobs and closed businesses. Non-economic impacts identified by Public Health Ontario are listed at paragraph 90. Premier Ford has called these outcomes “a massive cost to people and their lives.” The issue is not whether adverse effects exist, but whether Councillor VanLeeuwen violated the Code when he said these adverse effects of the provincial lockdown measures exceed the harm caused by COVID.
147. I expressly asked the Province whether the claim of the End the Lockdowns National Caucus – that the lockdowns cause more harm than the virus – is factually incorrect, and I invited the Province to provide information to that effect. The provincial government, which has enacted most of the lockdown rules, has not measured the impacts of its lockdown restrictions, whether economic or non-economic. Consequently, even the Province is unable to establish that “the lockdowns cause more harm than the virus” is a false statement.
148. The Government provided extensive information on steps being taken to address adverse effects of lockdown measures, but those steps do not address the issue in this inquiry, namely, whether the adverse effects are measurable and have been measured in a way that allows me to conclude the Councillor VanLeeuwen’s statement is false.
149. I have no doubt that Province of Ontario decision makers were sincere in believing that their lockdown measures mitigated COVID harms that would have been worse than effects of the measures. By the Government’s own admission, however, the effects of the measures are unquantified. As the Province stated to this inquiry: As mentioned above, Ontario does not have an analysis of the economic impacts that can be specifically traced to COVID-19 restrictions. Other, non-economic, impacts on the citizens of Ontario may not be possible to quantify precisely. This, however, does not make any of these impacts less factual or real.
150. Since the impacts are unmeasured or unmeasurable, there is no evidentiary basis to prove or to disprove an assertion that “the lockdowns cause more harm than the virus.”
151. According to the Government responses to my questions, the case for the provincial lockdown measures was modelling, and also the experience of other countries. Even if Councillor VanLeeuwen made a statement inconsistent with provincial modelling, inconsistency with modelling is not the same as a falsehood, and inconsistency with modelling does not breach the Code. Even if Councillor VanLeeuwen made a statement that was not based on the outcomes in other countries, failure to apply other countries’ experiences is not the same as a falsehood in relation to Ontario and does not contravene the Code.
33 Some expert stakeholders, however, explained that the lockdown measures are not a root cause of the impacts. I consider their evidence at paragraphs 153 and 154.
Page 40 of 228 35
152. Given the absence – an absence confirmed by the Province – of quantifiable measurement of adverse effects of the lockdowns, I find it impossible to treat “the lockdowns cause more harm than the virus” as a statement of fact. It is a statement of political opinion. In Canada we do not penalize elected representatives who hold political opinions, even political opinions out of step with the mainstream.
153. Before concluding this section of the report, I wish to address two additional points made by participants in this inquiry: first, the evidence of experts that lockdown measures are not the root causes of social impacts; second, the argument that it is incumbent on Councillor VanLeeuwen and the End the Lockdowns National Caucus to prove the accuracy of their assertion.
154. The expert stakeholders have made clear the lockdown measures are not the root cause of the non-economic harms experienced by Ontarians. While I accept their assessment, I cannot make assumptions about whether the statement of the End the Lockdowns National Caucus was referring to root cause, proximate cause, actual cause, or contributing cause. In any event, the fact remains that, by its own admission, the Province, which has introduced most of these measures, cannot quantify and has not quantified impacts. Consequently, it remains impossible to disprove the assertion that “the lockdowns cause more harm than the virus.”
155. As for the question of where the onus lies, typically the burden of proof lies on the party alleging misconduct or non-compliance: Bartscher v. Cardy, 2018 ONMIC 28 (CanLII). Especially when contravention of the Code can result in a penalty, is not fair to make Councillor VanLeeuwen prove that he complied with the Code. In the absence of evidence that “lockdowns cause more harm than the virus” is false, no finding can be made against the Respondent.
The “Happy Balance”
156. I also find that the claim “lockdowns cause more harm than the virus” is based on a comparison the Government of Ontario itself invited.
157. Long before Councillor VanLeeuwen and the End the Lockdowns National Caucus issued their statement, Premier Ford was promoting the goal of a “happy balance” between public health and the economy.34 As he explained in a Tweet, “I’m trying to navigate right down the middle; balancing Ontarians’ health & the economy.”35
158. By repeatedly stating that its goal was an equilibrium between public health and economic performance, the Province legitimized the comparison of public health impacts to economic impacts. However, as this inquiry has found, the Government was not
34 See notes 12, 13, 14. 35 Twitter, @fordnation, October 27, 2020, 3:42 p.m., note 15.
Page 41 of 228 36 actively measuring effects to determine whether that “happy balance” was achieved. If the Province could claim, without evidence, that it was pursuing balance, then it was equally open to the End the Lockdowns National Caucus to assert an imbalance (i.e., “lockdowns cause more harm than the virus.”)
159. The Premier’s “happy balance” messaging was political opinion. Denying that the Government had struck the right balance was also political opinion. Voicing this opinion did not contravene the Code of Conduct.
Lobbying, Polling and other Non-Public-Health Inputs
160. The criticism that Councillor VanLeeuwen and the End the Lockdowns National Caucus are “against public health” is a common political talking point, but an Integrity Commissioner may only find a Code of Conduct contravention based on facts, not talking points or tropes.
161. I find, and the Government has acknowledged, that public health considerations were not the only inputs into decision-making on the lockdown. In other words, the Province introduced factors other than public health into the design of its pandemic restrictions. Consequently, it cannot have been inappropriate for Councillor VanLeeuwen, or anyone, to advance arguments based on non-public health factors (like the economy).
162. Last month, a special series by the Toronto Star detailed the extent of lobbying on Ontario’s pandemic restrictions. According to the news reports, sometimes lobbying prevailed over public health advice.36
163. When I asked it about the impact of lobbying, the Province stated, “As with all public decisions, Ontario has welcomed input from a wide variety of stakeholders.”
164. Polling is another factor in decision-making. Multiple news reports indicate that more stringent lockdown restrictions are based on public opinion.37 38 39
165. Asked whether political considerations, and not just public health factors, have been taken into account in fashioning the pandemic restrictions, the Province told the
36 Richard Warnica and Andrew Bailey, Toronto Star, “Several of Doug Ford’s key pandemic decisions were swayed by business interests, Star analysis suggests” (July 15, 2021). 37 Mike Crawley, CBC News, “The inside story of Doug Ford's COVID-19 climbdowns” (April 22, 2021), online: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/covid-19-ontario-doug-ford-cabinet-police- playgrounds-1.5997381 38 Robert Benzie, Toronto Star, “Insiders say Doug Ford is looking to dump lockdown critics as he shuffles cabinet that’s ‘too white and too male’” (May 31, 2021), online: https://www.toronto.com/news- story/10406037-insiders-say-doug-ford-is-looking-to-dump-lockdown-critics-as-he-shuffles-cabinet- that-s-too-white-and-too-male-/ 39 Robert Benzie, Toronto Star, “Poll suggests Ontarians blame Ottawa for COVID-19 vaccine shortages” (February 1, 2021)
Page 42 of 228 37 inquiry that “the government has considered a wide variety of perspectives in its response to COVID-19.” It also stated that, “Ministers do hear from and consider the range of perspectives of constituents and stakeholders.”
166. At the same time, the Government maintains that, “the health of the citizens of Ontario has been and remains the primary concern.”
167. Nonetheless, the contribution of non-public-health inputs to provincial decision- making is relevant to whether Councillor VanLeeuwen has contravened the Code. It cannot be said that public health advice, and solely public health advice, has determined the lockdown measures. Contrary to what some have suggested, this is not a case of Councillor VanLeeuwen and the Caucus disregarding public health. Lobbying, opinion polling, political considerations, constituent communication, and stakeholder feedback were all part of the decision-making mix – as they would be in any other policy decision of government.
168. To be clear, a government is entitled let lobbying, or polling, or politics, influence its policy development. When that occurs, however, the policy cannot be characterized as entirely a public health decision. Those who exercise the right of dissent cannot arbitrarily be labelled as opposed to policy health. Being labelled as such does not mean contravening the Code of Conduct
Hear the Other Side
169. Fundamentally, this case is about dissent from decisions of the provincial government.
170. As I have found, provincial decisions on lockdown measures are not based solely on the advice of public health experts and other medical experts. They reflect a variety of inputs, including medical-scientific expertise, public opinion polling, political considerations, and lobbying by lobbyists. Premier Ford said as much when he explained that in fashioning restrictions the Government was seeking a “happy balance.” Ultimately, the lockdown measures are subjective policy choices made by provincial politicians. In Canada we do not treat political decisions as inviolate, objective truths that cannot be criticized.
171. Almost never is there only one policy solution to a given problem. The fact that Ontario adopted 72 different versions of lockdown measures is ample evidence that there was more than one way to respond to the pandemic, and I find that the Code of Conduct must be interpreted in light of that reality. The Cabinet clearly was choosing from a range of options, and there is no basis to find that a politician who advocates an unchosen option should be penalized, or, to use a modern expression, cancelled. A municipal
Page 43 of 228 38 representative who happens to disagree with the subjective policy choice of provincial politicians does not contravene the Code of Conduct.
172. The Code of Conduct was adopted by Council under the Municipal Act, a statute of Ontario. In this Province, as across the entire country, our political system presumes that on any question there are different, legitimate positions. As examples, I note the constitutional role of the Official Opposition, and the Legislative Assembly’s motto, audi alteram partem (hear the other side). I am confident that the Municipal Act authority to create codes of conduct was never meant to outlaw disagreement with decisions of the provincial Cabinet.
173. One of Councillor VanLeeuwen’s arguments is that he felt compelled to take a stand because provincial and federal elected representatives were unable to express alternative viewpoints.
174. For the record, the response of the Government of Ontario to my inquiry on this point was as follows: In a free and democratic society like Ontario, the government values public debate on its policies. Ontario rejects the characterization that it has discouraged public debate on the shape of its pandemic response or the specifics of the COVID-19 regulations. [emphasis added]
175. Despite this assertion, the facts align with Councillor VanLeeuwen’s explanation that he was giving expression to views that the Government is trying to suppress at Queen’s Park. York Centre MPP Roman Baber was removed from the governing party’s legislative caucus and the Government attempted to reduce his legislative salary after he expressed opinions similar to those of Councillor VanLeeuwen.40 Subsequently, four Ministers who had “all been outspoken over the impact of lockdowns on the economy and on mental health”41 were removed from the Cabinet.42 (According to its own responses in this inquiry, the Government has not measured the impact of its lockdown restrictions.)
176. While Councillor VanLeeuwen is voicing an opinion, quite possibly a minority opinion, that is not fully expressed at other levels of government, that fact does not affect the determination of whether the Code of Conduct was contravened.
177. I have also considered the argument that Councillor VanLeeuwen and the End the Lockdowns National Caucus have been spreading misinformation and not merely opinion.
40 See paragraphs 203, 204, 205, 235, and 236. 41 Robert Benzie, Toronto Star, “Insiders say Doug Ford is looking to dump lockdown critics as he shuffles cabinet that’s ‘too white and too male’” (May 31, 2021), online: https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/2021/05/31/insiders-say-doug-ford-is-looking-to-dump- lockdown-critics-as-he-shuffles-cabinet-thats-too-white-and-too-male.html 42 Robert Benzie and Rob Ferguson, Toronto Star, “Doug Ford dumps five ministers in cabinet shuffle” (June 18, 2021), online: https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/2021/06/18/doug-ford-dumps-five- minister-in-cabinet-shuffle.html
Page 44 of 228 39
I have already found, however, that the Government has not measured impacts and cannot empirically disprove the claim that “the lockdowns cause more harm than the virus.” I am also mindful of the unfairness of labelling opinion as fact. The Supreme Court of Canada has cautioned that it is very difficult to separate fact from opinion: the difference is “vague” and “elusive.”43
178. The Supreme Court of Canada has also stressed the importance of protecting the expression of beliefs that are out of step with the majority’s view – even beliefs that the majority considers to be false. In a decision written by Justice Beverley McLachlin (before she became Chief Justice), the Court outlined as follows the purpose of Charter protection of freedom of expression: The purpose of the guarantee is to permit free expression to the end of promoting truth, political or social participation, and self-fulfilment. That purpose extends to the protection of minority beliefs which the majority regard as wrong or false: Irwin Toy, supra, at p. 968. Tests of free expression frequently involve a contest between the majoritarian view of what is true or right and an unpopular minority view. …Thus the guarantee of freedom of expression serves to protect the right of the minority to express its view, however unpopular it may be; adapted to this context, it serves to preclude the majority's perception of ‘truth’ or ‘public interest’ from smothering the minority’s perception.44
179. The Code of Conduct should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the right of freedom of expression. As the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled, the majority’s view of what is true or in the public interest cannot smother the minority’s alternate perception.
180. Once political decision-making leads to the enactment of a law, that law should be obeyed. One may challenge a law by constitutional, legal process. One may seek to alter a law through the democratic, political process. An elected representative should not, however, advocate law breaking. I find that Councillor VanLeeuwen did not urge anyone to break the law. His actions were limited to seeking to overturn the lockdown measures through constitutional, legal, democratic, and political processes.
The Constitution and the Rule of Law
181. Indeed, Councillor VanLeeuwen’s position is partly based on constitutional principles. The statement of Councillor VanLeeuwen and the End the Lockdowns National Caucus makes reference to “safeguarding our representative democracy and its institutions, [and] defending our Constitution, personal freedoms and responsibilities …”
43 R. v. Zundel, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731, at 749-751. 44 R. v. Zundel, at 752-753.
Page 45 of 228 40
182. A municipal councillor is entitled to defend democracy and the Constitution. Doing so is not a contravention of the Code of Conduct.
183. Councillor VanLeeuwen asserts that subsequent events confirm the importance and reasonableness of his decision to speak out on constitutional rights. I agree.
184. This inquiry is not a review of the OPP. The examination relates to Councillor VanLeeuwen. The activity of the OPP is relevant only to the extent that is has been raised as an explanation or justification for the Council Member’s conduct.
185. On April 16, Premier Doug Ford and several Cabinet Ministers announced yet another iteration of provincial policy measures. They stated that, effective April 17: Police officers and other provincial offences officers will have the authority to require any individual to provide their home address and purpose for not being at their residence. In addition, police officers, special constables and First Nation Constables will have the authority to stop vehicles to inquire about an individual's reasons for leaving their home.45
186. The Premier and Ministers also announced the closure of, “all outdoor recreational amenities, such as golf courses, basketball courts, soccer fields, and playgrounds with limited exceptions.”46
187. The @OPP_News Twitter account describes itself as the, “Official account of Ontario Provincial Police.” On April 16, the OPP issued two Tweets, claiming that laws were in place before they had even been made.
188. One Tweet, issued at 6:09 p.m., claimed, “Law enforcement now has the ability to ask anyone outside their residence, including motorists, to indicate their purpose for leaving home and provide their address.”
45 Office of the Premier, “Ontario Strengthens Enforcement of Stay-at-Home Order” (April 16, 2021), online: https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/61192/ontario-strengthens-enforcement-of-stay-at-home- order 46 Ibid.
Page 46 of 228 41
189. In fact, at 6:09 p.m., April 16, this was not the case. For one thing, the law would not take effect until 12:01 a.m., April 17. More significantly, at 6:09 p.m., the law did not exist. The Order in Council was not signed until 10:40 p.m. Only then was the new regulation made.
190. In other words, the OPP was claiming on Twitter that the police “now” possessed new powers, several hours before the powers, Ontario Regulation 294/21, had even been signed into law.
191. This occurred not once, but twice. A second 6:09 p.m. Tweet claimed: “OPP will be enforcing new measures to limit transmission of COVID-19 virus and variants. Strict measures at provincial borders and limitations on outdoor recreational activity.”
192. At 6:09 p.m., the border measures existed but the limitations on outdoor recreational activity did not. The former, Ontario Regulation 293/21, had been signed at 3:00 p.m. The latter order, Ontario Regulation 297/21, was not signed until late at night. This means the OPP announced that it would be enforcing new limitations on outdoor recreational activity, several hours before those limitations were law.
193. According to Councillor VanLeeuwen, this incident demonstrates why it was reasonable for him and the End the Lockdowns National Caucus to express concern about “safeguarding our representative democracy and its institutions.”
194. I gave the OPP – not the Wellington County Detachment, but the provincial Commissioner himself – written notice that I was considering this issue,47 and offered an opportunity to address it.
195. The Commissioner of the OPP responded to me, in writing, as follows:
47 In particular, I invited the OPP to address the submissions, “that a police announcement of powers that do not exist, under laws that do not exist, gives rise to a legitimate public concern, including a concern about respect for the rule of law; and that the police should be able to distinguish a news conference or news release from an actual law.”
Page 47 of 228 42
I note this relates to two tweets issued by the OPP Corporate account shortly after the Ontario government’s news conference announcing amendments to emergency order O.Reg 8/21 Enforcement ofCOVID-19 Measures. Specifically the statements made at the press conference included the following: “To increase public compliance with the Stay-at-Home order and stop the spread of COVID-19, amendments to an emergency order (O.Reg 8/21 Enforcement of COVID-19 Measures) have been made that will provide police officers and other provincial offences officers enhanced authority to support the enforcement of Ontario's Stay-at-Home order. Effective Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 12:01 a.m., police officers and other provincial offences officers will have the authority to require any individual to provide their home address and purpose for not being at their residence. In addition, police officers, special constables and First Nation Constables will have the authority to stop vehicles to inquire about an individual's reasons for leaving their home.” The OPP relied on the information in the government’s news release when publishing its subsequent tweets, and linked to that release in its tweets. While the information in the tweets was communicated based on our understanding at the time, it is important to note that our enforcement approach did not change based on the announcement.
196. At the time of the Tweets, the measures in question were not laws; they were merely policy proposals of the governing party. The provincial police force was claiming new powers and announcing the enforcement of new restrictions based on what amounted to, at the time, political positions of the governing party, and not actual law.
197. In the Ontario constitutional order, news conferences and news releases are not part of the law-making process. Cabinet orders are made by instruments signed by the Lieutenant Governor. Words spoken by a politician at a press conference have no legislative effect. Words spoken by a politician are certainly not authority for police action.
198. The rule of law requires that the police be able to distinguish political pronouncements and news releases from duly-enacted laws.
199. I agree with Councillor VanLeeuwen that the events of April 16 demonstrate the reasonableness and the propriety of his statements about protecting democratic institutions and upholding the constitutional order, including the rule of law. Defending the Constitution and the rule of law is not contrary to the Code of Conduct.
Deputy Mayor VanLeeuwen’s Social Media Posts
200. Because Deputy Mayor VanLeeuwen’s Facebook posts were mentioned in the Mayor’s February 16 report to Committee of the Whole, I have examined each of them. I find that the posts constituted fair commentary and were not misleading. With a few exceptions, the factual claims in Councillor VanLeeuwen’s social media posts were
Page 48 of 228 43 accurate. The statements of opinion in his social media posts reflected views that he had a right to express, and they did not contravene the Code.
201. On September 17, Mr. VanLeeuwen posted on Facebook a Tweet of independent MPP Randy Hillier, in which Mr. Hillier shared a Tweet sharing another Tweet that said the Province had decided on new restrictions to take effect Thanksgiving weekend. Mr. Hillier commented, “This is consistent with what I’ve been hearing.” The prediction proved to be correct, as new restrictions were imposed on Toronto, Ottawa, and Peel Region effective October 10, and on York Region effective October 19.
202. On November 29, Mr. VanLeeuwen reposted another Facebook user’s post stating that Alberta Premier Jason Kenney had acknowledged “a grave mistake” in the provincial pandemic response. The claim was accurate; Premier Kenney had used those exact words on November 24.48
203. On January 15, Deputy Mayor VanLeeuwen reposted the open letter of Progressive Conservative MPP Roman Baber. (Mr. Baber was immediately expelled from the PC caucus for writing the letter.) The Baber letter contained 39 specific statements of fact; the Ontario Ministry of Health issued a fact-sheet refuting six of the claims. Two of the six rebuttals related to Mr. Baber’s misspelling of Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and his miscount of the number of Ontario hospitals. A third rebuttal clarified that overdose deaths were only up 38 per cent, and not 50 per cent.
204. On May 21, the preliminary overdose statistics that the Ministry used to debunk Mr. Baber’s claim were updated. The corrected figures confirm Mr. Baber’s statement and in fact, are worse. Mr. Baber had said overdoses were “trending” to a 50-per-cent increase. In fact, the year-over-year overdose increase was 60 per cent. The per month increase between February (last month before any restrictions) and December was 79 per cent.49 The monthly number of opioid-related deaths has varied considerably over time in Ontario over the period studied. However, in the months following the State of Emergency declaration in Ontario on March 17, 2020, there was a significant acceleration in the number of opioid-related deaths observed across Ontario (p=0.0008). Specifically, there was a 79.2% increase in the number of opioid-related
48 “We need to acknowledge as we go through COVID when we have made mistakes. This government made, I think, a grave mistake in the spring when we made, frankly, a stupidly arbitrary distinction between essential and non-essential retail businesses that had the unintended consequence of allowing Walmarts and Costcos to sell darn near everything because they have a grocery section or they sell pharmaceuticals, while shutting down thousands and thousands of retail small and medium sized businesses”: Hon. Jason Kenney, online, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylTCTcSM09Y 49 T. Gomes, R. Murray, G. Kolla, P. Leece, S. Bansal, J. Besharah, T. Cahill, T. Campbell, A. Fritz, C. Munro, L. Toner, J. Watford, “Changing Circumstances Surrounding Opioid-Related Deaths in Ontario during the COVID-19 Pandemic” (May 2021), p. 5, online: https://www.publichealthontario.ca/- /media/documents/c/2021/changing-circumstances-surrounding-opioid-related-deaths.pdf?sc_lang=en
Page 49 of 228 44
deaths between February 2020 (the month prior to the State of Emergency declaration; N=139 deaths) and December 2020 (N=249 deaths). Overall, in 2020, there were 2,426 opioid-related deaths, a 60.0% rise from 1,517 deaths the year prior. Among women, the monthly number of opioidrelated deaths increased 43.6% from February to December 2020 (39 vs. 56 deaths monthly), compared to a 93.0% increase among men (from 100 to 193 deaths monthly) over the same period. By age, the largest increases were observed among those aged 25 to 44 (61.4% increase from 83 to 134 deaths monthly) and 45 to 64 years (119.5% increase from 41 to 90 deaths monthly).
205. One of Mr. Baber’s predictions was that, “The growth in number of Ontarians who died of overdose in 2020, may be higher than the number of people who died from COVID outside LTC.” His prediction came close. In 2020, approximately 1259 COVID related deaths occurred outside of long-term care facilities and retirement homes,50 51 while opioid-related deaths rose 909 above the previous year.52
206. The material claims and predictions in Mr. Baber’s letter were accurate. I find that it was not misleading for Councillor VanLeeuwen to post the correspondence.
207. On January 28, Mr. VanLeeuwen reposted the Facebook post of Councillor Neil Dunsmore, in which the latter described his “Steps to Stop the Silence” Elora-to-Ottawa walk, last fall, to raise awareness of mental health and to raise funds for the Cody Shepperd Project.
208. On February 4, Deputy Mayor VanLeeuwen posted a link to a Canadian Press news story, “‘Kids are not all right’: Mental health among Ontario children deteriorating.”53 This was an actual February 2 news report, written by veteran CP reporter/editor Liam Casey. He also posted a link to the January 20 article of Globe and Mail education reporter Caroline Alphonso, “‘Shadow pandemic’ of young people with eating disorders a challenge for health networks to treat.”54
209. The same afternoon, Deputy Mayor VanLeeuwen posted on Facebook the announcement and group photograph of the End the Lockdowns National Caucus, discussed starting at paragraph 24.
50 Public Health Ontario, “COVID-19 Outbreaks and Cases in Ontario, by Setting: February 16, 2020 to December 26, 2020,” Table 3, online: https://www.publichealthontario.ca/- /media/documents/ncov/epi/covid-19-settings-based-outbreaks-epi-summary.pdf?sc_lang=en 51 Public Health Ontario, Ontario COVID-19 Data Tool (for December 31, 2020), online: https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/data-and-analysis/infectious-disease/covid-19-data- surveillance/covid-19-data-tool?tab=summary 52 “Changing Circumstances Surrounding Opioid-Related Deaths in Ontario during the COVID-19 Pandemic” (May 2021), note 49, p. 5. 53 Online, https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/kids-are-not-all-right-mental-health-among-ontario-children- deteriorating-1.5292729 54 Online, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-shadow-pandemic-of-young-people-with- eating-disorders-strains-capacity
Page 50 of 228 45
210. On February 5, Deputy Mayor VanLeeuwen posted a news story about a 24-hour spike in drug overdoses in Toronto. The news story was based on an actual statement issued by Toronto Public Health.55
211. On February 5, Deputy Mayor VanLeeuwen also posted, without comment, a meme of a 2010 quotation from Bill Gates. The Gates quotation was accurate.56
212. That afternoon, he posted on Facebook a link (https://www.change.org/p/justin- trudeau-i-support-end-the-lockdowns-caucus) to a Change.org petition of support for the End the Lockdowns National Caucus. That evening, he posted, without comment, a link to a video of independent Member of Parliament Derek Sloan.
213. On February 6, Deputy Mayor VanLeeuwen posted a meme claiming that the numbers of calls to the Kids Help Phone were 1.9 million in 2019 and 4.2 million in 2020. The figures are basically accurate, though understated. The figures include calls and texts, and the 2020 volume was 4.5 million.57
214. On February 6, he also posted a news story that accurately summarized the U.S. Supreme Court interim injunction decisions in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom and Harvest Rock Church v. Newsom.
215. Another February 6 post shared a meme claiming that lawyer “Rocco Galati won the cause [sic] against forced immunization in Canada” and that forced vaccination is illegal under the Nuremburg Code. The meme indicates that it was translated from another language into English. The post was suppressed by Facebook as “False Information/Checked by independent fact checkers.” The reference to the litigation being handled by Mr. Galati mistakes a lawsuit currently before the courts58 with a final court judgment. Meanwhile, the Nuremburg Code (1947) is not law; it is a statement of ethics in the context of medical experiments, based on the principle of voluntary informed consent. While it is true that Dr. Mona Nemer, Chief Science Advisor of Canada, called the four-month delay between vaccine doses “a basically population level experiment,”59 inoculation typically is not considered experimentation and is not considered subject to the ethical norms of the Nuremburg Code. Apart from the mistaken description of the case being argued by Mr. Galati (whether translation contributed to the mistake is
55 Toronto Public Health, “High number of overdose calls to paramedics in past 24 hours” (January 30, 2021), online, https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/8d7f-Drug-Alert30Jan2021.pdf 56 Bill Gates, “Innovating to zero!” TED2010, 4:23 mark of online video: https://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates_innovating_to_zero 57 Marsha McLeod and Ashley Okwuosa, TVO.org, “Kids in crisis: Inside Ontario’s overloaded mental- health system,” (May 6, 2021), online: https://www.tvo.org/article/kids-in-crisis-inside-ontarios- overloaded-mental-health-system 58 Vaccine Choice Canada et al. v. Ontario, Superior Court of Justice File No. CV-19-006298100000. 59 Peter Zimonjic, Vassy Kapelos, CBC News, “Canada’s chief science adviser issues warning about B.C.’s ‘experiment’ with vaccine timing” (March 1, 2021), online: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nemer-henry-vaccine-interval-experiment-1.5932714
Page 51 of 228 46 unclear), I find that the post is merely an opinion about the application of informed consent to vaccinations.
216. On February 8, Mr. VanLeeuwen posted a news report on four new members of the Caucus: Dave Bylsma, Mayor, Township of West Lincoln; Paul Hinman, Leader, Wildrose Independence Party of Alberta; Jason Alderson, former Councillor, Town of Rocky Mountain House, Alberta; Glen Carrit, former Councillor, Town of Innisfail, Alberta.
217. On February 8, he posted a video that began with a clip in which Dr. Anthony Fauci stated that asymptomatic transmission had never been the driver of outbreaks of respiratory-borne viruses of any type, and included footage of a World Health Organization representative and other public health professionals who stated that asymptomatic persons did not need to wear masks. The video clips were authentic, but the content was dated. Dr. Fauci and the WHO had previously dismissed the likelihood of asymptomatic transmission, but later revised their positions and stated that COVID could, in fact, be transmitted by asymptomatic persons.60 Mr. VanLeeuwen did not comment on the video or make a factual claim. Instead, he appears simply to have been drawing attention to previous statements of Dr. Fauci and WHO inconsistent with their later positions, shifts of position that actually occurred and were a fair subject of comment.
218. On another February 8 post by Deputy Mayor VanLeeuwen was a meme critical of PCR (polymerase chain reaction) tests of COVID. According to the post, “The positive PCR test used to support the assertion of rapid spread of COVID-19 has been shown to be faulty.” According to Public Health Ontario, PCR is considered the “gold standard of testing for COVID-19,” with high sensitivity and a low chance for error compared to other types of lab tests.61 More specifically, Public Health Ontario has stated that the positive predictive value of PCR testing is dependent on prevalence: In general, the positive predictive value (PPV) of COVID-19 PCR assays is excellent among patients with high pretest probability, and approaches 100%. This was determined at PHO Laboratory, using viral sequencing of PCR-positive specimens, excluding those for which viral copy number was near the LOD of the assay. However, in the context of low prevalence when the virus is not circulating at a high level in the community, PPV drops significantly. For example, if the community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 is 1%, with a test sensitivity of 80%, and specificity of 99%, the PPV of a positive test is only 44.7%. If prevalence increases to 5% or 10%, then the PPV increases significantly to 80.8% and 89.9%, respectively.62
60 Berkeley Lovelace Jr., CNBC, “Dr. Anthony Fauci says WHO’s remark on asymptomatic coronavirus spread ‘was not correct’” (June 10, 2020), online: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/10/dr-anthony-fauci- says-whos-remark-on-asymptomatic-coronavirus-spread-was-not-correct.html 61 Public Health Ontario, “Explained: COVID-19 PCR Testing and Cycle Thresholds” (February 17, 2021), online: https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/about/blog/2021/explained-covid19-pcr-testing- and-cycle-thresholds 62 An Overview of Cycle Threshold Values and their Role in SARS-CoV-2 Real-Time PCR Test Interpretation, pp. 6-7.
Page 52 of 228 47
219. While the meme’s claim seems inconsistent with Public Health Ontario statements about PCR testing, its accuracy depends on what the meme means by “faulty,” including whether it contemplates lower positive predictive value in the context of low prevalence.
220. On February 9, Deputy Mayor VanLeeuwen reposted a post of Mr. Randy Hillier, MPP, that linked to the Facebook page of the group Police on Guard for Thee, and contained a statement by Mr. Hillier speaking positively of “all the great work Police on Guard for Thee is doing to help protect our constitutional rights during COVID.” Whether pandemic response measures are or are not sufficiently respectful of rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a legitimate topic of debate in a free society, and I find that Mr. VanLeeuwen was entitled to express an opinion on the subject.
221. The same day, Deputy Mayor VanLeeuwen posted a link to a news story and an accompanying meme, both related to charges laid against Pastor Aaron Rock of Harvest Bible Church in Windsor. The facts contained in the post were accurate. The meme includes a photo of Pastor Rock beside the church’s outdoor sign, reading, “If this was a big box store you could all come in. Unfair.” The meme asked, “As liquor stores and Costco remain ‘essential,’ should places of worship be considered the same?” The factual content was accurate and the opinion – about provincial decision making on what is “essential” – was one that Mr. VanLeeuwen had every right to express.
222. On February 10 and February 11, Deputy Mayor VanLeeuwen posted links to news stories (including a Canadian Press story) about Alberta MLAs Drew Barnes and Angela Pitt joining the End the Lockdowns National Caucus. The links were to actual news stories with accurate content.
223. On February 10, Deputy Mayor VanLeeuwen posted a meme that purported to show online survey questions from a polling firm called Campaign Research. Portions of the questions were cut off; the text appearing on the meme read as follows: “Do you support or oppose the government suspending civil liberties and rights unde … Rights and Freedoms for the duration of the pandemic?” and “Do you support or oppose police and health officials being authorized to sepa … discretion by removing people from homes and housing them somewhere els … Covid-19?”
Page 53 of 228 48
Page 54 of 228 49
224. It is unknown whether the meme shows actual images from an online survey, but Campaign Research is a real polling firm that did conduct an actual national online survey from January 28-30, 2021, with questions that included the following: “Q11 - Do you support or oppose the government suspending civil liberties and rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for the duration of the pandemic?” and “Q 7 – Do you support or oppose police and health officials being authorized to separate family members at their discretion by removing people from homes and housing them somewhere else to reduce or eliminate the risk of Covid spread?”63
225. On question 11 (suspending constitutional rights), Ontario respondents to the survey were divided as follows: 34% strongly opposed, 19% somewhat opposed, 25% somewhat supportive, and 9% strongly supportive. Most Ontario respondents were also opposed to letting authorities separate family members (question 7).64
226. Given the close correlation between the meme and a real online survey, I find that Mr. VanLeeuwen’s post was accurate and was fair commentary on an actual happening.
227. The Campaign Research survey also found that 30% of Ontario respondents wanted stronger pandemic restrictions. This group aligned with the view that, “My provincial government has done a bad job and I feel that we need the rules and restrictions to be more strict and they should have been put into place earlier. The new restrictions must stay in place for January and into February, at least.”65
228. The survey also canvassed a policy option that the Ontario Government would subsequently adopt. It asked: “Do you support or oppose police being authorized to establish pedestrian checkpoints to stop and question people outside of their homes to enforce compliance with Covid-19 restrictions?” This practice, informally known as “carding” (though not referred to as such in the survey), was strongly opposed by 36% of Ontario respondents and somewhat opposed by 23%, with 12% strongly supportive and 26% somewhat supportive.66
229. The evening of February 10, Deputy Mayor VanLeeuwen posted “Are Lockdowns Safe?” This meme contrasted the benefits of lockdowns (identified as reduced deaths among the vulnerable, and reduced stress on hospital ICUs) with the alleged consequences (41 were listed, including delayed surgeries and “governmental hypocrisy”). I find that the content of the meme is consistent with the position of the End the Lockdowns National Caucus, and have considered it as part of the analysis of Mr. VanLeeuwen’s Caucus participation.
63 Campaign Research, “National Omnibus Study - February 2021,” https://www.campaignresearch.com/single-post/national-omnibus-study-february-2021 64 Ibid. 65 Ibid., Q2. 66 Ibid., Q6.
Page 55 of 228 50
230. On February 11, Deputy Mayor VanLeeuwen posted a news story that quoted Dr. Adalsteinn Brown, co-chair of the Ontario COVID-19 Science Advisory Table, identifying a “very real risk” of a third wave and a third lockdown. The news story was accurate, and Dr. Brown’s prediction turned out to be correct.
231. On February 12, Deputy Mayor VanLeeuwen posted a collage consisting of the following: three CBC News headlines about church services and pandemic restrictions (two were related to charges and one was about a legal challenge); the text of subsection 176(1) of the Criminal Code (which deals with disturbing religious worship); and a statement that religion is protected under the Charter and enforcing measures to inhibit religious gatherings could contravene subsection 176(1) of the Criminal Code. I find that the news headlines were genuine, the statutory reference was accurate, and the remainder of the post constituted legal argument (that is, the assertion of a legal position), which is a permitted expression of opinion.
Page 56 of 228 51
232. Also on February 12, Deputy Mayor VanLeeuwen posted a link to a Change.org petition to “Keep Steve VanLeeuwen as Deputy Mayor.”
233. On February 13, Deputy Mayor VanLeeuwen posted a Globe and Mail story headlined, “Melbourne, Australia begins third lockdown due to COVID-19 cluster.” This was a genuine news report of a real development.
234. On February 17, Deputy Mayor VanLeeuwen posted, without comment, a news story about the incarceration of Pastor James Coates of GraceLife Church of Edmonton. The news story described actual events.
235. On February 18, Deputy Mayor VanLeeuwen posted on Facebook the image of a Tweet, the previous day, of independent MPP Roman Baber. Mr. Baber was announcing a proposed law to reduce the pay of all Ontario MPPs to $500 per week (the amount paid under the Canada Emergency Response Benefit to individuals, including 400,000 Ontarians, whose employment was directly affected by COVID-19) until the pandemic restrictions that put people out of work were lifted. His argument was that if “we are all in this together” then provincial politicians should be wiling to bear the same economic consequences of the restrictions that they imposed on others.
236. After Mr. Baber introduced his bill, the Government House Leader, Paul Calandra, asked, “Speaker, I hope you’ll indulge me just a moment,” and introduced a motion that Mr. Baber’s pay, and his only, be reduced to the level of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit paid to Ontarians who are out-of-work because of provincial restrictions. Instead of ruling Mr. Calandra’s motion out of order, the Speaker, Wellington MPP Ted Arnott, allowed the motion and put it before the House; the motion passed.67 I find that Deputy Mayor VanLeeuwen posted Mr. Baber’s Tweet, the day following these events, both to support Mr. Baber’s legislation and to show solidarity with Mr. Baber after the Government of Ontario secured passage of a motion to cut Mr. Baber’s pay.
237. On February 19, Deputy Mayor VanLeeuwen posted a meme claiming that the Toronto Police had experienced a 12-per-cent increase in mental-health-related calls since 2019. The factual claim was consistent with a Globe and Mail news report.68
238. In summary, the statements of opinion in his social media posts reflected views that he had a right to express and did not contravene the Code. With a few immaterial exceptions, the factual claims in Councillor VanLeeuwen’s social media posts were accurate.
67 Speaker Arnott subsequently decided that the motion of the House was insufficient to amend the legislation that sets MPPs’ salaries, but he never ruled the motion out of order. It remains on the books as a resolution of the Legislative Assembly, albeit of no force and effect: Votes and Proceedings, No. 222 (February 17, 2021), p. 4. 68 Patrick White, Molly Hayes, The Globe and Mail, “Calls to police, physicians on mental-health matters surge during COVID-19 pandemic” (January 27, 2021).
Page 57 of 228 52
Interference with Law Enforcement / Urging Law Breaking
239. I find, based on the available evidence, that Councillor VanLeeuwen did not obstruct, interfere with, or attempt to influence the enforcement of the lockdown measures or other public health measures.
240. I find no evidence that Councillor VanLeeuwen did or said anything to interfere with the independence of law enforcement.
241. I find no evidence that Councillor VanLeeuwen counselled anyone to break the law. His actions were limited to seeking to overturn the lockdown measures through constitutional, legal, democratic, and political processes.
242. As I have mentioned, I requested the cooperation of the Wellington County Detachment of the Ontario Provincial Police, and the request was declined. If the OPP possesses any information relevant to the findings in the preceding three paragraphs, then I am unaware of it.
243. Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public Health did assist with the inquiry. None of the information it provided indicates that Councillor VanLeeuwen interfered with law enforcement or urged people to break the law.
Private Interest
244. While Councillor VanLeeuwen actively defended freedom of religion, including the freedom of worship and religious observance, I do not find any evidence that he was using his position to advance a private interest, whether of the congregation to which he belongs or of any other individual or entity.
Compliance with the Law by Councillor VanLeeuwen
245. Finally, I have considered whether Councillor VanLeeuwen’s personal compliance with the law (including his compliance as a business owner) is relevant to the Code of Conduct.
246. The short answer is that contraventions of provincial statutes are not within the jurisdiction of an Integrity Commissioner. Section 223.8 of the Municipal Act makes clear that alleged contraventions of Acts of the Legislature are the responsibility of “appropriate authorities.”
247. The Code of Conduct does not prevail over section 223.8 of the Municipal Act.
248. Failure to comply with provincial lockdown restrictions would be an offence under the Reopening Ontario Act or the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act.
Page 58 of 228 53
Failure to comply with an order of the medical officer of health would be an offence under the Health Protection and Promotion Act. Each of these is a matter that section 223.8 of the Municipal Act excludes from Integrity Commissioner jurisdiction.
249. Whether Councillor VanLeeuwen and his businesses complied with applicable laws is a matter for local authorities, including police and public health officials. I note that WDG Public Health inspectors visited his business establishment on two occasions and did not lay charges.
250. I have also considered the undated photograph that shows Councillor VanLeeuwen standing beside other members of the End the Lockdowns National Caucus.
251. Councillor VanLeeuwen has commented on the recent photographs of Prime Minister Trudeau and other G7 leaders. The leaders made a point of posing for a staged, physically-distanced portrait, but then were observed (and photographed) mingling maskless and standing next to one another at a social event.
252. I agree with Councillor VanLeeuwen that the disingenuous conduct of the G7 leaders contrasts with the transparency of the End the Lockdowns National Caucus. Councillor VanLeeuwen has not embraced one position in public and practised another privately. However, I cannot make a Code of Conduct finding on that basis.
253. Because federal and provincial leaders are not subject to municipal integrity commissioner inquiries, I cannot make a finding on Councillor VanLeeuwen’s observation that is unfair to penalize honest opposition to pandemic restrictions when those who make and promote the restrictions contravene them with impunity.
254. Instead, I find that section 223.8 of the Municipal Act governs the situation. If the photograph of the End the Lockdowns National Caucus is evidence of an offence, then it was (and, I believe, still is) open to law enforcement authorities to act on it. An Integrity Commissioner is not permitted to investigate alleged breaches of provincial legislation, except, in certain circumstances, the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.
CONCLUSIONS
255. I conclude that Councillor VanLeeuwen’s membership and participation in the End the Lockdowns National Caucus do not contravene the Code of Conduct.
256. I conclude that Councillor VanLeeuwen’s social media activity prior to his removal from the position of Deputy Mayor did not Contravene the Code of Conduct.
257. I conclude that Councillor VanLeeuwen did not otherwise contravene the Code of Conduct.
Page 59 of 228 54 CONTENT
258. Subsection 223.6(2) of the Municipal Act states that I may disclose in this report such matters as in my opinion are necessary for the purposes of the report. All the content of this report is, in my opinion, necessary.
Respectfully submitted,
Guy Giorno Integrity Commissioner Township of Centre Wellington
August 24, 2021
Page 60 of 228 Township of Centre Wellington Council Minutes Monday, July 26, 2021 Council Chamber 2:00 PM
Meeting held electronically via Zoom, no persons present in the Council Chamber
PRESENT: Mayor Kelly Linton Councillor Ian MacRae Councillor Kirk McElwain Councillor Bob Foster Councillor Neil Dunsmore Councillor Stephen Kitras Councillor Steven VanLeeuwen
REGRETS:
STAFF: Chief Administrative Officer, Andy Goldie Manager of Legislative Services/Municipal Clerk, Kerri O'Kane Supervisor of Customer Service/Deputy Clerk, Lisa Miller Managing Director of Planning& Development, Brett Salmon Managing Director of Community Services, Pat Newson Managing Director of Infrastructure Services, Colin Baker Managing Director of Corporate Services/ Treasurer, Dan Wilson
1. Call to Order 1.1 Mayor Linton called the meeting to order and completed the roll call.
2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest Under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act Councillor MacRae indicated a conflict with item 8.1, Approval and Adoption of Minutes due to declarations made at the June 28, 2021 Council meeting.
3. Closed Session
3.1 Moved by Councillor Neil Dunsmore, Seconded by Councillor Ian MacRae.
THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington convene in Closed Session in accordance with Sections 239(k) and (c) of the Municipal Act, as amended, concerning a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be
Page 1 of 8
Page 61 of 228 Council Minutes July 26, 2021
carried on by or on behalf of the municipality or local board; and a proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality or local board.
CARRIED
4. Reconvene in Open Session
4.1 Moved by Councillor Neil Dunsmore, Seconded by Councillor Steven VanLeeuwen.
THAT Council reconvene in open session.
CARRIED
5. Matters Arising from Closed Session Mayor Linton indicated Council met in closed session prior to the open session and there is nothing to report at this time.
6. Presentations/Announcements 6.1 Ontario Waterpower Association - Paul Norris, President
Paul Norris, President, Ontario Waterpower Association (OWA) gave a presentation requesting Council sign the Ontario Waterpower Champions Charter and to become an OWA Community Member. He gave a brief overview of the types of power generation in Ontario and highlighted the benefits of waterpower.
6.2 Mayor's County Council Report
Mayor Linton indicated County Council does not meet in July or August, therefore an update will be provided at the September meeting.
6.3 Councillor's Committee Updates
Members of Council provided an overview of ongoing activities of the external and advisory committees.
7. Addendums and Corrections to the Agenda None.
8. Approval and Adoption of the Minutes Councillor MacRae having declared a conflict left the meeting.
8.1 Moved by Councillor Neil Dunsmore, Seconded by Councillor Steven VanLeeuwen.
Page 2 of 8
Page 62 of 228 Council Minutes July 26, 2021
THAT the minutes of the Council meeting held June 28, 2021 be adopted as circulated.
CARRIED
9. Report from the Committee of the Whole – July 19, 2021 Councillor MacRae rejoined the meeting.
9.1 Moved by Councillor Kirk McElwain, Seconded by Councillor Neil Dunsmore.
THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington approve the Report from the Committee of the Whole dated July 19, 2021 as circulated.
1. THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington authorizes the Mayor and Clerk to execute a by-law authorizing a fundraising activity in the form of soliciting by a toll booth on Tower Street in Fergus, on Saturday, September 11, 2021 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. by the Fergus Firefighters Association on behalf of Muscular Dystrophy Canada.
2. THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute the Bill of Sale between Gwen Swick and Randall Coryell and the Township to purchase the existing statue of “Who’s in Charge”, also known as the Tall Man located in the Elora Green space for a cost of zero dollars.
CARRIED
10. Delegations None.
11. Consideration of Reports 11.1 Tax Increment Equivalent Grant: Elora South Inc. Report from D. Wilson, Managing Director of Corporate Services & Treasurer Also Attending: Luciano Piccioni, President, RCI Consulting
D. Wilson gave a presentation reviewing how the Community Improvement Plan works, including the Tax Increment Equivalent Grants. He further reviewed the specific conditions of the proposed Elora South Inc. grant.
Luciano Piccioni, President, RCI Consulting spoke regarding the agreement being developed. He indicated his role was to assist staff in
Page 3 of 8
Page 63 of 228 Council Minutes July 26, 2021
the development of the TIGG agreement and reviewed the sections of the agreement.
Aaron Ciancone, President, Pearle Hospitality (Elora South Inc.) spoke in favour of approval of the TIGG agreement, indicating this type of agreement assists with development in the community and does not take away from existing tax dollars.
Vince Agostino, resident spoke against the development and the granting of the TIGG for this potential development, as he believes the development is cost prohibitive.
Councillor Foster requested a recorded vote.
Discussion ensued and the following motions were put forward.
Moved by Councillor Foster Seconded by Councillor Kitras
THAT consideration of the TIGG for Elora South Inc., be deferred until the development plans are approved.
DEFEATED
Moved by Councillor Ian MacRae, Seconded by Councillor Kirk McElwain.
THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington approve the Tax Increment Equivalent Grant application submitted by Elora South Inc.
AND THAT Council authorize the Chief Administrative Officer and the Managing Director of Corporate Services & Treasurer to execute a Tax Increment Equivalent Grant agreement between the Township and Elora South Inc. based on the contents of report COR2021-41 dated July 26, 2021.
AND THAT Council authorizes the Chief Administrative Officer and the Managing Director of Corporate Services & Treasurer to execute an agreement between the County of Wellington and the Township regarding County participation in the Elora South Inc. Tax Increment Equivalent Grant.
CARRIED
Page 4 of 8
Page 64 of 228 Council Minutes July 26, 2021
Councillor Ian MacRae For Councillor Kirk McElwain For Mayor Kelly Linton For Councillor Bob Foster Against Councillor Neil Dunsmore For Councillor Stephen Kitras Abstained Councillor Steven VanLeeuwen For
11.2 Council took a brief recess from 3:35pm – 3:43pm.
Business Park Strategy Report Report from George Borovilos, Manager of Economic Development Economic Development Task Force Members in Attendance: Don Vallery, Jim Gibbons, Bob Cameron and Rick Whitaker
Brett Salmon, Managing Director of Planning & Development introduced George Borovilos the Township’s new Manager of Economic Development.
George Borovilos indicated the Business Park Strategy contributes to the establishment of a strong local economy by creating new investment.
Eric McSweeney gave a presentation reviewing the economic rationale, the target industries for the business park, and the market analysis. He highlighted the vision for the business park, indicating a mix of office and light industrial uses, the service phasing, a sales pricing policy and the employment land sales policies to be developed.
Jim Gibbons, Member of the Economic Development Task Force expressed his gratitude to Council for moving forward with this project.
Don Vallery, Chair of the Economic Development Task Force spoke in favour of the Business Park Strategy, indicating this is the next step following the purchase of land and is looking forward to seeing the final result.
Bob Cameron, Member of the Economic Development Task Force spoke in favour of the Business Park Strategy, indicating this will ensure the community does not become a bedroom community and thanked Council for the foresight with this project to date.
Page 5 of 8
Page 65 of 228 Council Minutes July 26, 2021
Rick Whittaker, Member of the Economic Development Task Force and Community Futures, spoke in favour of the value of this project to the community and requested start up businesses be included in the plan.
Staff and the consultant responded to questions regarding steps to be taken to ensure land speculation doesn’t occur, job creation, how to ensure development occurs in a timely manner and marketing strategies.
Moved by Councillor Neil Dunsmore, Seconded by Councillor Steven VanLeeuwen.
THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington adopt the Business Park Strategy prepared by McSweeney and Associates dated May 2021.
CARRIED 11.3 Appointment of Municipal Law Enforcement Officers - Parking By-law Report from K. O'Kane, Manager of Legislative Services & Municipal Clerk
K. O'Kane, Manager of Legislative Services & Municipal Clerk indicated this as a result of conflicting schedules and staff changes with the parking enforcement officers.
Moved by Councillor Neil Dunsmore, Seconded by Councillor Ian MacRae.
THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute a by-law to appoint various employees of Alpha Technology Systems, o/a Alpha Parking Solutions as Municipal Law Enforcement Officers for the purpose of enforcing the Township's Parking By-law.
CARRIED
12. Information Items 12.1 Emergency Repairs - Fergus Well F7 Riser Pipe and Packer and Fergus Wastewater Treatment Plant Various Repair Projects Report from Dino Masiero, Manager of Environmental Services
Dino Masiero, Manager of Environmental Services provided information for Council as required by the purchasing by-law when emergency repairs occur.
Moved by Councillor Ian MacRae, Seconded by Councillor Bob Foster.
Page 6 of 8
Page 66 of 228 Council Minutes July 26, 2021
THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington receive as information a report on emergency repairs completed at Fergus Well F7 and at the Fergus Wastewater Treatment Plant as outlined in Report No. IS2021-15.
CARRIED
13. By-laws 13.1 2021-35 A By-law to authorize a fund raising activity in the form of soliciting by a toll booth on the Tower Street Bridge in Fergus
2021-36 A By-law to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute a Bill of Sale between the Township of Centre Wellington and Gwen Swick and Randall Coryell to purchase a sculpture titled "A Question of Who's in Charge", also known as "The Tall Man".
2021-37 A By-law to Appoint Municipal Law Enforcement Officers for the Township of Centre Wellington for the purpose of enforcing the Township’s Parking By-law 5000-05, as amended and to Repeal By-law 2021-24
Moved by Councillor Kirk McElwain, Seconded by Councillor Ian MacRae.
THAT By-laws 2021-35 through 2021-37 be read a first, second and third time and passed, signed by the Mayor and Clerk and the Corporate Seal affixed.
CARRIED
14. Notice of Motion - Notice Only 14.1 Mayor Linton indicated Councillor McElwain’s motion will be considered at the August Council Meeting.
15. Confirmatory By-law 15.1 A By-law to Confirm the Actions of Council
Moved by Councillor Neil Dunsmore, Seconded by Councillor Steven VanLeeuwen.
THAT By-law 2021-38 to Confirm the Proceedings of Council at its meeting held July 26, 2021 be introduced a first, second and third time and passed in open Council.
CARRIED
Page 7 of 8
Page 67 of 228 Council Minutes July 26, 2021
16. Adjourn
16.1 Moved by Councillor Stephen Kitras, Seconded by Councillor Steven VanLeeuwen.
THAT this meeting be adjourned.
CARRIED
Mayor Municipal Clerk
Page 8 of 8
Page 68 of 228 From: Ed O'Shaughnessy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: August 23, 2021 3:39 PM To: Kerri O'Kane
Good Day Kerri I am submitting my reference material as required for my presentation scheduled for the Aug 30th Council Meeting. For the Petition, I have provided a link below for Council to access the actual petition plus I have also summarized a list of petition signatures, petition comments and a couple of charts to summarize this information in several attached PDF documents. https://www.change.org/p/cw-council-say-no-to-adding-bike-lines-along-st-david- street/dashboard
I am also including links below to several articles which I will reference during my presentation. https://burlingtongazette.ca/new-street-road-diet-bites-the-dust-data-didnt-support-the-idea-nor- did-many-of-the-residents/ https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/cyclists-drivers-divided-over-last-summer-s-temporary-bike-lanes- in-waterloo-1.5423476 https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-region/2020/08/11/temporary-bike-lanes-to-be- removed-from-coronation-boulevard.html https://www.guelphmercury.com/news-story/9596967-city-inviting-feedback-on-pop-up-bike- lane-near-downtown-guelph/
Thank you again for the opportunity to make this presentation and I look forward to the upcoming meeting. Ed
Page 69 of 228 St David Street peition signatures.xlsx
Name City Province Postal Code Country Signed On Edward OShaughnessy Fergus Canada 2021-06-30 Heather Henley Alma Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-01 Nancy Lehman Drayton Ontario N0G Canada 2021-07-01 Dushan Divjak Elora Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-01 Susan & Fred Hiller Elora N0B 1S0 Canada 2021-07-01 Betsy Kingma Elora Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-01 Angela Berriman Elora Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-01 Patrick Martin Elora Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-01 Dave Bell Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-01 Tim Hitchcock Elora Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-01 Bob Fisher Elora Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-01 Darren Levesque Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-01 Anne Fegan Elora Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-01 Christine Gallagher Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-01 Irene O'Shaughnessy Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-01 Kriss Shrive Fergus N1m1p2 Canada 2021-07-01 Janine Allan Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-01 Michelle Orser Fergus Ontario N1M 2G8 Canada 2021-07-01 Kevin Kunderman Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-01 Valerie Cameron Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-01 Mary Demmans Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-01 Carrie Van Veen Fergus N1m 1p4 Canada 2021-07-01 Eva O'Brien Fergus N1M 3T5 Canada 2021-07-01 Ken Waechter Fergus Ontario N0B2Bo Canada 2021-07-01 Marilyn Hutchinson Fergus N1M1P7 Canada 2021-07-01 don mchardy Fergus n1m2w3 Canada 2021-07-01 james macdonald Fergus N1M1t4 Canada 2021-07-01 Laurie Kells Fergus N1M 3P3 Canada 2021-07-01 Shannon Carney Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-01 Jeff McMullen Fergus N1M3H5 Canada 2021-07-01 Shauna Sipkes Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-01 Deb Veldhuizen Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-01 Jordan Lovell Fergus Ontario N1M 3S6 Canada 2021-07-01 Matt Johnston Fergus N1m 2c4 Canada 2021-07-01 Craig Cunningham Fergus N1m Canada 2021-07-01 Debbie Cornish Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-01 Robertt Stickel Fergus Ontario N1M0E7 Canada 2021-07-01 Eddie Gorman Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-01 Jenn Long Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-01 Becky Morrison Fergus Ontario N1M 3J2 Canada 2021-07-01 John Bridge Fergus Ontario N1M 1K7 Canada 2021-07-01 Mindy Ferguson Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-01 Denise Fisher Fergus Ontario N1M 0C3 Canada 2021-07-01 ROBERT WALLACE FERGUS N1M 2P9 Canada 2021-07-01 Bernie ANdrews Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-01 Danna Farrows Fergus Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-01
Prepared by Edward O'Shaughnessy 2021-08-21 Page 1
Page 70 of 228 St David Street peition signatures.xlsx
Richard Walser Fergus Ontario N1M3M2 Canada 2021-07-01 ROB Mulchinock Fergus N1m 1S1 Canada 2021-07-01 Suzette Smeltzer Fergus L7G Canada 2021-07-01 Lori Clementa Fergus N1M2M4 Canada 2021-07-01 Laura Walser Fergus Ontario N1m 3m2 Canada 2021-07-01 Janice Sheehan Fergus N1M3P9 Canada 2021-07-01 Tim Burch Fergus Ontario N1M 3P9 Canada 2021-07-01 Derek Callum Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-01 Shannon Curran Fergus N1M 2G7 Canada 2021-07-01 Jim Dandy Fergus N1M 2W4 Canada 2021-07-01 Mitchell King Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-01 Muriel Burnett Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-01 Penny Weber Fergus N1m2y2 Canada 2021-07-01 Aryanna Fegan Fergus NOB1S0 Canada 2021-07-01 Cross David Fergus, ON N1M Canada 2021-07-01 Deborah Jenks Fergus, Ontario N1M 0 C3 Canada 2021-07-01 Jamie Binkle Guelph N1H Canada 2021-07-01 Amanda O’Shaughnessy Kitchener Ontario N2A Canada 2021-07-01 Deborah Macdonald Mississauga Ontario L5M Canada 2021-07-01 Frank Richardson Ottawa K2J Canada 2021-07-01 Gary Hitchcock Toronto Ontario M6M Canada 2021-07-01 Chelsey Bell Acton L7J Canada 2021-07-02 Vanessa Dirksen Alma N0B 1A0 Canada 2021-07-02 Melanie Morel Arthur Ontario N0G 1A0 Canada 2021-07-02 Melanie Morel Arthur N0G 1A0 Canada 2021-07-02 Sandy Fellows Belwood Ontario NOB 1J0 Canada 2021-07-02 Tyler Drake Belwood Ontario N0b1s0 Canada 2021-07-02 Cassie Henwood Belwood Ontario N1m2w5 Canada 2021-07-02 Sharon Aydinli Belwood Ontario N0B 1aJ0 Canada 2021-07-02 John Shortreed Center Wellington N0B1S0 Canada 2021-07-02 Matt McDougall Drayton N0G Canada 2021-07-02 Cheryl Greene Elmira N3b 3a7 Canada 2021-07-02 Peter O'Sullivan Elora Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-02 Rachel Patterson Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-02 Charlene Lee Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-02 Quest Dawson Elora Ontario N0B1S0 Canada 2021-07-02 Katherine Neely Elora N0B 1S0 Canada 2021-07-02 Jake Oliver Elora N0b Canada 2021-07-02 A May Elora Ontario N0b1s0 Canada 2021-07-02 Anne-Marie Shepherd Elora Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-02 Stephanie Brown Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-02 Linda Bell Fergus Ontario N1M2W5 Canada 2021-07-02 Nadia Shenurina Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-02 Mark Pellerin Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-02 Barbara Bowie Fergus N1M 1Z2 Canada 2021-07-02 mike wenga Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-02 Carolyn Kells Fergus N1M0C6 Canada 2021-07-02
Prepared by Edward O'Shaughnessy 2021-08-21 Page 2
Page 71 of 228 St David Street peition signatures.xlsx
Amanda Weare Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-02 Chantel Mulchinock Fergus Ontario N1M0H5 Canada 2021-07-02 Thomas Elliott Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-02 Andrea Leising Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-02 Peggy Agnew Fergus N11Z6 Canada 2021-07-02 Christine Van Eerde Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-02 Lynne Janssen Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-02 mark wilson Fergus N1M1P5 Canada 2021-07-02 Vanessa Carullo Fergus N1M0A5 Canada 2021-07-02 Enma Levesque Fergus N1m 2j9 Canada 2021-07-02 Tiffany Fagan Fergus N1m Canada 2021-07-02 Caitlin Copeland Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-02 Ken Jones Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-02 Rob Brown Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-02 Jane martin Fergus n1m 1h7 Canada 2021-07-02 Christine Diaferia Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-02 Jeff Maiezza Fergus Ontario N1M3N1 Canada 2021-07-02 Wendy Levesque Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-02 Dylan Pyke Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-02 Erica Bridge Fergus N1M 1v8 Canada 2021-07-02 Joe Zeffer Fergus N0B Canada 2021-07-02 Brittany Bishop Fergus N1M 2S5 Canada 2021-07-02 Brenda Disher Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-02 jennifer stewart-may Fergus n1m 3g2 Canada 2021-07-02 Susan Hirtle Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-02 Dwayne McIntyre Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-02 Joy Roberts Fergus N1M3V4 Canada 2021-07-02 Beverly Woodrow Fergus N1M 3G3 Canada 2021-07-02 Arlene Peddie Fergus N1M 1T4 Canada 2021-07-02 James Wood Fergus N1m Canada 2021-07-02 Bonnie Fitzpatrick Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-02 Laurie Walser Fergus N1M 2A6 Canada 2021-07-02 Sonya Morrison Fergus Ontario N1M 1N8 Canada 2021-07-02 Angela Chomenchuk Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-02 Jake Gofton Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-02 Jade Nelson Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-02 Adam Wilson Fergus N1M3P8 Canada 2021-07-02 Melissa Ladds Fergus N1m2e6 Canada 2021-07-02 Adam Galloway Fergus Ontario N1M3H6 Canada 2021-07-02 Bonnie Arnew Fergus N1M 3M2 Canada 2021-07-02 Brent Johnston Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-02 Tanya Graham Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-02 Jason Perry Fergus Ontario N1M3P1 Canada 2021-07-02 Jennifer Cowie Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-02 Andrew Callen Fergus N1M 3K6 Canada 2021-07-02 Ben Bloor Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-02 Ryan Hodder Fergus Ontario N1M0A2 Canada 2021-07-02
Prepared by Edward O'Shaughnessy 2021-08-21 Page 3
Page 72 of 228 St David Street peition signatures.xlsx
Stacey Ferguson Fergus N1M 2L1 Canada 2021-07-02 Ryan Avery Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-02 Stephanie Little Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-02 Shelly Martel Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-02 Jon Martel Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-02 MARY-ANN TINSLEY Fergus Ontario N1M 3E4 Canada 2021-07-02 Laurie Stellings Fergus Ontario N1M 2W3 Canada 2021-07-02 Terri Fitzpatrick Fergus, Ontario N1M 0A6 Canada 2021-07-02 Phil Doucette guelph n1e 5j9 Canada 2021-07-02 Lenore Black Markham L3R Canada 2021-07-02 Louise Tone Merlin Canada 2021-07-02 Gayle Simpson Oshawa Ontario L1K Canada 2021-07-02 Ethan Meyer Port Coquitlam V3B Canada 2021-07-02 Dan Fazekas Puslinch N0B Canada 2021-07-02 Dan Gillies Riga LV-1058 Latvia 2021-07-02 Joan McCulligh Rockwood N0B 2K0 Canada 2021-07-02 Kim Kane Tillsonburg N4G Canada 2021-07-02 Deborah Sharia Toronto M3H Canada 2021-07-02 Jeral Anderson-Pearce Toronto M3C 1H3 Canada 2021-07-02 Lindsey Bridge Toronto Ontario M4E 2R1 Canada 2021-07-02 Doug McDougall Toronto Ontario M5R Canada 2021-07-02 Garth Gould Vancouver V6H Canada 2021-07-02 Judy Bruce Wasaga Beach L9Z 2B1 Canada 2021-07-02 Ajay Chopra Ajax L1T4A1 Canada 2021-07-03 Laura Ferrie Alma N0b Canada 2021-07-03 Terra Fegan Alma Ontario N0B1A0 Canada 2021-07-03 Sarah Henderson Arthur N0G1A0 Canada 2021-07-03 Melissa Schmidt Arthur, ontario N0G1A0 Canada 2021-07-03 Mabel Cole Belwood N1M2W5 Canada 2021-07-03 Samantha Anderson Belwood Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-03 Kellie Bessey Belwood Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-03 Irene Hanna Belwood Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-03 Zach Burns Belwood Ontario N0B1J0 Canada 2021-07-03 Marcia Andrade Brampton l6s3k8 Canada 2021-07-03 Elaine Arnott Brampton L6P Canada 2021-07-03 James Dixon Carleton Place K7C Canada 2021-07-03 Liz Jansen Centre Wellington N1M1J5 Canada 2021-07-03 Robin Stewart Collingwood Ontario L9Y 0C9 Canada 2021-07-03 Brad Jones Edmonton T6W 1E7 Canada 2021-07-03 Amber Moodie Edmonton T6E Canada 2021-07-03 Crystal Humphries Elora N0b 1s0 Canada 2021-07-03 Elizabeth Branco Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-03 Riley Robinson Elora Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-03 Jane Woolven Elora Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-03 Eric Granz Elora N0B 1S0 Canada 2021-07-03 Melissa Reynolds Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-03 Deborah Forman Elora N0B1S0 Canada 2021-07-03
Prepared by Edward O'Shaughnessy 2021-08-21 Page 4
Page 73 of 228 St David Street peition signatures.xlsx
Tara Mitchell Elora Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-03 Janice Swain Elora Ontario N0B1S0 Canada 2021-07-03 Aiden Patterson Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-03 Ken Potts Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-03 Beth Campbell Elora N0B 1S0 Canada 2021-07-03 Adrian Baker Elora N0B1S0 Canada 2021-07-03 Annette Sikkema Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-03 Edson Gaidola Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-03 KAREN MCGINNIS Elora Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-03 Wendy Tupy Elora Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-03 Debbie Auliffe Elora Canada 2021-07-03 Jeff Masters Elora N0B1S0 Canada 2021-07-03 Jacob Hauck Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-03 vicki kraus eramosa Ontario n0b2k0 Canada 2021-07-03 Gisele Levesque Essex N8M Canada 2021-07-03 Paul VanGrootheest Fergus N1M 1N6 Canada 2021-07-03 Rebecca Ivany Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Ken Bowley Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Jesse Adams Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-03 eric van grootheest fergus Ontario n1m 2k6 Canada 2021-07-03 Katrina Burch Fergus N1M3P9 Canada 2021-07-03 Joseph VanGrootheest Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Lizzie Vanderstam Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Dave ANolan Fergus Ontario N1m0a5 Canada 2021-07-03 Sheldon Lowe Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Samantha Ricciardi Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Jennifer Brayshaw Fergus N1G 2W1 Canada 2021-07-03 Paula Johnson Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Evan VanGrootheest Fergus N1M 2W4 Canada 2021-07-03 Annette Van Grootheest Fergus Ontario N1m2k6 Canada 2021-07-03 Rachel VanGrootheest Fergus N1M 3M9 Canada 2021-07-03 Melanie hilliard Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Mike Couling Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Laurent Levesque Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Nancy Marshall Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Kim McComb Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Melanie Novak Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Shari Homer Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Kathy Davies Fergus Ontario N1M2W5 Canada 2021-07-03 Debbie Swaving Fergus N1M 2W4 Canada 2021-07-03 Lorna Paulo Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Douglas Russell Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Glenn Boles Fergus Ontario N1M 3E5 Canada 2021-07-03 Chris Schause Fergus N1M2N2 Canada 2021-07-03 Jenna Irwin Fergus N1m3s7 Canada 2021-07-03 Rod Rawding Fergus Ontario N1M 2x3 Canada 2021-07-03 Cornelis VandenBeukel Fergus Ontario N1M 3T9 Canada 2021-07-03
Prepared by Edward O'Shaughnessy 2021-08-21 Page 5
Page 74 of 228 St David Street peition signatures.xlsx
Greg Vanleeuwen Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Mary Meyers Fergus N1M 3M1 Canada 2021-07-03 Elaine Scanlon Fergus N1M3N8 Canada 2021-07-03 Jennifer Sutherland Fergus N1m3p1 Canada 2021-07-03 Dorothy Fiorino Fergus N1m 1x9 Canada 2021-07-03 Opal McLellan Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Heidi Palmer Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Sandra Thompson Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Cinda Richardson Fergus N1M 3V1 Canada 2021-07-03 Vicki Richardson Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Mike O’Sulivan Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-03 jan kochan Fergus N1M2W3 Canada 2021-07-03 Libby Darroch Fergus N1M3C7 Canada 2021-07-03 Jessica Marion Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Julia Murray Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Helena Avila Fergus N1M 3t9 Canada 2021-07-03 Camilo Amaya Fergus N1M 3R8 Canada 2021-07-03 Wendy Ryckman Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Vicki Holmes Fergus N1M2W5 Canada 2021-07-03 Don VANWYCk Fergus N1M0A9 Canada 2021-07-03 Mary-Anne Dalkowski Fergus N1M 1S5 Canada 2021-07-03 Joyce Tenhage Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Sydney Van Grootheest Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Todd bedwell Fergus n1m1c6 Canada 2021-07-03 christine mederak Fergus n1m 2w3 Canada 2021-07-03 Kim Murray Fergus Ontario N1m 2y6 Canada 2021-07-03 Ruth Sloan Fergus Ontario N1M 0A8 Canada 2021-07-03 Ian Stewart Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Pat Aldersley Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Mavis Calow Fergus N1M 3K4 Canada 2021-07-03 Nicole Hutten Fergus Ontario N1M2W5 Canada 2021-07-03 Allen Hutten Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Beth McCabe Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Marie McLaughlin Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-03 George Zerbisias Fergus Ontario N1M 0E6 Canada 2021-07-03 Michelle Bradley Fergus Ontario N1M 2W5 Canada 2021-07-03 Kaie Pugi Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Dustin Hutten Fergus Ontario N1m2w5 Canada 2021-07-03 Kimberley G Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Shawn Hutten Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Lauren Dickson Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-03 richard van grootheest Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Ryan Henry Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Elizabeth Shute Fergus N1M3V4 Canada 2021-07-03 Allan Larocque Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Amy Pittman Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-03 Brittany Agema Fergus Ontario N1M2Y3 Canada 2021-07-03
Prepared by Edward O'Shaughnessy 2021-08-21 Page 6
Page 75 of 228 St David Street peition signatures.xlsx
Kennedy Wilkin Fergus N3B Canada 2021-07-03 Cindy Hayes Fergus ont N1M2V4 Canada 2021-07-03 Avery Mcdonald Fergus,ON Ontario 1B6 Canada 2021-07-03 Nancy Merrick Fergus. Ont N1M 2Y4 Canada 2021-07-03 Melissa Grenier Georgetown L7G Canada 2021-07-03 Tyler Teusink Guelph Ontario N1E Canada 2021-07-03 Amanda Bratcher Guelph N1G 2V7 Canada 2021-07-03 Cathy Soehner Guelph Ontario N1H Canada 2021-07-03 Brian Ward Guelph N1E 6S8 Canada 2021-07-03 Mary Togeretz Hamilton L9A1T1 Canada 2021-07-03 Derek Bowers Havelock Ontario K0L Canada 2021-07-03 Dan B Kirkland H8K Canada 2021-07-03 Jesse Trask Kitchener N2B Canada 2021-07-03 Christopher Collins Kitchener N2E Canada 2021-07-03 Brook Billings Listowel Ontario N4W Canada 2021-07-03 Lynda Hoogendoorn Mississauga L5M 6B7 Canada 2021-07-03 Bradley Stricker Montreal H3S 1Y7 Canada 2021-07-03 Caroline VanDriel Orangeville Ontario L9W Canada 2021-07-03 Daniel James Barfoot Ottawa K2J Canada 2021-07-03 Serge Rousseau Plessisville G6L 2R2 Canada 2021-07-03 Barbara Mutter Rockwood NOB 2K0 Canada 2021-07-03 James Charters Stratford N5A Canada 2021-07-03 Tony Towriss Toronto M4S Canada 2021-07-03 Lisa McRuvie Toronto M4J Canada 2021-07-03 Jordan Erickson Washago L0k2b0 Canada 2021-07-03 Amanda Sandtner Waterloo N2V 1R4 Canada 2021-07-03 Chris Hatton Wroxeter N1m 2v5 Canada 2021-07-03 Julia VanGrootheest Canada 2021-07-03 Ellie CoLu L4J5X3 Canada 2021-07-03 Pete Johnson Canada 2021-07-03 Joel Niezen Alma Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-04 Bob Van hout Arthur N0g1a0 Canada 2021-07-04 Shannon Swaving Belwood Canada 2021-07-04 Joe Rooyakkers Belwood N0B1J0 Canada 2021-07-04 Jennifer Kamphuis Belwood N0B Canada 2021-07-04 Stu Reimer Blumenort R0A 0C0 Canada 2021-07-04 Lillian Ash Calgary T3S Canada 2021-07-04 Nathan Herrington Cambridge E1A Canada 2021-07-04 Wendy McLellan Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-04 Taylor Roberts Elora Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-04 Laurie Rogers Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-04 Karlene Mears Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-04 Mike O’Brien Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-04 Jim Bomhof Elora N0B 1S0 Canada 2021-07-04 Mark Drimmie Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-04 Lloyd Gadd Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-04 Paul Rosehart Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-04
Prepared by Edward O'Shaughnessy 2021-08-21 Page 7
Page 76 of 228 St David Street peition signatures.xlsx
Doug Pryde Elora Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-04 Steve Ennis Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-04 David Knight Elora N0B 1S0 Canada 2021-07-04 Curtis Balfoort Elora N0B1S0 Canada 2021-07-04 Jaclyn Curry Fergus Ontario N1M 0H1 Canada 2021-07-04 Wayne Dow Fergus N1m Canada 2021-07-04 Shawna Barrett Fergus Ontario N1? Canada 2021-07-04 Cathy Hamilton Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-04 Edna Forde Fergus N1M 0C5 Canada 2021-07-04 Melissa McCowan Fergus Ontario N1M 1V6 Canada 2021-07-04 Amanda Opper Fergus N1M0C9 Canada 2021-07-04 Bonnie Shortill Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-04 Kristina Fischer Fergus N1M 3L5 Canada 2021-07-04 Michelle Roy Fergus Ontario N1M 0A9 Canada 2021-07-04 Jennifer Burn Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-04 Joanna Medemblik Fergus N1M3G4 Canada 2021-07-04 Chloe Stewart Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-04 Darlene Nadon Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-04 Betty Lou Cummings Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-04 Wayne Groves Fergus N1M2r7 Canada 2021-07-04 Kim Bryan Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-04 Dr. Alaric Woodrow Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-04 Connie DePaulo Fergus N0b1j0 Canada 2021-07-04 Erin Davies Fergus N1M 0G9 Canada 2021-07-04 Mason Melitzer Fergus N1M1E8 Canada 2021-07-04 Reg Andrus Fergus N1M 0C4 Canada 2021-07-04 Terry Blakely Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-04 duane swaving Fergus N1M 2W3 Canada 2021-07-04 Leila McCulloch Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-04 Susan Mason Fergus Ontario N1M3Y8 Canada 2021-07-04 Jeff Waltho Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-04 colin giles Fergus n0b1b0 Canada 2021-07-04 Kelly Kurtz Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-04 Jennifer Mackie Fergus N1M 2W3 Canada 2021-07-04 John Levely Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-04 Kathy Fitzpatrick Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-04 Philip Little Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-04 Kristin Swaving Fergus N1M 2W5 Canada 2021-07-04 Katherine Wilson Fergus N1M 3M3 Canada 2021-07-04 ALISON KELLS Fergus Ontario N1M3P3 Canada 2021-07-04 Joey Smith Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-04 Ken Gray Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-04 Sharil Ladds Fergus Ontario N1M 2W3 Canada 2021-07-04 Jane Lake FERGUS, ONTARIO Ontario N1M 2W5 Canada 2021-07-04 Alexander Giger Mono L9W 2Z1 Canada 2021-07-04 Nancy Robert North Bay P1B Canada 2021-07-04 janice kidd Orangeville L9W5H5 Canada 2021-07-04
Prepared by Edward O'Shaughnessy 2021-08-21 Page 8
Page 77 of 228 St David Street peition signatures.xlsx
Jane Keating Salem N0B1S0 Canada 2021-07-04 kevin flear shelburne L9V 3B9 Canada 2021-07-04 Grant Brown Stratford N5A 5S7 Canada 2021-07-04 Abby Dyksterhuis Toronto M6P Canada 2021-07-04 Anne Tanner Toronto Ontario M6A Canada 2021-07-04 Dennis Hoffman Toronto M6H Canada 2021-07-04 Karlene O'Shaughnessy Waterloo N2H Canada 2021-07-04 Donny Latsch Canada 2021-07-04 Courtney Smith Canada 2021-07-04 Wendy Channing Canada 2021-07-04 Patrick Caplice Alma N0B1A0 Canada 2021-07-05 Kim Robinson Belwood N0B 1J0 Canada 2021-07-05 William Jenkins Courtice Ontario L1E Canada 2021-07-05 Sean McLaughlan east 10th st V7L-2C8 Canada 2021-07-05 Cindy Conroy Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-05 Sharon Jones Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-05 Ethan Neal Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-05 Abigail Taylor Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-05 Terry Clements Fergus N1M-2M4 Canada 2021-07-05 Brandon Uyede Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-05 Leon Cox Fergus Ontario N1m3p3 Canada 2021-07-05 Alex McKean Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-05 Ryan Kent Fergus N0b 2k0 Canada 2021-07-05 Dan Belrose Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-05 Anthony Cobb Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-05 Gen LeatherBoyd Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-05 Brittany Nagel Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-05 Lynn Brodie Fergus Ontario N1M0E6 Canada 2021-07-05 Susanne Wilmot Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-05 Joe Graham Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-05 Nathalie McNeill Fergus N1M 1N7 Canada 2021-07-05 Linda Cameron Fergus ON N1M 1M3 Canada 2021-07-05 Julie Martin Frederic 54837-8918 Canada 2021-07-05 Karleen Schubert Gatineau J9H7A5 Canada 2021-07-05 Jolanta Ratajczak Mississauga L5M Canada 2021-07-05 Beta Gentile Mississauga L5W1S8 Canada 2021-07-05 darryl engerdahl nelson v0g2g0 Canada 2021-07-05 susan b rockwood N0B 2K0 Canada 2021-07-05 Kathryn Netchay Shannonville Ontario K0K Canada 2021-07-05 Asiba Naibkhil Surrey V3Z Canada 2021-07-05 Angelina Alvaro Vancouver V5Z Canada 2021-07-05 Rachel O Acton Ontario L7J Canada 2021-07-06 Gary Leitch Belwood N0b1j0 Canada 2021-07-06 Stephen Rowell Bloomfield Canada 2021-07-06 Jeff Ferreira Caledon L9K 1X1 Canada 2021-07-06 Jaeden Lenn Clarenville A5A 1A1 Canada 2021-07-06 Angie lutz Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-06
Prepared by Edward O'Shaughnessy 2021-08-21 Page 9
Page 78 of 228 St David Street peition signatures.xlsx
Tom Sears Elora N0B 1S0 Canada 2021-07-06 alida thomas Elora Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-06 John McLeod Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-06 Michael Fleming Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-06 Jessica Grayston Elora N0B 1S0 Canada 2021-07-06 Diane Hurlbut Elora Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-06 Frank Schmidt Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-06 Andrew White Elora Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-06 Blair Atchison Elora N0B1S0 Canada 2021-07-06 Cheryl Yuill Elora Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-06 Nicole Bodolai Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-06 Josh Johnson Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-06 Monique Jones Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-06 Anne Oxford Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-06 Sara Slater Fergus N1m1v5 Canada 2021-07-06 Sherri Holmes Fergus Ontario N1N 3C7 Canada 2021-07-06 Bob Brodie Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-06 Debbie Patteson Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-06 Quinn Caplice Fergus Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-06 Susan Bates Fergus N1M0A4 Canada 2021-07-06 Jennifer Kentner Fergus n1m3h6 Canada 2021-07-06 John Kalverda Fergus N1M 1R1 Canada 2021-07-06 Dale Willis Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-06 Linsey Black Fergus Ontario N1m 1z2 Canada 2021-07-06 Laurie Few Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-06 Mathew Kentner Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-06 Michael Lawlor Fergus N1M2Y3 Canada 2021-07-06 nancy waechter fergus ontario n1m3p8 Canada 2021-07-06 Janice Choudhury Georgetown L7G Canada 2021-07-06 Krista Nolan Guelph N1E7B8 Canada 2021-07-06 Dany Guitard Kitchener N2R Canada 2021-07-06 Gavyn Urquhart Quispamsis E2E Canada 2021-07-06 Wendy Whittaker Rockwood Canada 2021-07-06 Azli Hajon Toronto M5A Canada 2021-07-06 Gary Watt Canada 2021-07-06 Alex Assefa Bedford 76021 Canada 2021-07-07 Sherri Vincent Belwood N0B 1J0 Canada 2021-07-07 Michelle Wilkinson Belwood N0B Canada 2021-07-07 Lillian Laporte Caledon L7C 4A6 Canada 2021-07-07 Bill Marshall Elora Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-07 Kylie Morrison Elora Ontario N0B1S0 Canada 2021-07-07 Amanda Beadle Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-07 Joel Higgins Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-07 Marg Bodai Fergus N1M 0C3 Canada 2021-07-07 Anita Ahyee Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-07 Jane Clark Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-07 Chad Southworth Fergus N1M2W3 Canada 2021-07-07
Prepared by Edward O'Shaughnessy 2021-08-21 Page 10
Page 79 of 228 St David Street peition signatures.xlsx
Jeff Dredge Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-07 Tyler Fields Fergus Ontario N1M0C9 Canada 2021-07-07 Sharron Mcginn Fergus Ontario N1M2W5 Canada 2021-07-07 Dennis Culbert Fergus N1M3A7 Canada 2021-07-07 Mike Karklins Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-07 Rebecca Thalen Fergus N1M 2W4 Canada 2021-07-07 Amanda O'Shaughnessy Guelph N1H7E9 Canada 2021-07-07 Papi Chulo Fucku Montréal H3N Canada 2021-07-07 heather Smith Mount forrest Nog 213 Canada 2021-07-07 Christina Schajnoha Rockwood N0B Canada 2021-07-07 Dianne Bennett Stouffville L4A Canada 2021-07-07 Breanne Humber Surrey V4N Canada 2021-07-07 Lyndsay Berry Toronto Ontario M5N Canada 2021-07-07 Debbi Hogan Toronto M1E 3E9 Canada 2021-07-07 Alina Luo Toronto M6C Canada 2021-07-07 Andrew Nanton Canada 2021-07-07 Mathew Boys Acton L7J Canada 2021-07-08 JASON HORVATH Acton L7J Canada 2021-07-08 Emily Huehn Alma Ontario N0B1A0 Canada 2021-07-08 Brittany Neadow Calgary T3G Canada 2021-07-08 Debra Sawka Elora L6H 3T2 Canada 2021-07-08 Laura Baker Elora N0B1S0 Canada 2021-07-08 Lisa Dietrich Elora Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-08 Cliff kurt Fegus Ontario N1M1K3 Canada 2021-07-08 Marjorie and Carl Gray Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-08 Gary O'Connor Fergus Ontario N1M2J9 Canada 2021-07-08 Deanna O'Connor Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-08 Vanessa Trendell Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-08 Steve Trendell Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-08 Walter Sawka Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-08 Jeanette Johnston Fergus N1m Canada 2021-07-08 Karen Lyons Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-08 Phil Turner Fergus N1M 3S4 Canada 2021-07-08 Christina H Fergus N1M 3T3 Canada 2021-07-08 Peter Colwil Fergus Ontario N1M1H6 Canada 2021-07-08 Lori Turner Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-08 Paul Latam Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-08 K D Fergus N0B Canada 2021-07-08 Jennifer Ballantyne Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-08 Shaun Jennison Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-08 Rick Crowder Fergus N1m0g8 Canada 2021-07-08 Bonny Page Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-08 Colin Barron Fergus N1M 3T3 Canada 2021-07-08 Brandan Power Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-08 Jason Scharringa Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-08 Stephen Robb Fergus N1M 1Z4 Canada 2021-07-08 Lindsey Dorsch Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-08
Prepared by Edward O'Shaughnessy 2021-08-21 Page 11
Page 80 of 228 St David Street peition signatures.xlsx
Lise Horner Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-08 Joy Darroch Fergus N1M2W5 Canada 2021-07-08 Sheila Bater-Lund Fergus Ontario N1M 1N7 Canada 2021-07-08 David B. Smith Fergus N1M 1E6 Canada 2021-07-08 James Muir Fergus N1M 2W3 Canada 2021-07-08 Andrew Orok Fergus ON Ontario N1m2w4 Canada 2021-07-08 Kayla Clayton Georgetown L7G Canada 2021-07-08 Ryan Gillespie Guelph N1l1t7 Canada 2021-07-08 Karen Favaro Guelph N1e0c2 Canada 2021-07-08 Cathy Pryde Kitchener N2E Canada 2021-07-08 Emmanuel Okonkwo Oshawa L1L Canada 2021-07-08 James Sobol Toronto M6M Canada 2021-07-08 Taylor Adamson L9W 4X3 Canada 2021-07-08 Teri Trendell Acton L7J Canada 2021-07-09 Deborah Powers Acton L7J Canada 2021-07-09 Caleb Cipparrone Acton L7J Canada 2021-07-09 Art Kollee Acton L7J Canada 2021-07-09 Jacquie D'Abbenigno Alma Ontario N0B1A0 Canada 2021-07-09 Val Benn Alma N0B Canada 2021-07-09 Bonny Parkinson Ariss N0B1B0 Canada 2021-07-09 Robert Northcote Arthur N0G 1A0 Canada 2021-07-09 Dwayne Keleher Arthur N0G Canada 2021-07-09 Anthony Vandermarel Arthur N0G 1A0 Canada 2021-07-09 JACQUIE LITTLE Bellwood lake Ontario L9w Canada 2021-07-09 Eric Rogers Belwood Ontario N0B1J0 Canada 2021-07-09 Stacy Good Belwood Ontario N0B1J0 Canada 2021-07-09 Kathy Leitch Belwood Ontario N0b 1j0 Canada 2021-07-09 Chris Landoni Belwood Ontario N0B1J0 Canada 2021-07-09 Bob Iltal Belwood N0B1J0 Canada 2021-07-09 Chris Green Brampton L6X Canada 2021-07-09 Anayah Davis Brampton L6S Canada 2021-07-09 Marcia Childs Burlington L7M4Z7 Canada 2021-07-09 Chris Roth Elora N0B 1S0 Canada 2021-07-09 Dean Biggings Elora Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-09 Lucy Simard Elora Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-09 Laura Christie Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-09 Dan Lumsden Elora N0B1S0 Canada 2021-07-09 Brenda Moynihan Elora Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-09 Joanne Mitchell Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-09 Casey Lukasik Elora N0B 1S0 Canada 2021-07-09 Chris Near Elora N0b1s0 Canada 2021-07-09 bill jones Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-09 Jessica Livingston Elora Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-09 DOUGLAS ANDREWS Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-09 Dan Drimmie Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-09 Marj MacDonald Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-09 Garry Willfang Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-09
Prepared by Edward O'Shaughnessy 2021-08-21 Page 12
Page 81 of 228 St David Street peition signatures.xlsx
Perer Sotera Etobicoke M9A Canada 2021-07-09 Carolyn Felker Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-09 Russell Davey Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-09 Kevin Lloyd Fergus N1M2K5 Canada 2021-07-09 Mary Lloyd Fergus Ontario N1M2K5 Canada 2021-07-09 Chris Williams Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-09 stefanie wilson Fergus n1m2c7 Canada 2021-07-09 Shirley Littlejohn Fergus Ontario N1m 1m2 Canada 2021-07-09 Marie Williams Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-09 Candice Smeltzer Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-09 Jeff Ward Fergus Ontario N1M0G8 Canada 2021-07-09 Robbie Wilson Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-09 D Bell Fergus N1M 2S5 Canada 2021-07-09 Eileen Vaneerde Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-09 Angela Elliott Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-09 Tj Drake Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-09 Brenda Ayres Fergus N1M 2W5 Canada 2021-07-09 Maya Koczorowski Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-09 Taylet Power Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-09 Aaron Wood Fergus Ontario N1M 0c1 Canada 2021-07-09 Jim Woolven Fergus N1N 1M3 Canada 2021-07-09 Greg Mennie Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-09 Timothy Wallischek Fergus N1M 3P9 Canada 2021-07-09 DAVE CUMMINGS Fergus Ontario N1MOB5 Canada 2021-07-09 Andrea Krause Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-09 Gord Lunn Fergus N1M 2W4 Canada 2021-07-09 John Parkinson Fergus N1M 0A9 Canada 2021-07-09 Danielle LeBlanc FERGUS Ontario N1M 3P7 Canada 2021-07-09 Kevin Leclair Fergus Ontario N1M2W5 Canada 2021-07-09 Kevin Farrelly Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-09 Alysha Bunyan Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-09 Leah Hutten Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-09 DAVE TOWRISS Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-09 Jean Gerrard Fergus Ontario N1M 1V1 Canada 2021-07-09 JOSHUA FISCHER-LAKE Fergus N1M3L5 Canada 2021-07-09 Roy Nielsen Fergus Ontario N1M 1E8 Canada 2021-07-09 Larry Wainwright Fergus Ontario N1M 3H5 Canada 2021-07-09 Greg Brouwer Fergus Ontario L6X Canada 2021-07-09 Kelly Franklin Fergus N1M1K3 Canada 2021-07-09 Murray Sobol Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-09 Jean Van Wyck Fergus Ontario N1M3R4 Canada 2021-07-09 Joe White Fergus Ontario N1M2W4 Canada 2021-07-09 Helen Marucci Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-09 Shawn OHara Fergus Ontario N2G Canada 2021-07-09 Craig Steen Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-09 Senad Kokic Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-09 Amina Kokic Fergus N1m Canada 2021-07-09
Prepared by Edward O'Shaughnessy 2021-08-21 Page 13
Page 82 of 228 St David Street peition signatures.xlsx
Leila Kokic Fergus N1M 3N5 Canada 2021-07-09 Steven Johnson Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-09 Joe Smeltzer Fergus N1M 2W3 Canada 2021-07-09 John Lunshof Fergus N0B 1J0 Canada 2021-07-09 Wendy Appleby Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-09 Paul Roberts Fergus N1M3V4 Canada 2021-07-09 Jeff Jones Fergus N1m1w4 Canada 2021-07-09 Terry Martin Fergus Ontario N1M3R3 Canada 2021-07-09 Kelly Pardy Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-09 Jayme Feliz Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-09 George Lanzon Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-09 Andrew Kobus Fergus Ontario N1M 3V4 Canada 2021-07-09 Tom Lodder Fergus n1m3c7 Canada 2021-07-09 mariusz cender Fergus N1M 2Y2 Canada 2021-07-09 Charley Smeltzer Fergus Alberta N1M 2W3 Canada 2021-07-09 Carol Smeltzer Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-09 Gary O'Leary Fergus N1m 3j5 Canada 2021-07-09 Marshall Bowman Fergus N1M 3E2 Canada 2021-07-09 Wendy Muise Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-09 Sue Spring Fergus N1M 3G2 Canada 2021-07-09 Darryl Lafee Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-09 Jane Schickerowsky Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-09 Jamie Tomblin Fergus N1M 3L5 Canada 2021-07-09 David Washe Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-09 Walter Malofy Fergus N1M0A9 Canada 2021-07-09 Cole Graham Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-09 Sheila Turner Georgetown L7G Canada 2021-07-09 Sarah Augustus Guelph Ontario N1H Canada 2021-07-09 Laura Vanleeuwen Guelph N1E Canada 2021-07-09 Linda deKleine Guelph Ontario N1E Canada 2021-07-09 Catherine DuVille Guelph N1E Canada 2021-07-09 Sydney Walker Kitchener N2M Canada 2021-07-09 Rain Morin Lindsay K9V Canada 2021-07-09 Jennifer Robinson Milton L9T 8S9 Canada 2021-07-09 Susan Gorman Milton L9T 4K9 Canada 2021-07-09 Tom Cleghorn Mississauga Ontario L5R Canada 2021-07-09 Marje Macdonald Mississauga Ontario L5c3v7 Canada 2021-07-09 Trevor McKnight Moorefield N0G2K0 Canada 2021-07-09 Samantha Pennock Ottawa K1N Canada 2021-07-09 William Smith Palmerston Ontario N0G Canada 2021-07-09 Rosanne Beneteau Rockwood Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-09 Mason Paterson Stouffville L4A Canada 2021-07-09 Dylan Miller Torbay A1k1k3 Canada 2021-07-09 Chris Soman Toronto M6A Canada 2021-07-09 Ayesha . Toronto M2L Canada 2021-07-09 Mandi Purse Toronto Ontario M5V Canada 2021-07-09 Jacob Jans Toronto M5V Canada 2021-07-09
Prepared by Edward O'Shaughnessy 2021-08-21 Page 14
Page 83 of 228 St David Street peition signatures.xlsx
Tony Holmes Toronto Ontario M5B Canada 2021-07-09 Nayr Htims Canada 2021-07-09 Judy Martin Alma Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-10 Samantha Heymans Arthur N0g1a0 Canada 2021-07-10 Alan Wright Arthur N0G1A0 Canada 2021-07-10 Yvonne Doherty Belwood Ontario N0B 1J0 Canada 2021-07-10 Bert Smith Belwood Ontario N0B1J0 Canada 2021-07-10 Len MacIvor Belwood Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-10 Kacy Weiler Belwood N0B Canada 2021-07-10 Judy Haddad Elora N0B 1S0 Canada 2021-07-10 Sherry Malott Elora Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-10 Bob Jackson Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-10 Jodi Gasior Elora N0B1S0 Canada 2021-07-10 Laura Fulton Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-10 Richard Harmon Elora N0B1S0 Canada 2021-07-10 Dale Taylor Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-10 Albert Tanson Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-10 Leonard Creary Fergus Ontario N1m2y4 Canada 2021-07-10 Stefanie Hogenhout Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-10 Donna Richardson Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-10 Kehlar Hillyer Fergus N1M 2V4 Canada 2021-07-10 Jane McKinnon Wilson Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-10 Marta Moren Fergus N1M0A2 Canada 2021-07-10 IJ STOMP Fergus Ontario N1M2W8 Canada 2021-07-10 Ana Hood Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-10 Matthew Venne Fergus Ontario N1M1C6 Canada 2021-07-10 Andrew Slack Fergus N1M 3M6 Canada 2021-07-10 Heather Parkinson Fergus Ontario N1M 0A9 Canada 2021-07-10 Richard Duiker Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-10 Mike Brown Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-10 Megan Hornett Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-10 James Silva Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-10 Emily Voisin Fergus N1M0C4 Canada 2021-07-10 Sherie Bowen Fergus N1m 3s5 Canada 2021-07-10 MICHAEL R Bauer Fergus Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-10 Laura Thalen Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-10 Dalton Kerr Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-10 Stori Hicks Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-10 Tracey Filipe Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-10 Kevin Duke Fergus N1m0c3 Canada 2021-07-10 Dan Leising Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-10 john munro Fergus N1M 0A9 Canada 2021-07-10 Rachel Estok Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-10 Mary Glen Fergus Ontario N1M 0C3 Canada 2021-07-10 Larry Tenhage Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-10 Jenny Schukow Fergus N1M 1X9 Canada 2021-07-10 Gordon Mackie Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-10
Prepared by Edward O'Shaughnessy 2021-08-21 Page 15
Page 84 of 228 St David Street peition signatures.xlsx
John Hempstock Fergus Ontario N1M 0G8 Canada 2021-07-10 Anne PEGELO Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-10 Judith Lovell Georgetown Ontario L7G Canada 2021-07-10 Melanie Conte Guelph N1H6H8 Canada 2021-07-10 Leo Faienza Guelph N1G Canada 2021-07-10 Kate Bilton-Meredith Lindsay N1M 1G0 Canada 2021-07-10 Aaron Leopold Nova Scotia B0N Canada 2021-07-10 Diana Fleury Orangeville Ontario L9W Canada 2021-07-10 Troy Richer Palmerston Ontario N0G Canada 2021-07-10 Anne Tarves Surrey V3Z Canada 2021-07-10 Frank Marra Toronto m5r 3p8 Canada 2021-07-10 Darrell Yarek Toronto M9P1H7 Canada 2021-07-10 Morgan Mayes Toronto Ontario M9R Canada 2021-07-10 Regan Clarke Toronto M6G Canada 2021-07-10 Paul Bowen Toronto Ontario M5V Canada 2021-07-10 Sue Hilton Acton ont L7J 1W2 Canada 2021-07-11 Kathy MacKenzie Alma N0B 1A0 Canada 2021-07-11 Courtny Smith Belwood Ontario N0B 1J0 Canada 2021-07-11 Philip Chester Belwood Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-11 Vanessa Maciukiewicz Belwood Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-11 Nick Patterson Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-11 Chris Goss Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-11 Ken Rogers Elora Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-11 Lilian Mann Elora N0B 1S0 Canada 2021-07-11 Mike Santos Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-11 Caroline Laing Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-11 Tara Fleury Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-11 John Marshall Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-11 Taylor Krueger Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-11 Daniel Poullos Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-11 Sally Bailey Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-11 Sue Grainger Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-11 Lynda Philipps Fergus Ontario N1M0A2 Canada 2021-07-11 gerry shortreed Fergus N1M 0A2 Canada 2021-07-11 Pat Mestern Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-11 Karen Ruane Fergus N1M3A6 Canada 2021-07-11 Gary Darroch Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-11 catherine harding fergus N1M3E4 Canada 2021-07-11 Lynne Hatton Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-11 Patricia McCulloch Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-11 Nicole Pynn Guelph Ontario N1G Canada 2021-07-11 christina garkowski Guelph n1e7k4 Canada 2021-07-11 Neil Scarlett Kirkfield K0m2b0 Canada 2021-07-11 Dee Johnstone Kitchener N2A 1Z8 Canada 2021-07-11 peter cieniewicz Mississauga Ontario L5R Canada 2021-07-11 Drew Humber Mississauga Ontario L5R Canada 2021-07-11 Johnathan Falbo Ottawa K1S Canada 2021-07-11
Prepared by Edward O'Shaughnessy 2021-08-21 Page 16
Page 85 of 228 St David Street peition signatures.xlsx
Tyler White Toronto M5M Canada 2021-07-11 Jennifer Brownlee Toronto M5V Canada 2021-07-11 Sarah Kokol Vancouver V6J Canada 2021-07-11 Nancy Jans Wooler Canada 2021-07-11 Michelle Kuntz Alma N0B Canada 2021-07-12 Alison Kuntz Alma N0B Canada 2021-07-12 Robin Kingscote Belwood N0B 1J0 Canada 2021-07-12 april tremblay Cambridge, Ontario N3H 4Y3 Canada 2021-07-12 Ken Cooper Elora Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-12 Martine Stomp Fergus N1M 2W8 Canada 2021-07-12 Tim Calver Fergus Ontario N1M 2W3 Canada 2021-07-12 Candee Tremblay Kitchener N2H Canada 2021-07-12 B Junet Kitchener N2M3Z2 Canada 2021-07-12 Haley Banfield Kitchener N2M Canada 2021-07-12 N A North Bay p1b5w6 Canada 2021-07-12 Leighla Moore Toronto M4C Canada 2021-07-12 Aryan Parsa Toronto M2N Canada 2021-07-12 Craven Laura Alma N0B Canada 2021-07-13 Amanda Reid Alma N0B Canada 2021-07-13 Lynn Robertshaw Arthur NOG 1A0 Canada 2021-07-13 Frances Smith Belwood N0B 1J0 Canada 2021-07-13 Maurice Staley Belwood N0B 1J0 Canada 2021-07-13 Judy Colford Belwood N0B 1J0 Canada 2021-07-13 Meghan Woods Belwood N0B Canada 2021-07-13 Chad Woods Belwood Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-13 Janet Anderson Brampton L6V Canada 2021-07-13 sara holovati Edmonton T5X Canada 2021-07-13 Pat Campbell Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-13 Bernard Sytsma Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-13 Rick Yuill Elora N0B 1SO Canada 2021-07-13 Sandra de Witt Elora Canada 2021-07-13 Fiona Rattray elora N0B 1S0 Canada 2021-07-13 Bryan Denny Elora N0B 1S0 Canada 2021-07-13 Roy Hurlbut Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-13 Phil Mann Elora Ontario N0B 1S0 Canada 2021-07-13 Tuany De paula Etobicoke M9A Canada 2021-07-13 Grace Baird Fergus Ontario N1M3E1 Canada 2021-07-13 Enisa Nezirovic Fergus N1m3e1 Canada 2021-07-13 Jenna Wilmot Fergus N1M 3M5 Canada 2021-07-13 WALTER SMITH Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-13 Colin Darmon Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-13 Linda Elliott Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-13 Edward Charles Fergus Ontario N1M 0G2 Canada 2021-07-13 Lori Kirton Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-13 Jeannie Sullivan Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-13 Keara Lefneski Fergus N1M3R8 Canada 2021-07-13 Kimberly Ellis Fergus N1M2J9 Canada 2021-07-13
Prepared by Edward O'Shaughnessy 2021-08-21 Page 17
Page 86 of 228 St David Street peition signatures.xlsx
Holly Harrop Fergus Ontario N1m2w3 Canada 2021-07-13 Nicole Stone Fergus Ontario N1M 2K6 Canada 2021-07-13 Rebecca Morrison Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-13 Debbie Reid Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-13 gordon MacNeill Fergus N1M 1R9 Canada 2021-07-13 Patrick Mckenzie Fergus N1M3T5 Canada 2021-07-13 Dave Beaton Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-13 Evelyn Fetter Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-13 Theresa Brouwer Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-13 Dave Kenny Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-13 Carol Monteiro Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-13 Danielle Gionet Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-13 Arlene Robertson Fergus Ontario N1m3t4 Canada 2021-07-13 Jessica Jones Fergus Ontario N1M 1S7 Canada 2021-07-13 TIm Gould Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-13 Nancy Fletcher Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-13 Ryan Shantz Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-13 Shirley Rowan Fergus N0B 1S0 Canada 2021-07-13 Steve Ross Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-13 Tyra Francis Fredericton E3B Canada 2021-07-13 Aaron Butler Gatineau J9H5L6 Canada 2021-07-13 Viola Robinson Guelph, On N1H 3K2 Canada 2021-07-13 Kira Caddey Kitchener N2M Canada 2021-07-13 T C London N6C 3T8 Canada 2021-07-13 Mary Nijenhuis Orangeville Ontario L9W Canada 2021-07-13 Sofia Newnham Sherwood Park T8A Canada 2021-07-13 Lucas Knapman Sherwood Park T8H 2w1 Canada 2021-07-13 Wynter Wilkins Stirling T678 Canada 2021-07-13 Alexander Parada Vancouver V6A1B2 Canada 2021-07-13 Ogbai Redda Victoria V8Z 7L2 Canada 2021-07-13 Marie Rodgers Belwood Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-14 Melanie Buchanan Calgary T2Y Canada 2021-07-14 Sarah Mckeon Chatham N7L Canada 2021-07-14 Matthew Graham Cornwall K6H Canada 2021-07-14 Brad Dunham Crofton BC V0R 1R0 Canada 2021-07-14 Dave Johnston Elora N0b 1s0 Canada 2021-07-14 alana byron fergus Ontario n1m 1a2 Canada 2021-07-14 Karlee Brouwer Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-14 Haley Phillips Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-14 Chris Andrews Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-14 Sam Moffat Olds T4H Canada 2021-07-14 Jenn Green Arthur Ontario N0G Canada 2021-07-15 L Siegmund Baden Ontario N3A Canada 2021-07-15 S Kirk Drayton N0G1P0 Canada 2021-07-15 Amber Woods Fergus Ontario N1m 0a1 Canada 2021-07-15 Heather Aitken Fergus Ontario N1M 3E8 Canada 2021-07-15 tanya Delurey Fergus N1M Libya 2021-07-15
Prepared by Edward O'Shaughnessy 2021-08-21 Page 18
Page 87 of 228 St David Street peition signatures.xlsx
Scott Russell Fergus Ontario N1M3V3 Canada 2021-07-15 Michele russell Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-15 Carien Russell Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-15 larry ayres fergus n1m2w5 Canada 2021-07-15 Esther Hoeksema Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-15 Barrie Murdock Fergus N1M 1R1 Canada 2021-07-15 Pam Pegelo Fergus Ontario N1M3P2 Canada 2021-07-15 ed Kennedy Fergus N1M 1N7 Canada 2021-07-15 Sonia Day Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-15 Roslyn Bucknall Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-15 Jon DeBrabandere Fergus N1M2K6 Canada 2021-07-15 Laraine Bellamy Fergus ont N1M 2W4 Canada 2021-07-15 Katherine Dodwell Georgetown L7G Canada 2021-07-15 Jessica Chiarotto Innisfil L9S 1K4 Canada 2021-07-15 Dirk Hoogendoorn Meaford N4L 1C4 Canada 2021-07-15 Madison Russell Toronto M6H Canada 2021-07-15 Elaine Dawe Wilberforce Ontario K0L Canada 2021-07-15 Mackenzie Russell Winnipeg R2C Canada 2021-07-15 Colleen Withers Ariss N0B 1B0 Canada 2021-07-16 Jan-willem Laros Arthur N0G Canada 2021-07-16 Charles Marchegiano Belwood Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-16 Larry Isaac Belwood Ontario N0b1j0 Canada 2021-07-16 Andrea Isaac Belwood N0B1j0 Canada 2021-07-16 Debra Boot Elora N0B1S0 Canada 2021-07-16 Janette Noecker Elora Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-16 Dave Scharman Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-16 Taylor Christie Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-16 June Bernier Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-16 Jean Snow Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-16 Colton Giddy Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-16 Susan Thompson Fergus N1m 2z2 Canada 2021-07-16 Kim Allan Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-16 L Jefferson Fergus Ontario N1m2w3 Canada 2021-07-16 Taylor McDaniel Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-16 Penny O’Donnell Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-16 Aaron Darroch Fergus N1M 1R9 Canada 2021-07-16 Anne Ireland Fergus ontario N1m2w3 Canada 2021-07-16 Kimberley Ramsay Guelph N1E Canada 2021-07-16 Shawn Roul Halton Hills L7G 0A8 Canada 2021-07-16 Julia Iadisermia Montréal H2J Canada 2021-07-16 Jenna Cosens Moorefield N0G2K0 Canada 2021-07-16 Penny Rankel Pinantan Lake V0E 3E1 Canada 2021-07-16 Elaine Hardy Rockwood Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-16 Sharon Rosehart Elora N0B1s0 Canada 2021-07-17 Catherine Wells Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-17 Dianne Kennedy Fergus N1M 1N7 Canada 2021-07-17 Julie Welch Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-17
Prepared by Edward O'Shaughnessy 2021-08-21 Page 19
Page 88 of 228 St David Street peition signatures.xlsx
Ed Gleeson Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-17 Judy Williams Fergus N1M2Y2 Canada 2021-07-17 Dennis Weber Belwood N0B1J0 Canada 2021-07-18 Mike Pearse Fergus N0B Canada 2021-07-18 Melissa Brown Fergus N1M 1A2 Canada 2021-07-18 Kaillie Rawn Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-18 Leslie Davey Fergus Ontario N1M 1P2 Canada 2021-07-18 Sarah Van Norman Guelph N1e1y9 Canada 2021-07-18 Pete Anderson Canada 2021-07-18 Grant Mcbain Ashton K0A Canada 2021-07-19 Susan Anderson Fergus Ontario N1m 0e6 Canada 2021-07-19 Debbi Pope Belwood Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-20 Dave Scharman Elora Ontario N0B Canada 2021-07-20 Catherine Demers Fergus Ontario N1M Canada 2021-07-20 Robert Mahon Guelph N1G Canada 2021-07-20 Dave Harron Priddis Greens Alberta T0L 1W3 Canada 2021-07-20 Alexandra Nichols Rockwood N0B Canada 2021-07-20 ian milne Acton L7J Canada 2021-07-21 Albert Penney Elora N0B1S0 Canada 2021-07-21 Laura Feil Elora N0B1S0 Canada 2021-07-21 Shelley Ballantyne Erin L0N 1N0 Canada 2021-07-21 COLLEEN GRAY Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-21 Hugh Robertson Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-21 terry Ryckman Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-21 William Allen Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-21 Don Giles Fergus N1M2Y4 Canada 2021-07-21 jane deraiche Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-21 Alexander Shantz Moorefield N0G 2K0 Canada 2021-07-21 Nelly Hoeksema Acton L7J Canada 2021-07-22 Amy Hauer Acton N1M Canada 2021-07-22 Mike D'Archi Belwood N0B 1J0 Canada 2021-07-22 Anthony Martins Centre Wellington N0B Canada 2021-07-22 Karen Stimson Dundalk, Ontario N0C 1B0 Canada 2021-07-22 Biggigngs Sylvia Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-22 Jan Corbett Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-22 Maggie Gilbert Elora N0B 1S0 Canada 2021-07-22 Glenn Wilkins Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-22 Claire Kissick Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-22 Ryan Habermehl Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-22 Albert MacNeil Fergus N1M2G6 Canada 2021-07-22 Bev Finley Fergus N1M3S2 Canada 2021-07-22 Andrea Muller Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-22 paula newton Fergus N1M 0A6 Canada 2021-07-22 Pam Varga Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-22 diana meadows Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-22 Jennifer Gleeson Fergus N1M 1R5 Canada 2021-07-22 Heather Goulding Fergus N1m3j3 Canada 2021-07-22
Prepared by Edward O'Shaughnessy 2021-08-21 Page 20
Page 89 of 228 St David Street peition signatures.xlsx
Sherry Cooper Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-22 Marja Lamarre Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-22 Linda MacNeil Fergus N1M2G6 Canada 2021-07-22 Hanif Choudhury Fergus N1M 1A2 Canada 2021-07-22 Deborah Dookram Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-22 Christine Booker Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-22 Geraldine O'Flynn FERGUS N1M 0C6 Canada 2021-07-22 Tara ONeill Fergus n1m0c3 Canada 2021-07-22 Tracy Jones Fergus N1M2W5 Canada 2021-07-22 Melina Gillies Fergus N1M 2R4 Canada 2021-07-22 Natalie Ohalloran Fergus N1m3e8 Canada 2021-07-22 Shane Cloutier Fergus N1m3k6 Canada 2021-07-22 Heather Taylor Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-22 Celine Clarke Fergus N1M 3P7 Canada 2021-07-22 Greg Manley Harriston N0g1z0 Canada 2021-07-22 Christine Hurry ON N!M !M& Canada 2021-07-22 Ally Iles Port Elgin N0H Canada 2021-07-22 Fred Gorodn Elora N0B 1S0 Canada 2021-07-23 Jamie Hiller Fergus N1M3V8 Canada 2021-07-23 Kim Scott Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-23 Susan Schneider Fergus N1M2n8 Canada 2021-07-23 Iwona Ramic Kitchener N2M Canada 2021-07-23 Fiona Mason Acton L7J Canada 2021-07-24 dwayne clay Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-24 Kylie Harris Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-24 Liz Johnston Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-25 Lorraine Tierney Fergus N1M 1V5 Canada 2021-07-25 Barb Clark Kitchener N2N Canada 2021-07-25 Ayesha Tariq Milton L9T Canada 2021-07-25 azariah holmes Saint Thomas N5P Canada 2021-07-25 Evan Kaspbrak Souris R0K Canada 2021-07-25 Inga Sorokin Toronto M6P Canada 2021-07-25 Lucy Dyment Cambridge N3C Canada 2021-07-28 Lia McGinnis Elora N0B Canada 2021-07-28 Colleen no Craig Elora Ontario N0b 1s0 Canada 2021-07-28 Tim Park Fergus N1M Canada 2021-07-28 Kelly Smith Fergus n1m 3w2 Canada 2021-07-28 Stacey Maiezza Fergus N1M3N1 Canada 2021-07-28 Angela Clark Fergus N1M 1b3 Canada 2021-07-28 lisa stevenson fergus n1m3n2 Canada 2021-07-28 Karissa Lindsay Fergus N0B1J0 Canada 2021-07-28 Leah Hosack Fergus N0b1s0 Canada 2021-07-28 Sean Geddes Fergus N1M 2W4 Canada 2021-07-28 Joe Kozeyah Fergus Ontario N1m1m4 Canada 2021-07-28 Linda Baker Waterloo N1M 2G2 Canada 2021-07-28 Victoria McCutcheon Canada 2021-07-28 Muhammad Ayub Coquitlam V3B Canada 2021-07-29
Prepared by Edward O'Shaughnessy 2021-08-21 Page 21
Page 90 of 228 St David Street peition signatures.xlsx
Stephanie P Fergus N1m Canada 2021-07-30 Bethany Mounce Kitchener 23464 Canada 2021-07-30 carol ross New York New York 10118 US 2021-07-30 Emily Duck Toronto M6P Canada 2021-07-30 Becky Shine CW Canada 2021-07-30 Mary Roden Elora N0B Canada 2021-08-01 Dave Hansen Fergus N1m3l8 Canada 2021-08-01 Marylyn Riepema Fergus N1M Canada 2021-08-01 Kendra Waite Fergus N1M Canada 2021-08-01 Lois Poulin Fergus n1m 2w5 Canada 2021-08-02 Andrew O'Shaughnessy Fergus N1M Canada 2021-08-02 Brian Walker Fergus N1M Canada 2021-08-03 Mark Johnson New York New York 10118 US 2021-08-03 Maria Larin Ontario 10118 Canada 2021-08-03 Lucy Cifoni Hughes Fergus N1M Canada 2021-08-04 Vince Lefebvre Fergus N1m 3e3 Canada 2021-08-05 Sylvia Rothney Emo P0W Canada 2021-08-06 Scott McDougall Fergus N1M 2v6 Canada 2021-08-12 Aimee Loughran Fergus N1M 1N5 Canada 2021-08-13 Nancy Martin Elora N0B Canada 2021-08-13 Jane Holloway Elora N0B Canada 2021-08-13 Brad Carberry Fergus N1M2V1 Canada 2021-08-13 Trevor Fernandez Fergus N1M Canada 2021-08-14 Katherine King Fergus N1M 0G6 Canada 2021-08-14 Andrew Haynes Fergus N1M 3M9 Canada 2021-08-15 Maggie McKelvey Fergus N1M2K3 Canada 2021-08-16
Prepared by Edward O'Shaughnessy 2021-08-21 Page 22
Page 91 of 228 Summary of Petition Comments
Name City Date Comment Edward OShaughnessy Fergus 2021-07-01 "Our Council is not listening to its constituents!" Irene O'Shaughnessy Fergus 2021-07-01 "I am signing this because l like Ed could not understand why Council asked for
Lori Clementa Fergus 2021-07-01 "Council did not take into consideration what we, the people who drive and live on this road wanted. Why did they even bother to ask us if they were going to ignore it." Jim Dandy Fergus 2021-07-01 "This is the most foolish idea for that part of a Provincial highway I have ever heard"
Deborah Jenks Fergus, Ontario 2021-07-01 "There is barely enough for cars, we don’t need bike lanes. Sorry cyclists!" Frank Richardson Ottawa 2021-07-01 "Say No to adding bike lines along St. David Street." Eva O'Brien Fergus 2021-07-01 "We can’t afford to lose more parking spaces." ROBERT WALLACE FERGUS 2021-07-01 "not enough parking as it is" Bernie ANdrews Fergus 2021-07-01 "We already lost parking to build the library. No wonder down towns die.Save our parking" Suzette Smeltzer Fergus 2021-07-01 "There is not enough parking in downtown Fergus. Council is not listening to the community. There is no need for bike lanes. Very few people ride bikes in Fergus."
Shannon Curran Fergus 2021-07-01 "We don’t need to loose more parking on a major high." jennifer stewart-may Fergus 2021-07-02 "Jennifer Stewart-May" Bonnie Fitzpatrick Fergus 2021-07-02 "Bonnie Fitzpatrick" Bonnie Arnew Fergus 2021-07-02 "I am absolutely opposed to reducing on-street parking and equally opposed to adding any bike lanes at all !!! The Council needs to listen to those that took the time and effort to respond to their survey, since those people were the ones who elected the Council in the first place, and Council is there to "SERVE" the people!"
Brent Johnston Fergus 2021-07-02 "The will of the people must be respected. Perhao" Brent Johnston Fergus 2021-07-02 "The will of the people must be respected. Time for a new council." John Shortreed Center Wellington 2021-07-02 "This is an idiotic idea, remove almost all parking to cater to a non existent issue. St David st is part of a provincial highway, there’s half a dozen side streets close by for non existent bike traffic. Anyone from Fergus knows the one guy who actually bikes this road" Page 92 of 228
Prepared by Edward O'Shaughnessy 2021-08-21 Page 1 Summary of Petition Comments
Mary-Ann Tinsley Fergus 2021-07-02 "I think adding bike lanes on Hwy 6 N is the wrong decision for council to make.*the majority of people responding did NOT want the bike lanes *the traffic on Hwy 6 N is extremely busy in the summer and will be a dangerous move*the parking spaces that would be removed would negatively impact the downtown core and customers accessibility to the shops" Cheryl Greene Elmira 2021-07-02 "For people with disabilities or some like me whos are not see but felt within. These non parking options are horrible. Especially because main Street is a huge hill. Leave it alone. Keep the hi-rises out an leave the beautiful quaint village we all know an love." Charlene Lee Elora 2021-07-02 "It would be detrimental to downtown businesses to reduce parking. I believe this would also be discriminatory to those with a disability who cannot park further away and walk." Jane martin Fergus 2021-07-02 "We need parking for businesses or do we just want them to all go under..no parking no business.." Wendy Levesque Fergus 2021-07-02 "The on street parking should not be decreased." Brenda Disher Fergus 2021-07-02 "We have already lost enough parking in downtown with the library expansion." Ben Bloor Fergus 2021-07-02 "Not enough parking already" Laurie Stellings Fergus Ontario 2021-07-02 "I'm still not over the amount of parking we lost from the library reno. People will not tolerate lack of parking downtown and unfortunately go to big box stores. Downtown stores will not survive. Please reconsider and LISTEN to the citizens."
Laura Ferrie Alma 2021-07-03 "The council needs to listen to the population that they represent- not just rely on their own personal opinions. They also need to support downtown businesses, by removing parking spaces another hit to already hurting downtown businesses."
Melissa Reynolds Elora 2021-07-03 "Once again the local population is left feeling that our representatives haven’t listened to us. This time the proof is literally in the numbers." jan kochan Fergus 2021-07-03 "Honestly we have to really listen to the people we vote in when voting happens again for council!!! Obviously this council doesn’t listen to the community !" Mavis Calow Fergus 2021-07-03 "This is a totally ridiculous idea." Elizabeth Shute Fergus 2021-07-03 "I don't think there is a need for bike lanes in Fergus. Absolutely need the parking as it seems that the majority of people seem to think. How can council disregard the voice of the constitutes." Page 93 of 228
Prepared by Edward O'Shaughnessy 2021-08-21 Page 2 Summary of Petition Comments
Jennifer Brayshaw Fergus 2021-07-03 "Has council even considered that very few people could actually bike the hills around downtown?" christine mederak Fergus 2021-07-03 "Not good for local business. Use side streets instead or the bike trails" Cindy Hayes Fergus ont 2021-07-03 "Too much traffic now !" Barbara Mutter Rockwood 2021-07-03 "The streets of Fergus are already to tight for trucks. Fergus was not ment to be a big city. The bike riders I have seen in Fergus do not deserve bike lanes. They are just not getting stopped by the OPP everytime they break the law. I have yet to see one uphold the law in Fergus." Adrian Baker Elora 2021-07-03 "Reducing parking in Fergus is counter productive and would be detrimental to the shops downtown. Please reconsider this, the roads are small enough already" Paul VanGrootheest Fergus 2021-07-03 "Parking for our downtown core is essential for our businesses to survive. This plan eliminates too many parking spots with no alternative parking planed." Marie McLaughlin Fergus 2021-07-03 "We need more vehicle parking" Nancy Merrick Fergus. Ont 2021-07-03 "If we don't have parking, the downtown will cease to be. It's so hard to find a parking spot as it is." Jennifer Mackie Fergus 2021-07-04 "This is a ridiculous policy out in my our town council." John Levely Fergus 2021-07-04 "I want to." Alexander Giger Mono 2021-07-04 "I own a building in Fergus and this is a stupid idea that will just impact traffic in a negative way for next to no people who ever use it. Having seen the lanes in orangeville and other town thet never get utilized! Especially from Oct to April." Wendy Channing CW 2021-07-04 "Our local businesses need the streetside parking and they would be another pedestrian hazard in such a small town" Jennifer Burn Fergus 2021-07-04 "Parking is needed in our downtown area. The survey has shown that this is a priority" Jane Lake Fergus 2021-07-04 "Reducing parking spaces in the downtown core, especially with the expected expansion of Fergus and Elora, is misguided at best. Councilors need a rethink!" Sean McLaughlan east 10th st 2021-07-05 "Once again this is a globalist policy rammed down the throats of the people. Bike lanes are not desired or needed, but corrupt politicians beholden to foreign money and power don't care what the people want. Corrupt politicians are the problem, they will continue to destroy our towns and municipalities by imposing their Globalist agenda. Globalism/Communism must be stopped before they destroy everything." Sharon Jones Elora 2021-07-05 "Sharon jones" Page 94 of 228
Prepared by Edward O'Shaughnessy 2021-08-21 Page 3 Summary of Petition Comments
Susanne Wilmot Fergus 2021-07-05 "Why have a survey if you are going to listen to the opinions of the participants. Provide bike lanes on a side street that will not disrupt the small amount of parking downtown. That would be a compromise." Linda Cameron Fergus ON 2021-07-05 "Linda Cameron" Patrick Caplice Alma 2021-07-05 "This is a crazy idea to put bike lanes on a provincial hwy. when there are so many alternate streets that could be used." Jeff Ferreira Caledon 2021-07-06 "We dont need it" Jennifer Kentner Fergus 2021-07-06 "Why ask what the people want and then do it anyway?! Just to say you did? Disrespectful in my opinion to the community members that live here and took time to vote!" Janice Choudhury Georgetown 2021-07-06 "Council did not listen to the community." Gary Watt CW 2021-07-06 "We do not need bicycle lanes on a highway just plain stupid" John McLeod Elora 2021-07-06 "Traffic considerations." Amanda O'Shaughnessy Guelph 2021-07-07 "The people need to be heard. Why set up a vote and not listen to the people?" Phil Turner Fergus 2021-07-08 "Typical government. They obviously had pre-existing plans, but they wanted to give the illusion of community involvement. How much time and resources were spent on a public consultation that was completely ignored?" Lori Turner Fergus 2021-07-08 "Public opinion was ignored over this." Brandan Power Fergus 2021-07-08 "Downtown is not adequate for a bike lane. There are enough side streets for bikes. The extra traffic is not needed in the already crowded downtown area" Joy Darroch Fergus 2021-07-08 "Our town is perfect and there has been too many changes that we are losing our small town. Also, I have not heard of many bicycle accidents so why make those changes? Also, if you add bike lanes you may need to expand the streets as it is already crowded with the parking on the streets. If you want to change anything, prevent parking on the main downtown strip to ensure more room for walking and driving through." Kayla Clayton Georgetown 2021-07-08 "Love Fergus, please don’t do this to my home" Laura Baker Elora 2021-07-08 "Parking is already ridiculous and the shops that are already suffering will have to close. We rely on tourism, we'll no tourists bring their bikes to ride on roads, they ride on trails. No one bikes around downtown." DAVE CUMMINGS Fergus 2021-07-09 "What is the point of doing a survey that the Council just disregards. Was the survey done at a cost to the town .?" Jane Schickerowsky Fergus 2021-07-09 "I think this decision was made with no regard whatever for the wishes of the
Page 95 of 228 majority."
Prepared by Edward O'Shaughnessy 2021-08-21 Page 4 Summary of Petition Comments
Bonny Parkinson Ariss 2021-07-09 "Bonny Parkinson" Dan Lumsden Elora 2021-07-09 "Pretty sure we can find a road less travelled to add biking lanes?" Perer Sotera Etobicoke 2021-07-09 "I don't want to see the bike lane" stefanie wilson Fergus 2021-07-09 "It's a terrible idea. All the roads are killing my car, but hey I'd love a bike lane down main drag instead." Greg Mennie Fergus 2021-07-09 "An isolated stretch of bike lane like this won't help cyclists at all. I'm amazed that anyone was able to convince our town council that this was a good idea." Tom Lodder Fergus 2021-07-09 "Fergus downtown streets are hectic enough. Adding bike lanes would make it a nightmare. You need to figure out the major traffic issue before considering a bike lane." Jennifer Robinson Milton 2021-07-09 "It's not a safe idea. I live on St David st.. its really hard to get out of my driveway with all the traffic and I'm really scared of hitting a cyclist if they put in bike lanes. Also, I believe the downtown core is more of a pedestrian attraction and not cyclists. It doesn't make any sense to me to put in bike lanes. Its dangerous"
D Bell Fergus 2021-07-09 "Absolutely a waste of money. Huge struggle to find parking as it is here now. There are more important things that need to be addressed then this." Kehlar Hillyer Fergus 2021-07-10 "I don’t think bike lanes should be in Fergus. They cause a lot of problems and the streets have no space" Alan Wright Arthur 2021-07-10 "I feel that this would not be safe for cyclists or others. Resurface the road!!! It is a disgrace." Ana Hood Fergus 2021-07-10 "Not necessary, This isn’t Toronto and frankly I think it will be dangerous for such a small stretch" Sue Grainger Fergus 2021-07-11 "There are enough side streets to accommodate bike traffic to the downtown area. Council needs to listen to what people want." Gary Darroch Fergus 2021-07-11 "Bike lanes are not needed and were not chosen by a majority. Democracy rules"
Lynne Hatton Fergus 2021-07-11 "We don't need bike lanes it's not like kitchener,guelph or Toronto for that matter we are not that big of a town." Tara Fleury Guelph 2021-07-11 "I feel there are enough trails and the people of Fergus are very considerate of the bike riders already" christina garkowski Guelph 2021-07-11 "I'm signing because I grew up in Fergus and I know that small business is important to the downtown." Page 96 of 228
Prepared by Edward O'Shaughnessy 2021-08-21 Page 5 Summary of Petition Comments
april tremblay Cambridge, Ontario 2021-07-12 "Do not take away the parking from these businesses that need them !They have endured a terrible year during covid trying to stay alive and these parking spaces are a necessity for them. We support keeping these stores in business during these tough economical times. Support your local business community so it can survive. Please make this a priority for the whole community who shops here. The cyclists have beautiful cycling trails right in the immediate area." Candee Tremblay Kitchener 2021-07-12 "It's ill-conceived to consider adding bike lanes on St. David St. Keep the on-street parking in a MUCH NEEDED show of support for the businesses in downtown Fergus who have fought hard to remain solvent during COVID. I'm all for bicycling - but not at the expense of local businesses or to create bike lanes on a highway in order to appease a vocal minority." Viola Robinson Guelph, On 2021-07-13 "It's not a good idea, we have them in Guelph and I never see anyone on them. Total waste of space and tax payers money." Lynn Robertshaw Arthur 2021-07-13 "It isn't the right place to have a bike lane, intended to help cyclists but I think it will create more problems. Also it will destroy, the already struggling, small businesses as parking will be further reduced." Fiona Rattray elora 2021-07-13 "There is a better alternate route using Provost Lane." Bryan Denny Elora 2021-07-13 "As a cyclist I am all for bike paths, but have a bit of reason. Pave St Patrick's Lane from Beatty line to Breadalbane and mark a designated strip along it as bike route to downtown. I have cycled along highways and they aren't fun for cyclists or drivers. Since Provost is closed already, make it the north south route for cyclists put a cycle charging station in the old weigh scales building for ebikes. It's a short stiff climb but not nearly as busy as St David. Perhaps a touch of regrading there could help. Keep the highway wide and perhaps plant a tree or two to make it more pleasant to WALK along. You aren't going to change driver's habits so get back to reality, bikeways on highways are an invitation to killing cyclists."
gordon MacNeill Fergus 2021-07-13 "There is no need for this on the main road. Let’s support our local business and have parking instead of a bike lane" Theresa Brouwer Fergus 2021-07-13 "Not necessary. We need parking. Bikers can use back streets." Page 97 of 228
Prepared by Edward O'Shaughnessy 2021-08-21 Page 6 Summary of Petition Comments
ed Kennedy Fergus 2021-07-15 "You are absolutely right! And, lets not forget, our Gov't delegates just spent several hundreds of Thousands of dollars paying an American Consultant, Roger Brooks to analyze our Downtown and suggest ways to IMPROVE and increase the health and attraction of downtown Fergus--bike lanes was NOT among the suggestions!"
ed Kennedy Fergus 2021-07-15 "You are absolutely right! And, lets not forget, our Gov't delegates just spent several hundreds of Thousands of dollars paying an American Consultant, Roger Brooks to analyze our Downtown and suggest ways to IMPROVE and increase the health and attraction of downtown Fergus--bike lanes was NOT among the suggestions!"
ed Kennedy Fergus 2021-07-15 "You are absolutely right! And, lets not forget, our Gov't delegates just spent several hundreds of Thousands of dollars paying an American Consultant, Roger Brooks to analyze our Downtown and suggest ways to IMPROVE and increase the health and attraction of downtown Fergus--bike lanes was NOT among the suggestions!"
ed Kennedy Fergus 2021-07-15 "You are absolutely right! And, lets not forget, our Gov't delegates just spent several hundreds of Thousands of dollars paying an American Consultant, Roger Brooks to analyze our Downtown and suggest ways to IMPROVE and increase the health and attraction of downtown Fergus--bike lanes was NOT among the suggestions! So apparently we are not listening to the paid Consultant either!!!! Only a bike enthusiast with NO DATA!" ed Kennedy Fergus 2021-07-15 "Hit the nail on the head with that one Sean!" Dirk Hoogendoorn Meaford 2021-07-15 "There has to be a better option than bike lanes right along a major highway in a downtown shopping area." Shawn Roul Halton Hills 2021-07-16 "Why even do a survey/poll if you are going to ignore the results?" Kimberley Ramsay Guelph 2021-07-16 "We want to encourage shopping at local businesses. You need the parking in the downtown area not reducing spots. by putting in bike lanes you’re reducing parking spaces and there are many other streets going into downtown that people can bike on to get to the core, Highway six is not the one to do it on." Melissa Brown Fergus 2021-07-18 "I'm signing because there is no need for dedicated bike lanes on a Provincial highway. There are many different side streets to get around town." Anthony Martins Centre Wellington 2021-07-22 "I'm against the bike lanes." Natalie Ohalloran Fergus 2021-07-22 "we don't need anymore traffic on our streets, plenty of trails around" Page 98 of 228
Prepared by Edward O'Shaughnessy 2021-08-21 Page 7 Summary of Petition Comments
Christine Hurry ON 2021-07-22 "Keep the parking. You seem to want tourist $, well they need more options to park. You can't keep taking away parking and expect to keep the tourists." Susan Schneider Fergus 2021-07-23 "Susan. SchneiderTo dangerous on a major highway" Susan Schneider Fergus 2021-07-23 "I am signing because it is a dangerous to have bike on a major highway, and I also feel we don't need to lose anymore parking spaces downtown." Page 99 of 228
Prepared by Edward O'Shaughnessy 2021-08-21 Page 8 Summary of Signatures by Location
Location # % Acton 13 1.29% Alma 15 1.49% Arthur 13 1.29% Belwood 42 4.18% CW 696 69.32% Guelph 22 2.19% KW 17 1.69% Toronto 32 3.19% Other 163 16.24% TOTAL= 1013 1.01
Responses by Location
Acton Alma Arthur Belwood CW Guelph KW Toronto Other
Prepared by Edward O'Shaughnessy 2021-08-21 Page 1
Page 100 of 228 Petition Comments by Category Location
Location # Category # CW 78 Ignored 41 Other 23 Location 32 Parking 28
Comments by Location
CW Other
Comments by Category 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Ignored Location Parking
Prepared by Edward O'Shaughnessy 2021-08-21 Page 1
Page 101 of 228 Report to Council
To: Mayor Linton and Members of Council Report: CS2021-14 Prepared By: Dorothy Smith, Manager of Community Date: 30 Aug 2021 Development, Festivals, Culture and Tourism
RE: Grant Application Policy 2021
Recommendation: THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington approve the recommendation by the Community Services Advisory Committee that the amended Community Grant Application Policy be adopted as presented.
Summary: The Annual Community Impact Grant program is part of the annual budget process. Each year, the grant application policy is reviewed and changes amended accordingly if necessary. A complete review over the last 2 years resulted in some minor grammatical changes, as well as some changes that clearly outlines items that are eligible or ineligible to apply for funding. A summary of the changes is following in the report section.
Report: Each year as part of the annual budget process, applications become available for the annual community impact grants. In the fall of each year, not for profit organizations can apply for funding up to a maximum of $5000 per organization. To ensure the application process is clear and concise, a review of the policy is undertaken by the Community Services Advisory Committee along with staff. The policy recommended changes are outlined below.
Qualifications for Funding 1.1.2 The organization must be comprised of an independent volunteer committee and or belong to an educational organization and must meet regularly and maintain appropriate minutes and records of proceedings. 1.1.9 The organization is in good standing with the Township. The organization must be current on accounts receivable and not in litigation with the Township.
1.1.10 Marketing for a new event or project in it’s first year.
Ineligible for Funding
Page 102 of 228 1.2.3 Marketing for the organization applying, travel or accommodation, uniforms, personal equipment, banquets, trophies or entertainment.
1.2.11 Capital Projects
1.2.12 Applications that arrive late (after the posted deadline date) will be deferred to council for consideration.
Specific Annual Grants Removed Township budget allocation $25,500 (this can fluctuate) Added: The applying organization must demonstrate the social need of their program and must have a history of the program by applying through the Community Impact Grant application process for a minimum of 5 years.
Grant Application Process 4.1 In the fall of each year, the Township will advertise in local paper and on social media all relevant information relating to the upcoming grant application process. The advertisement will indicate where applications are available, and when they are due.
4.2 Applications must be delivered via email in PDF form to the Community Services Department by the date and time outlined in the advertisement discussed in section 4.1.
4.9 The granting of financial assistance in any year is not to be regarded as a commitment by the Municipality to continue such assistance in future years. In addition, the Municipality will not provide guaranteed funding beyond the current year. In approving grants, the Municipality may impose conditions as it sees fit.
4.10 In the event of a surplus after the funding allocations have been determined, a recommendation will be made to council for a decision on what to do with the balance.
5.0 Conditions of Funding 5.1 Grant recipients must acknowledge the support of the Township of Centre Wellington in all printed materials, including marketing materials. Grant recipients must provide a written statement of use of the funds within two months of the event/program/service. Organizations will not be considered for future grant funding until all required reports are received by the Township of Centre Wellington’s Community Services Department. Along with the required report, any photographs that can be shared of the event, project, or program would be welcomed by the township.
New Appendix A The Community Impact Grants current funding allocation is $49,450.00
Page 103 of 228 The Specific Annual Grants current funding allocation is $25,550.00
Corporate Strategic Plan: Active and Caring Community • Expand indoor recreation facilities to meet the needs of a growing population • Support the caring organizations in the the community • Care for our Natural Environment • Support the heritage of our community
Financial Implications: Financial Implications: None
Consultation: In Consultation with: Community Services Advisory Committee
Attachments: ● Summary of changes to C.I.G. policy 2021
Approved By: Pat Newson, Managing Director of Community Services, Managing Director of Community Services Andy Goldie, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 104 of 228 Township of Centre Wellington Grant Application Policy Qualifications for Funding
1.1.2 The organization must be comprised of an independent volunteer committee and or belong to an educational organization and must meet regularly and maintain appropriate minutes and records of proceedings.
1.1.9 The organization is in good standing with the Township. The organization must be current on accounts receivable and not in litigation with the Township.
1.1.10 Marketing for a new event or project in it’s first year.
Ineligible for Funding
1.2.3 Marketing for the organization applying, travel or accommodation, uniforms, personal equipment, banquets, trophies or entertainment.
1.2.11 Capital Projects
1.2.12 Applications that arrive late (after the posted deadline date) will be deferred to council for consideration.
Specific Annual Grants
Removed Township budget allocation $25,500 (this can fluctuate)
Added: The applying organization must demonstrate the social need of their program and must have a history of the program by applying through the Community Impact Grant application process for a minimum of 5 years.
Removed: Exempt organizations table and moved as an Appendix.
Grant Application Process
4.1 In the fall of each year, the Township will advertise in local paper and on social media all relevant information relating to the upcoming grant application process. The advertisement will indicate where applications are available, and when they are due.
4.2 Applications must be delivered via email in PDF form to the Community Services Department by the date and time outlined in the advertisement discussed in section 4.1.
4.9 The granting of financial assistance in any year is not to be regarded as a commitment by the Municipality to continue such assistance in future years. In addition, the Municipality will not provide
Page 105 of 228 guaranteed funding beyond the current year. In approving grants, the Municipality may impose conditions as it sees fit.
4.10 In the event of a surplus after the funding allocations have been determined, a recommendation will be made to council for a decision on what to do with the balance.
5.0 Conditions of Funding
5.1 Grant recipients must acknowledge the support of the Township of Centre Wellington in all printed materials, including marketing materials. Grant recipients must provide a written statement of use of the funds within two months of the event/program/service. Organizations will not be considered for future grant funding until all required reports are received by the Township of Centre Wellington’s Community Services Department. Along with the required report, any photographs that can be shared of the event, project, or program would be welcomed by the township.
New Appendix A
The Community Impact Grants current funding allocation is $49,450.00
The Specific Annual Grants current funding allocation is $25,550.00
The following organizations have been approved by Council for annual funding without application:
Grant Application Exempt Organizations Amount Fergus and District Horticultural Society $1,850 Elora and Salem Horticultural Society 1,950
Elora Lions Club (Elora Santa Claus Parade) 1,600 Elora Cataract Trailway Association 5,000
Fergus Lions Club (Fergus Santa Claus Parade) 1,700
Royal Canadian Legion Wreaths 450
Wellington County Farm and Home Safety Association 500
Ponsonby Recreation Club 2,500
Centre Wellington Food Bank 5,000
Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Centre Wellington 5,000
Total $25,550
Page 106 of 228 Report to Council
To: Mayor Linton and Members of Council Report: CS2021-15 Prepared By: Pat Newson, Managing Director of Date: 30 Aug 2021 Community Services
RE: MacDonald Funding Elora Sculpture Project Update
Recommendation: THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington delegate to the Managing Director of Corporate Services to invoke Article 3.4 Failure to Comply, of the MacDonald Grant Agreement between the Township and the Elora Sculpture Project Committee, which provides a process to terminate the agreement as requested by the Elora Sculpture Project Committee on March 22, 2021 in their written summary to the Community Services Advisory Committee;
AND THAT Council allow CSAC additional time to review and discuss options once the MacDonald Grant Agreement with the Elora Sculpture Project Committee has been terminated and consider options for how the $25,000 could be reallocated.
Summary: At the February 16, 2021 Committee of the Whole meeting, Council delegated to the Community Services Advisory Committee (CSAC) to review the status of the MacDonald Fund Projects that had not been completed. This report provides Council with the recommendations from CSAC with respect to the Elora Sculpture Project sculpture.
Report: At the July 14, 2021 CSAC meeting staff provided a Consolidated Report to provide a summary of the activities since the funding was awarded in 2018. That report and the associated Agreement is attached to this Council Report. David Cross, Chair of the Elora Sculpture Project (ESP) attended the July 14 CSAC meeting as an invited delegation. At that meeting David Cross provided relevant background information and reiterated the Elora Sculpture Project Committee’s desire to terminate the Jack R MacDonald project. He explained that due to lengthy delays resulting from location selection challenges, the committee no longer had the volunteer capacity to move forward with the project. Mr Cross also shared that the Elora Sculpture Project had always had a strong working relationship with the Township and will continue to focus their efforts on their annual public sculpture displays throughout the Township. The ESP is hopeful the funding will be directed to be used for a cultural or art installation in Elora. CSAC members were
Page 107 of 228 sympathetic of their situation and with regret acknowledged the request to terminate the agreement.
At the meeting CSAC had the following resolutions carried for Council’s consideration:
CSAC Motions THAT the Community Services Advisory Committee (CSAC) recommends to Council that authority be delegated to the Managing Director of Corporate Services to invoke Article 3.4 Failure to Comply, of the MacDonald Grant Agreement between the Township and the Elora Sculpture Project Committee, which provides a process to terminate the agreement as requested by the Elora Sculpture Project Committee on March 22, 2021 in their written summary to CSAC.
THAT the Community Services Advisory Committee (CSAC) requests the opportunity to take additional time to review and discuss options once the MacDonald Grant Agreement with the Elora Sculpture Project Committee has been terminated;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to explore and bring forward options for how the $25,000 could be reallocated.
CSAC meets again in September and would like the opportunity to continue the discussion and bring ideas forward for Council’s consideration.
Corporate Strategic Plan: Good Financial Management • Maximize source of non-tax revenue Active and Caring Community • Support the caring organizations in the the community
Financial Implications: $25,000 was allocated from the Jack R. MacDonald Trust Fund for the Elora Sculpture Project in 2018. This was part of the $1,509,000 funding awarded to eight community project recipients.
Consultation: This report was prepared in consultation with Dorothy Smith, Manager of Community Development, Festivals, Culture & Tourism, and Dan Wilson, Managing Director of Corporate Services and Treasurer.
Attachments: ● ESP Consolidated Report 2021 07 14
Approved By: Dan Wilson, Managing Director of Corporate Services & Treasurer
Page 108 of 228 Andy Goldie, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 109 of 228 MacDonald Sculpture Project C.S.A.C. Update report – July 14th, 2021
2018: The Elora Sculpture Project Committee applied for $150,000 to commission several permanent sculptures in Elora. C.S.A.C. awarded $25,000 from the Jack MacDonald Fund to erect one new permanent sculpture in Elora to commemorate the legacy of Jack MacDonald. An agreement was developed and the process began. (See attachment 1)
Prior to selecting and commissioning an artist to design and build a sculpture, the location for the sculpture needed to be identified. The size, scale and design of the sculpture are dependent on the location.
Initial Site Selection (as per the MacDonald Sculpture Agreement)
Prior to initiating stage one of the process, the Elora Sculpture Project (ESP) Committee will work with Township staff to explore the appropriate location for the new sculpture. This must be identified prior to a Call for Submissions for a sculpture. The Township’s preferred location is the north Piazza at the Victoria Street Pedestrian Bridge, currently under construction. The ESP Committee will review the details of this location and either accept or reject this as the selected location. Should the ESP Committee reject this location, a different suitable location will be determined jointly by both the ESP Committee and Township staff. The intent is to select a location in Elora that: i. experiences pedestrian and visitor traffic ii. is connected to Jack R MacDonald’s legacy iii. is suitable in size and location to house and display the new sculpture adequately and safely so as to mitigate tripping or other public safety hazards
August 26, 2019: At the August 26, 2019 Council meeting, the Victoria Street Bridge was renamed the Jack R MacDonald Bridge.
As per the above paragraph as outlined in the Sculpture Agreement, the north Piazza was initially identified as a preferred location for the sculpture. Staff met with the ESP committee chair and co-chair and agreed, there was insufficient space at this location.
September 2019: The Elora Sculpture Project Committee had identified two other alternative locations
Page 110 of 228 1) Adjacent to (behind) the cenotaph at MacDonald Square 2) Victoria Park (Elora) near the stairs to the Gorge.
October 2019: The Community Services Advisory Committee discussed the pros and cons of each location presented by staff. (See attachment 2) 1) Staff and Senior Management determined that adjacent to the Cenotaph at MacDonald Square would not be an appropriate location due to the Cenotaph and that area should be dedicated to the Cenotaph only.
2) The Committee determined the location in Victoria Park would not be a prominent enough location for the sculpture to be displayed based on the following:
a) The Township does not own Victoria Park, as it is leased through the Grand River Conservation Authority b) It was not a prominent enough location and is not connected to Mr. MacDonald’s legacy c) Lack of lighting and security made it suspectable to vandalism
The committee discussed the possibility of placing the sculpture at the south end of the Jack R. MacDonald Bridge, as well as having the sculpture displayed on a pedestal near the bridge for better viewing from both sides of the river.
Moved by Jennifer Adams, Seconded by Grayce Perry. THAT the Community Services Advisory Committee support the location of the sculpture at either the North or South abutment of the Jack R MacDonald Bridge. The location in Victoria Park is not the preferred option at this time. CARRIED
January 2020: Staff continued to explore the opportunity to install the MacDonald sculpture on the south side of the river and Pearl Hospitality was receptive and supportive of the concept, however, detail plans for that property have yet to be submitted for consideration. The Township continues to await the final design of the proposed south side development from Pearl before any further decisions can be made in regards to the placement of the sculpture.
Page 111 of 228 February 2021: The Council of the Township of Centre Wellington has directed the Community Services Advisory Committee (CSAC) to review the status of the MacDonald Grant Recipient Projects, and provide recommendations. Six of the eight projects that received funding have yet to be initiated or completed which is a concern as we approach the 3 year mark since the funds were awarded. The following is the motion carried at the March Council meeting:
THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington direct the Community Services Advisory Committee to review and make recommendations to Council on the MacDonald Trust Fund Projects with respect to the following: ● Timing for each project with reasonable expectations for completion dates. ● The request by the Elora Centre for the Arts and Riverfest to alter the scope/intent of the project approved for funding. ● Direction for an Agreement for the KIPP funding project. ● Direction on any funding that was awarded, but not remitted as a result of the project not being able to fulfill the project work. ● Any other recommendations on projects currently not completed.
March 2021: CSAC requested that each outstanding MacDonald funded project submit a status update on their project and an update be provided to CSAC prior to Council as some groups were requesting a change to the scope of their project.
Summary from the E.S.P. Committee: (see attachment 3) What has prevented you from initiating/completing your project? Staff have continued to promote locations near the new walking bridge, which we have rejected, and our preferred site(s) were not given proper consideration. The ESP Committee’s preferred location is in Victoria Park, to the right of the pathway as one heads from the park entrance toward the stairway into the gorge. There is ample space here to allow much flexibility and creativity in the artists’ proposals. The sculpture would stand on its own, attracting observers’ contemplation and appreciation, rather than be lost in an area congested with other fixtures, street furniture and signage.
Our research into Mr. MacDonald revealed that he was a shy, quiet man. In all his past dealings with our community he did not seek attention. His obituary in the University of Washington’s magazine (he left them $56 million) begins “Jack R. MacDonald was a gentle, compassionate and private man. He often wore a sweater with a hole in the elbow so as not to give away the fact that he had amassed a tremendous fortune.” We believe this more tranquil place in the park is well suited to host one of his gifts to Elora, while still being visible and accessible to all.
Page 112 of 228 Staff then suggested a location at the south side of the walking bridge, this would be on Pearl property. It seems that some staff have strongly felt opinions that there should be some connection between the sculpture and the bridge. The ESP committee does not hold this opinion and there is nothing in the agreement to suggest this. This, we believe, is the crux of the problem/delay. We should also state for clarity that the proposal we put forth, and the agreement we entered into are intended to bring to Elora a work of art; not a monument. As we moved into 2020 Covid -19 restrictions impacted our activities. With these unexpected, and unnecessary delays much time has passed since we entered into this agreement. During this time several key members of our committee have retired or moved away from the community. We no longer have the necessary resources to proceed. We need to focus our efforts on our popular, annual exhibition. Due to lengthy delays we cannot complete the project. - End of submission -
CSAC accepted the report and made a motion to defer a decision to allow CSAC more time to consider any additional options for this project.
March 1, 2021: Staff was contacted by Beverley Cairns, Chair of Art in Public Places for the Elora Fergus Arts Council, enquiring about another potential project for MacDonald Funding. The conversation then shifted to a discussion about the MacDonald Sculpture as there was still interest in the project.
May 26th, an email from Beverley indicated “she may have some suggestions for our committee”, but she had some questions:
1) As the contract does not specify that the sculpture be of or in particular related to MacDonald, but to honour him, could a plaque be considered? We could incorporate a likeness to Mr. MacDonald on the plaque.
2)The placement of the sculpture must be agreed upon first. The feeling is that the funding was for citizens of Elora, would the committee consider a more central location. She believes there can be new alternatives to consider and time is needed for that and she is happy to assist. In the meantime, she suggests we have the chair from the ESP attend an upcoming meeting to give them the opportunity to put forth their reasoning on the placement of the sculpture.
Page 113 of 228
June 2: Staff recommended to CSAC that the item be put on the July agenda, allowing more time for staff to prepare this report, detailing the process to date be brought forward to the committee before any further decision are made.
The chair of the ESP committee, has agreed to attend and make a presentation to CSAC on July 14th.
Based on information available at the time of writing this report, Staff have summarized the following options for CSAC’s consideration:
Option #1 – As per the request of the Elora Sculpture Project Committee “due to lengthy delays, we cannot complete the project”, recommend staff take the necessary steps to terminate the MacDonald Grant Agreement with the Elora Sculpture Project Committee; And that the Committee to review options and provide recommendations for how the $25,000 could be reallocated. Option #2 – Explore the options presented by the Elora Fergus Arts Council and make a recommendation. Option #3 – Request more time to review and discuss options once the MacDonald Grant Agreement with the Elora Sculpture Project Committee is terminated. Option # 4 – Defer to council for a decision
At this time, no group or individual has come forward with another option.
Page 114 of 228 Page 115 of 228 Page 116 of 228 Page 117 of 228 Page 118 of 228 Page 119 of 228 Page 120 of 228 Page 121 of 228 Page 122 of 228
THE TOWNSHIP OF CENTRE WELLINGTON
REPORT TO COMMUNITY SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
TO: Community Services Advisory Committee
DATE: October 9, 2019
SUBJECT: Elora Sculpture Location
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the Community Services Advisory Committee support the sculpture location at either the Jack R MacDonald Bridge, or the location in Victoria Park (Elora) identified on the map attached to this report.
REPORT:
In 2018 the Elora Sculpture Project Committee was awarded $25,000 from the Jack MacDonald Fund to erect a new permanent sculpture in Elora to commemorate the legacy of Jack MacDonald.
This original plan was to erect the sculpture at a location near/adjacent to the new walking bridge. At the August 26, 2019 Council meeting, the Victoria Street Bridge was renamed the Jack R MacDonald Bridge. It would be fitting to have the sculpture located near the bridge, and that continues to be considered, however space and traffic flow around the bridge are an impediment to this option.
The Elora Sculpture Project Committee has identified an alternative location in Victoria Park (Elora). This location is identified on a map and with a photo attached to this report.
The land at Victoria Park is owned by the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), and the Township has a license agreement with the GRCA to maintain and operate the park. Staff have received confirmation from the GRCA that they have no objection to the sculpture to be installed at the proposed location at Victoria Park (Elora). The condition in the license agreement would stipulate that if the terms of that agreement were to change, the sculpture may need to be relocated out of the park. That agreement renews in 2025, and there is no indication that either the Township or the GRCA are desirous to change the arrangements of that agreement.
Prior to finalizing the decision on the sculpture location, the Township is requesting input from CSAC to ensure there is support for the location in Victoria Park.
Page 123 of 228 2
Prior to selecting and commissioning an artist to design and build a sculpture, the location for the sculpture needs to be identified. The size, scale and design of the sculpture are dependent on the location.
BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: An Agreement between the Township and the Elora Sculpture Project Committee is in place to allocate the $25,000 and outline the terms for selecting and installing the sculpture.
ATTACHMENTS: Map of proposed sculpture location in Victoria Park (Elora) Photo of roadside view of the location.
SUBMITTED BY: Pat Newson, Managing Director of Community Services
Page 124 of 228 Name of MacDonald Trust Fund Project:
Elora Sculpture Project Committee Submitted by: David Cross
Email address: [email protected] Phone: 519-658-7536
1. What is the current status of your project? A site for the sculpture has not been agreed upon. The process for site selection is described in this part of Section 3.3 of our agreement:
Initial Site Selection
Prior to initiating stage one of the process, the Elora Sculpture Project (ESP) Committee will work with Township staff to explore the appropriate location for the new sculpture. This must be identified prior to a Call for Submissions for a sculpture. The Township’s preferred location is the north Piazza at the Victoria Street Pedestrian Bridge, currently under construction. The ESP Committee will review the details of this location and either accept or reject this as the selected location. Should the ESP Committee reject this location, a different suitable location will be determined jointly by both the ESP Committee and Township staff. The intent is to select a location in Elora that: i. experiences pedestrian and visitor traffic ii. is connected to Jack R MacDonald’s legacy iii. is suitable in size and location to house and display the new sculpture adequately and safely so as to mitigate tripping or other public safety hazards
2. What is a reasonable expectation time line for the completion date of your project? Schedule A of the original agreement outlines a process taking about 325 days, from the time a site is confirmed. The site selection must be completed first.
We expected to have the site selection completed by mid 2019. We would then have run the Call for Submissions concurrently with that for the annual exhibition which commenced in November.
As outlined below this did not happen. As we moved into 2020 Covid -19 restrictions impacted our activities.
With these unexpected, and unnecessary delays much time has passed since we entered into this agreement. During this time several key members of our committee have retired
Page 125 of 228 or moved away from the community. We no longer have the necessary resources to proceed. We need to focus our efforts on our popular, annual exhibition.
1. What has prevented you from initiating/completing your project? Staff have continued to promote locations near the new walking bridge, which we have rejected, and our preferred site(s) were not given proper consideration.
When the agreement was formed, construction was under way on the walking bridge and the site referenced above as the north Piazza could not be properly viewed nor evaluated. We agreed to wait until work progressed. In August 2019 we were able to visit the site with staff. We concluded that the new “planters” were too small to properly house a sculpture and the site is too cluttered with other structures, fences, railings etc. to allow the sculpture a place of prominence.
In September 2019 we offered two alternate locations: MacDonald Square and Victoria Park and identified to staff a specific site in each. We were told these options would be reviewed by CSAC on October 9. We were not invited to be a delegation to explain the merits of these locations. Subsequently, we were advised that CSAC had rejected these locations and we were asked again to consider the piazza at the walking bridge. We again rejected this for the same reasons as we had earlier. The applicable part of Section 3.3 above clearly states this is the right of the ESP committee.
Staff then suggested a location at the south side of the walking bridge.
It seems that some staff have strongly felt opinions that there should be some connection between the sculpture and the bridge. The ESP committee does not hold this opinion and there is nothing in the agreement to suggest this. This, we believe, is the crux of the problem/delay.
We should also state for clarity that the proposal we put forth, and the agreement we entered into are intended to bring to Elora a work of art; not a monument.
Had we been able to address the CSAC in 2019 we would have presented:
The ESP Committee’s preferred location is in Victoria Park, to the right of the pathway as one heads from the park entrance toward the stairway into the gorge. There is ample space here to allow much flexibility and creativity in the artists’ proposals. The sculpture would stand on its own, attracting observers’ contemplation and appreciation, rather than be lost in an area congested with other fixtures, street furniture and signage.
Our research into Mr. MacDonald revealed that he was a shy, quiet man. In all his past dealings with our community he did not seek attention. His obituary in the University of Washington’s magazine (he left them $56 million) begins “Jack R. MacDonald was a gentle, compassionate and private man. He often wore a sweater with a hole in the elbow so as not to give away the fact that he had amassed a tremendous fortune.”
Page 126 of 228 We believe this more tranquil place in the park is well suited to host one of his gifts to Elora, while still being visible and accessible to all.
It is very disappointing that we were not able to fulfill this vision and add to the local legacy of Mr. MacDonald
2. Staff have heard from some groups that they are requesting a change of scope for the project? CSAC needs to recommend to Council whether this should be permitted. If this is the case for your project please describe the request and the rationale behind it? Yes. Due to lengthy delays we cannot complete the project.
Page 127 of 228 Report to Council
To: Mayor Linton and Members of Council Report: CS2021-16 Prepared By: Matt Tucker, Manager of Parks & Date: 30 Aug 2021 Facilities Operations
RE: Elora Rocks Hockey Club Agreement
Recommendation: THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington authorize the Mayor and Clerk to enter into an agreement with The Elora Rocks Hockey Club for the payment of ice rental arrears from past seasons.
Report: The Elora Rocks Hockey Club has existed for over 100 years. This community organization has a long history with many successes along the way. The club has experienced some difficulties financially. This can be attributed to struggles not unfamiliar to many volunteer driven organizations. Mainly, the business side of this operation has rested on the shoulders of a few key volunteers who desperately desire the opportunity to get things back on track.
The Elora Rocks Hockey Club has recently gone through a management transition this past Summer and would like to update the 2017 agreement with the Township. The new volunteer management team has presented to Staff that key business and organizational principles need to be the main stay of making this organization not only a community success however a viable and sustainable financial success as well. The new Elora Rocks management recognizes the past debt that has accumulated over the years and would like to work with the Township to eliminate the past debt while running a successful hockey program for the Community.
Based on this commitment and recognizing the hard times The Hockey Club has endured the New Management Group wants to move forward however is asking Centre Wellington to assist in their rebuilding by entering in to a new and updated agreement (attached) for the payment of ice rental arrears from past seasons. Based on this agreement the Rocks Management Group are confident that given their refocused direction and actions they can sustain and eventually once again prosper as a successful community hockey club.
In summary, their commitment to returning to the diligent operation of their club through their constitution is key to their success in the future.
Page 128 of 228
Corporate Strategic Plan: Active and Caring Community • Support the caring organizations in the the community
Financial Implications: The amount of arrears owing to the Township by the Elora Rocks Hockey Club is $31,436.50. The Club shall remit an annual payment of $3,143.65 to the Township at the end of each season starting April 2022, and ending 2031. All future rentals and Township services will be paid at Time of Booking so that no further arrears would be incurred.
Consultation: This report was prepared in consultation with SV Law and the following staff: Pat Newson, Managing Director of Community Services, Dan Wilson, Managing Director of Corporate Services and the Township Facility Booking Coordinator.
Attachments: ● 2021-08-13 -Agreement re. Re-Payment of Arrears
Approved By: Dan Wilson, Managing Director of Corporate Services & Treasurer Andy Goldie, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 129 of 228 AGREEMENT RESPECTING THE RE-PAYMENT OF ARREARS
THIS AGREEMENT made in triplicate this day of , 2021
BETWEEN:
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF CENTRE WELLIINGTON (hereinafter call the “Township)
-and-
THE ELORA ROCKS HOCKEY CLUB (hereinafter called the “Club”)
WHEREAS in 2017, the Township agreed to grant the Club ice time for future seasons, conditional upon the Club entering into an agreement with the Township for the repayment of arrears incurred during the 2016/2017 season (the “2017 Agreement”);
WHEREAS in default of Article 2 of the 2017 Agreement, the Club has incurred additional debt since the execution of the 2017 Agreement as a result of defaults in payments owing to the Township for ice and room rentals;
WHEREAS given the long-standing tradition of the Club in the community, the Township issued a letter on August 5, 2021 authorizing the Club to enter a payment plan extending payments of arrears owing to the Township over the next ten (10) years;
WHEREAS all existing debt would be part of the payment plan calculation, and all future rentals of Township facilities by the Club would be paid at the time of booking, so that no further arrears would be incurred;
WHEREAS the terms of the payment plan and the terms for booking future Township facilities, including, but not limited to, ice rentals, would be outlined in a revised agreement, superseding and making all previous agreements, including the 2017 Agreement, immediately null and void;
NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, including the sum of Two Dollars ($2.00) of lawful money of Canada, now paid by each of the parties hereto to each of the other parties hereto, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by all parties, the parties hereto agree with each other as follows:
1. Upon the execution by both parties of this Agreement Respecting the Re-Payment of Arrears (the “Agreement”), the terms of repayment described in Article 3 below shall be in force and effect. In the event that the Club fails to execute this Agreement within thirty (30) days of notification that Council has adopted an authorizing by-law, all ice time booked for the Club will be cancelled.
2. The Club shall pay fees to the Township as set by the Township for ice time in the 2021/2022 season through to the 2030/2031 season by the 15th day of the month prior. The Club shall pre-pay for any and all services provided by the Township. Ice time for upcoming ice seasons is allocated by the Township’s Community Services Department by the 1st day of July each year.
3. The amount of arrears owing to the Township by the Club is $31,436.50. The Club shall remit an annual payment of $ 3 , 1 4 3 . 6 5 to the Township at the end of each season, with the first payment being due the last Friday in April, starting in 2022 and ending 2031 inclusive (the “Payment Plan”). In the event that the Club does
SV:01723620-1 Page 1 of 3
Page 130 of 228 not remit a required annual payment, or remits only a partial payment, Article 4 of this Agreement shall apply.
4. If the Club fails to remit a payment specified in either of Articles 2 or 3 of this Agreement, all ice time and rentals booked for the Club will be cancelled. All outstanding arrears owed to the Township by the Club will continue to be owing.
5. Subject to Article 4, this Agreement shall terminate when the Club's account with the Township is paid in full.
6. It is expressly understood and agreed that the remedies of the Township under this Agreement are cumulative and the exercise by the Township of any right or remedy for the default or breach of any term herein contained shall not be deemed to be a waiver or alter, affect or prejudice any other right or remedy or other rights or remedies, to which the Township may be lawfully entitled for the same default or breach; and any waiver by the Township of the strict observance, performance or compliance by the Club or with any term herein contained, or any indulgence granted by the Township to the Club shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent default or breach by the Club, nor entitle the Club to any similar indulgence heretofore granted.
7. This Agreement may only be amended, modified or supplemented by an agreement in writing signed by each party hereto. No waiver by any party of any of the provisions hereof shall be effective unless explicitly set forth in writing and signed by the party so waiving.
8. If any term or provision of this Agreement is invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any jurisdiction, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability will not affect any other term or provision of this Agreement or invalidate or render unenforceable such term or provision in any other jurisdiction.
9. This Agreement shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective representatives, successors, and assigns, except that the Club may not assign or otherwise transfer any of its rights or obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the Township. No assignment or other transfer shall relieve the assigning or transferring party of any of its obligations hereunder.
10. This Agreement constitutes the sole and entire agreement of the parties to this Agreement with respect to the subject matter contained herein, and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous understandings and agreements, both written and oral, with respect to such subject matter.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.
SIGNED, SEALED, AND DELIVERED in the presence of:
(signature page to follow)
SV:01723620-1 Page 2 of 3
Page 131 of 228
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF CENTRE WELLINGTON
Mayor
Clerk
FOR THE ELORA ROCKS HOCKEY CLUB
X
X
We Have Authority to Bind the Club
SV:01723620-1 Page 3 of 3
Page 132 of 228 Report to Council
To: Mayor Linton and Members of Council Report: COR2021-44 Prepared By: Kerri O’Kane, Manager of Legislative Date: 30 Aug 2021 Services & Municipal Clerk
RE: Snow Drainage Works - Maintenance and Repair 2021
Recommendation: THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington, in accordance with Section 74 of the Drainage Act, R.S.O. 1990 c.D.17, approves the cost of the maintenance and repair work to a portion of the Snow Drain, located at the top end of the drain through Concession 2, as recommended by the Drainage Superintendent, at an estimated cost of $6,500.
Summary: Section 74 of the Drainage Act, R.S.O. 1990 c.D.17 (the Act), requires a municipality to maintain and repair drainage work construction in accordance with the Act, at the expense of all the upstream lands and roads in any way assessed for the construction or improvement of the drainage works.
Report: A request has been received from a tenant of a land owner within the water shed, W 1/2 Lot 25, Concession 3, in the former Township of West Garafraxa, for a clean-out of a portion of the Snow Drain. The Township Drainage Superintendent, Gerd Uderstadt has conducted the necessary field investigation and spoken to the affected land owners.
The Snow Drain is an entirely open ditch which outlets in the Irving Creek in Lot 17, Concession 6 and continues upstream to Lot 25, Concession 2. A section of the Drain through Concession 4 was last repaired and improved under the governing By-law 18- 1973 in 2005. The section now requiring maintenance is located at the top end of the Drain through Concession 2. This section is filled in with up to 450mm of silt and is restricting the flow of several tile outlets. In order to free the flow of water and re-establish this section of the Drain to its original depth, a clean out is required. The Township Drainage Superintendent is recommending this section of the Drain be cleaned out to the original grade and depth. The Drain downstream through Concession 3 and beyond appears to be in reasonable condition and no requests for maintenance have been received.
Page 133 of 228 The total cost of the work is estimated at $6,500. The maintenance and repair costs are assessable to the property owners within the drainage area. Once Council has approved the work, affected property owners will be formally notified and a company retained to complete the work after the crops are harvested. Authorization to procced with the maintenance work has been received from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Financial Implications: The total cost of the maintenance and repair work is estimated at $6,500, which may be subject to a provincial grant of 1/3 of the assessed amount against lands currently eligible for the Farm Property Class Tax Rate. After completion, this grant, where eligible, will be applied for by the municipality.
Attachments: ● Snow Drainage Works
Approved By: Dan Wilson, Managing Director of Corporate Services & Treasurer Andy Goldie, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 134 of 228 Page 135 of 228 Report to Council
To: Mayor Linton and Members of Council Report: COR2021-49 Prepared By: Dan Wilson, Managing Director of Date: 30 Aug 2021 Corporate Services & Treasurer
RE: Request for Proposal # 17-21: Phone System
Recommendation: THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington award Request For Proposal #17-21: Supply, Installation and Support of Cloud Hosted Telephone System to GoCo Technology Limited Partnership as outlined in report COR2021-49 dated August 30, 2021.
Summary: The scope of work for this Request for Proposal is to provide and implement a transition from the Township’s current on premise telephone system to a cost-effective cloud based communications the and enhance willTownship’s that platform modernize communications.
Report: Background The Township has an aging on premise Skype for Business 2013 telephone system that has reached "end of life" and needs to be replaced. The Township is looking to replace this clouda with system-based telephoneeliminates for need the that solution infrastructure hardware onsite.
The new system will provide a cost effective telecommunications platform that is dynamic and flexible, easy to deploy, administer and use, has a consistent user interface for all users across multiple devices and addresses all of the current and future needs for the organization.
Purchasing Process: A website Township's the on For was Proposal Request advertised (www.centrewellington.bidsandtenders.ca). There were 43 registered Plan Takers.
20 responses were received: • Allstream • CI Networx Inc.
Page 136 of 228 • Connex Telecommunications Inc. • Execulink Telecom Inc. • Experteers Corporation • GoCo Technology • GT Global Services • Integra Data Systems Corp. • LCA Systems Inc. o/a YoVu Office Phone • Long View • Net 2 Phone Canada • Network Telecom • Record Tel Inc. • Smart IP • TA Networks Inc. • Telus Communications (C&I Technologies) • Thinktel (a division of Distributel) • Uniserve Communications • Wightman • Zoom Video Communications, Inc.
Responses were scored by the Selection Committee comprised of Dan Wilson, Managing Director of Corporate Services & Treasurer, Jeff Veniez, Manager of Information Technology, Chris Harriott, Supervisor of Information Technology and Sara Dutton, Application Support Analyst. The meetings were chaired by Sandi Wiles, Purchasing and Risk Supervisor.
In order to be considered for Stage Two of the evaluation (Fee Proposals), Proponents must have achieved a minimum (benchmark) score.
Based on the results of the proposal evaluation, it is the Selection Committee's recommendation to award this Proposal to GoCo Technology Limited Partnership.
GoCo will be providing the following: • They will provide phone lines for a Microsoft Teams phone system. • Free long distance calling within the ten Canadian Provinces and the 48 contiguous States of the USA. • Review and implement security and compliance best practices. • Project manage the phone system implementation. • 24x7 monitoring and support. • Providing desk phones at discounted pricing.
The benefits of moving to a cloud based telephone system include: • Services are available anywhere with internet access and isn’t dependent on the Township offices being online.
Page 137 of 228 • All monitoring, maintenance, and updates performed by Microsoft with no downtime or IT staff support. • With moving to the cloud, there is a reduction in hardware replacement costs. • Centralized management portal simplifies the administration of multiple systems. • A single login for staff simplifies accessing the applications.
In conjunction with this phone system implementation, IT staff will also be upgrading the Township to Office365, which was identified as a separate project, approved in the 2021 Budget. Office365 provides staff with cloud based office productivity tools. Currently, staff are using on-premise Office 2013, which is in need of an update.
Office 365 provides: • Email, Teams, SharePoint (for Intranet), Voicemail, Phone System. • Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, etc.). • Online bookings to help people schedule meetings with staff. • Online shift scheduling application to coordinate and manage staff schedules. • File sharing and collaboration tools. • Significant cloud based file storage.
The Township's Purchasing policy requires: • Council approval of any proposal call having an expected value of more than $10,000; • Proposal unit values or contents not to be disclosed and held in confidence; • A Selection Committee is to be identified and will be responsible for weighting vendor responses using established scores identified in the proposal call; and • only the final contract awarded price of the successful proponent will be available upon award.
Corporate Strategic Plan: Good Government
Financial Implications: Attachment A to this report contains the financial analysis for this proposal.
"Implementation" costs are anticipated to total $42,400 (includes non-rebate HST), and includes the purchase of phones, licensing for the remainder of 2021, and a one-time implementation cost. The approved budget for this component of the project totals $95,000, funded from the Equipment Replacement Reserve. Therefore the implementation and hardware costs are well within budget allocations.
Starting in 2022, annual operating costs associated with this system are expected to cost $9,842 (includes non-rebate HST, subject to inflationary increases). The Township's existing telephone system is costing approximately $16,300 annually, resulting in anticipated savings of $6,458 annually.
Page 138 of 228
As mentioned above, moving to a cloud based system results in reducing the need for specific IT related hardware. In addition to phone hardware, this includes a reduced need for servers. It is estimated that approximately $67,000 per year in savings will be utilized from costs associated with having an "on premise" telephone system.
A summary of the annual net savings as a result of the new telephone system are as follows:
Savings from existing phone system $ 16,300 Savings from "on premise" costs 67,000 Cost of new phone system (9,842) Cost of new phones (4,200) - assumes a 6 year life Cost of Office365 (55,000) Net Annual Savings $14,258
Consultation: This report was prepared in consultation with: • Jeff Veniez, Manager of IT • Chris Harriott, Supervisor of IT • Sara Dutton, Application Support Analyst • Sandi Wiles, Purchasing & Risk Supervisor
Attachments: ● Attachment A - Financial Analysis - Phone System
Approved By: Andy Goldie, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 139 of 228 Attachment A Project Financial Analysis RFP # 17-21: Phone System
RFP # 17-21 Results
Implementation Annual (includes annual Total (starting in 2022) costs for 2021)
Tender RFP#16-21 Results 41,667 9,672 51,339
Non-Rebate HST 733 170 903 Total Anticipated Costs 42,400 9,842 52,242
Approved Funding Equipment Replacement Reserve 95,000 - 95,000 Township Operating - Phone Annual Costs - 16,300 16,300 Total Remaining Budget 95,000 16,300 111,300
Under / (Over) Budget 52,600 6,458 59,058
Page 140 of 228 Report to Council
To: Mayor Linton and Members of Council Report: COR2021-46 Prepared By: Dan Wilson, Managing Director of Date: 30 Aug 2021 Corporate Services & Treasurer
RE: Negotiated Award: BioRem Media Replacement Project
Recommendation: THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington authorize the negotiated award for the Elora Wastewater Treatment Plant BioRem Odour Control Carbon Media Replacement to BioRem Technologies Inc. at a cost of $255,205.00, excluding HST.
AND THAT the funding for this report be revised as outlined in report COR2021-46 dated August 30, 2021.
Summary: The scope of work for the RFP includes all services related to:
• The removal and disposal of spent carbon media from dual-bed carbon vessels; • Internal inspection and condition report(s) of scrubbers, baskets, vessels and complete works / system; and • Supply and installation of replacement carbon media.
All work is scheduled to be completed between November 15 and December 17, 2021.
Report: The odour treatment system media currently being used at the Elora Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is exclusively provided by BioRem Technologies Inc. The BioRem odour treatment system is used to treat odorous air from the headworks and sludge storage areas of the Elora WWTP prior to discharge to atmosphere. It is a multi- stage filter, with the final dry polishing stage of the process completed through carbon media. Two independent reports conclude that the carbon media is spent or exhausted and requires replacement.
This work is expected to involve a vactor truck for the removal and disposal of approximately 47,000 lbs of original carbon media, inspection and report of the carbon vessels, repairs as needed, and placement of the new carbon media.
Page 141 of 228
Purchasing By-law The Township's Purchasing By-law provides that a Department Head may apply negotiation procedures when there is only one source of supply for the supplies or services, when only one source of supply is uniquely qualified to perform the work, and/or when supplies must be compatible with equipment currently being used. Due to the circumstances identified above, contract awards identified above would fall within these parameters.
Corporate Strategic Plan: Safe and Well Maintained Roads and Infrastructure
Financial Implications: The financial analysis for this project is as follows:
Anticipated costs (negotiated award) $255,205 Add: Non-rebate HST 4,492 Total Anticipated Costs $259,697 Project Budget (2021 Budget) $225,000 - Wastewater Capital Reserve Under / (Over) Budget ($34,697)
It is recommended that the project overage of $34,697 be funded from the Wastewater Capital Reserve. This reserve has an uncommitted balance of $6.7 million.
Consultation: This report was prepared in consultation with: • Colin Baker, Managing Director of Infrastructure Services • Dino Masiero, Manager of Environmental Services • Sandi Wiles, Purchasing & Risk Supervisor
Approved By: Andy Goldie, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 142 of 228 Report to Council
To: Mayor Linton and Members of Council Report: PLN2021-26 Prepared By: Brett Salmon, Managing Director of Date: 30 Aug 2021 Planning and Development
RE: Amendment to Subdivision Agreement, Plan 23T-16003 Storybrook West
Recommendation: THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute an amendment to the existing subdivision agreement pertaining to Phase 2A of Plan 23T-16003.
Report: In September of 2020, Council previously authorized the execution of a subdivision agreement for a portion of the Storybrook subdivision in northwest Fergus, which the developer has referred to as Phase 2A. The installation of the municipal services within Phase 2A was subsequently initiated pursuant to the subdivision agreement. The municipal services required to support house construction are nearing completion, and the developer has requested preliminary acceptance of these services. Phase 2A consists of a total of 267 dwelling units, including 152 single detached dwellings and 115 townhouse dwellings.
The developer has since requested consideration to create an additional stage of servicing within Phase 2A, which would provide for a further 166 dwelling units, including an additional 84 single detached dwellings and 82 semi-detached dwellings. Township staff have reviewed the proposed lotting plan and it is consistent with the draft approved plan and in compliance with the zoning by-law provisions. The Township's consulting engineers are in the process of reviewing the detailed engineering plans for the additional lots. The area to be added will connect the Storybrook and Beatty Hollow subdivisions, enhancing connectivity within the two developments.
As of the end of June of 2021, there are only 25 lots remaining for single and semi- detached dwelling units in the active subdivision developments within the Fergus Urban Centre, which includes Beatty Hollow, Storybrook East, Mod-Aire and Summerfields. The 2020 Township Development Charges Background Study anticipates approximately 166 single detached and semi-detached dwellings to be constructed in the Fergus Urban Centre annually. An additional 166 single and semi-detached lots in Phase 2A of Storybrook will provide additional needed lots. With this addition, Phase 2A will include
Page 143 of 228 318 single and semi detached units, which is an approximate 2 year supply. Other than Storybrook, there are no other draft approved plans of subdivision in the Fergus Urban Centre.
The developer's solicitor has prepared an amending agreement to accommodate the additional lands proposed within Phase 2A. The amending agreement has been reviewed by the Township's solicitors and is acceptable.
The proposed amending agreement as well as the proposed M-Plan showing all of the lands in Phase 2A with the additional units is attached. A plan showing the original proposed extent of Phase 2A is also attached.
Corporate Strategic Plan: Healthy Growth
Financial Implications: Development charge revenue from additional dwelling units
Consultation: Senior Management Team SVLaw
Attachments: ● Draft Subdivision Plan - Storybrook Phase 2 ● Storybrook Phase 2A - Amendment to the Subdivision Agreement ● Original Phase 2A
Approved By: Andy Goldie, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 144 of 228 Page 145 of 228 AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
THIS AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT made in quadruplicate this 30th day of August, 2021, pursuant to Section 51 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended.
B E T W E E N:
SORBARA TRIBUTE NIGUS HOLDINGS INC. (hereinafter called the “Developer”) PARTY OF THE FIRST PART
- and -
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF CENTRE WELLINGTON (hereinafter called the “Township”) PARTY OF THE SECOND PART
W H E R E A S:
A. The Developer and the Township entered into a Subdivision Agreement dated the 24th day of August, 2020, which Agreement was registered against the lands of the Developer as set out in Schedule “A” thereto on October 8, 2020 as Instrument No. WC612467 (the “Subdivision Agreement”); and
B. The Developer and the Township wish to amend the said Subdivision Agreement to reflect the updated draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by J.D. Barnes Limited, O.L.S., Reference No. 07-30- 566-12-PH2A.
NOW THEREFORE this Agreement witnesses that in consideration of other good and valuable consideration and the sum of Two Dollars ($2.00) of lawful money of Canada, now paid by each of the parties hereto to each of the other parties hereto, (the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged), the parties hereto agree with each other as follows:
The Subdivision Agreement shall be amended as follows:
1. Paragraph 16 of Schedule “C” Sewer and Water Allocation to the Subdivision Agreement shall be amended by deleting “267 units” and substituting the words ‘433 units”.
2. Paragraph 17 of Schedule “C” Parkland Development to the Subdivision Agreement shall be amended by deleting therefrom “Blocks 52 and 53" and substituting the words “Block 281 and 282".
3. Paragraph 18 of Schedule “C” Development of Block 49 shall be amended by deleting the reference to “Block 49" in three places on lines 1 and 3 and substituting the words “Block 278" in all three places.
4. Schedule “D” Lands to be Conveyed to Township to the Subdivision Agreement shall be deleted and the following substituted there to:
Storm Water Management Block 280 on the draft Plan Parkland Blocks 281 and 282 on the draft Plan Reserve Blocks Blocks 283, 284, 285 and 286 on the draft Plan
5. Notwithstanding what is set out in Article 7 of the Subdivision Agreement, it shall be understood and agreed between the parties that the acceptance and ownership of services may be carried out in stages with respect to the following Lots, Blocks and Streets within the updated draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by J.D. Barnes Limited, O.L.S., Reference No. 07-30-566-12-PH2A, as follows:
STAGE 1
Lots: 1 to 152 Blocks: 278 to 283
Streets: Spicer Street; Harpin Way West; Dass Drive West; Elliot Avenue West (south of Spicer Street) and Farley Road.
Page 146 of 228 2
STAGE 2
Lots: 153 to 277 Blocks: 284 to 286 Streets: Rea Drive; Povey Road and Elliot Avenue West (north of Spicer Street).
6. Schedule “C” of the Subdivision Agreement shall be amended by adding the following additional paragraph:
21. The purchasers of all units within “future Blocks 164 and 165” which blocks are presently proposed to be created within the east end of Block 278 and south-east of Block 279 are advised of the following:
Warning Clause Type E
“Occupants are advised that due to the proximity of the proposed pumping station to be located within Block 182 on Plan 61M-223, sound levels from the facility may be audile at times”
7. All other terms of the Subdivision Agreement shall remain the same and unamended, save and except as set out above.
8. Counterparts and electronic transmission
This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which so executed shall be deemed to be an original and such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same agreement. This Agreement, or its counterparts, may be sent and received by facsimile or similar electronic transmission and the communication by such means will be legal and binding on all parties.
9. Enurement
This Agreement and the covenants, provisions and conditions herein contained shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have affixed their corporate seal under the hand of their prior officers or set their hand and seal.
SORBARA TRIBUTE NIGUS HOLDINGS INC. Per:
______Edward K. Sorbara
I have the authority to bind the Corporation
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF CENTRE WELLINGTON
Per:
______Kelly Linton, Mayor
Per:
______Kerri O’Kane, Clerk
We have the authority to bind the Corporation.
Page 147 of 228 Page 148 of 228 Report to Council
To: Mayor Linton and Members of Council Report: COR2021-51 Prepared By: Dan Wilson, Managing Director of Date: 30 Aug 2021 Corporate Services & Treasurer
RE: Tender Award Amendment: Tender #11-21 - Construction of Municipal Services: St. David Street North (Highway 6) and Sideroad 18, Fergus
Recommendation: THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington authorize the Request for Tender award amendment, Tender #11-21 regarding the Construction of Municipal Services: St. David Street North (Highway 6) and Sideroad 18, Fergus, as outlined in report COR2021-51 dated August 30, 2021, to be funded from developer contributions.
Summary:
Report: Township staff brought report COR2021-30 to Council on May 25, 2021 recommending the award of Contract RFT-11-21 regarding the Construction of Municipal Services: St. David Street North (Highway 6) and Sideroad 18, Fergus to Network Sewer and Watermain Ltd. Council approved the award at a contract price of $1,865,149.52 including contingency and excluding HST.
The contract work includes the construction of municipal services: St. David Street North (Highway No. 6) from 200m north of Sideroad 19 to Sideroad 18 and Sideroad 18 from St. David Street North (Highway No. 6) to 75m west of St. David Street North (Highway No. 6), former Town of Fergus, as follows:
Section 1: St David Street North • Watermain Including Restoration, Sanitary Sewer Including Restoration.
Section 2: Sideroad 18 • Earth Excavation, Granular Base, Hot Mix Asphalt, Watermain, Sanitary Sewer, Concrete Curb and Gutter, and Concrete Sidewalk.
Page 149 of 228 The Township has received an encroachment permit from the Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO) to allow the municipality to construct and maintain the extension of municipal watermain and sanitary sewer within the MTO road allowance on Highway 6.
A private developer has requested the extension of municipal watermain and sanitary sewer services to the property located at 961 St. David Street North, Fergus (see Attachment A to this report for a location map). This work would include two underground crossings below St. David Street North (Highway 6) to bring services from the east side of Highway 6 over to the west side in order to service the property at 961 St. David St. The proposed servicing extensions would be installed using two separate underground trenchless crossings and would primarily include a 32 m long 150mm diameter sanitary sewer and a 30.5 m long 150mm diameter watermain within a 300mm diameter steel casing pipe.
Network Sewer and Watermain Ltd. was approached by Township staff and has agreed to add this additional scope of work to the original awarded contract.
The Township’s current MTO encroachment permit only covers the municipal servicing extension along Highway 6 in the MTO right of way. The permit does not currently include the 961 St. David Street North servicing extension. The Township has asked the MTO to amend the existing encroachment permit to include this servicing.
The Township has obtained a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) for the construction dewatering required for both the original municipal servicing as well as for the additional 961 St. David Street North servicing extension. The PTTW expires on December 30, 2021 as it’s only valid for one construction season. This means that both the municipal servicing construction and the 961 servicing extension will need to be completed by the end of this year.
Corporate Strategic Plan: Safe and Well Maintained Roads and Infrastructure
Financial Implications: Township staff have received a quote from Network Sewer and Watermain Ltd. for the additional costs associated with the construction of the 961 St. David Street North servicing extension.
The total cost of the work is estimated at $641,326.16, including construction costs, engineering fees, contract administration, material testing, Township project management, crop damage compensation, chemical analysis for excess soil management and contingency allowance (however excluding HST).
The developer is required to submit a deposit to the Township for the value of 120% of the estimated cost plus non-rebate HST which amounts to $781,000.00calculated as follows:
Page 150 of 228
Total Contract Price (excluding HST) $641,326.16 Add 20% 128,265.23 Total Contract Price x 120% 769,591.39 Add: Non-rebate HST 11,287.34 Total Owner’s Deposit 780,878.73 Rounded $781,000.00
The developer has had an opportunity to review the Network Sewer and Watermain Ltd. quote and has confirmed that they accept the cost estimates and want to proceed with the work. The Township is currently in the process of preparing a Service Financing Commitment Agreement (SFCA) for the work.
The SFCA will be conditional upon receiving the amended MTO encroachment permit, and upon verifying that there is sufficient time for Network Sewer and Watermain Ltd. to be able to construct the servicing extension as well as the original municipal servicing scope of work during this construction season. If these conditions are met and the developer submits the required deposit, Township staff will be able to execute the SFCA with the developer. Once the SFCA is executed, the Township will be able to issue a formal Change Order to Network Sewer and Watermain Ltd., instructing them to proceed with the construction of the servicing extension at 961 St. David Street North as an extra to the current contract.
There are no financial implications to the Township for this award amendment. All additional costs will be funded from the developer. Final actual project costs will be determined by the Township after the work is completed. If the final actual costs are greater than the deposit amount, the developer will be required to pay the difference.
Consultation: This report has been prepared in consultation with: • Colin Baker, Managing Director of Infrastructure Services • Adam Gilmore, Manager of Engineering • Stephanie Rossi, Asset Management and Capital Project Manager • Sandi Wiles, Purchasing & Risk Supervisor
Attachments: ● Attachment A - Location Map - 961 St David Street North
Approved By: Andy Goldie, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 151 of 228 Attachment A
© Township of Centre Wellington, MNR, GRCA, County of Wellington
961 St. David Street North, Fergus
Sourc es: Data provided herein is deri ved from sources with varying levels of Parcel Fabri c: Welli ngton County, 2020. Teranet, 2002. accuracy and currency. This is not a survey product. The Township 0 0.0 375 0.0 75 km Orthophotography: MNR, 2010. of Centre Wellington dis claim s all responsibi lity for the ac curacy or May incl ude material ©2021 The Queen's Printer for Ontario, compl eteness of inform ation contained herein. The Township of County of Wel lington and the Grand River Conservation Authority. Centre Well ington assumes no responsibili ty for errors arising from 1:2,613 use of these mapping products. All rights reserved. May not be Date Saved: 2021-08-12 1:17:52 P M reproduced without permission. O © The Townshi p of Centre Well ington, County of Wellington.
Page 152 of 228 Report to Council
To: Mayor Linton and Members of Council Report: COR2021-47 Prepared By: Dan Wilson, Managing Director of Date: 30 Aug 2021 Corporate Services & Treasurer
RE: Request for Proposal # 22-21: New Well Exploration
Recommendation: THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington award Request For Proposal #22-21: New Well Exploration to Stantec Consulting Ltd. at a total upset limit of $344,053.00, excluding HST.
Summary: The intent of this RFP is to retain a qualified Consultant team to undertake a New Well Exploration Program (NWEP). The purpose of the NWEP is to identify, test, and confirm suitable sites for new water supply wells.
Report: Background The combined Fergus and Elora Water Supply system currently consists of six (6) wells in Fergus and three (3) wells in Elora. As outlined in the Township’s 2019 Water Supply Master Plan (WSMP), additional groundwater well sites are needed to supplement existing water supply capacity and accommodate population and employment growth to the 2041 timeframe.
The project will consist of the following major study objectives: • Review and summarize background information; • Identify drilling sites; • Develop a detailed work plan for drilling and testing; • Prepare and submit Permit to Take Water applications for well testing; • Prepare technical specifications for the drilling and testing program; • Coordinate and oversee drilling and testing activities in the field; • Analyze test well performance and provide conclusions and recommendations related to future supply well viability; • Prepare an implementation strategy and high-level cost estimate to construct the new wells and connect them to the Township’s existing water supply network (including required facilities,atment processes, water and pumping and tre distribution infrastructure); and,
Page 153 of 228 • Document all data, conclusions, and recommendations in a Final Report.
Purchasing Process: A Request For Proposal was advertised on the Township's website (www.centrewellington.bidsandtenders.ca). There were 13 registered Plan Takers.
3 responses were received.
• C.F. Crozier & Associates Inc. • CIMA Canada Inc. • Stantec Consulting Ltd.
Responses were scored by the Selection Committee comprised of Colin Baker, Managing Director of Infrastructure Services, Adam Gilmore, Manager of Engineering, Dino Masiero, Manager of Environmental Services. The meeting was chaired by Sandi Wiles, Purchasing and Risk Supervisor.
Identified criteria in the proposal included: • Proponent Overview & Qualification • Project Manager Qualifications • Project Team Technical Expertise • Project Understanding, Approach & Methodology • Project Management/Workplan • Fees
In order to be considered for Stage 2 of the evaluation (Fees Proposal), Proponents must have achieved a minimum (benchmark) total score of 56 out of 80.
Based on the results of the proposal evaluation, it is the Selection Committee's recommendation to award this Proposal to Stantec Consulting Ltd. at a contract price of $344,053.00, excluding HST.
Corporate Strategic Plan: Safe, Well-Maintained Roads & Infrastructure • Protection of the Township's Long-Term Water Supply
Financial Implications: Please see Attachment A to this report for the project financial analysis.
This project requires a future construction phase, which will go through another procurement process. However total anticipated project costs fall within approved budget funding.
This project is funded from debt. Future debt principal and interest payments will be 100% funded from development charges.
Page 154 of 228 Consultation: This report was prepared in consultation with: • Colin Baker, Managing Director of Infrastructure Services • Adam Gilmore, Manager of Engineering • Dino Masiero, Manager of Environmental Services • Sandi Wiles, Purchasing & Risk Supervisor
Attachments: ● Attachment A - Financial Analysis for New Well Exploration Program
Approved By: Andy Goldie, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 155 of 228 Attachment A Project Financial Analysis RFP # 22-21: New Well Exploration Program
Total
330-0805
Tender RFP#22-21 Results 344,053.00
Costs Incurred to Date - as at August 19, 2021 33,999.00 Non-Rebate HST 6,055.33 Total Anticipated Costs 384,107.33
Future Project Phases Construction Estimate 1,986,000.00 Non-Rebate HST 34,953.60 Total - Future Phases 2,020,953.60
Total Anticipated Project Costs 2,405,060.93
Approved Funding Debt Funding (Growth Related) 2,420,000.00 Total Approved Budget 2,420,000.00
Under / (Over) Budget 14,939.07
Page 156 of 228 Report to Council
To: Mayor Linton and Members of Council Report: COR2021-45 Prepared By: Lisa Miller, Supervisor of Customer Date: 30 Aug 2021 Service & Deputy Municipal Clerk
RE: Application for Toll Booth - Elora Firefighters
Recommendation: THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington authorizes the Mayor and Clerk to execute a by-law authorizing a fundraising activity in the form of soliciting by a toll booth on Metcalfe Street in Elora, on Saturday, September 18, 2021 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. by the Elora Firefighters Association on behalf of Muscular Dystrophy Canada.
Report: A request has been received from the Elora Firefighters Association to conduct a fundraising activity in the form of soliciting by a toll booth at the Metcalfe Street bridge in Elora on Saturday, September 18, 2021.
In accordance with the Safe Streets Act, 1999 S.O 1990.c.8, toll booths are permitted subject to specific conditions. Fundraising by charities is permitted providing the following conditions are met:
1. They are conducted by a charitable organization registered under the Income Tax Act (Canada) on a roadway where the maximum speed limit is 50 kilometres per hour; and
2. They are permitted by a by-law of the municipality in which the activities are conducted.
The Township also requires the service club to provide a) a special event permit application, approved by the Managing Director of Infrastructure; b) confirmation from the OPP they have been notified of the event and c) a certificate of insurance in favour of the Township of Centre Wellington and the County of Wellington.
The applicant has provided a special event permit application and certificate of insurance and has submitted notification to the OPP. The Elora Firefighters Association will be fundraising on behalf of Muscular Dystrophy Canada.
Page 157 of 228 The County of Wellington Roads Committee and the Wellington County Police Services Board have provided letters in support of the operation of toll booths throughout Wellington County, provided the terms of the amended Safe Street Act and the Highway Traffic Act are adhered to in all locations.
Attachments: ● 21-xx Toll Booth Elora Firefighters
Approved By: Dan Wilson, Managing Director of Corporate Services & Treasurer Andy Goldie, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 158 of 228 The Corporation of the Township of Centre Wellington
By-law 2021-xx
A By-law to authorize a fund raising activity in the form of soliciting by a toll booth on the Metcalfe Street Bridge in Elora
Whereas it is only lawful to solicit persons in or on a stopped, standing or parked vehicle on a roadway pursuant to subsection 3(3) of the Safe Streets Act, 1999, S.O. 1999, c.8 if the fund raising activity is conducted by a charitable organization registered under the Income Tax Act (Canada) on a roadway where the maximum speed limit is 50 kilometres per hour and the fund raising activity is authorized by a By-law of the municipality in which the activity is conducted;
And Whereas the Elora Firefighters have for many years raised funds for many projects beneficial to the local community by means of a toll booth on the Metcalfe Street Bridge located in Elora and wishes to continue its fund raising activities in a lawful manner;
And Whereas Muscular Dystrophy Canada, being a registered charity under the Income Tax Act (Canada), has authorized the Elora Firefighters to fund raise for that organization and for this purpose the Elora Firefighters intend to operate a toll booth on the Metcalfe Street Bridge located in Elora on Saturday, September 18, 2021;
And Whereas the Elora Firefighters have undertaken to raise funds at its proposed toll booth in 2021 exclusively for that registered charitable organization and to provide evidence to the Township that the funds raised will be delivered exclusively to that registered charitable organization.
Now Therefore the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Centre Wellington hereby enacts as follows:
1. The fund raising activity by solicitation as contemplated in the Safe Streets Act, 1999 to be undertaken by members of the Elora Firefighters on behalf of Muscular Dystrophy Canada, a registered charity, as described in section 2, is hereby authorized.
2. The fund raising activity:
(a) is conducted by Muscular Dystrophy Canada, being a registered charity under the Income Tax Act (Canada), through members of the Elora Firefighters;
(b) shall be authorized in writing by the road authority, being the County of Wellington and or the Township of Centre Wellington; and,
(c) shall only take place on Saturday, September 18, 2021 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
3. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of its final passing.
Read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 30th day of August, 2021.
Mayor – Kelly Linton Clerk – Kerri O’Kane
Page 159 of 228 Report to Council
To: Mayor Linton and Members of Council Report: COR2021-23 Prepared By: Dan Wilson, Managing Director of Date: 30 Aug 2021 Corporate Services & Treasurer
RE: Request for Proposal # 32-21: Well F7 Filtration System
Recommendation: THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington award Request For Proposal #32-21: Supply of Well FPH7 Iron Filtration System to Magnor at a total upset limit of $240,590.90, including provisional items and contingency, excluding HST.
Summary: The scope of work for this RFP includes the supply of a pressure filtration package system for iron treatment and removal at the Well FPH7 facility, located at 6538 Beatty Line North.
Report: The Township’s municipal drinking water system consists of nine (9) productions wells, one of which is known as FPH7 which is located at 6538 Beatty Line North in Fergus. The raw water from FPH7 has iron concentrations that are above the aesthetic objective of 0.3 mg/L listed in the Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines. Typical iron concentrations in raw water from well FPH7 range from 0.3 to 0.5 mg/L.
In order to reduce iron concentrations in treated drinking water, the Township has retained an engineering consultant (C3 Water) to identify a preferred option for treatment and to assist with the design and procurement of a treatment solution. Through this study, it was recommended that a chemical oxidation filtration system be installed at FPH7 to reduce iron concentrations in treated drinking water.
Through discussions with C3 Water, it was determined that a procurement process be initiated to source the specialized equipment needed for this system. Once the equipment has been secured, a separate procurement process will be required to install this equipment.
Once this RFP has been awarded, production of the filtration system can commence, which is expected to take up to 36 weeks to manufacture. Based on the current schedule, the second procurement process (a Request for Tender) to install the filtration system is set for April 2022 with construction to commence in June 2022. It is expected that the
Page 160 of 228 filter will be put into operation by September 2022 with substantial completion being targeted for November 2022.
Purchasing Process: A Request For Proposal was advertised on the Township's website (www.centrewellington.bidsandtenders.ca). There were 13 registered Plan Takers.
Six (6) responses were received.
• Bi Pure Water Inc. • California Environmentals (Water by Pureflow) • Loprest, a division of Water Remediation Technology • Magnor • Napier Reid Ltd. • WesTech Engineering
Responses were scored by the Selection Committee comprised of Adam Gilmore, Manager of Engineering, Dino Masiero, Manager of Environmental Services, Brandon Buehler, Environmental Technologist - Water/Wastewater, Rick Chilton, Water Services Supervisor, and the Township consultant, C3 Water. The meetings were chaired by Sandi Wiles, Purchasing and Risk Supervisor.
In order to be considered for Stage Three of the evaluation (Fee Proposals), Proponents must have achieved a minimum (benchmark) score. The compliant Proposal meeting the benchmark with the lowest Total Contract Price will be recommended for the award of the contract.
Based on the results of the proposal evaluation, it is the Selection Committee's recommendation to award this Proposal to Magnor at a contract price of $240,590.90, including provisional items and contingency, excluding HST.
The Township's Purchasing policy requires: • Council approval of any proposal call having an expected value of more than $10,000; • Proposal unit values or contents not to be disclosed and held in confidence; • A Selection Committee is to be identified and will be responsible for weighting vendor responses using established scores identified in the proposal call; and • only the final contract awarded price of the successful proponent will be available upon award.
Corporate Strategic Plan: Safe and Well Maintained Roads and Infrastructure • Protect the Township's long-term water supply
Page 161 of 228 Financial Implications: Please see the attached Financial Analysis for this project (Attachment A).
The Well F7 Filtration capital project has budget of $1,990,000. This budget is anticipated to fund all project costs, including design, contract administration, purchase of the filtration system, and installation of the system.
This project is funded 25% from Development Charges and 75% from the Water Capital Reserve.
This project was discussed and topped up during the 2021 Budget process. The total specific anticipated costs for this project are estimates at this time, however staff will have a better understanding of these costs after detailed design is completed.
As outlined in Attachment A, anticipated project costs are significantly under budget. Initially the project budget was based on a biological filtration system that would have required significant structural modification to the building in order for the filter to fit, however as staff advanced the design, consideration was given to alternative filter types and found that a chemical oxidation filter will provide the same results at a lower capital cost and not require any building modifications. After a thorough review and conducting site visits from other municipalities that operate these types of filters, staff decided to proceed with the chemical oxidation filter therefore reducing the overall capital costs for the project.
Consultation: This report was prepared in consultation with: • Colin Baker, Managing Director of Infrastructure Services • Adam Gilmore, Manager of Engineering • Brandon Buehler, Engineering Technologist • Sandi Wiles, Purchasing & Risk Supervisor
Attachments: ● Attachment A - Financial Analysis for Well F7 Filtration
Approved By: Andy Goldie, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 162 of 228 Attachment A Project Financial Analysis RFP # 32-21: Well F7 Filtration System
Total
Tender RFP#32-21 Results 240,590.90
Outstanding Invoices (C3 Water) 12,074.68 Costs Incurred to Date - as at August 20, 2021 215,130.00 Non-Rebate HST 4,446.91 Total Anticipated Costs 472,242.49
Future Project Phases Contract Administration (C3 Water) 112,616.48 Eramosa Engineering - SCADA Integration 35,726.25 Construction Estimate 742,310.18 Non-Rebate HST 15,675.49 Total - Future Phases 906,328.40
Total Anticipated Project Costs 1,378,570.90
Approved Funding Water Capital Reserve 1,492,500.00 Development Charges 497,500.00 Total Approved Budget 1,990,000.00
Under / (Over) Budget 611,429.10 Page 163 of 228 Report to Council
To: Mayor Linton and Members of Council Report: COR2021-52 Prepared By: Lisa Miller, Supervisor of Customer Date: 30 Aug 2021 Service & Deputy Municipal Clerk
RE: Application for Noise By-law Exemption - Perchaluk and DiMambro
Recommendation: THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington approves the request from Justin Perchaluk for an exemption to By-law 5001-05, the Noise By-law for the Township of Centre Wellington, to permit the amplification of music at 7248 Wellington Rd 21, Ariss on September 4, 2021 between 11:00 pm and 1:00 am for a Wedding Reception;
AND THAT the applicant ensure neighbouring property owners are notified in advance of the event.
AND
THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington approves the request from Darla Dimambro for an exemption to By-law 5001-05, the Noise By-law for the Township of Centre Wellington, to permit the amplification of music at 7248 Wellington Rd 21, Ariss on September 8, 2021 between 11:00 pm and 1:00 am for a Wedding Reception;
AND THAT the applicant ensure neighbouring property owners are notified in advance of the event.
Report: A request has been received from Justin Perchaluk for an exemption to the Township's Noise By-law 5001-05 to permit the amplification of music at 7248 Wellington Rd 21, Ariss in the Hamlet of Inverhaugh on September 4, 2021 between 11:00 pm and 1:00 am for his Wedding Reception.
A second request has been received from Darla Dimambro for an exemption to the Township's Noise By-law 5001-05 to permit the amplification of music at 7248 Wellington Rd 21, Ariss in the Hamlet of Inverhaugh on September 8, 2021 between 11:00 pm and 1:00 am for her Wedding Reception.
Page 164 of 228 The Property Owner has granted permission for each applicant to apply for the noise by- law exemption on their property. Occasional Uses, such as weddings and other events are permitted in any zone on a property as per the zoning by-law.
Further, both the applicants and the property owner have been notified of the requirement to notify the neighbours prior to the event should Council approve the request.
Corporate Strategic Plan:
Consultation: Planning & Development
Approved By: Andy Goldie, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 165 of 228 Report to Council
To: Mayor Linton and Members of Council Report: PLN2021-28 Prepared By: Brett Salmon, Managing Director of Date: 30 Aug 2021 Planning and Development
RE: Part Lot Control Exemption By-law, Lots 54, 55, and 69 to 72, Plan 61M-235
Recommendation: THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington give three readings to a By-law to exempt Lots 54, 55, 69, 70, 71 and 72 of Plan 61M-235 from the part lot control provisions of the Planning Act.
Report: Wrighthaven Homes has made application for a part lot control exemption by-law to apply to Lots 54, 55, 69, 70, 71 and 72 of Plan 61M-235, which are on Halls Drive within the Granwood subdivision in Elora. The lots in question are intended to accommodate a total of 12 semi-detached dwellings.
Part lot control exemption is the means by which one semi-detached lot is divided into two individual lots for transfer to the purchaser. Semi-detached dwellings are already under construction on Lots 55, 70 and 72. The proposed lots are in compliance with the requirements of the Township zoning by-law. According to the applicant's agent, there are scheduled closings in September 2021
If passed, the by-law is submitted to the County of Wellington for approval, and once approved by the County it is registered on title, then conveyances can take place.
Corporate Strategic Plan: Healthy Growth
Attachments: ● 61R22033 ● PLC Exemption_plan61m235_semis
Approved By: Andy Goldie, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 166 of 228 PLAN 61R-22033 Received and deposited July 7th, 2021 Joanne Hansen
Representative for the Land Registrar for the Land Titles Division of Wellington (No.61) Page 167 of228 CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF CENTRE WELLINGTON
BY-LAW NO. 2021-xx
A By-law to exempt Lots 54, 55, 69, 70, 71 and 72 of Plan 61M235, Township of Centre Wellington, from the Part Lot Control provisions of the Planning Act
WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Centre Wellington deems it desirable to exempt certain lots within Plan 61M-235, Township of Centre Wellington, from Part Lot Control pursuant to Subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990,
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Centre Wellington hereby enacts as follows:
1. Upon the effective date of this By-law, Subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 shall not apply to Lots 54, 55, 69, 70, 71 and 72 of Plan 61M-235, more particularly described as Parts 1 through 14 according to Reference Plan 61R- 22033.
2. This By-law shall come into effect upon final approval by the County of Wellington pursuant to subsection 50(7.1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended and upon registration of the By-law in the Land Registry Office pursuant to subsection 50(28).
3. The Clerk is directed to forward this by-law to the County of Wellington for approval.
4. This By-law shall expire separately for each exempted part on the date of initial conveyance of the part until all parts are initially conveyed, or upon the date of 36 months from the day of final approval of this By-law by the County of Wellington for those parts which have not been initially conveyed, whichever date is the earlier.
READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS 30th DAY OF AUGUST, 2021.
MAYOR CLERK
READ A THIRD TIME AND PASSED THIS 30th DAY OF AUGUST, 2021.
MAYOR CLERK
Page 168 of 228 Report to Council
To: Mayor Linton and Members of Council Report: PLN2021-23 Prepared By: Brett Salmon, Managing Director of Date: 30 Aug 2021 Planning and Development
RE: Consideration Report Draft Plan of Subdivision 23T-18005
Recommendation: THAT the Council of the Township of Centre Wellington recommends to the County of Wellington that proposed draft plan of subdivision 23T-18005 be granted draft approval, subject to the conditions set out in staff report PLN2021-23.
Report: The County of Wellington has received an application for approval of a draft plan of subdivision within the Hamlet of Inverhaugh. The proposed draft plan of subdivision includes 40 lots for single detached dwellings as well as blocks for open space, storm water management and emergency access. Lots sizes range from 1,957 square metres to 3,030 square metres. Servicing is to be via individual private well and septic systems.
The draft plan of subdivision submission included a number of reports and technical studies, including:
• Planning Report; Astrid J. Clos Planning Consultants; December 14, 2018 • Preliminary Overall Grading and Servicing Plan; GMBluePlan Engineering, December 12, 2018 • Functional Servicing Report, GMBluePlan Engineering, December 11, 2018 • Hydrogeological Study, GMBluePlan Engineering, September 10, 2018 • Noise Impact Study, Aercoustics Engineering Limited, December 13, 2018 • Environmental Impact Study, Natural Resource Solutions Inc.(NRSI), January 2019 • Transportation Assessment, Savini Consulting Inc., August 23, 2018
The Planning Report can be found in the appendices.
Public and Agency Consultation
Page 169 of 228 The draft plan of subdivision was circulated to the prescribed persons, agencies and public bodies by the County of Wellington early in 2019. The first submission reports and plans have been reviewed by the Township’s consulting engineers. The Township held a public meeting on the County’s behalf regarding this draft plan of subdivision on July 17, 2019.
Subsequent to the public meeting, the developer’s consulting team considered the oral and written subdivisions made prior to the public meeting as well as comments made by agencies and public bodies. A second submission was filed in June of 2020, which was circulated to the relevant agencies and public bodies. The second submission included a response to comments made, which is also included in the appendices.
Township and agency review of the second submission resulted in further engineering submissions but there have been no further revisions to the June 2020 draft plan.
At this time, Township staff are prepared to recommend that the County of Wellington grant conditional approval of this proposed draft plan of subdivision.
Planning Review
The policy review of this application includes a review of the applicable County OP provisions. For the purposes of the policy review, it is the second submission that forms the basis for review.
County of Wellington Official Plan
The subject land is within the Hamlet of Inverhaugh as designated by the County of Wellington Official Plan. Within the County OP, Hamlets are part of the urban system,that includes both Hamlets and Urban Centres.
The proposed subdivision is in conformity with the Hamlet policies in Section 7.4 of the County OP. Hamlets are expected to build out over time, but there are limited opportunities for further growth beyond their current boundaries. The primary residential use is to be low density single detached units, which the subject application proposes. The open spaces uses proposed in the draft plan are also permitted within hamlets.
The subject land also includes elements of the County Greenlands System. The applicant has prepared an Environmental Impact Study which has been reviewed on behalf of the County of Wellington. The Grand River Conservation Authority does not object to this development and has provided draft approval conditions.
Provincial Policy Statement
The 2020 PPSt has provided applies sufficient to this application. The applican information to demonstrate that the proposal is consistent with the PPS.
Page 170 of 228
Overall the 2020 PPS manages and directs land uses to achieve efficient land use patterns. Settlement areas are the focus of growth and development, and settlement areas include cities, towns, villages and hamlets. The PPS recognizes that there are a diversity of rural areas in the Province, and within rural areas it is the rural settlement areas such as Inverhaugh that should be the focus of growth and development.
The engineering reports, plans, and impact studies are sufficient to demonstrate that the proposed draft plan is consistent with the additional PPS provisions related to public spaces; infrastructure; sewage, water and stormwater; and transportation.
An Environmental Impact Study has been prepared in order to address the Natural Heritage and Natural Hazard provisions of the PPS. In terms of the Mineral Aggregate Resource provisions of the PPS, the subject property is presently a portion of a licensed aggregate operation, and the conversion of the land for residential development in accordance with the Hamlet policies is an acceptable form of rehabilitation.
Archaeological clearance for this site was obtained prior to approval of the aggregate extraction operation. There are no identified significant built heritage resources or significant cultural heritage landscapes within or adjacent to the subject land.
Growth Plan
The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe applies to the subject development. The Growth Plan was amended in 2020 and the amended Growth Plan applies at the time the decision is made.
The proposed draft plan is in conformity with the Growth Plan. The policies for where and how to grow direct that the majority of forecasted growth be allocated to settlement areas with municipal water and wastewater systems, while recognizing limited growth in rural settlements such as Inverhaugh. Other provisions of the Growth Plan related to Water Resources, Natural Heritage Systems, Cultural Heritage Resources and Mineral Aggregate Resources are comparable to, and provide for the same outcome as the provisions of the PPS.
Conclusion
The applicant has submitted adequate plans and reports to demonstrate that the application conforms to the County of Wellington Official Plan, conforms to the current Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and is consistent with the current PPS.
Appropriate regard has been had for the matters set out in Section 51(24) of the Planning Act as well as subsection 10.1.3 of the County Official Plan, as described below:
• The proposed lot are consistent with official plan policies and zoning regulations;
Page 171 of 228 • The lots can be adequately serviced with water, sewage disposal, stormwater management or drainage, fire protection, roads and utilities to accepted municipal standards; • The lots will have safe driveway access to an all-season maintained public road; • The topography, soils and drainage of the site are satisfactory for the lot sizes and uses proposed; • Tree loss related to anticipated development be kept to a minimum and be compensated for by new tree planting; • Natural heritage features are not affected negatively; • No lots are created in areas which would pose a threat to public health or safety; • Agricultural lands and mineral aggregates would not be affected adversely; • The size and shape of proposed lots is suitable; • The proposed lots and uses are compatible with and designed to minimize adverse impacts on surrounding uses; • The lots have logical lot lines given existing lot patterns in the area, natural and human-made features; • The development will have adequate access to community facilities based on reasonable standards for the area; • Creation of the lots fulfils the need for the planned build out of the Hamlet and to meet the rural portion of the County Growth Strategy; • Provincial legislation and policies can be met. In addition to the comments addressed by the developer's consultant, Township staff have reviewed some of the comments raised at the public meeting related to parks and open space, and pedestrian safety. Regarding parks and open space, the Township has not been requiring the dedication of parkland within hamlet estate subdivisions for a number of years. From a review of subdivisions registered in the pre-amalgamation municipalities, one subdivision in Belwood registered in 1978 (Plan 403, Douglas Crescent) includes a park block but Plan 426 registered in 1990 does not. Plan 811 in Ennotville registered in 1990 contains a passive park block. None of the recent subdivisions in Inverhaugh including Plan 731 (Inverhaugh Rd), Plan 838 (Quarrie Dr) and Plan 61M-232 (Goodwin Pl) include a park block. The staff recommendation is to accept cash-in-lieu of parkland instead of a parkland dedication. Even without a dedicated park block, there will be a substantial conveyance of open space to the Township as a result of the storm water management areas. Regarding pedestrian safety, the Township's current development standards will require a sidewalk within the development. Pedestrian connections to JM Quarrie Drive will also be provided. The developer has proposed a trail system to connect the open spaces within the subdivision. It may be possible through the acquisition of other private lands to connect this trail system to Inverhaugh Road. The recent paving of Sideroad 4 has also resulted in additional separation of the travelled lanes from the shoulder.
Draft Approval Conditions
Should Council support draft plan approval, the Township should also request a number of conditions of approval in order to ensure that development is carried out in accordance
Page 172 of 228 with the plans and reports filed in support of the application. These are set out in an attachment to this report.
Further Approvals
An amendment to the Township Zoning By-law is also required in order for this development to proceed. If the subdivision received draft plan approval, a report to Council regarding the proposed zoning by-law amendment will be brought forward for consideration.
Corporate Strategic Plan: Healthy Growth
Financial Implications: Collection of development charges and taxation from new residences
Consultation: As per the Planning Act requirements
Attachments: ● Pasture Edge Conditions ● Inverhaugh Draft Plan of Subdivision (R) ● 1705.PLANNING REPORT ● 1705.Planning Report Addendum ● Proposed Trail Plan (A)
Approved By: Andy Goldie, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 173 of 228 1. THAT prior to final approval by the County of Wellington, the proposed final plan be given review and acceptance by the Township of Centre Wellington.
2. THAT prior to final approval by the County of Wellington, the County is to be advised by the Township of Centre Wellington that appropriate zoning is in effect for this proposed subdivision.
3. THAT any dead ends, day-lighting triangles at street intersections and open sides of road allowances created by this draft plan shall be terminated in 0.3 metre reserves to be conveyed to, and held in trust, by the Township of Centre Wellington.
4. THAT the Owner enter into a written subdivision agreement with the Township of Centre Wellington and that the subdivision agreement be registered by the Township of Centre Wellington against the lands to which it applies; and further, that a copy of the subdivision agreement as registered be forwarded to the County of Wellington.
5. THAT prior to any grading or construction on the site and prior to registration of the plan, the owners or their agents submit the following plans and reports to the satisfaction of the Grand River Conservation Authority.
a) A Final Stormwater Management Report in accordance with the 2003 Ministry of Environment Report entitled, “Stormwater Management Practices Planning and Design Manual” and in keeping with the Functional Servicing Report (dated May 27, 2020, revised December 2020, GM BluePlan)
b) Detailed Lot Grading and Drainage Plans showing existing and proposed grades.
c) An Erosion and Siltation Control Plan in accordance with the Grand River Conservation Authority's Guidelines for sediment and erosion control, indicating the means whereby erosion will be minimized and silt maintained on-site throughout all phases of grading and construction.
d) The submission and approval of a Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses permit from the GRCA prior to any grading within the regulated area.
6. THAT the Subdivision Agreement between the Owner and the Township of Centre Wellington contain provisions acceptable to the Township of Centre Wellington and to the Grand River Conservation Authority for the completion and maintenance of the works in accordance with the approved plans and reports noted in the condition above throughout all phases of grading and construction.
7. THAT the Subdivision Agreement between the Owner and the Township of Centre Wellington contain provisions acceptable to the Township of Centre Wellington that the Purchase and Sale Agreement contain a clause to advise purchasers that lots will be serviced by private individual potable water and tertiary sewage disposal
Page 174 of 228 systems, and to identify the maintenance requirements of these systems.
8. THAT the Subdivision Agreement between the Owner and the Township of Centre Wellington shall contain provisions acceptable to the Township of Centre Wellington to ensure that final design of each onsite sewage system shall be completed by a licensed contractor certified by the Province of Ontario for design of such systems. An OBC-approved tertiary septic system which has the capability of removing nitrate concentrations to a maximum of 20 mg/L is required for each lot. All septic systems shall be placed in the rear yards and water supply wells shall be placed in front yards, or as specified by the design for each lot.
9. THAT the Subdivision Agreement between the Owner and the Township of Centre Wellington shall contain provisions acceptable to the Township of Centre Wellington to ensure that the private wells constructed on each lot meet the requirements of Ontario Regulation 903 and must provide a minimum well yield of 4 IGPM without storage or provide supplemental storage for wells yielding less than 4 IGPM.
10.THAT the Subdivision Agreement between the Owner and the Township of Centre Wellington shall contain provisions acceptable to the Township of Centre Wellington to ensure that unused wells on the property shall be decommissioned according to the requirements of Ontario Regulation 903.
11.THAT the Owner agrees in writing to satisfy all the requirements, financial and otherwise, of the Township of Centre Wellington concerning the provision of roads and street signs, installation of services and drainage.
12.THAT the road allowances included in this draft plan shall be shown and dedicated as public highways.
13.THAT the streets within the subdivision shall be named to the satisfaction of the Township of Centre Wellington and those street names shall not be a duplicate in spelling or phonetic sounding of street names elsewhere in the County of Wellington.
14.THAT Blocks 41, 42, 43 and 44 on the draft plan of subdivision shall be conveyed to the Corporation of the Township of Centre Wellington.
15.THAT the Owner satisfies the requirements of the Township of Centre Wellington for parkland dedication as provided for under the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended.
16.THAT prior to the commencement of any grading, site alteration or construction, a Tree Preservation Plan and Landscape Compensation Plan be prepared in accordance with the recommendations of the Environmental Impact Study and Addendum prepared by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. dated June 12, 2020 to the satisfaction of the Township and the County.
Page 175 of 228 17.THAT an Environmental Implementation Report that addresses, at a minimum, compensation and enhancement; invasive species control measures; fencing; monitoring; homeowner brochures and any other applicable requirements be prepared to the satisfaction of the Township and the County.
18.THAT the subdivision agreement between the Township and the Owner shall incorporate provisions requiring that all purchase and sale, lease or reservation agreements shall include the following statement: That land abutting the subdivision may be farmland and may be used for the growing or crops and housing of livestock and normal farm practices are to be anticipated.
19.THAT such easements, conveyances, and/or agreements as may be required for servicing, access, utility or drainage purposes shall be granted to the appropriate authority.
20.THAT prior to final approval, the Owner shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Township that no license to extract aggregate is applicable to the land that is subject to this draft plan approval.
21.THAT the subdivision agreement between the Township and the Owner shall incorporate provisions requiring that the recommendations of the Noise Impact Study prepared by Aercoustics dated December 13, 2018 shall be implemented. In the event that the Noise Impact Study is updated prior to final approval, any further recommendations or modified recommendations shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Township.
Page 176 of 228
Page 177 of 228 Page 178 of 228 of 178 Page
149
193
7252 J.M. QUARRIE DRIVE QUARRIE J.M.
23
7257 INVERHAUGH ROAD INVERHAUGH
143
213
203
31 RESIDENTIAL
139 BRUDER
217 COURT
39
135
REGISTERED PLAN 838 REGISTERED PLAN 838
LOT 1
47
219 0.3m RESERVE RESIDENTIAL BLOCK 16
129
7252
225
LOT 2
BRICK HOUSE 353m
POOL
2 STOREY
55
20.043m
352m 352m N49°35'10"W
N49°35'10"W 353m
123 93.525m 8.9m
241
12.9m
N57°58'00"W
10m WALKWAY AND EMERGENCY ACCESS EMERGENCY AND WALKWAY 10m
346m
346m 353m
2,380m²
24
249 147.877m
352m
64m FRAME BLOCK 44 BLOCK SHED
55m
2,459m²
351m 25
NRSI ON SEPTEMBER 20,
346m
69m DRIPLINE FLAGGED BY
40.166m
350m 27.906m N53°01'50"W
N70°49'20"W
346m 352m N36°42'20"W 347m
N43°54'30"E
348m
349m 354m 2017.
356m
358m
351m 350m
10m BUFFER FROM SIGNIFICANT WOODLAND 349m 348m
54.272m 355m 353m 347m 357m SUBJECT TO EASEMENT
53.3m 25m
INST. RO796660 359m
23
PART 32 61R-3481 25m 20.853m
346m N70°45'00"W
2,508m²
NRSI AND CONFIRMED BY GRCA R=20m
SURVEYED BY VAN HARTEN ON ON SEPTEMBER 20, 2017 AND 346m
WETLAND LIMIT FLAGGED BY
25m
360m
359m
360m 358m NOVEMBER 30, 2017. SWAN 357m 357m
6284
2,364m² N44°30'15"E 40m 25.842m
NRSI ON SEPTEMBER 20, DRIPLINE FLAGGED BY 53.2m
26 SIGNIFICANT WOODLAND
WETLAND R=20m
43.3m 357m
7272
BLOCK 43 CREEK
2017. 22
20.117m SPACE 25m
1.57ha R=20m
2,055m² OPEN N65°59'45"W 30m 65.1m N44°30'15"E 47.569m
2,385m²
356m
65.9m G.R.C.A.
355m
348m 27 350m 1,975m²
30m
74.3m 21
351m 34.991m 349m
2,295m²
39m N65°59'05"W 352m
353m
354m
7273 355m
BUFFER
350m 356m
N29°45'20"E WETLAND 30m 205.020m ESTIMATED FLOODLINE ESTIMATED 65.7m
28
357m
53.355m R=8m
358m 65.4m
STREET A 359m
34m
2,141m² R=28m
1,967m²
360m 20
360m 359m
29 R=8m
2,454m² 73.2m
R=8m
30m
359m 65.4m
359m 37.830m
N79°25'40"W 351m
353m
7276
1,960m²
19 30 355m
84.6m 356m 357m STREET B 358m STREET
353m 357m
2,875m² 356m 354m355m STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT 358m
BARN 354m BLOCK 42
353m 359m
353m 65.2m 355m 352m
2.30ha
31 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 356m
352m
BLOCK 41
N48°01'55"E 353m 360m
1,957m²
30m 18
74.9m 0.60ha 360m
356m 359m
360m
360m
359m
359m 355m
358m
10m
67.7m 358m
357m 356m
356m 357m 357m
HP
65.2m 356m 354m
2,916m² 355m
32
30m ESTIMATED FLOODLINE ESTIMATED 1,958m²
17
N43°19'20"E EXTRACTION AGGREGATE
7278 88.717m 92.6m R=28m 113.6m
356m
355m 65.3m
R=8m 357m
30.3m HP
20m
30m
1,959m² 16
354m N45°12'25"W BARN 59.139m 355m 357m356m 358m
2,011m²
2,027m²
37
38
BARN 359m
67m 2,010m² 61.6m 2,011m² 2,010m²
67m
39
2,004m²
34
2,017m² 67m 35 360m 67m 36 33 65.3m
R=20m 360m 37.6m
2,359m²
40
25m
2,136m² 358m 359m 357m
15 SIDEROAD No. 4 N44°30'15"E HP
7285 R=10m
30m 30m 357m R=8m 30.1m R=8m 30m 30m
R=8m 64.7m
25m 358m 20m 359m
360m 363m
STREET A 362m 361m 360m R=28m
HP 358m
359m R=10m
3,030m²
14 360m R=20m 25m 30.1m 30m 30m
30m 215.202m
25m 359m 25m 359m
6m DRAINAGE EASEMENT BARN
359m
360m
361m 125.752m
2,018m² 67.3m
2,021m² 2,013m² 67.1m 67.2m 67.4m 67m 2,016m² 102.6m
2,108m² 66.9m
2,011m²
3 67m
2,008m²
5 4
2,001m²
2 2,003m²
1 7
2,006m² 66.6m 66.8m
2,101m²
6 66.7m
2,510m²
11
10
13 9
8
65.7m 76.8 360m
2,141m²
12
361m BARN
363m
362m
361m
363m
363m 362m
364m
364m
365m
366m
367m GRAVEL ROAD 367m POST & WIRE FENCE N44°40'25"W
430.377m 366m 366m
AGRICULTURE
367m
357m 356m
358m
359m
368m
360m
361m
362m
356m
363m
357m 364m 369m
6284
370m 371m LEGAL DESCRIPTION KEY MAP SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE NOTES RELATIONSHIP TO THE ADJACENT LANDS ARE CORRECTLY SHOWN. I CERTIFY THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF LAND TO BE SUBDIVIDED AND THEIR 3. I, AUTHORIZE ASTRID J. CLOS, PLANNING CONSULTANTS TO PREPARE AND SUBMIT THIS DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION. 2. MINIMUM LOT AREA 1,858m² 1. MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE 24.4m ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OWNER'S CERTIFICATE (UNDER SECTION 51(17) OF THE PLANNING ACT) LAND USE SCHEDULE INFORMATION REQUIRED BY CLAUSES a,b,c,d,e,f,g,j and l ARE AS SHOWN ON DRAFT PLAN. k) i) h) TOTAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SINGLE DETACHED OPEN SPACE WALKWAY AND EMERGENCY ACCESS ROADS tertiary services stony tills and deep gravel terraces private wells TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION PROVIDED BY VAN HARTEN SURVEYING INC. DESCRIPTION PLANNING CONSULTANTS ASTRID J. CLOS ELORA RIDGE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED J.M. QUARRIE DR INVERHAUGH PASTURE EDGE DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION DATE: MAY 28, 2020 PROJECT No. 1705 PART OF MILL PROPERTY, REGISTERED PLAN 140 VAN HARTEN SURVEYING INC.
PARK LOTS 8 AND 11 PART OF LOT 7 JAMES M. LAWS, O.L.S. ROAD INVERHAUGH STEVEN WRIGHT (GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF PILKINGTON) TOWNSHIP OF CENTRE WELLINGTON COUNTY OF WELLINGTON 23T-18005 BLOCKS PROPERTY (24475-17) SUBJECT 1-40 44 43 41, 42 44 - Guelph , Ontario N1H 3X3 423 Woolwich Street, Suite 201 Phone: (519) 836-7526 (836-PLAN) Email: [email protected] AUGUST 28, 2018 AUGUST 28, 2018 AREA (ha.) SIDEROAD 4 DATE 15.109 DATE 1.570 2.900 0.077 1.233 9.329 DRAWN BY: A.R.N. SCALE 1:1,000
FORTH LINE EAST
PLANNING REPORT
INVERHAUGH PASTURE EDGE SUBDIVISION 7278 SIDEROAD 4 TOWNSHIP OF CENTRE WELLINGTON COUNTY OF WELLINGTON
PREPARED ON BEHALF OF ELORA RIDGE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
CBRE December 14, 2018
Project No. 1705
423 Woolwich Street, Suite 201, Guelph, Ontario, N1H 3X3 Phone (519) 836-7526 Email [email protected]
Page 179 of 228 Table of Contents Page
1. Introduction 1
2. Background 1
3. Existing Conditions and Surrounding Land Uses 1
4. Development Proposal 6
5. Planning Framework 8
5.1 Provincial Policy Statement 2014 8 5.2 Places to Grow 9 5.3 County of Wellington Official Plan 10 5.4 Township of Centre Wellington Municipal Plan 16 5.5 Township of Centre Wellington Zoning By-law 17
6. Summary of Reports Submitted 21
6.1 Hydrogeological Study 21 6.2 Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report 21 6.3 Environmental Impact Study 22 6.4 Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan 22 6.5 Archaeological Study 22 6.6 Traffic Impact Study 22 6.7 Noise Study 23
7. Conclusion 24
Figures
Figure 1 License Boundary of the Inverhaugh Pit 3
Figure 2 Surrounding Land Use 4
Figure 3 View to the South 5
Figure 4 View to the West 5
Figure 5 Draft Plan of Subdivision (August 28, 2018) 6
Figure 6 Proposed Zoning Map 7
Figure 7 Provincial Natural Heritage System Mapping
Figure 8 Schedule A1 Wellington County Official Plan 11
Figure 9 Planning Impact Assessment 14
Figure 10 Wellhead Protection Area Map 16
Figure 11 Zoning Compliance Chart 18
Figure 12 Excerpt from Zoning Map 91 20
Page 180 of 228 1. Introduction
This report has been prepared in support of Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning Amendment applications for the property legally described as Park Lots 8 and 11 and Part of Park Lot 7, Part of Mill Property, Registered Plan 140 (Geographic Township of Pilkington) Township of Centre Wellington, (Inverhaugh) County of Wellington. The property is municipally addressed as 7278 SIDEROAD 4. The subject property is proposed to be developed by Elora Ridge Developments Limited. The total area of the site is 15.109 ha. The property is located within the Inverhaugh Hamlet Area as identified by the County of Wellington Official Plan. The proposal is known as the Pasture Edge Inverhaugh Subdivision.
2. Background
A Pre-consultation meeting was attended with the Township of Centre Wellington and the County of Wellington on July 26, 2017. Through this process preliminary comments were received and the submission requirements to support these applications were confirmed. The proposal was revised to respond to the comments received. This Planning Report was required through the pre-consultation process to be part of a complete application.
3. Existing Conditions and Surrounding Land Uses
The Hydrogeological Study prepared by GM BluePlan dated September 2018 describes the site topography as;
“According to topographic maps available through the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA 2015) and the conceptual plan of the proposed development (Appendix A), the Site has an irregular relief pattern owing to prior earthmoving related to historic gravel extraction. Elevations range between about 348 and 363 masl on-Site. The southeastern portion of the Site features a gradual south-southwest slope tending downward to Swan Creek. The northern part of the Site has a variety of steep, abrupt slopes associated with embankments and excavations ostensibly made as part of the prior extraction operations: a low area in the north-central portion of the Site lies at around 354 masl and is surrounded by an embankment that reaches 358 to 361 masl on the south and west sides. A closed depression lies in the central portion of the Site and reaches elevations as low as 351 masl.”
The Planning Report prepared by Stovel and Associates Inc. prepared on behalf of the Murray Group Limited and dated December 2003 stated that;
“The Murray Group has secured mining rights on portions of two farms in the Inverhaugh area. These farms are owned by Kenneth and Elizabeth Mussleman and Pasture Edge Farm Ltd.
The Pasture Edge Farm is approximately 15.5 ha in size and is comprised of idle agricultural fields, scrubland and a former gravel pit. The Pasture Edge Farm contains five agricultural buildings primarily used for housing turkeys.
The pit licence sought will be a Class A (Category 3) licence with extraction limited to a depth of 1.5 m above the established water table. The proposed (aggregate) development will not involve any of the following uses: redi-mix plant, asphalt plant, aggregate transfer station or recycling depot.
A Noise Study for the proposed (aggregate) development was completed by Aercoustics Engineering Limited, a qualified acoustic consultant. The Operations Plan for the proposed gravel pit development was developed in consultation with Aercoustics Engineering Limited. The Mitigative protocol recommended by this acoustic consultant were incorporated into the Site Plans. These considerations include the following …
Page 181 of 228 2
on site Mitigative measures (i.e. perimeter berming and setbacks) will be employed at the proposed pit to ensure that noise levels do not exceed regulated levels.
The proposed (aggregate) development will use an entrance/exit on County Road 21. This year round road is paved, regularly maintained and wide enough to handle trucks. The internal haul route for the Inverhaugh Pit will be regularly maintained by the Murray Group Limited.
Extraction of the subject pit should be viewed as an interim land use. The site will be rehabilitated to agriculture which is compatible with the adjacent land uses. This type of rehabilitation involves standard soil management activities such as the grading of the pit floor to achieve a slope of 2-5%, the removal of large stones, the replacement of previously stripped overburden and then topsoil resources. Rehabilitation measures will provide for the restoration of the same average soil capability and same general area of prime agricultural soils. The final rehabilitation of this site will be closely scrutinized to ensure that property grades are achieved.”
A letter dated September 29, 2016 prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. on behalf of Pasture Edge Farm Ltd. stated that;
“A portion of the property is within the Licensed Inverhaugh Pit under the Aggregate Resources Act for a Class A License, Category 3 by the Murray Group Limited.
In addition, the Murray Group Limited operates on the property located to the north the Licensed Inverhaven Pit under the Aggregate Resources Act for a Class A License, Category 3. It is our understanding that this pit is in operation.
It is our understanding that the extraction has been completed for the Inverhaugh Pit and therefore the next step is to rehabilitate the land to Agriculture in accordance with the existing approvals.
The existing use of the property is agricultural purposes and is developed with poultry barns.
The Grand River Conservation Authority has identified two environmental constraints that would require additional technical and survey work in order to define the developable area of the property. The Authority has defined the West Dam elevation of 351.74 metres.
The Authority has identified a steep slope adjacent to the Swan Creek which will have to be defined and provide for an appropriate setback to avoid any conflict with the hazard.
The other environmental features that will have to be addressed are the existing vegetation located on the property including the hedgerow along the western property boundary and the cold water fishery of Swan Creek.
Section 4.9.6 (of the County Official Plan) West Montrose and Everton Water Management Protection Areas identifies that consultation with the Grand River Conservation Authority is required given the potential implication of the West Montrose Water Management Protection Area. Through consultation with the Grand River Conservation Authority, it was defined that all residential development would have to be located above 351.74 metres elevation in order to avoid development being proposed within a hazard. Through discussion with the Authority, it was advised that if minor adjustments to the line were necessary to provide for a better development then this
Page 182 of 228 3
could be considered and would be evaluated. The stormwater management strategy would have to address the municipal requirements and the quality control measures would have to be located above the 351.74 metres elevation. Quantity control could be located below the elevation and addresses where feasible within the proposed development.
Swan Creek is defined as Greenlands. Swan Creek is a cold water fishery and the floodplain of the creek is to be defined and protected. These lands would be zoned to not permit development.”
Figure 1 - License Boundary of the Inverhaugh Pit
The Inverhaugh Pit Plan prepared by Stovel and Associated Inc. dated February 26, 2008 (included as Figure 1) shows the Licensed Boundary. A red line has been added to this plan to indicate the limit of the property subject to the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zone Change applications.
The subject property is proposed to be developed by Elora Ridge Developments Limited. The total area of the site is 15.109 ha. The property has been previously used as gravel pit and is now in an agricultural use. The property to the north continues to be an active aggregate operation. There are existing poultry barns located on the subject property which are proposed to be demolished. The property has frontage on Sideroad No. 4 where the road access is proposed. A walkway and emergency access only are proposed to connect with J.M. Quarrie Drive. There is an existing woodlot located to the north of the property owned by the GRCA. There is an existing creek, wetland, treed area and the recommended buffers located on the property proposed to be included within an Open Space Block 43. 40 single detached estate lots are proposed on municipal Roads A and B. Two Stormwater Management Blocks 41 and 42 are also proposed. Given the large lots proposed, no municipal park is being provided. The parkland dedication is expected to be satisfied through a cash-in-lieu of parkland payment in accordance with the Planning Act, as amended.
Page 183 of 228 4
The proposed development will be provided with private well and septic servicing. Each home is expected to have a double car garage with additional parking for a minimum of two additional cars located in each driveway.
Figure 2 – Surrounding Land Use
The existing surrounding land uses include:
North - GRCA lands containing a woodlot. Active aggregate extraction area.
East - Agricultual lands.
South - Agricultual lands. Single detached homes fronting onto Sideroad No. 4.
West - Single detached homes fronting onto Inverhaugh Road and J.M. Quarrie Drive. Environmental Protection lands.
Page 184 of 228 5 Figure 3 - View to the South
CBRE
Figure 4 - View to the West
CBRE
Page 185 of 228 6 4. Development Proposal
The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision is included as Figure 5.
The subject property is proposed to be developed by Elora Ridge Developments Limited. The total area of the site is 15.109 ha. 40 single detached estate lots are proposed on municipal Roads A and B. Two Stormwater Management Blocks 41 and 42 are also proposed. Given the large lots proposed, no municipal park is being provided. The pre-consultation meeting minutes indicate that cash-in-lieu of parkland will be required by the Township. The parkland dedication is, therefore, to be satisfied through a cash-in-lieu of parkland payment in accordance with the Planning Act, as amended. The proposed development will be provided with private well and septic servicing. Each home is expected to have a double car garage with additional parking for a minimum of two cars within each driveway.
Figure 5 – Draft Plan of Subdivision (August 28, 2018)
The subject property is identified on the Township of Centre Wellington Zoning Map 91 as being within the M3.91.2 Zone, the A.91.1 Zone, the EP Zone and the EP Overlay Zone. The current M3.91.2 Zone permits both extraction and Agricultural land uses. The A.91.1 Zone permits agricultural uses. The site contains existing turkey barns which are proposed to be demolished. The current zoning does not permit the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision; therefore, a zone change application has been applied for to the R1A Zone. In addition, the realignment of the OS, EP and EP Overlay Zones is being requested in accordance with the detailed Environmental Impact Study prepared for the subject property. (see Figure 6)
Page 186 of 228 7
The proposed R1A Zone includes the following as permitted uses;
“7.1.1 Permitted Uses
a) A single detached dwelling b) An existing semi-detached dwelling c) An existing link or twin dwelling d) A group home in accordance with Section 4.16 e) Uses, buildings and structures accessory to the foregoing, including:
i. A bed and breakfast establishment (Class 1) in accordance with Section 4.6 ii. An accessory apartment in accordance with Section 4.1 iii. A home occupation in accordance with Section 4.18”
The zoning is proposed to change to the R1A Zone, OS Zone, EP Zone and the EP Overlay Zone as shown on Figure 6. The need for a specialized zoning regulation to ensure that grading and construction may occur within 30 m of the EP Zone within the Open Space Block 42 for Stormwater Management purposes and within the residential Lots 1 to 40 inclusive will be evaluated to ensure that the required setback is clear at the time any grading and construction is commenced in the future.
Figure 6 – Proposed Zoning Map
Page 187 of 228 8 5. Planning Framework
5.1 Provincial Policy Statement 2014
Approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, Order in Council No. 107/2014. The Provincial Policy Statement 2014 (PPS) was issued under the authority of Section 3 of the Planning Act and was in effect as of April 30, 2014.
In respect of the exercise of any authority that affects a planning matter, section 3 of the Planning Act requires that decisions affecting planning matters “shall be consistent with” policy statements issued under the Act.
The Provincial Policy Statement is more than a set of individual policies. It is to be read in its entirety and the relevant policies are to be applied to each situation. When more than one policy is relevant, a decision-maker should consider all of the relevant policies to understand how they work together. The language of each policy, including the Implementation and Interpretation policies, will assist decision-makers in understanding how the policies are to be implemented.
Provincial plans are to be read in conjunction with the Provincial Policy Statement. They take precedence over the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement to the extent of any conflict, except where the relevant legislation provides otherwise.
The Provincial Policy Statement provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. (bolding added for emphasis)
“1.1.3 Settlement Areas
Settlement areas are urban areas and rural settlement areas, and include cities, towns, villages and hamlets. Ontario’s settlement areas vary significantly in terms of size, density, population, economic activity, diversity and intensity of land uses, service levels, and types of infrastructure available.
1.1.3.1 Settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development, and their vitality and regeneration shall be promoted.”
“1.1.4 Rural Areas in Municipalities
Rural areas are important to the economic success of the Province and our quality of life. Rural areas are a system of lands that may include rural settlement areas, rural lands, prime agricultural areas, natural heritage features and areas, and other resource areas. Rural areas and urban areas are interdependent in terms of markets, resources and amenities. It is important to leverage rural assets and amenities and protect the environment as a foundation for a sustainable economy.
1.1.4.1 Healthy, integrated and viable rural areas should be supported by:
c) accommodating an appropriate range and mix of housing in rural settlement areas;
1.1.4.2 In rural areas, rural settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development and their vitality and regeneration shall be promoted.”
“1.6.6 Sewage, Water and Stormwater
Page 188 of 228 9
1.6.6.4 Where municipal sewage services and municipal water services or private communal sewage services and private communal water services are not provided, individual on-site sewage services and individual on-site water services may be used provided that site conditions are suitable for the long-term provision of such services with no negative impacts. In settlement areas, these services may only be used for infilling and minor rounding out of existing development.
“2.1 Natural Heritage
2.1.8 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 2.1.4, 2.1.5, and 2.1.6 unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions.”
“2.5 Mineral Aggregate Resources
2.5.3 Rehabilitation
2.5.3.1 Progressive and final rehabilitation shall be required to accommodate subsequent land uses, to promote land use compatibility, to recognize the interim nature of extraction, and to mitigate negative impacts to the extent possible. Final rehabilitation shall take surrounding land use and approved land use designations into consideration.”
The Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report prepared by GM BluePlan Consulting Engineers as part of this submission, confirms that the proposed development within this settlement area will be serviced with individual on-site sewage services and individual on- site water services consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement. The Environmental Impact Study prepared by Natural Resource Solutions has evaluated the ecological function of the adjacent lands and demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions. The proposed residential use is the rehabilitation of a previous on-site mineral aggregate operation. The Noise Study completed by Aerocoustics Engineering Ltd. has assessed the surrounding pit operations and recommended mitigating noise controls to promote land use compatibility with the proposed residential development.
The proposal for the subject properties is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2014 in that an appropriate housing form is being accommodated with the Inverhaugh rural settlement area.
5.2 Places to Grow
The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2017) takes effect on July 1, 2017. “This Plan applies to the area designated by Ontario Regulation 416/05 as the Greater Golden Horseshoe growth plan area. All decisions made on or after July 1, 2017 in respect of the exercise of any authority that affects a planning matter will conform with this Plan, subject to any legislative or regulatory provisions providing otherwise.”(1.2.2)
Excerpts from the Growth Plan are included in this report. Bolding has been added for emphasis.
Page 189 of 228 10 “2.2.9 Rural Areas
6. New multiple lots or units for residential development will be directed to settlement areas, but may be allowed on rural lands in site-specific locations with approved zoning or designation in an official plan that permitted this type of development as of June 16, 2006.”
“4.2.2 Natural Heritage System
1. The Province will map a Natural Heritage System for the GGH to support a comprehensive, integrated, and long-term approach to planning for the protection of the region’s natural heritage and biodiversity. The Natural Heritage System mapping will exclude lands within settlement area boundaries that were approved and in effect as of July 1, 2017.”
Figure 7 - Provincial Natural Heritage System Mapping
Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry
The proposed development directs new multiple lot residential development to the Inverhaugh settlement area in conformity with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
5.3 County of Wellington Official Plan
The County of Wellington Official Plan was adopted by Wellington County Council on September 24, 1998, approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs on April 13, 1999 and came into effect on May 6, 1999. The County Official Plan, as amended, was last revised on June 1, 2018.
Page 190 of 228 11
The subject property is outlined in red. Schedule A1 – Centre Wellington, of the County of Wellington Official Plan designates the site within the Inverhaugh Hamlet Area as shown on Figure 8. The subject property is included Hamlet Area, Core Greenlands, Greenlands and Montrose Water Management Protection Area designations.
The County Official Plan included Hamlets such as Inverhaugh within the Urban System where residential development is to be directed. Growth in these Hamlets is expected to proceed on individual on-site services. Development on the subject property is proposed to proceed with individual on-site services. The primary residential use identified in the County Official Plan in Hamlets is low density single detached units. The proposal is for low density single detached units in conformity with the Official Plan.
On August 10, 2017 a site meeting was held with GRCA staff. At that meeting the GRCA confirmed the items listed below. Please note that this application is subject to the GRCA’s review and while I believe that this is an accurate reflection of the on-site discussion, this is subject to confirmation by the GRCA.
GRCA confirmed that the 352 m contour is the West Montrose Acquisition Area and should be labeled as this on the Draft Plan of Subdivision. If minor adjustments to the line is necessary to provide for a better development then this could be considered and would be evaluated by the GRCA. (Block 42) GRCA has no objection to the top of bank being graded out to a 3:1 slope, subject to reviewing an EIS prepared to their satisfaction. (Lots 25 to 29) The GRCA has an interest in acquiring the West Montrose Acquisition Area but has no interest in either owning or having an easement in their favour over the trees next to the significant woodlot that the GRCA now owns. (Lots 18 to 23)
Figure 8 - Schedule A1 Wellington County Official Plan
Page 191 of 228 12
“3.1 GENERAL STRATEGY
Wellington County will grow from approximately 96,000 people in 2016 to approximately 140,000 in 2041. Wellington will plan for new housing, commerce, employment and services for about 46,000 new residents.
To achieve the general growth strategy Wellington will encourage a greater share of the County’s growth to locate in the urban system than has been the norm. New multiple lots and units for residential development will be directed to Urban Centres and Hamlets, and may be allowed in site-specific locations with existing approved zoning or designation that permits this type of development. The priorities for directing growth will be as follows:
2. growth will be limited in urban centres and hamlets that offer partial, private communal or individual on-site services.
3.2 Projected Growth
The forecast anticipates that 82% of population growth in Wellington County will take place in 14 urban centres. The remainder will largely be directed mainly to hamlets and secondary agricultural areas. ”
“4.9.6 West Montrose Protection Area
Two areas within the County have been identified as potential reservoir areas, West Montrose in Centre Wellington (Schedule A1) and Everton in Erin (Schedule A2). The reservoirs would require approval under the Environmental Assessment Act and such projects have not as yet, been supported by Wellington County or either local municipality. These protection areas are recognized in this Plan to ensure that present and future landowners are aware of the proposal and that development activities will not impair the use of the potential site for reservoir purposes. All planning authorities shall consult with the Grand River Conservation Authority prior to approving any development application within these protection areas. Chief Building Officials are encouraged to consult with the Grand River Conservation Authority prior to issuing building permits within these protection areas.”
“7.4 HAMLETS
7.4.1 Permitted Uses Development will be relatively small-scale given the rural context and level of service available in hamlets. The primary residential use will be low density single detached units, although some small-scale multiple-unit development may be considered to provide greater housing variety.
7.4.2 Servicing
Sewage and water services will be provided in accordance with Section 11.2 of this Plan.
Road access will be via internal roads where possible, then via local roads where possible and then via County Roads or Provincial Highways where there is no other alternative. In all cases appropriate siting standards must be met and road functions maintained.
Page 192 of 228 13 7.4.3 Land Use Compatibility
In hamlets the establishing of specific areas for various land uses is normally left to the zoning by-law. In establishing zones, Councils shall ensure that existing and proposed uses are compatible and that adverse impacts are kept to a minimum and that appropriate mitigation is provided where practical.
7.4.4 Impact Assessment
Where a Council is concerned about the impact a proposed development may have on a hamlet, it may require an impact assessment as set out in the general policy section of this Plan. Hamlets will normally accommodate low density development on individual on-site services. ”
“11.2 WATER AND SEWAGE
11.2.1 Types of Services In this plan the following terms are used to refer to water and sewage services:
c) individual on-site services: refers to individual on-site sewage services and individual on-site water services.”
“11.2.3 Servicing Options Assessment
Site specific multi-lot or multi-unit development applications relying on private communal or individual on-site servicing may be required to:
assess site and soil suitability and the viability of all reasonable servicing options;
recommend the type of sewage disposal system and establish appropriate lot, unit and/or block sizes, acceptable to the local municipality which demonstrate suitability for the on-site services;
assess the impact of the proposed means of servicing on: ground and surface water and associated ecological functions; potential interference with other wells; potential adverse impacts to natural features.”
“5.4 CORE GREENLANDS
Within the Greenlands System certain areas have greater sensitivity or significance. These areas will be identified in policy and protected. These areas have been included in the “Core” Greenlands designations and include:
provincially significant wetlands all other wetlands; habitat of endangered or threatened species and fish habitat; and hazardous lands.
Development is not allowed in provincially significant wetlands or the habitat of endangered or threatened species.”
“5.5 GREENLANDS
Other significant natural heritage features including habitat, areas of natural and scientific interest, streams and valleylands, woodlands, environmentally sensitive areas, ponds, lakes and
Page 193 of 228 14 reservoirs and natural links are also intended to be afforded protection from development or site alteration which would have negative impacts.
These areas are often found within Core Greenlands. Where they are outside Core Greenlands they are identified as Greenlands.”
“5.6.7 Greenlands Mapping
The mapping identifying Core Greenlands and Greenlands on various schedules to this Plan may need to be refined by more detailed mapping on individual sites. Where more detailed mapping is available, minor adjustments may be made without an amendment to this Plan and the land use policies of the adjacent designation will apply as determined by Council.”
Figure 9 - Planning Impact Assessment 4.6.2 Planning Impact Assessment Planning impact assessments may be required to evaluate: County Official Plan Policy Analysis a) the need for the proposed use other than for A need analysis is not required as these lands aggregate operations, taking into account are included in the Hamlet designation of the other available lands or buildings in the area; County Official Plan. b) the appropriateness of the proposed site for The proposal is for a low density residential the use proposed taking into consideration the development similar to the surrounding size and shape of the land and its ability to residential development on J.M. Quarrie Drive accommodate the intensity of use proposed; and Inverhaugh Road. The Transportation Assessment prepared by Salvini Consulting Inc. concluded that there is adequate sight distance of both eastbound and westbound traffic at the new proposed intersection of Street A and Sideroad 4. The Noise Study prepared by Aerocoustics Engineering Ltd. concluded that with the recommended noise controls in place, the noise levels at the proposed development are expected to be at or below the applicable sound levels. c) the adequacy of the proposed method of The Functional Servicing Report prepared by servicing the site; GM Blue Plan concluded that individual well and septic systems are adequate to service the site. d) the compatibility of the proposed use with The proposed single detached dwellings are consideration given to the height, location, similar in use, height, location, proximity and proximity and spacing of buildings; the spacing of buildings to the existing homes separation between various land uses; located within the Hamlet area. impacts from noise, odour, dust or other No odour, dust or other emissions will be emissions from the proposed use and from generated by the proposed residential use. adjacent land uses; loss of privacy, shadowing No impacts from the proposal related to loss of or impact on cultural heritage resources and privacy, shadowing, or impact to any cultural landscapes; heritage resources and landscapes on adjacent lands are anticipated. The proposed residential development is compatible with existing land uses both within and outside the Hamlet area.
Page 194 of 228 15 Figure 9 - Planning Impact Assessment (continued)
4.6.2 Planning Impact Assessment Planning impact assessments may be required to evaluate: County Official Plan Policy Analysis e) the impact on natural resources such as The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and agricultural land and mineral aggregate Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) released Publication deposits; 853 "The Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Document" which came into effect on March 1, 2017. This MDS document was created in support of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2014. Guideline #36 is clear that MDS does not apply within Settlement Areas. The definition of Settlement Areas includes "lands which have been designated in an official plan for development over the long- term planning horizon." The Noise Study prepared by Aerocoustics Engineering Ltd. concluded that with the recommended noise controls in place, the noise levels from surrounding pits at the proposed development are expected to be at or below the applicable sound levels. f) the impact on biodiversity and connectivity of The Environmental Impact Study prepared by natural features and areas; Natural Resource Solutions Inc. considered any potential impacts on biodiversity and connectivity of natural features and areas and recommended buffers and mitigation where necessary to ensure to impact to these ecological functions. g) the exterior design in terms of bulk, scale The exterior design in terms of bulk, scale and and layout of buildings and other design layout of the proposed residential buildings will elements; be similar to the existing homes located within the Hamlet area. h) the possibility that site contamination has Section 6.6.1 of the County Official Plan occurred or the site may contain historic indicates that there are no known petroleum petroleum wells or associated works, and if so, deposits of significance in the County. demonstrate compliance with provincial regulations; i) methods of reducing or eliminating negative The Noise Study prepared by Aerocoustics impacts; Engineering Ltd. concluded that with the recommended noise controls in place, the noise levels from surrounding pits at the proposed development are expected to be at or below the applicable sound levels. j) other planning matters considered important No other planning matters have been identified by a Council. at this time.
Page 195 of 228 16 Figure 10 - Wellhead Protection Area Map
On August 27, 2018 Kyle Davis, Risk Management Official, Wellington Source Water Protection, provided the Wellhead Protection Area Map included as Figure 10 and confirmed that;
“Since this property is not located within a vulnerable area (wellhead protection area, issues contributing area, intake protection zone etc.), the application does not require a Source Protection Screening form or a Section 59 notice under the Clean Water Act.”
5.4 Township of Centre Wellington Municipal Official Plan
The Township of Centre Wellington Municipal Official Plan was adopted November 24, 2003, approved May 31, 2005, and Consolidated January 4, 2013. Excerpts from the Township of Centre Wellington Municipal Plan are found below.
The Township of Centre Wellington Municipal Official Plan relies on the County of Wellington Official Plan designations within the Rural and Greenlands system. The subject property is located within the Rural and Greenlands system, therefore, the County Official Plan contains the applicable policies.
“A.2 RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COUNTY OF WELLINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN
The County Official Plan provides a consistent set of planning policies for the entire County. The County Official Plan contains sufficient detail to provide appropriate official plan coverage for all of Centre Wellington.
Page 196 of 228 17
The County Official Plan designates three major land use systems – the Greenlands system, the Rural system and the Urban system. The Greenlands system consists of natural heritage features. The Rural system consists of prime agricultural areas, and the Urban system consists of hamlets and urban centres.
In Centre Wellington, there are three Urban Centres, Fergus, Elora-Salem and Belwood. The remainder of the Township is part of the Greenlands and Rural systems.
The County Plan also provides for local municipalities to rely on the County’s planning policies or to develop their own more detailed policies for all or parts of their community. The Township of Centre Wellington has chosen to prepare its own local municipal plan.
However, in order to avoid duplication, the Township has determined that the policies and land use plans of the County Official Plan pertaining to the Greenlands and Rural systems are appropriate for Centre Wellington. It is not necessary for the Township to maintain its own local municipal plan policies for the Rural and Greenlands areas.”
5.5 Township of Centre Wellington Zoning By-law
The subject property is identified on Map 91 as being within the M3.91.2 Zone, A.91.1 Zone, the EP Zone and the EP Overlay Zone in the Township of Centre Wellington Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 2009-045 Office Consolidation February 2018. (see Figure 12)
The current M3.91.2 Zone permits both extraction and Agricultural land uses. The A.91.1 Zone permits agricultural uses. The current zoning does not permit the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision, therefore, a zone change application has been applied for to the R1A Zone. In addition, the realignment of the OS, EP and EP Overlay Zones is requested in accordance with the detailed Environmental Impact Study prepared for the subject property.
The proposed R1A Zone includes the following as permitted uses;
“7.1.1 Permitted Uses
a) A single detached dwelling b) An existing semi-detached dwelling c) An existing link or twin dwelling d) A group home in accordance with Section 4.16 e) Uses, buildings and structures accessory to the foregoing, including:
i. A bed and breakfast establishment (Class 1) in accordance with Section 4.6 ii. An accessory apartment in accordance with Section 4.1 iii. A home occupation in accordance with Section 4.18”
Page 197 of 228 18 Figure 11 - Zoning Compliance Chart
A R1A Zone (Lot with Individual On-Site Sewer Services) Zoning Regulation Required Provided Compliance B Minimum Lot Frontage 24.4 m 25 m Yes C Minimum Lot Area 1,858 m2 2, 010 m2 Yes D Minimum Lot Depth 26 m 53.3 m Yes E Maximum Building Height 3 storeys but not more Yes than 11 m. F Minimum Front Yard 7.5 m Yes G Minimum Exterior Side Yard 4.5 m or 6m to the garage door. H Minimum Side Yard 1.5 m or 3m on one Yes side when no garage is provided. J Minimum Rear Yard 7.5 m Yes K Maximum Lot Coverage (1) 30% Yes includes accessory buildings L Minimum Landscaped Open Front yard except the Yes Space driveway must be landscaped. Maximum driveway width of 40% of the front yard width or areas. Residential Parking Regulations 5.3.1.1 For any single detached dwelling, Legal parking space 6 m Yes parking located a minimum located minimum 6 m distance of 6 m from the street line from the street. and to the rear of the front wall of the main building or structure. A driveway may be used for the temporary parking of motor vehicles. 5.3.1.4 Minimum parking space Minimum 3m x 6m 3m x 6m Yes dimensions for single detached, parking space are 3 m by 6 m and every dimension for a driveway shall have a minimum driveway parking width for access to a street of 3 m. space. 5.3.1.5 The minimum interior dimensions Minimum interior 3m x 6m Yes of an attached or detached garage dimension of a garage shall be 3 m by 6 m. 3m x 6m.
Page 198 of 228 19 Figure 11 - Zoning Compliance Chart (continued)
Environmental Protection (EP) Zone and Environmental Protection Overlay Regulations Zoning Regulation Required Provided Compliance 2.6.3.5 The Environmental Protection (EP) Zone The EIS is Yes and Environmental Protection Overlay expected to boundaries identified on the schedules to provide a this By-law are intended to generally reinterpretation of identify the location of potentially the limits of the hazardous environmental features, or EP zone and EP natural environment features that must overlay boundary be protected from development. During to the satisfaction review of development applications and of the GRCA. building permit applications, if necessary, the boundaries of the EP zone or overlay shall be more precisely determined in consultation with the Conservation Authority or other agencies having jurisdiction in the area. Where detailed resource mapping and/or site inspection results in a reinterpretation of the limits of the EP zone or overlay boundary, a zoning amendment will not be required, and all requirements of this by-law shall be reviewed relative to the revised interpretation of the EP Zone boundary, including any applicable setbacks. The uses and regulations of the adjacent zone on the same lot shall apply. Where a permit has been issued by the Conservation Authority, any provisions as set out in the permit shall also apply and shall supercede the zoning provisions where more restrictive. 4.12.1 No building, structure, or private sewage The EIS is Yes treatment system shall be constructed expected to closer than 30 m from the limit of an EP provide the zone without the prior written approval of rationale for any the Grand River Conservation Authority. construction or grading which may be required to occur within 30 m of the EP Zone boundary to the satisfaction of the GRCA. 4.12.2 Interpretation of the limits of the EP zone One of the Yes boundaries is governed by regulations requests of this contained in Section 2.7 (2.6?) of this zone change By-law. The location of the 30 m EP application is to “setback” boundaries shall be adjusted adjust the EP accordingly in the event that the EP boundary and 30 “zone” boundary is re-interpreted. m setback in accordance with the approved EIS.
Page 199 of 228 20 The need for a specialized zoning regulation to ensure that grading and construction may occur within 30 m of the EP Zone within the Open Space Block 42 for Stormwater Management purposes and within the residential Lots 1 to 40 inclusive will be evaluated to ensure that the required setback is clear at the time any grading and construction is commenced in the future.
Figure 12 - Excerpt from Zoning Map 91
Page 200 of 228 21 6. Summary of Reports Submitted
6.1 Hydrogeological Study
GM BluePlan prepared a Hydrogeological Study dated August 2018 which states that;
“Groundwater levels in the overburden monitoring wells installed during the geotechnical investigation (TH-05-M through TH-08-M) were measured to be relatively deep in the range of 3.6 mbgs to 5.5 mbgs.
Upon review of the data, it was apparent that the pumping of TW-04 and TW-01 during the concurrent pumping test did not exert a measurable drawdown at any of the monitoring wells (i.e. TW-02, TW-03).
Averaging the results of the two methods, the estimated allowable flow rate is approximately 5,300 L/lot/d: the analyses indicate that the aquifers available on-Site are generally capable of providing sufficient water supply for a subdivision of 40 lots.
Assuming that each lot is provided with a tertiary treatment system capable of reducing nitrate concentrations in sewage effluent by 30%, a 40-lot development is anticipated to produce an estimated attenuated nitrogen concentration of 8.1 mg/L which is below the allowable limit of 10 mg/L.
For a development comprising 40 lots, tertiary treatment (i.e. Level IV treatment) with enhanced nitrate removal will be required to meet the nitrogen attenuation targets. As such, the on-site sewage systems may be designed as Type A dispersal beds. These beds often have a reduced footprint compared to other types of systems and allow greater flexibility in placement because they are permitted to be constructed on soils with “T-times” greater than 50 minutes.”
6.2 Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report
GM BluePlan prepared the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report dated December 11, 2018 which concluded that;
“In summary, the features of the design for the proposed development are as follows:
1. Each lot will be serviced via private septic system. 2. Each lot will be serviced via a private well. 3. The post development stormwater runoff from the site during the 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100-year design storm events have been attenuated to less than the pre-development level. Runoff from external areas have been conveyed through the site to an appropriate outlet. 4. Quality control treatment (Enhanced – 80% total suspended solids removal) for Catchment 102 will be provided by a permanent pool within Block 41 stormwater management facility. 5. Quality control treatment (Enhanced – 80% total suspended solids removal) for Catchment 103 will be provided via an oil/grit separator structure (CDS PMSU30_20) prior to discharging to Block 42 Stormwater Management Facility. 6. Prior to construction, a silt fence will be installed along the property boundary in all locations where runoff will discharge from the site to adjacent lands. This will minimize the transport of sediment off-site during the construction period. ”
Page 201 of 228
22
6.3 Environmental Impact Study
Natural Resource Solutions Inc. prepared the Environmental Impact Study which will be submitted under separate cover.
6.4 Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan
MacKinnon and Associates prepared the Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan December 2018 which has been included with this submission.
6.5 Archaeological Study
AMICK Consultants Limited prepared the Archaeological Study dated June 2004 which concluded that;
“As a result of the archaeological assessment of this property, no archaeological resource was encountered which would represent a significant planning concern for the proposed undertaking. Consequently, it is recommended that any conditions of Plan approval respecting archaeological resources within these lands is unnecessary and that no further archaeological investigations are warranted for the same.”
The letter from the Ministry of Culture dated December 16, 2005 indicated that;
“The Ministry has had the opportunity to review the Stage 1 and 2 archaeological assessment report prepared by AMICK Consultants Limited for the (Pasture Farms Part of Lot 4 , Concession 3 EOGR, former Township of Pilkington, Township of Centre Wellington, Wellington County) under Licence P038. As a result of the Stage 2 field assessment of the approximately 12 hectare subject lands, nothing of archaeological investigations are warranted. The Ministry concurs with this recommendation.
Given the above, the requirement for an archaeological assessment of the subject lands has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of this Ministry.”
6.6 Traffic Impact Study
Salvini Consulting Inc. prepared the Transportation Assessment dated August 23, 2018 which concludes that;
“As requested, this transportation assessment considered the needs of a new proposed subdivision in Inverhaugh and concludes the following.
- The site is expected to generate 30 and 40 trips in the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. - An eastbound left turn lane from Sideroad 4 to Street A is not warranted. - A westbound right turn lane from Sideroad 4 to Street A is not needed. - There is adequate sight distance of both eastbound and westbound traffic at the new proposed intersection of Street A and Sideroad 4. - The new intersection will operate well under future total traffic conditions with a single lane on each approach.”
Page 202 of 228 23 6.7 Noise Study
Aercoustics Engineering Limited prepared the Noise Study dated December 13, 2018 which concluded that;
“Noise Control Recommendations
Based on the noise impact assessment of the neighbouring pit operations on the proposed development, the following noise control recommendations are provided to meet the applicable noise criteria.
These noise control measures are in addition to the current noise control measures outlined in the pits’ operating licences and should be implemented prior to occupancy of any houses located in the proposed development.
Proposed Development
Based on the site plan and ground elevations provided to Aercoustics, dated October 2018, all residential buildings constructed on lots 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 should be single-storey dwellings. Alternatively, two-storey dwellings may be permitted on these lots, however no second-storey windows to noise sensitive spaces may be located on any facades with full or partial exposure to pit operations. Examples of noise sensitive spaces include but are not limited to bedrooms, living areas, dens, dining rooms, kitchens and lounges. If this alternative option is pursued, the architectural drawings should be reviewed by an acoustical consultant to confirm the requirements.
Furthermore, residential buildings constructed on all lots should have a maximum of two storeys.
Devin Pit
As a result of the proposed subdivision being constructed on the area of Devin Pit indicated as ‘Part D’ in the pit operating licence, it is assumed that the berms located along the west, south and east sides of the Part D lands will no longer be present. As such, the following noise control measures should be implemented in additional to the noise controls outlined in the operating licence.
1) No aggregate operations will occur on the lands defined as Part D in the Devin Pit operating licence. 2) Construction of a berm along the southeast perimeter of the pit, shown in Figure 2 as ‘Proposed Berm 1’. The height of the berm should be a minimum of 364 m above sea level along the entire span shown. The barrier should be constructed prior to occupancy of the proposed subdivision and may be removed once all operations of the Devin Pit are terminated. Cole Pit
The following noise control measure is required for the Cole Pit, in addition to the noise controls outlined in the operating licence.
3) An 8 m barrier should be constructed to block line-of-sight between the enclosed processing plant and the proposed development, as indicated in Figure 2 as ‘Proposed Berm 2’. The berm should be present any time the enclosed processing plant is operating. The barrier should be constructed prior to occupancy of the proposed subdivision and may be removed once all operations of the Cole Pit are terminated. This is an existing noise control but updated to address shielding for the proposed dwellings.
Page 203 of 228 24
Aercoustics has been retained by Elora Ridge Developments to assess the noise impact of the nearby aggregate operations on a proposed development located in Inverhaugh, Ontario. The noise control measures required for the pit operations have been considered and additional noise controls to address the proposed development have been outlined. With the additional noise controls in place, the noise levels at the proposed development are expected to be at or below the applicable sound level limits.”
7. Conclusion
The Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zone Change applications and development proposed for the property legally described as Park Lots 8 and 11 and Part of Park Lot 7, Part of Mill Property, Registered Plan 140 (Geographic Township of Pilkington) Township of Centre Wellington, County of Wellington (Inverhaugh) is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2014. The proposed development is located within an existing Settlement Area in conformity with the Growth Plan 2017. The policies of the County Official Plan are met by the development proposal.
This report has been prepared and respectfully submitted by,
[Original Signed and Sealed] December 14, 2018 ______Astrid Clos, MCIP, RPP Date
(1705.PLANNING REPORT.doc)
Page 204 of 228
April 22, 2021 Project No. 1705
County of Wellington 74 Woolwich Street Guelph, ON N1H 3T9
Township of Centre Wellington 1 MacDonald Square, P.O. Box 10 Elora, ON N0B 1S0
Attention: Meagan Ferris, RPP MCIP Manager of Development, County of Wellington
Brett Salmon, MCIP, RPP, Director of Planning and Development Township of Centre Wellington
Re: Addendum Planning Report - Pasture Edge Inverhaugh Draft Plan of Subdivision 23T-18005 and Zone Change RZ11/18 ELORA RIDGE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
A Planning Report dated December 14, 2018 has been prepared in support of the above- referenced applications. On April 16, 2021 an addendum to this Planning Report was requested by the Township to provide a summary of how the public and agency comments have been addressed and provide an update with respect to consistency/conformity with the updated Provincial Policy Statement and A Place to Grow documents.
Public Comments
The statutory Public Meeting was held on July 17, 2019 and written comments were also received related to these applications. The public comments have been consolidated into themes and posed as questions. The responses follow which outline how the public comment has been addressed by the second submission of the Draft Plan of Subdivision and the Zone Change applications.
Have sufficient studies been completed for the proposal?
The studies submitted in support of these applications include the following;
Functional Servicing & Stormwater Management Report, prepared by GM Blue Plan Engineering dated December 11, 2018. Geotechnical Investigation prepared by V.A. Wood (Guelph) Incorporated, May 2018. Planning Report prepared by Astrid J. Clos Planning Consultants, December 14, 2018. Hydrogeological Study prepared by GM BluePlan Engineering dated September 10, 2018.
423 Woolwich Street, Suite 201, Guelph, Ontario N1H 3X3 - 519-836-7526 - [email protected]
Page 205 of 228 -2-
Preliminary Overall Grading and Servicing Plan (Drawing No. 1) and Sections (Drawing No. 2) prepared by GM Blue Plan dated October 2018. Tree Saving Plan prepared by MacKinnon & Associates dated December 2018. Environmental Impact Study prepared by Natural Resource Solutions 2018. Noise Impact Study prepared by Aercoustics Engineering Ltd. dated December 13, 2018. Revised Draft Plan of Subdivision dated May 28, 2020. Proposed Trail Map. Environmental Impact Study Addendum prepared by Natural Resource Solutions dated June 12, 2020. Revised Tree Management Plan prepared by MacKinnon & Associates dated January 13, 2020. Engineering response to comments prepared by GM BluePlan dated May 27, 2020. Functional Servicing Report prepared by GM BluePlan dated May 27, 2020. Preliminary Grading Plan (Revision 2) prepared by GM BluePlan dated May 25, 2020. Hydrogeological Study prepared by GM BluePlan dated May 21, 2020. Letter from Ken Musselman related to implementation of noise study recommendations dated December 10, 2019. Letter from the Murray Group related to the aggregate operation dated January 31, 2020.
The County and the Township identified the studies required for a complete application through the pre-consultation process. The required studies were provided which led to the applications being deemed to be complete by the County and the Township. The second submission of the application includes updates to these required studies based on the comments received. Sufficient studies have, therefore, been completed for the proposal.
Will there be an appropriate interface between the Hamlet and Agricultural land?
A paige wire farm fence will be provided along the property boundary at the interface with the agricultural land to ensure that the property limit is clearly delineated. Subject to the agreement of the approval authority, agricultural warning clauses will be included in the Purchase and Sale agreements for the new homes.
How will pedestrian and bicycle movement be accommodated?
A proposed trail plan has been prepared and provided with this submission. Sidewalks along the new roads will be provided, as well as a pedestrian connection to J.M. Quarrie Drive. Trails through the open space area, where lands do not contain sensitive natural features, and through stormwater management areas will also be provided.
Page 206 of 228 -3-
PROPOSED TRAIL MAP
Will an adequate buffer be provided between the aggregate operation and the Hamlet?
A Noise Impact Study prepared by Aercoustics Engineering Ltd. dated December 13, 2018 has been prepared and the abutting owner has agreed in writing to allow the recommended mitigation to be installed on this aggregate property. A condition of Draft Plan approval is anticipated that would require the Noise Impact Study to be updated prior to the registration of the subdivision which would be based on the final approved grades of the property and reflect the operation of the aggregate use at that time.
Should a park be provided?
The lot sizes proposed allow adequate outdoor amenity space for residents. Trails have been provided for the use and enjoyment of the public. As has been requested, cash-in-lieu of parkland will be paid by the developer to the Township.
Page 207 of 228 -4- Agency Comments
The attached comment matrix indicates how the agency comments have been addressed.
Provincial Policy Statement 2020
Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 Approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, Order in Council No. 229/2020 This Provincial Policy Statement was issued under section 3 of the Planning Act and comes into effect May 1, 2020. It replaces the Provincial Policy Statement issued April 30, 2014.
The Provincial Policy Statement is issued under the authority of section 3 of the Planning Act and comes into effect on May 1, 2020. In respect of the exercise of any authority that affects a planning matter, section 3 of the Planning Act requires that decisions affecting planning matters “shall be consistent with” policy statements issued under the Act. Comments, submissions or advice that affect a planning matter that are provided by the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board, a minister or ministry, board, commission or agency of the government “shall be consistent with” this Provincial Policy Statement.
The Provincial Policy Statement provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. (bolding added for emphasis)
“Part IV: Vision for Ontario’s Land Use Planning System
The Provincial Policy Statement focuses growth and development within urban and rural settlement areas while supporting the viability of rural areas.”
“1.1 Managing and Directing Land Use to Achieve Efficient and Resilient Development and Land Use Patterns
1.1.1 Healthy, liveable and safe communities are sustained by:
a) promoting efficient development and land use patterns which sustain the financial well-being of the Province and municipalities over the long term;”
1.1.3 Settlement Areas
The vitality and regeneration of settlement areas is critical to the long-term economic prosperity of our communities. Development pressures and land use change will vary across Ontario. It is in the interest of all communities to use land and resources wisely, to promote efficient development patterns, protect resources, promote green spaces, ensure effective use of infrastructure and public service facilities and minimize unnecessary public expenditures.
1.1.3.1 Settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development.
1.1.3.2 Land use patterns within settlement areas shall be based on densities and a mix of land uses which:
a) efficiently use land and resources;
Page 208 of 228 -5-
1.1.3.4 Appropriate development standards should be promoted which facilitate intensification, redevelopment and compact form, while avoiding or mitigating risks to public health and safety.”
“1.1.4.2 In rural areas, rural settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development and their vitality and regeneration shall be promoted.
1.1.4.3 When directing development in rural settlement areas in accordance with policy 1.1.3, planning authorities shall give consideration to rural characteristics, the scale of development and the provision of appropriate service levels.”
“2.5 Mineral Aggregate Resources
2.5.3 Rehabilitation
2.5.3.1 Progressive and final rehabilitation shall be required to accommodate subsequent land uses, to promote land use compatibility, to recognize the interim nature of extraction, and to mitigate negative impacts to the extent possible. Final rehabilitation shall take surrounding land use and approved land use designations into consideration.”
The proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 in the following manner:
promoting efficient development and land use patterns focusing growth within a rural settlement area the scale of the proposed development and the provision of service levels are appropriate The previous aggregate operation on the property will be rehabilitated to a residential use
A Place to Grow (Office Consolidation 2020)
A Place to Grow May 2019 was approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, Order in Council No 641/2019. “The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2019 was prepared and approved under the Places to Grow Act, 2005 to take effect on May 16, 2019. This Plan applies to the area designated by Ontario Regulation 416/05 as the Greater Golden Horseshoe growth plan area. All decisions made on or after May 16, 2019 in respect of the exercise of any authority that affects a planning matter will conform with this Plan, subject to any legislative or regulatory provisions providing otherwise. Amendment 1 (2020) to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2019 was approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, Order in Council No 1244/2020 to take effect on August 28, 2020. As provided for in the Places to Grow Act, 2005, this Plan prevails where there is a conflict between this Plan and the PPS. The only exception is where the conflict is between policies relating to the natural environment or human health. In that case, the direction that provides more protection to the natural environment or human health prevails.”
Excerpts from the Growth Plan are included below. Bolding has been added for emphasis.
“2.1 Context
Page 209 of 228 -6-
“Strong, healthy and prosperous rural communities are also vital to the economic success of the GGH and contribute to our quality of life. This Plan recognizes and promotes the important role of rural towns and villages as a focus of economic, cultural and social activities that support surrounding rural and agricultural areas across the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH).”
“2.2.1 Managing Growth
1.b) growth will be limited in settlement areas that:
i. are rural settlements;”
The proposed development is in conformity with the Provincial A place to Grow Policy Statement 2020 in the following manner:
growth will be limited to a rural settlement
I trust that this Addendum Planning Report has addressed the requested items. Should additional information be required please let me know.
Yours truly,
Astrid Clos, MCIP, RPP
Page 210 of 228 Page 211 of 228 of 211 Page
149
193
7252 J.M. QUARRIE DRIVE QUARRIE J.M.
23
7257 INVERHAUGH ROAD INVERHAUGH
143
213
203
31 RESIDENTIAL
139 BRUDER
217 COURT
39
135
REGISTERED PLAN 838 REGISTERED PLAN 838
LOT 1
47
219
0.3m RESERVE RESIDENTIAL BLOCK 16
129
7252
225
LOT 2
BRICK HOUSE 353
POOL
2 STOREY
55
20.043m N49°35'10"W
352
352 N49°35'10"W
353
123 93.525m 8.9m
241
12.9m
N57°58'00"W
10m WALKWAY AND EMERGENCY ACCESS EMERGENCY AND WALKWAY 10m
346
346
353 2,380m²
24
249 147.877m
64m
352 FRAME BLOCK 44 BLOCK SHED
55m
2,459m²
25
NRSI ON SEPTEMBER 20, 351
69m DRIPLINE FLAGGED BY 346 40.166m
27.906m 350 N53°01'50"W
N70°49'20"W
N36°42'20"W
346
347 N43°54'30"E
348 349
2017.
351 352
350
10m BUFFER FROM SIGNIFICANT WOODLAND 353 349 54.272m 348 354
355
PROPOSED TRAIL PLAN
356 347 357 SUBJECT TO EASEMENT 358 53.3m 25m
INST. RO796660
23 359 PART 32 61R-3481 25m
20.853m
346 N70°45'00"W R=20m
2,508m²
NRSI AND CONFIRMED BY GRCA
SURVEYED BY VAN HARTEN ON
ON SEPTEMBER 20, 2017 AND WETLAND LIMIT FLAGGED BY 346
25m
360
SWAN 359
NOVEMBER 30, 2017. 360
358 357 357
6284
2,364m² N44°30'15"E 40m 25.842m
NRSI ON SEPTEMBER 20, DRIPLINE FLAGGED BY 53.2m
26 SIGNIFICANT
WOODLAND
WETLAND R=20m
43.3m 357
7272
BLOCK 43
CREEK
2017. 22
20.117m SPACE 25m
1.57ha R=20m
2,055m² OPEN N65°59'45"W 30m 65.1m N44°30'15"E 47.569m
2,385m²
356
65.9m G.R.C.A.
348 355
27 350 1,975m²
30m
74.3m 21
34.991m 351
349 2,295m²
39m N65°59'05"W
352
353 354
7273
355
BUFFER
30m WETLAND 30m
N29°45'20"E 350 205.020m
ESTIMATED FLOODLINE ESTIMATED 65.7m 356
28
R=8m
53.355m 357
358 65.4m
STREET A R=28m 34m 359
2,141m²
1,967m²
20 360
360 359
29 R=8m
2,454m² 73.2m
R=8m
30m 65.4m 359
359 37.830m
N79°25'40"W 351
7276
1,960m²
19
30
355
84.6m
356 357 STREET B STREET
357 358
2,875m² 356 353 354 355 STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT BARN 358
BLOCK 42 353
353 65.2m 359
352 2.30ha
31 STORMWATER
352 MANAGEMENT
N48°01'55"E 353 360
BLOCK 41
1,957m²
74.9m 30m 18 360 0.60ha
359 360 360
359 359
358
10m
67.7m 358
357
356 356
357
HP 357
65.2m 356
2,916m² 355
32 30m
1,958m²
17
N43°19'20"E
7278 88.717m 92.6m
R=28m 113.6m
356 65.3m
R=8m
355 357
ESTIMATED FLOODLINE ESTIMATED 30.3m HP
20m
30m
1,959m² 16
N45°12'25"W BARN 59.139m 355 356 357 358
2,011m²
2,027m²
37
38 BARN 359
67m 2,010m² 61.6m 2,011m² 2,010m²
67m
39
2,004m²
34
2,017m² 67m 35
67m 360 36 33 65.3m
R=20m
360 37.6m
2,359m²
40
25m 2,136m² 359 358
15 357 SIDEROAD No. 4 N44°30'15"E HP
7285 R=10m
30m 30m 357 R=8m 30.1m R=8m 30m 30m
R=8m 64.7m
25m
358
20m
359
STREET A 363 360
362 361
HP
360 358
359 R=28m R=10m
3,030m²
14
360 25m 30.1m 30m 30m R=20m
30m 215.202m
25m 25m 359
359
6m DRAINAGE EASEMENT BARN
359
360
361 125.752m
2,018m² 67.3m
2,021m² 2,013m² 67.1m 67.2m 67.4m 67m 2,016m² 102.6m
2,108m² 66.9m
2,011m²
3 67m
2,008m²
5 4
2,001m²
2 2,003m²
1 7
2,006m² 66.6m 66.8m
2,101m²
6 66.7m
2,510m²
11
10
13 9
8
65.7m 76.8 360
2,141m²
12
361
BARN
363 362
361
363
362
363
364
364
365
366
367 GRAVEL ROAD 367 POST & WIRE FENCE N44°40'25"W 430.377m
366 366
AGRICULTURE
367
357 356
358
368 359
360
361
362
356 363
364 357 369
6284
370 371 Report to Council
To: Mayor Linton and Members of Council Report: COR2021-43 Prepared By: Mark Bradey, Manager of Finance & Date: 30 Aug 2021 Deputy Treasurer
RE: Capital Projects Status - June 30, 2021
Report: Quarterly, Financial Services presents to Council an update on the status of capital projects managed by the Township. A summary for the second quarter of 2021 is provided as Attachment A.
The comments contained in Attachment A were developed through discussions with the Managing Director in charge of each capital project.
Consultation: The preparation for this report was done in consultation with: • The Township’s Managing Directors • Kaileigh Osburn, Supervisor of Accounting and Capital
Attachments: ● Attachment A - Analysis of Capital Projects at June 30, 2021
Approved By: Dan Wilson, Managing Director of Corporate Services & Treasurer Andy Goldie, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 212 of 228 Attachment A Township of Centre Wellington Analysis of Capital Projects As At June 30, 2021
Actual Under/ Project Project Description Budget Budget (Over) Comments # Year (Note 1) Expenditures Revenues Budget
General Government 1 Video Surveillance - Sportsplex and Elora Community Centre 2016 80,000 7,455 80,000 72,545 Project underway. Expect completion in 2021 2 Video Surveillance - Various Environmental Sites 2016 80,000 32,147 80,000 47,853 Project underway. Expect completion in 2021 3 By-Law Review and Enforcement Training 2017/19 20,000 27,081 43,044 (7,081) Review of multiple By-laws ongoing 4 Purchasing By-Law Review '18 2018 10,000 - 10,000 10,000 Project underway - expect completion in 2021 or early 2022 5 MS Office 365 Cloud 15 Users Pilot 2018 10,000 3,666 10,000 6,334 Project expected to be completed in 2021 6 MacDonald Trust Administration 2018 - 10,692 10,040 (10,692) Legal costs for developing agreements with MacDonald grant recipients 7 Ontario Cannabis Legalization Fund 2019 - - 20,975 - Provincial grant money received 8 Municipal Building Audit Update 2019 150,000 75,285 150,000 74,715 Project substantially complete 9 Civic Centre/CW Sportsplex Key Scan 2019 40,000 20,370 40,000 19,630 Civic Centre & Sportsplex complete - Other locations to be completed in 2022 10 Financial System Review and Implementation 2019 20,000 1,860 20,000 18,140 Project ongoing in 2021 - Funds to be used for various software upgrades 11 Indoor Turf Training Facility Feasibility Study 2019 50,000 - 5,000 50,000 Project deferred to post-covid. To be completed in 2022 12 Development Charges Study - 2019 2019 - 77,523 60,000 (77,523) Project complete 13 Water and Wastewater Rate Study - 2020 2020 60,000 28,279 29,000 31,721 Project complete 14 Asset Management Implementation 2020/2021 295,000 207,896 295,000 87,104 Project underway - expect completion in early 2022 15 Elora Centre for the Arts Building - 2020 2020 55,000 51,483 55,000 3,517 Project ongoing in 2021 16 Parking Enforcement 2020 100,000 8,494 100,000 91,506 Pilot project commenced in early June and ends in October 2021 17 Elora Information Centre Accessible Security 2020 14,000 - 14,000 14,000 Project on hold until post-COVID 18 GEN - COVID-19 2020 - 34,011 30,577 (34,011) Costs specific to COVID-19 19 PW - COVID-19 2020 - 75,412 64,281 (75,412) Costs specific to COVID-19 20 ENV - COVID-19 2020 - 147,746 144,886 (147,746) Costs specific to COVID-19 21 P&R - COVID-19 2020 - 170,268 148,112 (170,268) Costs specific to COVID-19 22 Implementation of Various Online Services 2021 20,000 - 20,000 20,000 Ongoing in 2021 and 2022 23 Elora Centre for the Arts Building - 2021 2021 - 8,500 17,000 (8,500) Project ongoing in 2021 24 Procedure By-Law - Public Engagement Strategy 2021 - 17,271 17,271 (17,271) Project complete 25 IT&S Equipment Replacement 2021 218,200 43,687 43,687 174,513 Project ongoing in 2021
Total General Government - Municipal Buildings 1,222,200 1,049,127 1,507,873 173,073
Fire Services 26 Emergency Response Software 2018 20,000 5,762 4,300 14,238 Project ongoing in 2021 27 Elora Fire Station Renovation/Expansion 2018/19/20 415,000 393,718 403,280 21,282 Construction completed 2020 - Parking lot to be completed in summer 2021 28 Two Thermal Imaging Cameras 2021 28,000 - - 28,000 To be purchased by fall 2021 29 Rescue Supply Line for Volunteer Firefighters SCBA 2021 17,000 21,003 17,000 (4,003) Project complete 30 Fergus Fire Station Hose Tower Repair 2021 15,000 - 15,000 15,000 Project to commence in 2021, additional funding scheduled in 2022 31 Fire - Vehicle Replacement 2021 196,000 139,080 139,080 56,920 Project ongoing in 2021 32 Fire Equipment Replacement 2021 118,300 6,584 6,584 111,716 Project ongoing in 2021 33 Municipal FD Training Officer Vehicle Replacement 2021 - - - - No vehicle replacements budgeted in 2021
Total Fire Services 809,300 566,147 585,244 243,153
Transportation and Public Works
Integrated Capital Projects
34 Rds: St David St N - St Andrew St to Garafraxa St 2013 - 11,827 - (11,827) WW: St David St N - St Andrew St to Garafraxa St 2011/2021 120,000 65,093 120,000 54,907 SS: St David St N - St Andrew St to Garafraxa St 2011/2021 180,000 72,746 180,000 107,254 300,000 149,666 300,000 150,334 Detailed design in progress. Planning for fall 2021 Connecting Links application
35 WW: Highway 6 Trunk Water Main Extension to Sideroad 18 Oversizing 2013/19/20/21 815,000 73,144 1,144,670 741,856 SS: Highway 6 - Sideroad 19 to Sideroad 18 2013/19/20/21 1,790,000 152,054 1,300,590 1,637,946 2,605,000 225,198 2,445,260 2,379,802 Construction has commenced. Completion fall 2021
36 Rds: Princess St (Elora) - Church St to Grand River 2017/20 670,000 597,733 670,000 72,267 WW: Princess St (Elora) - Church St to Grand River 2017/20 370,000 257,104 399,567 112,896 SS: Princess St (Elora) - Church St to Grand River 2017/20 45,000 43,317 48,407 1,683 Page 213 of 228 1,085,000 898,154 1,117,975 186,846 Project substantially complete - surface asphalt in 2022
37 Rds: Wellington Dr - Cuthbert St to Cuthbert St 2017/19/20 450,000 311,948 334,920 138,052 WW: Wellington Dr - Cuthbert St to Cuthbert St 2017/19/20 655,000 594,376 664,160 60,624 RDS: Foote Crescent Paving 2021 - 13,503 20,000 (13,503) 1,105,000 919,827 1,019,080 185,173 Project complete Township of Centre Wellington Analysis of Capital Projects As At June 30, 2021
Actual Under/ Project Project Description Budget Budget (Over) Comments # Year (Note 1) Expenditures Revenues Budget
38 Rds: Cuthbert St - Wellington Dr to Wellington Dr 2017/20 70,000 43,145 42,670 26,855 WW: Cuthbert St - Wellington Dr to Wellington Dr 2017/20 210,000 221,224 256,470 (11,224) 280,000 264,369 299,140 15,631 Project complete
39 Rds: High St - McNab to York 2019 880,000 714,084 750,835 165,916 Rds: York St - Waterloo to Victoria 2019 1,470,000 1,086,503 1,321,614 383,497 Rds: WR 7 and York St Turning Lane 2019 100,000 111,429 115,048 (11,429) WW: High St - McNab to York 2019 170,000 103,335 104,094 66,665 WW: York St - Waterloo to Victoria 2019 340,000 229,513 240,274 110,487 SS: High St - McNab to York 2019 80,000 67,499 59,077 12,501 SS: York St - Waterloo to Victoria 2019 35,000 13,362 15,431 21,638 3,075,000 2,325,724 2,606,373 749,276 Project substantially complete - surface asphalt in 2022
40 RDS: Woolwich St Sidewalk - Salem Bridge to WR 7 2019/20 140,000 59,171 140,000 80,829 RDS: Geddes St Sidewalk - Avruskin to Salem Bridge 2019/20 110,000 49,484 110,000 60,516 SD: Salem Bridge Storm Sewer 2019/20 80,000 159,117 80,000 (79,117) WW: Salem Bridge, WR 18 and James St Watermain 2019/20 905,000 829,045 90,500 75,955 SS: LPS Forcemain Temporary Relocation for Salem Bridge Project 2019/20 270,000 259,364 270,000 10,636 1,505,000 1,356,182 690,500 148,818 Project completed in 2021
41 WW: Replace Watermain on WR7 from North of Ross to WR21 2021 120,000 183,068 123,770 (63,068) SS: Replace Watermain on WR7 from North of Ross to WR21 2021 - 117,861 226,704 (117,861) 120,000 300,929 350,474 (180,929) Project complete
42 RDS: Elora St - Tower St to Perth St 2019/20 590,000 547,923 607,473 42,077 WW: Elora St - Tower St to Perth St 2019/20 405,000 240,808 418,105 164,192 SS: Elora St - Tower St to Perth St 2019/20 400,000 255,718 413,105 144,282 1,395,000 1,044,450 1,438,683 350,550 Project substantially complete - surface asphalt in 2022
43 RDS: Heritage River Offsite Works 2020 - 4,577 14,950 (4,577) WW: Heritage River Offsite Works 2020 - 5,644 11,970 (5,644) SS: Heritage River Offsite Works 2020 40,000 25,685 51,280 14,315 40,000 35,906 78,200 4,094 Project substantially complete
44 RDS: St George St E - Herrick St to Gartshore St 2019 - 33,742 33,742 (33,742) WW: St George St E - Herrick St to Gartshore St 2019 - 19,430 19,430 (19,430) SS: St George St E - Herrick St to Gartshore St 2019 - 21,304 21,304 (21,304) - 74,476 74,476 (74,476) Funded from Pre-Engineering in 2019 & 2020 - scheduled for 2022 construction
45 RDS: Dickson Drive Employment Land Servicing - Phase 1 2021 820,000 17,381 - 802,619 WW: Dickson Drive Employment Land Servicing - Phase 1 2021 285,000 5,794 - 279,206 SS: Dickson Drive Employment Land Servicing - Phase 1 2021 235,000 5,794 - 229,206 1,340,000 28,968 - 1,311,032 Design currently underway
46 RDS: Hill St E (Fergus) - Herrick St to Gartshore St 2020 - 2,807 2,807 (2,807) WW: Hill St E (Fergus) - Herrick St to Gartshore St 2020 - 2,105 2,105 (2,105) SS: Hill St E (Fergus) - Herrick St to Gartshore St 2020 - 2,105 2,105 (2,105) - 7,017 7,017 (7,017) Funded from Pre-Engineering in 2020 - scheduled for 2023 construction
47 RDS: 435 Garafraxa St W Servicing 2021 - - - - WW: 435 Garafraxa St W Servicing 2021 - - - - SS: 435 Garafraxa St W Servicing 2021 ------Design underway. Construction planned for spring/summer 2022
48 WW: Prior Year Closed Capital Projects 2020 - 341 341 (341) SS: Prior Year Closed Capital Projects 2020 - - - -
Page 214 of 228 Tax Supported: Prior Year Closed Capital Projects 2020 - 8,048 8,048 (8,048) - 8,389 8,389 (8,389) Ongoing in 2021 Township of Centre Wellington Analysis of Capital Projects As At June 30, 2021
Actual Under/ Project Project Description Budget Budget (Over) Comments # Year (Note 1) Expenditures Revenues Budget
Roads Capital Projects
49 3rd Line - Carroll Creek Bridge (24-P) 2008/09/20 2,270,000 1,760,323 1,920,861 509,677 Bridge open in fall 2020 - project complete 50 Wightman Telecom - Municipal Access 2014 - 300,282 300,282 (300,282) Project complete 51 Redside Dace Monitoring Program Implementation 2018/19/20/21 98,000 80,420 98,000 17,580 Project ongoing in 2021 52 Fifth Line Bridge (4-E) 2019 400,000 37,659 37,659 362,341 Structure rehabilitation deferred to 2022 - currently reviewing rehabilitation options 53 Gordon St and St David St Intersection Signalization 2019 850,000 684,956 684,956 165,044 Project complete 54 Downtown Fergus Streetlight Electrical Repairs 2019/20 120,000 99,593 120,000 20,407 Project complete 55 Beatty Line and Millage Lane Intersection Improvements 2019 810,000 696,321 836,202 113,679 Project substantially complete 56 Carlton Place Pre-Engineering 2018 - 72,756 72,756 (72,756) Design underway, coordinating with developer and utilities - Funded from Pre-Engineering in 2018 & 2020 57 Badley Bridge Streetlights and Metcalfe St Utility Crossing 2020 160,000 51,350 160,000 108,650 Project complete 58 Beatty Line Corridor Design 2020 100,000 49,316 64,400 50,684 Preliminary design complete 59 Bridge and Culvert Structure Inspection - 2020 2020 60,000 63,261 60,000 (3,261) Project complete 60 First Line Bridge (24-WG) 2019/21 200,000 103,707 103,707 96,293 Funded from Pre-Engineering-Bridges 2019/20 - Design/contract administration awarded, Construction 2022 61 Fifth Line Bridge (4-WG) 2019/21 1,350,000 282,003 282,003 1,067,997 Funded from Pre-Engineering - Bridges 2019/20 - Construction underway - to be completed in fall 2021 62 Sideroad 4 Bridge (14-P) 2020 - 12,755 12,755 (12,755) Funded from Pre-Engineering - Bridges 2020 - Construction planned for 2022 63 Bridge Repairs and Remediation - 2021 2021 90,000 - - 90,000 Bridge 12-N repairs deferred to 2022 64 Pre-Engineering Bridges - 2021 2021 190,000 35,636 35,636 154,364 Project ongoing in 2021 65 Road Condition Assessment - 2021 2021 50,000 - - 50,000 Project deferred to 2022 66 Eighth Line W - Middlebrook Rd to WR 18 2021 480,000 5,969 5,969 474,031 Tender awarded - construction planned for August 2021 67 Tar and Chip Resurfacing - Third Line - WR 19 to 1600m South of WR19 2021 110,000 4,261 4,261 105,739 Project substantially complete 68 First Line - WR 19 to SR 10 Paving 2021 320,000 5,791 579 314,209 Project substantially complete 69 Rural Road Upgrades - Maintenance Gravel - 2021 2021 375,000 332,010 375,000 42,990 Project complete 70 Rural Road Rebuild - Sideroad 10 - WR 7 to Gerrie Rd 2021 200,000 391 46,191 199,609 Project underway 71 Sidewalk and Infrastructure Improvements - WR 18 and Gerrie Rd 2021 200,000 - - 200,000 County project - construction underway 72 Sidewalk and Infrastructure Improvements - Beatty Line and St. Andrews St 2021 200,000 520 - 199,480 County project - construction underway 73 Sidewalk Repairs and Replacement - 2021 2021 90,000 - 90,000 90,000 Tender to be awarded summer 2021 74 AODA Audibles - Tower St and McQueen Blvd Intersection 2021 25,000 18,714 25,000 6,286 Project complete 75 St Andrew St - Tower St to Breadalbane Streetlight Electrical Repairs 2021 70,000 - 70,000 70,000 Repairs planned for summer 2021
Water Capital Projects
76 Fergus Well F7 Filtration 2009/19/21 1,990,000 213,298 1,539,500 1,776,702 Filter supply RFP to be awarded in August. Construction in 2021/22 77 Bulk Water Fill Station 2014 80,000 8,805 80,000 71,195 To be coordinated with construction of corporate operations facility 78 Fergus Well F1 Chlorine Room Relocation 2018 140,000 - 140,000 140,000 Design planned for 2021, construction planned for 2022 79 Water Taking Permit/License Renewal 2019/21 450,000 23,730 450,000 426,270 Updated license received. Drilling monitoring wells and well field testing in 2021/22 80 F5 Additional Well Capacity 2019/20 863,000 23,032 - 839,968 Replacement and monitoring well drilling underway. To be completed fall 2021 81 Water Supply Well Rehabilitation 2019 150,000 38,923 150,000 111,077 Well F1 substantially complete. Well E3 rehabilitation planned for fall 2021 82 Distribution Optimization 2020 50,000 - 50,000 50,000 Currently reviewing options 83 LT Water Supply Strategy Implementation - Phase 2 GW Invest Study 2020 2,420,000 33,999 - 2,386,001 Project underway - new well assessment to be completed in 2022 84 F2 Well Additional Capacity 2020/21 1,042,000 19,464 - 1,022,536 Replacement and monitoring well drilling underway. To be completed fall 2021 85 AMI Smart Meter Pilot 2020 60,000 57,274 60,000 2,726 Pilot project underway - currently reviewing options for community wide implementation 86 Water Tower Safety Rail Upgrades 2020 30,000 12,187 30,000 17,813 Project complete 87 PLC Firmware Updates 2020 15,000 7,275 15,000 7,725 Project complete 88 Water Distribution System Leak Detection 2020 10,000 - 10,000 10,000 To be completed in 2022 89 Emergency - Fergus Well F7 Well Riser Pipe and Packer Repairs 2020 - 129,540 129,540 (129,540) Repairs complete - Well back online - Reported to council on July 26 90 Hill St E (Fergus) - Gowrie St to Cameron St 2020/21 490,000 60,837 387,495 429,163 Construction underway - to be completed fall 2021 91 Gartshore Water Tower - Exterior Tank Cleaning 2021 20,000 - 20,000 20,000 To be completed by fall 2021 92 Annual Water Meter Replacement 2021 - 47,478 47,478 (47,478) Project ongoing in 2021 93 WW: Vehicle Replacement 2021 330,000 - - 330,000 Project ongoing in 2021 94 WW: Equipment Replacement 2021 50,500 8,621 8,621 41,879 Project ongoing in 2021 Page 215 of 228 Township of Centre Wellington Analysis of Capital Projects As At June 30, 2021
Actual Under/ Project Project Description Budget Budget (Over) Comments # Year (Note 1) Expenditures Revenues Budget
Wastewater Capital Projects
95 Wastewater Master Plan 2013 120,000 89,190 87,694 30,810 Project underway - to be completed in 2021 96 Fergus WWTP Digester Roof Alternatives 2018 50,000 29,586 50,000 20,414 Construction ongoing - expected completion fall 2021 97 495 Union St - Designated Substances Removal 2019 20,000 25,664 20,000 (5,664) Project complete 98 Fergus WWTP - Digester Roof Replacement 2019/21 2,330,000 509,149 2,330,000 1,820,851 Construction ongoing - expected completion fall 2021 99 LPS Grinder Pumps and LPS Alarm Panel Upgrades 2019/20 85,000 14,963 85,000 70,037 Project ongoing in 2021 100 West Mill SPS Forcemain Replacement on Metcalfe St 2020 30,000 - 30,000 30,000 Project complete 101 Emergency - Fergus WWTP Various Repairs 2020 - 119,750 119,750 (119,750) Project completed in 2021 - Reported to council July 26 102 Sanitary and Storm Sewer Condition Assessments - 2021 2021 200,000 - 160,000 200,000 Project planned for fall 2021 103 Wastewater Collections Truck 2021 40,000 - - 40,000 Tender awarded - to be received in 2021 104 St George St W - Fergus Curling Club to Provost Lane 2020/21 315,000 30,758 199,140 284,242 Construction underway - to be completed fall 2021 105 Sewer Relining and Repairs 2021 100,000 - 100,000 100,000 Reviewing options 106 Fergus WWTP Secondary Digester Clean Out - 2021 2021 100,000 40,242 100,000 59,758 Project complete 107 Clyde St Sewage Pumping Station Jockey Pump 2021 20,000 20,000 20,000 Pump has been ordered. Expect delivery in summer 2021 108 Elora WWTP Odour Treatment System Media Replacement 2021 225,000 225,000 225,000 Project to be completed fall 2021 109 Wastewater SCADA Upgrades 2021 50,000 15,699 50,000 34,301 Project underway - to be completed in 2021 110 Elora WWTP Lighting Repairs 2021 30,000 - 30,000 30,000 Reviewing options - expected completion in fall 2021 111 Fergus WWTP Headworks Pump Replacement 2021 30,000 - 30,000 30,000 To be completed fall 2021 112 Fergus WWTP Sludge Storage Transfer Pump 2021 40,000 342 40,000 39,658 To be completed fall 2021 113 SS: Vehicle Replacement 2021 345,000 - - 345,000 Project ongoing in 2021 114 SS: Equipment Replacement 2021 124,750 23,815 23,815 100,935 Project ongoing in 2021 115 SS: LPSS Grinder Pump Purchases 2021 35,000 13,318 13,318 21,682 Project ongoing in 2021
Storm Drainage Capital Projects
116 Trunk Storm - Moir St. to the Gorge 2017/21 445,000 86,534 248,400 358,466 Class EA underway - easements required before proceeding with construction 117 Storm Water Master Plan 2021 150,000 - 30,000 150,000 Project to commence fall 2021 118 Catch Basin Rebuilds - 2021 2021 40,000 - 40,000 40,000 Tender to be awarded summer 2021 119 Rennie Blvd Cul-de-Sac Drainage Improvements 2021 50,000 - 50,000 50,000 Project to be completed fall 2021
Other Public Works Capital Projects
120 Corporate Operations Facilities 2012/20 600,000 178,256 162,650 421,745 Preferred alternative approved by council. Site selection process underway 121 Gravel Road Management Strategy 2019 - 15,111 20,000 (15,111) Project underway - to be completed 2021 122 New Utility Truck 2020 140,000 117,875 - 22,125 Truck received in 2021 123 Single Axle Truck 2021 300,000 20,053 - 279,947 Tender awarded 124 Pre-Engineering and Approvals for Future Years Projects - 2021 2021 100,000 64,314 67,172 35,686 Project ongoing in 2021 125 Sidewalk Snow Plow 2021 50,000 44,673 - 5,327 Snow plow received in 2021 126 PW: Vehicle Replacement 2020 621,000 53,437 53,437 567,563 Project ongoing in 2021 127 PW: Equipment Replacement 2020 76,900 27,511 27,511 49,389 Project ongoing in 2021
Total Transportation & Public Works 36,721,150 14,541,952 23,372,306 22,179,198
Health Services 128 Elora Cemetery - Cremation Monument Foundations 2019 30,000 7,191 30,000 22,809 Construction in 2021 129 Belsyde Cemetery - Casket Lot Foundations - Block D - Ph 1B 2020 40,000 - 40,000 40,000 Project cancelled in 2021 130 Elora Cemetery - Benches, Garbage Cans, Signs 2020 20,000 8,257 20,000 11,743 To be completed in 2021
Total Health Services 90,000 15,448 90,000 74,552
Parks & Recreation
Facilities 131 Announcement System - CWCS 2015 25,000 11,727 25,000 13,273 Timing to coordinate with new phone system in 2021 132 Sportsplex Maintenance Building Insulation, Plumbing & Heating 2017 200,000 39,898 200,000 160,102 Project is ongoing in 2021 133 Sportsplex Grounds Survey 2019 15,000 - 15,000 15,000 Contract awarded to be completed in fall 2021 134 Fergus Scottish Festival - Sportsplex Campground 2020 55,000 - 84,040 55,000 Project to be completed in summer/fall 2021
Page 216 of 228 135 Pad B Insulation and Mesh Replacement 2020 25,000 - 25,000 25,000 Project deferred until summer 2022 due to vaccine clinic 136 Sportsplex Campground Hydro Upgrades 2020 52,000 - 52,000 52,000 Project to be completed in summer/fall 2021 137 Sportsplex Covid-19 Vaccine Clinic 2021 - 30,417 - (30,417) Project is ongoing in 2021 138 Announcement System - ECC 2016 20,000 - 20,000 20,000 Timing to coordinate with new phone system in 2021 139 Skateboard Area 2016 175,000 423,820 439,328 (248,820) Skate park open. Netting and landscaping contract awarded in 2020 - installation in summer 2021 140 ECC/Belwood Hall Concept Design for Accessibility 2019 100,000 11,991 100,000 88,009 Belwood architect awarded. ECC part of ICIP grant awarded 141 Elora Community Centre Ice Pad Replacement 2021 1,300,000 - 1,300,000 1,300,000 Design planned in 2021, construction to start in fall 2022. Expect completion in 2023 Township of Centre Wellington Analysis of Capital Projects As At June 30, 2021
Actual Under/ Project Project Description Budget Budget (Over) Comments # Year (Note 1) Expenditures Revenues Budget
142 ECFTA - Accessible Washroom and Building Improvements 2019 - 35,000 35,000 (35,000) Jack MacDonald funds advanced to ECFTA as per terms of agreement 143 Culture Action Plan Update 2021 40,000 - 40,000 40,000 Consulting RFP to be released fall 2021 144 VPSC Roof Reengineering and Construction 2017/19 90,000 40,636 91,205 49,364 Project substantially completed 145 VPSC Internal Water Damage Repairs 2018 - 37,118 78,658 (37,118) Insurance funds received in 2018 - project ongoing in 2021
Parks and Other 146 Bissell Park Accessible Washrooms 07/09/11/14/15 317,500 448,020 448,020 (130,520) Funding repurposed for Bissell Park multi-pad improvements 147 Victoria Park (Elora) - Phase II Implementation 2014 312,000 191,395 271,000 120,605 Remaining funds for Victoria Park improvements (fencing & stairs) - currently in design stage 148 Park Identification - All Parks 2014/15/16/17/21 45,000 30,687 45,000 14,313 Branding established - ongoing in 2021 149 Dog Park Fundraising - Fergus 2015 - 4,252 8,906 (4,252) Fundraising ongoing by dog park committee 150 Veteran's Park (Salem) 2017 15,000 2,748 15,000 12,252 Project to be completed by fall 2021 151 Bissell Park - Upgrade Multi-Purpose Pad 2017 - 126 418,903 (126) Currently in design stage. Includes donations to date of $17,500 152 Urban Forestry 2014-17/19/20/21 1,090,000 936,890 1,094,200 153,110 Ongoing in 2021 153 Trails & Sidewalk Enhancements 2016/17/19/20 250,000 190,798 279,500 59,202 Ongoing in 2021 154 Barrier Free Path of Travel in Community Service Buildings 2017/19 265,000 34,603 265,000 230,397 Planned universal washroom at Sportsplex in 2021 - project deferred due to vaccine clinic 155 Southridge Development Park - Washroom Building 2018/19 200,000 12,916 30,600 187,084 Project complete 156 Storybrook East Park Development (Kirvan Park) 2019/20 450,000 386,705 393,000 63,295 Project substantially complete 157 O'Brien Park Washrooms 2019 60,000 20,352 128,540 39,648 Project substantially complete 158 Forfar Park - Play Equipment, Landscaping & Trail Development 2020/21 340,000 8,702 57,800 331,298 Project to commence in 2021 159 Victoria Park (Fergus) Water Bottle Filling Station 2020 5,000 3,723 5,000 1,277 Scheduled to be installed in 2021 160 Confederation Park Improvements 2020 60,000 12,720 66,000 47,280 Project is ongoing in 2021 161 Utility Tractor 2020 72,000 - 7,200 72,000 Project to be purchased in 2021 162 Outdoor Basketball Multi-use Court (Sportsplex) 2021 80,000 - - 80,000 Design to be completed in 2021, construction in 2022 163 Beatty Hollow Neighbourhood Park 2021 100,000 - - 100,000 Project to commence in 2022 164 Trestle Bridge Trail Ditch Improvement 2021 30,000 - 30,000 30,000 Project to commence in 2021 165 Water Trailer 2021 10,000 - - 10,000 To be purchased in 2021 166 Parks Truck 2021 40,000 - - 40,000 Tender awarded, expect delivery in 2021 167 Graham Park Playground and Landscaping 2021 - 1,328 - (1,328) Funding received from developer in July. Project to be completed in 2022 168 Vehicle Replacement 2021 170,000 - - 170,000 Project ongoing in 2021 169 Facilities - Equipment Replacement 2021 538,850 90,012 90,012 448,838 Project ongoing in 2021 170 Parks - Equipment Replacement 2021 498,900 198,700 198,700 300,200 Project ongoing in 2021
Total Parks & Recreation 7,046,250 3,205,284 6,357,612 3,840,966
Planning & Development 171 Official Plan Review 2009 150,000 16,423 59,750 133,577 Township's plan is dependant on County's timetable 172 South Fergus Master Environmental Servicing Plan 2018 375,000 4,497 1,165 370,503 Project ongoing 173 Building Permit and Development Fee Review Study 2019 50,000 15,523 16,285 34,477 Project ongoing, expect completion in 2021 174 Street Renaming and Implementation 2020 20,000 - 20,000 20,000 Project deferred to post-COVID 175 Business Park Strategy 2020 50,000 49,354 50,000 646 Project complete 176 CIP Update 2020/21 50,000 - 25,000 50,000 Funding received from County - defining scope of work 177 Termite Management Program 2021 60,000 - 60,000 60,000 Survey report presented to Council in spring 2021 - reviewing options for termite management program 178 Urban Design Guidelines 2012/15 40,000 31,680 40,000 8,320 Project ongoing 179 Rural & Cultural Heritage Landscape Registry 2018/19/20 100,000 52,110 75,600 47,890 Final CHL report endorsed by council
Total Planning & Development 895,000 169,587 347,800 725,413
Building Department 180 Bldg - Vehicle Replacement 2021 - - - - No vehicle replacements budgeted in 2021
Total Building Department - - - -
Total - Capital Projects 46,783,900 19,547,545 32,260,834 27,236,355
Note 1 - The "Budget" column includes amounts that have been approved by Council through the annual capital budget process. It does not include adjustments due to the award of tenders or RFP's during the year. Page 217 of 228 Report to Council
To: Mayor Linton and Members of Council Report: COR2021-42 Prepared By: Mark Bradey, Manager of Finance & Date: 30 Aug 2021 Deputy Treasurer
RE: Operating Results - June 30, 2021
Report: The quantitative and qualitative analysis of the Township’s operating results for the six months ending June 30, 2021 is provided in Attachments A and B respectively. This analysis is provided at a high level, with only significant variances identified and explained. Please note that variances that may be significant in one division may not be noteworthy in another division.
As it is still early in the year, it is difficult to provide conclusions concerning year end variances. A number of variances are due to timing of budget recognition and seasonal effects that impact many divisions. As such, comparisons to prior year(s) are provided to highlight areas that may be problematic. Township staff will continue to monitor budget variances and take appropriate action, if able, to ensure negative variances are minimized by year end.
Specific details concerning significant variances are summarized in the attached qualitative analysis.
Consultation: The preparation for this report was done in consultation with various Township staff responsible for operations.
Attachments: ● Attachment A - June 30, 2021 Operating Results by Division ● Attachment B - June 30, 2021 Operating Results Qualitative Analysis
Approved By: Dan Wilson, Managing Director of Corporate Services & Treasurer Andy Goldie, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 218 of 228 Attachment A Township of Centre Wellington Operating Results by Division For the Six Months Ending June 30, 2021
Variance 2021 Budget 2021 Actual YTD minus Budget YTD Division Budget Year to Date (YTD) Actual YTD (Notes 1 & 2) MAYOR & COUNCIL ($256,037) ($121,418) ($106,040) $15,378 YOUTH COUNCIL 0 0 0 0 OFFICE OF THE CAO & HUMAN RESOURCES (740,385) (340,395) (268,568) 71,827 LEGISLATIVE SERVICES (636,946) (307,272) (304,639) 2,633 FINANCIAL SERVICES (981,285) (448,327) (424,973) 23,354 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES (846,917) (405,207) (369,938) 35,269 GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 396,496 91,601 65,385 (26,216) FIRE DIVISION (1,640,188) (813,450) (767,062) 46,388 BUILDING DIVISION 170,779 122,717 236,167 113,450 STRAY ANIMAL CONTROL (61,700) (30,838) 1,916 32,754 LIVESTOCK ACT (250) (125) 0 125 BY-LAW ENFORCEMENT (113,380) (52,813) (45,278) 7,535 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION (2,600) (1,299) (476) 823 PUBLIC WORKS (4,993,213) (2,619,893) (2,473,441) 146,452 CEMETERIES (7,800) (4,749) 28,403 33,152 HEALTH (22,465) (11,133) (5,871) 5,262 CROSSING GUARDS (69,500) (34,736) (14,651) 20,085 PARKS & RECREATION (3,579,479) (1,777,831) (1,649,613) 128,218 FERGUS GRAND THEATRE (68,616) (13,633) (18,938) (5,305) OTHER CULTURAL SERVICES (20,000) (9,996) (1,446) 8,550 OTHER SOCIAL SERVICES (248,459) (155,129) (108,353) 46,776 HERITAGE (13,400) (7,948) (12,387) (4,439) VICTORIA PARK SENIORS CENTRE (286,468) (135,851) (123,933) 11,918 PLANNING DIVISION (422,031) (181,986) (203,586) (21,600) COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 11,850 5,923 10,404 4,481 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (187,292) (88,989) (89,126) (137) TOURISM (240,938) (114,020) (68,030) 45,990 RENTAL BUILDINGS 48,490 24,235 22,173 (2,062) TAXATION & PIL REVENUE 17,307,242 15,106,307 15,581,907 475,600 NET DEBT (417,059) (364,287) (284,476) 79,811 OTHER REVENUE & EXPENSE (2,078,451) (3,447,039) (3,488,120) (41,081)
Notes: 1. Favorable variances are indicated by a positive number in the Variance column 2. Unfavorable variances are indicated by a negative number in the Variance column
Page 219 of 228
Attachment B
Township of Centre Wellington Operating Results For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2021
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
The following represents a summary of all significant operating variances for the six months ended June 30, 2021.
General Government
Mayor & Council The favorable variance is mainly due to meeting per diems (23% of the annual budget), conferences and training costs (13% of the annual budget), and Council’s health care expenditures (1% of the annual budget) being lower than anticipated at June 30th.
Youth Council Youth Council expenditures were zero in the first half of 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is anticipated that Youth Council operations/activities will resume in the fall.
CAO & Human Resources The favorable variance is due to the Manager of Human Resources position being vacant during the first quarter of 2021 and the Human Resources Generalist position, which will be shared 50% with Puslinch, remaining unfilled for the first half of 2021.
Expenditures for professional fees, conferences, management training, and the Employee Assistance Program were also lower than anticipated at June 30th.
Legislative Services Integrity commissioner expenses exceeded the annual budget by $14,558 at June 30th (Budget = $5,000). Although this does not have an effect on the Township’s surplus/deficit, it has a negative impact on the Legal Matters reserve.
No other significant variances.
Page 220 of 228
Financial Services The favorable variance is mainly due to the vacant Asset Management Technician position (to be shared 50% with Mapleton) at June 30th.
Regular Financial Services revenue had a positive variance of $5,600 at June 30th and is due to Ownership Change Fees charged.
Professional fees are 73% of the annual budget (Budget = $42,000) at June 30th. However, this variance is the result of timing differences for payment of audit services and it is expected that this line will not vary from budget at year end.
Information Technology Services The favorable variance is mainly due to timing of payments for software support fees and technical support provided by external consultants to June 30th. Computer supplies and conferences and training also have favorable variances at June 30th.
General Administration The unfavorable variance is mainly due to higher than expected professional fees, other miscellaneous costs, and postage expenditures at June 30th. It is expected that the postage line item will not vary significantly from budget at year end.
Insurance and WSIB claims were higher than expected to June 30th. Although these items do not have an effect on the Township’s surplus/deficit, it results in a negative impact on both the Insurance Claims reserve and the WSIB Claims reserve at June 30, 2021.
Protection to Persons & Property
Fire Division The favorable variance is mainly due to full-time and volunteer firefighter (VFF) wage costs that were approximately 46% of the annual budget (Budget = $1,483,258) at June 30th. VFF training in the first half of 2021 was minimal due to the COVID-19 pandemic resulting in decreased VFF payroll costs.
This is offset by the timing of 2021 billing for dispatch services provided by the City of Guelph. Receipt of the annual invoice in March created an unfavorable variance of $32,000 at the end of the first half. It is anticipated that there will be minimal variance from the annual budget amount at year end. Furthermore, vehicle and equipment expenditures, including fuel and insurance costs, are 70% of the annual budget (Budget = $86,925) and is mainly due to repair and maintenance expenses to one of the pumper trucks.
Page 221 of 228
Total revenue for the department is at 97% of the annual budget (2020 = 77%) and is due to higher revenue from calls and reports compared to the first half of 2020, and the receipt of an $11,500 fire safety grant from the province.
Building Division Building revenue is approximately 56% of the annual budget amount (2020 = 65% of annual budget) resulting in a favorable variance of $71,600 at June 30th. The budget of $1,198,800 is expected to be met by year end.
Furthermore, there is a positive wages and benefits variance due to the new Permit Technologist position being filled in mid-March, and a vacant Building Official position for half of the first quarter.
Stray Animal Control The favorable variance is mainly due to the timing of dog tag revenues that were 83% (2020 = 75%) of the annual budget at June 30th. Dog tag revenue to July 31st is approximately $6,600 higher than 2020 and therefore it is anticipated that the annual revenue target may be achieved as staff sent out reminder letters to unregistered dog owners in June.
Livestock Act No significant variances.
By-Law Enforcement The positive variance is mainly due to by-law enforcement revenue that is 256% of the annual budget (Budget = $2,000) at June 30th. There are also various administrative expenditures that have minor favourable variances.
Emergency Communication No significant variances.
Other Township Departments
Public Works Significant favorable variances are:
Total public works revenue is 69% of the annual budget (Budget = $103,840) at June 30th (2020 = 66%). This is mainly due to storm sewer frontage and connection charges in the first half of 2021 exceeding expectations and the timing of invoice issuance for annual access agreement fees.
Bridges and culvert costs are 36% (2020 = 40%) of the annual budget (Budget = $136,100).
Grass cutting and weed spraying costs are 33% (2020 = 11%) of the annual budget (Budget = $114,300). This is due to grass cutting service levels returning to normal in 2021. Service levels were lower for grass cutting and weed spraying in 2020 due to reduced seasonal staffing levels as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Page 222 of 228
Brush and tree removal costs are 32% (2020 = 53%) of the annual budget (Budget = $153,000). The difference is due to more brush and tree removal taking place in the first half of the year in 2020. It is expected that the budget for this line will be spent by the end of the year.
Ditching costs are 4% (2020 = 12%) of the annual budget (Budget = $87,500). Ditching work is typically completed in the second half of the year.
Curbs, gutters and basins costs are 12% (2020 = 9%) of the annual budget (Budget = $51,800). This work typically takes place in the latter half of the year.
Shoulder maintenance costs are 30% (2020 = 31%) of the annual budget (Budget = $91,500).
Gravel resurfacing costs are 40% (2020 = 9%) of the annual budget (Budget = $476,500). The percentage variance from 2020 is due to gravel resurfacing starting in June in 2021 as opposed to July in 2020. It is expected that the budget for this line item will be spent by the end of the year.
Significant unfavorable variances are:
Snow related cost centres are 52% of the annual budget (Budget = $1,386,500) at June 30th (2020 = 51%). Historically, the first 6 months of the year account for approximately 70% of the annual expenditures for the snow related cost centres.
Expenditures at the four works garages are 69% (2020 = 54%) of the annual budget. The increase is due to additional labour allocated to the various garages, additional repair and maintenance at the facilities, and supplies and small tool costs.
Fleet fuel and repair costs are 56% (2020 = 50%) of the annual budget (Budget = $710,000). Expenditures for fleet fuel have been impacted by a 30% increase in fuel prices since the start of the fiscal year. Furthermore, there have been significant repair costs for some of the older large vehicles in the fleet.
Cemeteries Cemetery revenue is 55% (2020 = 45%) of the annual budget at June 30th.
Expenditures are 34% (2020 = 36%) of the annual budget at June 30th mainly due to monument repairs/restoration which typically commence in the latter half of the year.
Page 223 of 228
Health The favourable balance is mainly due to minimal use of the Occupational Health and Safety training budget as of June 30th. It is anticipated that limited first aid training may take place in the latter half of the year.
Furthermore, due to the CWCMO building in Fergus being vacant for most of the year, landscaping and snow removal costs have been minimal at the facility.
Crossing Guards The favorable balance is due to the closure of schools for a significant portion of the first six months of the year due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Parks & Recreation Revenues at the Sportsplex and ECC are approximately 4% (2020 = 29%) of the annual budget (Budget = $1,122,264) at June 30th. Revenues are less than the prior year due to facility closures as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Revenue targets for 2021 will not be met for both the Sportsplex and the ECC as all facilities and programs ceased operations by April 1st and remained closed through to the end of June, and vary from assumptions made concerning the COVID-19 pandemic in the 2021 budget. It is expected that the Township’s COVID-19 reserve will be sufficient to fund net revenue shortfalls in excess of those anticipated in the 2021 budget.
Expenditures at the Sportsplex and ECC are approximately 29% (2020 = 37%) of the annual budget (Budget = $2,828,902) at June 30th. Total expenditures at the Sportsplex were 70% of the 2020 first half costs as the pool, ice pads, and various programs were operational for limited periods due to pandemic restrictions. Furthermore, one of the ice pads, the hall, and weight room area were reserved for COVID-19 vaccination purposes. Total expenditures at the ECC were 68% of 2020 first half costs as the facility was only open for approximately six weeks during the first half of 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Parks expenditures were 53% (2020 = 29%) of the annual budget (Budget = $467,467). The percentage variance from the prior year is due to the closure of parks in the first half of the 2020 year due to the COVID-19 pandemic and maintenance was performed by full-time facility staff with no additional summer staff hired.
Page 224 of 228
Administrative costs had a favorable variance of $39,700 at June 30th. This is due to reduced customer service representative hours as a result of COVID-19 facility closures. Furthermore, staff training costs and ActiveNet processing charges (due to the shutdown of programs and facilities) contributed to the positive variance for administrative expenditures.
Fergus Grand Theatre The unfavorable variance is due to closure of the facility in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The facility remains closed through to the writing of this report (mid- August).
Other Cultural Services The favorable variance is due to lower costs associated with providing a virtual Canada Day experience and the cancellation of the Victoria Day fireworks as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Other Social Services The favorable variance for this cost centre is mainly due to unallocated Community Impact Grants of $32,570, the majority of which have been set aside for a Neighborhood Wellness program. It is anticipated that these funds will be spent, or placed in a reserve for future use, by the end of the year.
Furthermore, the positive variance is due to labour and machine time expenditures associated with the downtown areas that are typically higher during the second half of the year.
Heritage The unfavorable variance is due to the allocation of parks and recreation staff wages that were reassigned to heritage related tasks due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Tasks included collecting and updating information for rural properties to be added to the Municipal Heritage Register.
Victoria Park Seniors Centre The favorable variance is due to reduced operating and administration costs as the facility remained closed during the first half of 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, the seniors centre received grants which are being used to fund online programming to seniors which were not fully spent by June 30th.
Planning Division The unfavorable variance is mainly due to planning and zoning revenue that is 33% of the annual budget amount (annual budget = $208,100). The 2021 planning and zoning revenue budget amount was increased due to the approval of a new Development Planner position which was vacant during the first half of the year. As a result of the vacancy, this negative variance is minimized by lower than budgeted wages and benefits at June 30th.
Page 225 of 228
Grading inspection revenue was 34% of the annual budget amount (annual budget = $120,000) at June 30th. This was due to availability of building lots in the Township during the first half of the year. This source of revenue is anticipated to improve as the next phase of the Storybrook subdivision becomes available for building permits, and inspections for Storybrook Phase I, Summerfields Phase II and Beatty Hollow are able to proceed. By the end of July 2021, this source of revenue had increased to 44% of the annual budget amount.
Committee of Adjustments The favorable variance is due to revenue that is 83% of the annual budget amount (annual budget amount = $15,500) at June 30th.
Economic Development The minor unfavourable variance is due to the timing of payment for small business training and support provided by the Business Centre Guelph – Wellington for 2021. It is expected that this line item will meet the annual budget target at year end. Furthermore, the retirement of the Economic Development Officer in the first half of the year resulted in the payout of unused accrued vacation time.
This is offset by a favorable variance due to unspent funds in the marketing expenditure line (25% of the annual budget spent) at June 30th.
Tourism The favorable variance is mainly due to minimal expenditures for marketing and wayfinding signage repairs and maintenance at June 30th. Furthermore the facility was closed to the public until mid-June, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in a positive variance of $22,700 for part-time wage costs.
General Expenditures and Revenue
Rental Buildings The unfavorable variance is due to the timing of payment for building insurance costs for the Elora Drill Shed and West Garafraxa office. Insurance costs represent 55% of the total budget for this cost centre.
Taxation & PIL Revenue Regular taxation revenue was approximately 92% billed as of June 30th which is consistent with prior years. Final bills for commercial, industrial, and multi-residential properties are issued in August.
Supplementary taxation revenue has a favourable variance and was at 73% of the annual budget (Budget = $280,000) at June 30th.
Page 226 of 228
The dedicated capital levy is 92% of the annual budget (Budget = $1,528,441) at June 30th which is similar to prior years.
Revenue from penalty and interest charged on overdue taxes receivable is 54% of the annual budget (Budget = $325,000) at June 30th.
Net Debt The favorable variance is due to differing repayment terms for each debenture. Any variance at the end of the year will be insignificant as each debt related budget line item is based on an amortization schedule for each debenture.
Other Revenue and Expense The unfavorable variance is mainly due to the difference between the year to date budgeted amount to be transferred to the Dedicated Capital Levy reserve and the actual amount transferred. As the actual amount of the dedicated capital levy transferred to the Dedicated Capital Levy reserve is based on the amount levied as of June 30th (see Taxation and PIL’s section above) this leads to a negative variance until the final tax bills are issued for commercial, industrial, and multi-residential properties are issued in August, at which time the variance will be minimal.
There is also an unfavorable variance for investment income of $22,900 at June 30th.
The unfavourable variance is partially offset by a reduction in the transfer to the parks and recreation facilities repairs and maintenance reserve. A portion of parks and recreation revenue collected is transferred to a reserve monthly per the Township’s fees and charges bylaw. However due to the pandemic, parks and recreation revenue has been minimal in the first half of the year, resulting in $22,400 less than expected being transferred to the reserve at June 30th.
Page 227 of 228 Councillor McElwain Notice of Motion
WHEREAS the Black Lives Matter movement, acts of hatred based on Islamophobia, hate crimes against Asian Americans, and most recently the discovery of more than 1,000 unmarked graves of Indigenous children at residential school sites have highlighted the need for reaffirmed commitments to confronting racism and removing system barriers to equality,
AND WHEREAS the Township of Centre Wellington believes in Inclusion and Diversity and strongly opposes all forms of racism,
AND WHEREAS racism and discrimination in all forms are behaviors derived from our background and our community,
AND WHEREAS municipal government can play a leading role in helping to achieve equality,
AND WHEREAS Centre Wellington is a diverse and accepting community and we should celebrate and promote our diversity,
AND WHEREAS Centre Wellington social media, publications and website are deficient in representation of visible minorities,
AND WHEREAS the Coalition of Inclusive Municipalities guideline booklet states “Having early and active involvement from the community will result in increased ownership of the Plan of Action and lead to more tangible success. Support from the community stakeholders ensures continuity through changes in elected officials and encourages the overall sustainability of your initiatives.”,
AND WHEREAS it is recognized that the development of a well-designed Inclusion and Diversity Strategy/Plan will take time and require community engagement,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that staff draft a policy to develop an inclusive social media and publications policy;
AND FURTHER that staff create a citizens committee to provide well-informed expertise and resources, as the basis of a Community Inclusion and Diversity Strategy that addresses the inclusion of Black, Indigenous, people of colour, women, persons with disabilities, new comers to Canada, the 2SLGBTQIAP+ community and other visible minorities, reflective of the community and the issues they are trying to address;
AND FURTHER that staff consider drawing upon resources such as Advancing Equity and Inclusion - A Guide for Municipalities, FCM's Diverse Voices Toolkit and, the Canadian Commission for UNESCO - Coalition of inclusive Municipalities;
AND FURTHER that the funding and resourcing for the development of an inclusive social media and publications policy and the forming of a citizens committee be presented to council as part of 2022 budget planning.
Page 228 of 228