![Regular Council Meeting [7:00 P.M.] - Tuesday, March 23, 2021 [] Teleconference](http://data.docslib.org/img/4ec8d13728adfb6374c781e49483e7ce-1.webp)
AGENDA Regular Council Meeting [7:00 p.m.] - Tuesday, March 23, 2021 [] Teleconference
Teleconference Details Dial: 519 -518-3600 Enter Access Code: 331398
Page
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
3. PUBLIC RECOGNITION / PRESENTATIONS
None
4. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
5. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING(S)
6 - 19 5.1. March 9, 2021
20 - 24 5.2. March 11, 2021 - Operating Budget
6. PUBLIC MEETINGS / HEARINGS
6.1 The Municipal Act
None
6.2 The Drainage Act
None
6.3 The Planning Act
Page 1 of 200 None
6.4 Other
25 - 51 6.4.1 7:00 p.m. Building Code Act Amendments to the Building By-law and Fees Building By-law Report BB 2021-05
7. DELEGATIONS
None
8. CORRESPONDENCE
52 - 100 8.1. Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting Minutes – February 3, 2021 Re: 2020 Financial Statements Re: 2020 Annual Report
101 - 102 8.2. Upper Thames River Conservation Authority Re: 2021 Approved Budget http://thamesriver.on.ca/wp-content/uploads//Publications/UTRCA- 2021-Approved-Budget.pdf
103 - 129 8.3. County of Oxford Re: County Council Composition
130 - 133 8.4. County of Oxford Re: Intersection of Oxford Road 59 and Quaker Street – Safety Review
134 - 135 8.5. City of Sarnia Re: Colour Coded Capacity Limits
136 - 140 8.6. Niagara Region Re: Schedule, Bill 197, COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020 Re: Motion Respecting Homelessness, Mental Health and Addiction in
Page 2 of 200 Niagara
141 - 144 8.7. Township of Adjala-Tosorontio Re: Request for Amendment to the Tile Drainage Installation Act
145 8.8. Township of South Glengarry Re: Provincial Vaccine Rollout
9. COMMITTEE MINUTES
None
10. REPORTS
10.1 Planning and Development Services
None
10.2 Fire and Protective Services
No report
10.3 Drainage Services
No report
10.4 Building Services
No report
10.5 Public Works Services
146 - 149 10.5.1 2021 Pulverizing and Paving Report PW 2021-05
150 - 153 10.5.2 Pleasant Valley Road Report Report FS 2021-06
10.6 Community Development Services
No report
Page 3 of 200 10.7 Medical Centre Services
No report
10.8 Financial Services
154 - 156 10.8.1 Statement of Council Remuneration and Expense Report FS 2021-05
10.9 Administration Services
157 - 173 10.9.1 Inter Community Transit Re: Town of Tillsonburg T-GO 2020 Performance Summary
174 - 176 10.9.2 Royal Canadian Legion Patio Request Memorandum
177 - 179 10.9.3 Extension of Lease Agreement – Oxford Pallet Memorandum
11. NOTICE(S) OF MOTION
None
12. CLOSED SESSION
None
13. BY-LAWS
180 - 181 13.1. No. 8-2021 To Provide for Drainage Works – Beck Drain Branch B 2021
182 13.2. No. 2-2021-Z To Permit the Establishment of a Temporary Outdoor Patio Royal Canadian Legion, 55 Stover Street, Norwich
Page 4 of 200 183 - 189 13.3. No. 19-2021 To Amend Development Charges By-law 34-2019
190 - 195 13.4. No. 20-2021 To Amend By-law 16-2019, being a By-law Respecting Construction, Demolition, Change of Use Permits and Inspections
196 - 198 13.5. No. 21-2021 To Authorize Execution of a Lease Extension Agreement with Oxford Pallet and Recycler’s Limited
199 - 200 13.6. No. 22-2021 To Confirm All Actions and Proceedings of Council
14. ADJOURNMENT
Page 5 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #5.1.
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF NORWICH COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - TELECONFERENCE TUESDAY MARCH 9, 2021
IN ATTENDANCE:
COUNCIL: Mayor Larry Martin Councillor Scholten Councillor DePlancke Councillor Palmer Councillor Dale
STAFF: Kyle Kruger, CAO / Clerk Paul Groeneveld, Director of Fire and Protective Services James Johnson, Director of Finance Brad Smale, Manager of Building Services Marty Lenaers, Public Works Superintendent Patrick Hovorka, Director of Community Development Services AJ Wells, Manager of Medical Services Dirk Kramer, Drainage Superintendent Kimberley Armstrong, Deputy Clerk
1. CALL TO ORDER The regular session of the 2018-2022 Council of the Township of Norwich was held by teleconference, commencing at 9:00 a.m. with Mayor Martin presiding.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Resolution #1 Moved by Jim Palmer, seconded by Alan Dale;
That the Agenda be accepted as presented.
Carried
3. PUBLIC RECOGNITION / PRESENTATIONS None
March 9, 2021 Page 6 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #5.1. Council Meeting Minutes March 9, 2021 Page 2 of 14
4. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST Councillor Dale declared a conflict with respect to agenda item 10.9.3 UBF Fund, advising that he is a shareholder in Execulink. There were no other disclosures reported.
5. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING(S) 5.2 February 23, 2021 Resolution #2 Moved by John Scholten, seconded by Jim Palmer;
That the following Minutes of the Township of Norwich Council be adopted as printed and circulated:
February 23, 2021
Carried
6. PUBLIC MEETINGS / HEARINGS 6.1 The Municipal Act None
6.2 The Drainage Act
Resolution #3 Moved by Alan Dale, seconded by Lynne DePlancke;
That the following members be appointed to sit as the Court of Revision for the Beck Drain Branch B 2021: Larry Martin, John Scholten, Lynne DePlancke, Jim Palmer and Alan Dale, with the first member being the Chair of the Court of Revision, and further that the Court is now convened.
Carried
6.2.1 9:00 a.m. Court of Revision for the Beck Drain Branch B 2021 Report DR 2021-09 Mr. Kruger advised that no appeals have been received to date with respect to the drainage works.
Resolution #4 Moved by John Scholten, seconded by Jim Palmer;
That the Court of Revision for the Beck Drain Branch B 2021 allow appeal(s) to be heard in accordance with Section 52(4) of The Drainage Act.
Carried
March 9, 2021 Page 7 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #5.1. Council Meeting Minutes March 9, 2021 Page 3 of 14
There were no property owners in attendance that wished to submit an appeal to the assessment for the Beck Drain Branch B 2021.
Resolution #5 Moved by Jim Palmer, seconded by Alan Dale;
Whereas the Council of the Township of Norwich provisionally adopted the report by K. Smart Associates Ltd at their meeting on February 9, 2021, for the drainage works known as the Beck Drain Branch B 2021;
And whereas no appeals have been received by the Court;
Therefore the Court of Revision for the Beck Drain Branch 2021 accepts Provisional By-law 8- 2021 as amended.
And further that the Court is now adjourned.
Carried
Resolution #6 Moved by Lynne DePlancke, Seconded by Alan Dale;
That Report No. DR 2021-09, Court of Revision for the Beck Drain Branch B 2021, be received as information,
Carried
6.2.2 1:30 p.m. Consideration of Engineers Report – Orth Drain 2020 Report DR 2021-10
Mr. Mike DeVos of Spriet Associates provided an overview of the drainage works. He advised that the work is commencing under Section 78, for the improvement and relocation of a portion of the existing Orth Drain to accommodate development for Stillwaters and Stubbe’s Property Development. Mr. DeVos advised that this will relocate and replace the portion across the Stillwaters property and relocates the portion west of Centre St to stay on the Elgin Street Road allowance into the Stubbe’s property.
In response to Council questions, Mr. DeVos advised that this affects a large portion of the Stubbe’s property and that the future storm water management facility will restrict the water flow to pre-development levels; also commenting that Stillwaters collect water internally on their site which then goes into an outlet on their property before it goes into the creek farther down.
Ms. Miami Payne of 9 Spring Street questioned if the swale going through her property would be remaining and inquired if they could fill it in. Further requesting the option to move one of the
March 9, 2021 Page 8 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #5.1. Council Meeting Minutes March 9, 2021 Page 4 of 14
buildings on the closed Elgin Street road allowance to their property, commented on the privacy issue that removal of the shrubs would cause and their wish to maintain a parking area on the unopened road allowance.
Mr. DeVos advised that the swale is part of the drain design and cannot be filled in, as per the Drainage Act.
Mr. Kruger advised that there was discussion with the involved landowners previously, to initiate closing that portion of the unopened road, however it was not finalized. Further commenting on the possibility of moving structures and an easement agreement for parking purposes.
Mr. Chris Doering of Development Engineering was in attendance representing Stubbe’s Property Management. Mr. Doering advised he understood the merits of relocating the drain, noting that upsizing had reviewed by them and Stubbe’s and decided was not necessary. He raised question regarding the drain being a requirement for the development and with the allocation for costing, commenting that it seems like an infrastructure improvement and questioning why other property owners were not assessed. Mr. DeVos commented that the municipality had advised that the relocation was a condition for development and he had proceeded on that basis. Further stating that he was not directed otherwise by the municipality or property owners at onsite meetings.
Mr. Doering commented that the drain currently goes to the industrial development, which has now been treated as a large site plan, with the potential for future draft plan and subdivision to be applied for. Advising that it is still open ended as to how development will progress and to what extent it is required for these developments.
Mr. Albert Meyer of Stubbe’s Property Development, Muir Line, advised that they have been in discussions regarding the drain relocation for a couple of years, however it is the Township that requested it be back under the road, not them. He further commented that they have submitted a functional servicing report which shows a storm water management pond out-letting into the current drain at the current location. He further commented that a Site Plan has already been submitted for the lands to the south and the drainage outlets to a dry basin on that site. He further stated that all of their properties so far have shown out-letting, one of which is already built on site. Mr. Meyer further questioned the cost assessed to Stubbe’s.
In response to Council questions regarding any changed circumstances, Mr. Kruger advised that it is staffs understanding that developments to the west are a combination of industrial and residential and that the relocation was required to facilitate that eventual development. Mr. Kruger
March 9, 2021 Page 9 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #5.1. Council Meeting Minutes March 9, 2021 Page 5 of 14
recommended referring it back for further review and discussion. However, Stubbe’s property is only a portion of the project.
There was no one else in attendance that wished to speak to the proposed drainage works.
In response to Council questions, Mr. Doering clarified that he had just received notice of the meeting and copy of the report from Stubbe’s a couple of hours ago and that he has been in discussions with Mr. DeVos throughout this project.
In response to Council questions, Mr. DeVos advised that there was one on-site meeting and the other information and discussions were shared through emails. He further stated that the design proposal draft report was sent 1 ½ years ago and once comments were received there were some small modifications by Centre Street based on Stillwaters comments, the Elgin Street portion has not changed since 1 ½ years ago when initially circulated to Stubbe’s.
Resolution #27 Moved by John Scholten, seconded by Jim Palmer;
That the Orth Drain 2020 Report be referred back to Spriet Associates to enable consultation with the municipality and Stubbe’s Property Development Inc.
Carried
6.3 The Planning Act None
6.4 Other 6.4.1 9:30 a.m. Watson and Associates Re: 2021 Development Charges Update Study Mr. Sean-Michael Stephen of Watson and Associates provided an overview of the presentation, highlighting the purpose of the Public Meeting and that the updated study and changes are resultant of the More Homes, More Choice Act and the COVID-19 Economic Recover Act. Changes to the recoverable costs include: removal of the 10% statutory deduction from the calculation of Recreation and Administration, reallocation of service specific studies with additional provision for the roads needs study update and DC amendment costs.
Mr. Stephen referred to the municipal comparison chart, policies across Oxford County to exempt industrial development, changes to how DC’s are collected, exemptions for second dwelling units and this meeting being held to allow for public comment to the proposed changes to the By-law.
In response to Council questions, Mr. Stephen advised that streets are not included in the study if they are not identified for future growth-related improvement.
There were no members of the public in attendance that wished to submit comments or concerns.
March 9, 2021 Page 10 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #5.1. Council Meeting Minutes March 9, 2021 Page 6 of 14
Resolution #14 Moved by John Scholten, seconded by Jim Palmer;
That the Watson and Associates presentation Re: 2021 Development Charges Update Study, be received as information;
And that the 2021 Development Charges Update Study dated January 22, 2021 be adopted as presented.
Carried
6.4.2 1:00 p.m. Development and /or Redevelopment of Telecommunication Towers Owners: Van Boekel Hog Farms Inc Agent: FB Connect on Behalf of Xplornet Communications. Memorandum Re: Public Meeting – Telecommunication Tower – 732811 Pick Line
Mr. Cyrus Ghassabeh, FM Connect representative was in attendance
Mr. Kruger provided an overview of the proposal as outlined within the Memorandum, advising that the municipality has not received any comments or concerns from the public.
Mr. Ghassabeh advised that Xplornet is currently in the midst of a large upgrade, attempting to service broadband underserviced communities. They are currently utilizing a 60m tower owned by another provider, however it is not structurally capable of handling upgrades, so they are proposing to install their own tower. He advised that although the leasehold is 15m x 15m the tower itself is only 2 ½ metres at the base and will accommodate current and future needs.
In response to Council questions, he confirmed that in accordance with Transport Canada guidelines, this 45m tower does not require a light marker and there will be a small 5 x 6 foot walk-in structure at the base of the tower. Further stating that twenty-two properties were sent notification of the project and no comments or concerns were received.
There were no members of the public in attendance that wished to express comments or concerns with the proposal.
Resolution #26 Moved by Jim Palmer, seconded by Alan Dale;
That the Memorandum, Re: Public Meeting – Telecommunication Tower – 732811 Pick Line, be received as information;
Carried
March 9, 2021 Page 11 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #5.1. Council Meeting Minutes March 9, 2021 Page 7 of 14
7. DELEGATIONS 7.1 10:00 a.m. Laura Barker, Norwich Business Improvement Association Board Re: 2021 BIA Proposed Budget
Ms. Barker provided an overview of the proposed budget, highlighting: the challenge of budgeting during COVID, commenting that Nostalgia Days is their biggest event and they believe it may be cancelled again this year. She advised that they are planning; downtown beautification, online events, shop local and contests to draw people downtown, some vendors are doing well and some are struggling. Ms. Barker advised they are hoping to hold the Christmas in the Village event this year and are having discussions about additional advertising.
Resolution #16 Moved by Jim Palmer, seconded by Alan Dale;
That the Delegation of Laura Barker, Norwich Business Improvement Association Board, Re: 2021 BIA Proposed Budget, be received as information;
And further that proposed BIA Budget be referred to the 2021 Operating Budget for consideration.
Carried
8. CORRESPONDENCE 8.1 Upper Thames River Conservation Authority Re: Special Board Meeting January 15, 2021 – Meeting Minutes Re: Board Meeting January 26, 2021 – Meeting Agenda http://thamesriver.on.ca/board-agendas-minutes/
8.2 Municipality of Tweed Re: Medicinal Cannabis Licensing
8.3 Town of Tillsonburg Re: County Composition Consideration
8.4 Canadian Union of Postal Workers Re: Request for Support for Delivering Community Power Council members congratulated Councillor Dale on his appointment as Chair for the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority.
Resolution #7 Moved by Jim Palmer, seconded by Alan Dale;
That the Correspondence as listed in Agenda Items 8.1 to 8.4 be received as information.
March 9, 2021 Page 12 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #5.1. Council Meeting Minutes March 9, 2021 Page 8 of 14
And further that Council support 8.2 Carried
9. COMMITTEE MINUTES 9.1 Norwich BIA Re: Meeting Minutes – February 2, 2021 Resolution #8 Moved by Lynne DePlancke, seconded by John Scholten;
That the following Committee Minutes, be received as information; and further that the recommendations be approved and acted upon:
Norwich BIA Meeting Minutes – February 2, 2021
Carried
10 REPORTS 10.1 Planning and Development Services None
10.2 Fire and Protective Services 10.2.1 Off Road Vehicles By-law Report FP 2021-08 In response to Council questions, Chief Groeneveld advised that the OPP will be able to enforce the new by-law and that the municipality is pursuing set fines so that the Police can issue tickets at the time of the event. He confirmed that an Off-Road Vehicle being licenced does not allow them to use the roads.
Resolution #9 Moved by Lynne DePlancke, seconded by Jim Palmer;
That Report FP 2021-08 – Off Road Vehicles By-law, be received as information; And That the proposed By-law be enacted;
And That Staff be directed to submit application to the Office of the Chief Justice for approval of the proposed Set Fine Schedule under the proposed By-law.
Carried
10.2.2 Month-end Statistical Reports, February 2021 Report FP 2021-09 Resolution #10 Moved by Alan Dale, seconded by John Scholten;
March 9, 2021 Page 13 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #5.1. Council Meeting Minutes March 9, 2021 Page 9 of 14
That Report FP 2021-09- Month-end Statistical Report, February 2021, be received as information;
Carried
10.3 Drainage Services 10.3.1 February 2021 Drainage Report Report DR 2021-08 Resolution #11 Moved by Jim Palmer, seconded by Lynne DePlancke;
That Report DR 2021-08, February 2021 Activity Report, be received as information
Carried
10.3.2 Acceptance of the Dager Drain Section 84 Report Report DR 2021-11 Resolution #12 Moved by John Scholten, seconded by Lynne DePlancke;
That Report DR 2021-11, Acceptance of the Dager Drain Section 84 Report, be received as information;
And That the Council of the Township of Norwich acknowledges the receipt of the report Dager Drain Section 84 Report, dated February 08, 2021 and filed with the Clerk on February 22, 2021;
And That Council set a date for Public Meeting to be held on April 13, 2021, to Consider the Report;
And That Staff be directed to mail a Notice of Public Meeting along with the Report to all persons assessed to this drainage works, and in accordance with the Drainage Act.
Carried
10.4 Building Services 10.4.1 February 2021 Building Report Report BB 2021-03 Council members were supportive of the CBO’s proposal to retain the services of RSM Consultants to provide technical review and consultation for building permit issuance on a temporary basis, during the hiring process for a new Building Inspector.
Resolution #13 Moved by Alan Dale, seconded by Lynne DePlancke;
That Report BB 2021-03, February 2021 Building Report, be received as information;
March 9, 2021 Page 14 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #5.1. Council Meeting Minutes March 9, 2021 Page 10 of 14
Carried
10.4.2 2020 Building Department Annual Report Report BB 2021-04 Mr. Smale provided an overview of the annual report, highlighting: direct versus indirect expenses and 2020 revenues, advising that the department operated at 87% neutral in 2020. A review of the fee structure will be presented to Council in an attempt to reach 100% cost recovery. Mr. Smale highlighted implementation of the AMANDA software, Cloud-permitting and job evaluations which resulted in increased duties and salary adjustments during 2020.
Resolution #15 Moved by John Scholten, seconded by Lynne DePlancke;
That Report BB 2021-04, Annual Report, be received as information;
Carried
10.5 Public Works Services 10.5.1 Progress Report for February 2021 Report PW 2021-04 Resolution #17 Moved by Alan Dale, seconded by Jim Palmer;
That Report PW 2021-04, Progress Report for February 2021, be received as information
Carried
10.5.2 Pleasant Valley Road Discussion
Resolution #18 Moved by Jim Palmer, seconded by Lynne DePlancke;
That Council reconsider amending the Capital Budget to remove the Florence Street reconstruction and replace with the reconstruction of Pleasant Valley Road.
Carried
Members of Council advised that this project is up for reconsideration due to the serious conditions of Pleasant Valley Road, commenting that the asphalt patches are being swept away and that there was a close call with an Amish buggy and pick-up truck recently. Further commenting that there are liability concerns and that the condition of Florence Street doesn’t warrant being done prior to Pleasant Valley.
In response to Council questions, Mr. Lenaers advised that the hot patching is not standing up well in this area. Also, stating that the Pleasant Valley Road reconstruction is estimated to cost
March 9, 2021 Page 15 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #5.1. Council Meeting Minutes March 9, 2021 Page 11 of 14
$572,000 and Florence Street is only $280,000, which still leaves a budget shortfall. Mr. Lenaers advised Council that most of the approved projects are already out for tender.
Council members expressed concerns with reopening the approved Capital Budget and not adhering to the approved Roads Needs Study or waiting for the updated version prior to making this decision. There were also Council concerns regarding the condition of various other roads, traffic volumes and where the funding would come from to complete the project ahead of the proposed schedule.
In response to Council questions, Mr. Kruger clarified that Council is reconsidering the motion as brought forward at the December 8, 2020 meeting.
Resolution #19 Moved by John Scholten, seconded by Lynne DePlancke;
That staff bring forward a report outlining the potential financing implications of amending the capital budget to remove Florence Street and replacing it with the Pleasant Valley Road reconstruction.
Carried
10.6 Community Development Services 10.6.1 Monthly Departmental Activities Report CDS 2021-03 Resolution #20 Moved by John Scholten, seconded by Jim Palmer;
That Report CDS 2021-03, Monthly Departmental Activities, be received as information
Carried
10.7 Medical Centre Services 10.7.1 Medical Centre February 2021 Activity Report Report MED 2021-03 Resolution #21 Moved by Lynne DePlancke, seconded by Alan Dale;
That Report MED 2021-03, Medical Centre February 2021 Activity Report, be received as information
Carried
10.8 Financial Services 10.8.1 Development Charges 2020 Activity Report FS 2021-04
March 9, 2021 Page 16 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #5.1. Council Meeting Minutes March 9, 2021 Page 12 of 14
Resolution #22 Moved by Jim Palmer, seconded by Lynne DePlancke;
That Report FS 2021-04, Development Charges 2020 Activity be received as information
Carried
10.9 Administrative Services 10.9.1 Rural Oxford Economic Development Corporation January – February Activity Report Resolution #23 Moved by John Scholten, seconded by Alan Dale;
That the Rural Oxford Economic Development Corporation Re: January – February Activity Report, be received as information;
Carried
10.9.2 Norwich Appointment to ERTH Board of Directors Report CAO 2021-01 Resolution #24 Moved by Lynne DePlancke, seconded by John Scholten;
That Report CAO 2021-01, Norwich Appointment to ERTH Board of Directors be received as information;
And That staff be authorized to proceed with advertisements for a new Director for the ERTH Board of Directors pursuant to the approved Shareholder Policy.
Carried
10.9.3 UBF Fund – Execulink Application Support and Funding Report CAO 2021-02 Mr. Kruger advised that Execulink has identified a set of projects and are requesting municipal support for the grant application. He provided an overview of funding previously set aside for SWIFT projects, however, there were very limited proposed improvements for Norwich Township. SWIFT has advised that they are not optimistic about future approved projects within Norwich and advised that Norwich should consider other options.
Execulink has provided maps identifying various underserviced areas and provided estimates at various percentages for a municipal contribution. Oxford County previously passed a motion to set aside matching funding (2%) to match lower tiers for broadband projects. Staff recommend a commitment of up to $498,000 which fits into the 70% application proposal, pending matching funding from Oxford County.
March 9, 2021 Page 17 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #5.1. Council Meeting Minutes March 9, 2021 Page 13 of 14
Resolution #25 Moved by Lynne DePlancke, seconded by John Scholten;
That Report CAO 2021-02 – UBF Fund – Execulink Application Support and Funding be received,
And That the Township of Norwich formally supports application by Execulink under the federal Universal Broadband Fund to expand broadband to underserviced areas of Norwich as identified in this report, at a funding level of 70%.
And That preliminary support be hereby confirmed for financial contribution towards the proposed project in an amount of up to $498,000. subject to successful application to the Universal Broadband Fund, matching contribution from Oxford County, and completion of any necessary agreements to the satisfaction of the Township.
Carried
Break: 11:47am Reconvene: 1:00pm
11. NOTICE(S) OF MOTION None
12. CLOSED SESSION None
13. BY-LAWS No. 14-2021 A By-law to Regulate the Operation of Off-Road Vehicles within The Township of Norwich No. 15-2021 To Appoint Building Officials for the Township of Norwich No. 16-2021 To Provide for a Drainage Works in the Township of Norwich Orth Drain 2020 No. 17-2021 To Confirm All Actions and Proceedings of Council
13.1 FIRST AND SECOND READING OF THE FOLLOWING BY-LAWS Resolution #28 Moved by Lynne DePlancke, seconded by Jim Palmer;
That the following By-law as listed, be introduced and taken as read a first and second time.
No. 14-2021 A By-law to Regulate the Operation of Off-Road Vehicles within The Township of Norwich
No. 15-2021 To Appoint Building Officials for the Township of Norwich
March 9, 2021 Page 18 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #5.1. Council Meeting Minutes March 9, 2021 Page 14 of 14
No. 17-2021 To Confirm All Actions and Proceedings of Council
Carried
13.2 THIRD READING OF THE FOLLOWING BY-LAWS Resolution #29 Moved by Alan Dale, seconded by John Scholten;
That By-laws 14-2021, 15-2021 and 17-2021 be taken as read a third and final time and passed and signed by the Mayor and Clerk and the Corporate Seal be affixed thereto.
Carried
14. ADJOURNMENT - 2:20 p.m. Resolution #30 Moved by Jim Palmer, seconded by Lynne DePlancke;
That this Council do now adjourn.
Carried
THESE MINUTES ADOPTED BY WAY OF RESOLUTION NO. 2 AS APPROVED BY COUNCIL AT ITS MEETING ON THE 23rd DAY OF MARCH, 2021.
______MAYOR LARRY MARTIN
______KYLE KRUGER CAO / CLERK
March 9, 2021 Page 19 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #5.2.
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF NORWICH COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES – OPERATING BUDGET SPECIAL MEETING - TELECONFERENCE TUESDAY MARCH 11, 2021
IN ATTENDANCE:
COUNCIL: Mayor Larry Martin Councillor Scholten Councillor DePlancke Councillor Palmer Councillor Dale joined the meeting at 9:45 a.m.
STAFF: Kyle Kruger, CAO / Clerk Paul Groeneveld, Director of Fire and Protective Services James Johnson, Director of Finance Brad Smale, Manager of Building Services Marty Lenaers, Public Works Superintendent Patrick Hovorka, Director of Community Development Services AJ Wells, Manager of Medical Services Dirk Kramer, Drainage Superintendent Jodi Morrison, Deputy Treasurer Kimberley Armstrong, Deputy Clerk
1. CALL TO ORDER The special session of the 2018-2022 Council of the Township of Norwich was held by teleconference, commencing at 9:33 a.m. with Mayor Martin presiding.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Resolution #1 Moved by Jim Palmer, seconded by John Scholten;
That the Agenda be accepted as presented.
Carried
March 11, 2021 - Operating Budget Page 20 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #5.2. Council Meeting Minutes March 11, 2021 Page 2 of 5
3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST No disclosures were reported.
4. REPORTS 4.1 Required Disclosure Re: Budget Implications Report FS 2021-03 Mr. Johnson provided an overview of the report, outlining which categories municipalities may exclude from its estimated expenses, speaking to the extra 1% increase that has been included in the budget since 2016 to reduce the infrastructure gap to enable asset replacement.
Resolution #2 Moved by Lynne DePlancke, seconded by Jim Palmer;
That Report No. FS 2021-03, Required Disclosure Re: Budget Impacts, be received as information;
And Further that the information be approved as presented.
Carried
5 OPERATING BUDGET 5.1 2021 Operating Budget Package
Mr. Johnson thanked the CAO and Department Heads for their teamwork in bringing forward the budget document. He provided a summary of operating revenues, subsidies, user fees, payment in lieu of taxes received and other taxation revenues. Items of interest included: COVID-19 related revenue impacts to the Recreation Department, Safe Restart Funding and COVID-19 related expenses. Mr. Johnson also provided an overview of tax payer impacts based on possible levy increases and advised that the municipality will be receiving another $157,000 from Intake 2 of the Safe Restart Program.
There were Council questions with respect to: possible increased budget for off road vehicle enforcement activities, Safe Restart Funding and the Canada Day Grant.
5.2 General Government
Mr. Johnson provided an overview of the General Government section, advising; that the Council payroll burden was reduced, there has been an increase in insurance fees of over $32,800, increased cost for antivirus software and tax write-offs are related to farm assessments.
There was discussion about obtaining a membership to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM). The membership fee is currently $3100 which is calculated using a base amount and a per population portion. Mr. Johnson
March 11, 2021 - Operating Budget Page 21 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #5.2. Council Meeting Minutes March 11, 2021 Page 3 of 5
Council members were in agreement that the municipality should become members of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
5.3 Protective Services
Chief Groeneveld provided an overview of budget impacts, including: payroll burden, a large increase in insurance costs, reduced expenditures related to training officers travel expenses due to COVID and also a reduction in inspection revenues. Further items of note were: annual servicing to be completed on the Fire Halls, increase equipment costs and COVID related increases in cleaning services.
Mr. Johnson advised Council that Policing Grants are not included in the budget since they are not a guaranteed item.
Mr. Smale provided an overview of budget impacts, including: allocation of salaries related to drainage, scanner maintenance and a new budget line for CLOUD online permitting software. He also advised Council that a proposed amendment to the building fees in the Building By-law will be coming forward for their consideration, based on justification included in a fee study.
In response to Council questions, Mr. Kruger clarified that Development Charges are collected by the Building department on behalf of the municipality at the time of building permit issuance and they go directly into a reserve to be utilized as identified within the DC study. Mr. Smale advised that it is difficult to anticipate legal costs for year to year and that they are typically attributable to legal opinions and enforcement.
5.4 Transportation
Mr. Lenaers informed Council that most increases are attributable to inflation. He highlighted several items, including: increase in asphalt patching budget, contracted services for reflectivity test on signs, electronic inventory of signs to track for replacement purposes and an increase in the training budget due to COVID required smaller classroom sizes. Mr. Lenaers also confirmed that the rental income on the ten-acre parcel is for the Rogers tower only.
Drainage There was Council discussion with respect to the municipal allocation of costs with respect to drainage works. In response to Council questions, Mr. Kruger advised that Council approved the annual allocation of $200,000 to cover the municipal portion of drainage works expenses. It is difficult to determine the exact amount needed each year, however, these funds are carried over to the drainage reserves for when they are needed. Mr. Johnson advised that the reserve currently has $460,000 in it, however, several large projects are expected in the immediate future.
5.5 Health Services
March 11, 2021 - Operating Budget Page 22 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #5.2. Council Meeting Minutes March 11, 2021 Page 4 of 5
Mr. Wells spoke to several items affecting payroll, including: part time staff vacation pay shifting to a different line item, a staff maternity leave, upcoming retirement and overlap training time required. He commented that due to COVID related closures in 2020, there were lower utility bills, however, there was an increase in insurance costs.
Cemeteries Mr. Hovorka advised Council that it is anticipated that the municipality will be assuming control of the Curries Pleasant View Cemetery and the Oxford Centre United Church Cemetery in 2021.
5.6 Recreation and Culture
Mr. Hovorka spoke to the difficulty budgeting due to COVID related expenses and loss of rental revenues. He advised that anomalies were: an increase in overtime associated with COVID related splash pad inspections, reduction in the contracted grass cutting to provide extra work for municipal staff and arena related wages down.
Mr. Johnson spoke to the use of the Safe Restart Funding to help offset COVID related budget implications.
Mr. Hovorka highlighted: the Norwich Community Centre roof replacement, a donation from the Oxford Centre Church Women towards the Pioneer Rooms and that the revenue estimates are based on 50% of a regular year. He advised Council that there was extra cost for the Woodlawn Centre for tree removal and beehouse repair.
In response to Council questions, Mr. Hovorka advised that the brick work will be completed at the Pioneer Rooms in 2021.
Economic Development Mr. Johnson advised that there was no increase to the ROEDC budget, however, there is an increase due to a transfer to reserves for broadband improvement purposes.
Mayor Martin thanked staff for the thoroughness of their presentations, commenting on the difficulty of budgeting during the Pandemic and the uncertainly involved.
Mr. Johnson provided an overview of tax payer impacts, advising that the County levy went down slightly and the Education levy remains the same.
Resolution #3 Moved by John Scholten, seconded by Alan Dale;
That the 2021 Township of Norwich Operating Budget be:
Adopted with the following amendments: Add 3,100.00 for FCM membership fee Carried
March 11, 2021 - Operating Budget Page 23 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #5.2. Council Meeting Minutes March 11, 2021 Page 5 of 5
6. BY-LAWS I No. 18-2021 To Confirm All Actions and Proceedings of Council
13.1 FIRST AND SECOND READING OF THE FOLLOWING BY-LAW Resolution #4 Moved by Lynne DePlancke, seconded by Alan Dale;
That the following By-law as listed, be introduced and taken as read a first and second time.
No. 18-2021 To Confirm All Actions and Proceedings of Council
Carried
13.2 THIRD READING OF THE FOLLOWING BY-LAW Resolution #5 Moved by John Scholten, seconded by Jim Palmer;
That By-law 18-2021 be taken as read a third and final time and passed and signed by the Mayor and Clerk and the Corporate Seal be affixed thereto.
Carried
14. ADJOURNMENT - 11:37 a.m. Resolution #6 Moved by Lynne DePlancke, seconded by Jim Palmer;
That this Council do now adjourn.
Carried
THESE MINUTES ADOPTED BY WAY OF RESOLUTION NO. 2 AS APPROVED BY COUNCIL AT ITS MEETING ON THE 23rd DAY OF MARCH, 2021.
______MAYOR LARRY MARTIN
______KYLE KRUGER CAO / CLERK
March 11, 2021 - Operating Budget Page 24 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #6.4.1
BUILDING PERMIT FEES STUDY & REPORT
Report # BB 2021-05
Prepared by:
Brad Smale, Chief Building Official
Township of Norwich
February 26, 2021
7:00 p.m. Building Code Act Amendments to the Building By-law and Fees B... Page 25 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #6.4.1
TABLE OF CONTENTS I INTRODUCTION ...... 1
II BUILDING CODE ACT PROVISIONS ...... 3
THE BUILDING BY-LAW AND FEE SCHEDULE ...... 4
III HISTORICAL COSTS/ REVENUE ANALYSIS (EXISTING FEES SCHEDULE) ...... 5
DIRECT COSTS ...... 5 INDIRECT COSTS ...... 5 PROJECTED NET (DIRECT AND INDIRECT) COSTS ...... 6 PERMIT FEE REVENUE ...... 7 Historic Revenue (2016 - 2020)...... 7 Projected Revenue (2021-2025) ...... 7 Projected Costs /Revenue (2021-2025) ...... 8 RESULT OF COST /REVENUE ANALYSIS ...... 8
IV DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE FEES (COST RECOVERY RATIONALE) ...... 9
UNIT COST ANALYSIS ...... 9 SUMMARY OF MAJOR FEES CHANGES ...... 9 PROPOSED NEW FEES SCHEDULE (SCHEDULE “A” AMENDMENT TO BUILDING BY-LAW 16-2019) ...... 12 EXISTING FEES SCHEDULE (SCHEDULE “A” TO BY-LAW 16-2019) ...... 15
V COST/REVENUE ANALYSIS (PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE) ...... 19
VI FACTORS ...... 20
GROWTH FACTORS ...... 20 ESTIMATED EXISTING OPERATIONAL CAPACITY...... 20 STALE PERMITS ...... 20 CHANGES TO THE BUILDING CODE ACT & BUILDING CODE ...... 21 OBC TRANSFORMATION/HARMONIZATION ...... 21 COVID 19 ...... 21 CLOUDPERMIT ...... 21 PLANNING FOR UNPREDICTABLE CHANGES ...... 22
VII CONCLUSIONS ...... 22
VIII RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 22
APPENDICIES
APPENDIX “A” – OBC 2012 Div. C, 1.9 – FEES
APPENDIX “B” – DRAFT NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
7:00 p.m. Building Code Act Amendments to the Building By-law and Fees B... Page 26 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #6.4.1
I INTRODUCTION
Background A fees study was last previously undertaken in 2017 Highlights: and an amendment made to the fees schedule was made in 2019 to adjust for the expanded role of the - A “User pay” approach is employed in building department where authority having the process of determining building jurisdiction over On-site Sewage systems was permit fees transferred back from the local Health Unit to the - Permit fees are formulated based upon Building Department that year. Since that time the historical statistics and financial data Township of Norwich has been fortunate to Striking the correct balance in the set maintain a strong level of construction activity and - high priority was given at the time of both the 2017 fees is extremely important study and the 2019 expansion of the fees schedule to ensure that the new fee structure does not adversely affect or interfere with this trend.
Purpose of the Study The purpose of this Fees Study is to ensure that the fees charged for services rendered to the building construction industry and the community at large are balanced with the cost of providing these services. This study analyzes the reasonable anticipated costs incurred by the Township in administering and enforcing the Act, and suggests the rate at which fees should be charged related to the delivery of the administrating and enforcement services so that an effective balance between the level of service and cost of that service is maintained.
“User Pay” This balancing concept is commonly referred to as the “user pay” approach to service funding – where the people who utilize the service pay for those services at the time that they use them. The benefit of a user pay approach is that the financial burden of operational costs is not transferred to those who choose not to utilize the services.
Striking the Balance As such it is vitally important to ensure that the fees continue to fully and accurately represent the costs of delivery of the required level of service for each person using the system. Fees that are set too high mean overcharging for the service provided which can drive up construction prices and cause undue financial difficulties to those who wish to build. Fees that are set too low risk underfunding the Department such that the either the minimum levels of service cannot be provided or cause an undue draw upon the general levy (meaning everyone pays for the service that benefits only a few).
Township of Norwich - Building Permit Fees Study & Report 1 7:00 p.m. Building Code Act Amendments to the Building By-law and Fees B... Page 27 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #6.4.1
The 2021 Fees Study As was done in 2017, the 2021 Fees Study Highlights: utilizes a variety of analytical methods to ensure fair and appropriate permit fees are - The provision of Building Department services is set. Regulated by the Building Code Act of Ontario
Statistical data that has been gathered - The process of adjustment of Permit Fees is a from previous years is cross-analysed with regulated public process the true financial costs of operating the - It is recommended that a review of permit fees building department over the same period should be conducted every 4-5 years of time. This statistic-based financial - Permit fees shall be formulated based upon the analysis provides a model framework from real cost of the service provided which to create projections of the future - Permit revenue must be used to pay for the demand of the building department by the local building construction industry, as well direct costs to the administer and enforce the as the anticipated future costs to operate Code and Act. the building department.
The Process The following is a summary of the basic steps taken in preparing and completing the Fees Study and Report:
• Evaluation of Historic costs and revenues as well as Permits Issued, Construction Values, and Permit Fee data from the past 10 years was compiled; • Based upon historic data projected operational costs and revenues were estimated for the next 3-4 years; • Utilizing the existing fee schedule framework, new fees were created based upon these projections; • Percentage of proposed fee changes by major classification were corrected to cross-subsidize where desirable (i.e., where the percentage of change due to true cost methods was perceived to be too high)
While doing this analysis, it is also important to keep an eye towards the future of the building regulations themselves – experience has shown that where the Provincial government chooses to change the expectations for how building should be built, these changes can have serious impacts upon the cost of providing adequate services to the community. It is also important to keep other influencing factors and trends in perspective while conducting this analysis. Consideration to these Factors is discussed in Section VI of the Report.
Frequency of Review The construction industry is an ever-changing and evolving entity. As it changes its demands and needs of the Building department it is imperative that the Department grows and changes with it. As such it is recommended that a fees review should be conducted every 5 years to ensure that the
Township of Norwich - Building Permit Fees Study & Report 2 7:00 p.m. Building Code Act Amendments to the Building By-law and Fees B... Page 28 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #6.4.1
municipality stays current and the fee structure is appropriate for the level of service provided to the community.
In order to ensure that the service provided by the Building Department to the building construction industry adequately meets the needs of the community, the Township’s Permit fee structure must stay up-to-date and cost effective while ensuring that charges are appropriate for the costs that the municipality is incurring to provide these services.
It is being recommended that the new fees be re-evaluated in four to five years’ time to keep the fees up-to-date and relevant to the department’s overhead costs. A four-year review period would also allow each tenure of Council to participate in the Permit Fees review process.
The final fee structure being recommended in this study has been designed to balance off the need for recovering costs equal to the provision of service prescribed by the Building Code Act of Ontario.
II BUILDING CODE ACT PROVISIONS
The Building Code Act (herein referred to as “the Act”) is the legislative instrument Highlights: that prescribes the administrative requirements for the construction of new - Adjustment of Permit Fees is a regulated public buildings, the renovation of existing process buildings, and the also the change of use of - There must be at least one public meeting existing buildings when construction or - 21 days’ notice of the public meeting must be renovation are not proposed. given
Section 3 of the Act assigns the - the direct and indirect costs of providing responsibility for the enforcement of the Building Code services, the amount of new fees Act to the principal authority each local- and the rationale for the new fees must be level municipality. Norwich – being the provided in the Report lower-tier municipality in the County of Oxford – is considered a “local municipality” for the purposes of the Act.
Section 7 of the Act allows the municipality to require that permit fees may be collected, but shall not exceed “the anticipated reasonable costs to administer and enforce the Building Code during building construction”. Should there be a year when building revenues exceed the costs to provide these services, the Code requires that the excess revenue be placed in reserve for future use of the building department in years when costs exceed revenues.
Ontario Regulation 332/12 sets out further requirements related to the process of setting of Permit fees, which include:
Township of Norwich - Building Permit Fees Study & Report 3 7:00 p.m. Building Code Act Amendments to the Building By-law and Fees B... Page 29 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #6.4.1
• Holding of at least one public meeting; • Providing 21 days’ notice of the public meeting; and • Providing in the notice an estimate of the direct and indirect costs of providing Building Code services, the amount of new fees and the rationale for the new fees.
See Appendix “A” to this report for an excerpt of the 2012 Ontario Building Code Division C, 1.9 - Fees for the regulatory requirements.
See Appendix “B” to this report for a proposed draft Notice of Public Meeting re: Permit Fees for your consideration.
The Building By-law and Fee Schedule Under the current schedule and by-law, the Permit Fees are split into two major components where a base fee is collected at the time of submission of a complete application, and where a supplemental fee calculated at a $/sq. foot or, upon an indexed rate/ $1000 of gross project cost may also be used at the discretion of the CBO.
The reasoning behind this split fee and options to determine the supplemental fee are as follows:
The Base fee: The base fee is calculated to cover the true cost of the permit application intake administrative costs as well as the estimated costs to complete a review of the application for compliance with the Building Code. Where this fee is paid “up front” (at time of application intake before issuance) this ensures that the costs incurred by the building department related to the administration and review of the permit are covered even if the permit is deemed not to be in conformance with the Code, the Act or the applicable law. As such, and under the provisions of the current building by-law, this Base Fee is considered “non-refundable” at the time of submittal of the application.
The Supplemental Fee: The supplemental fee is representative of the calculated true cost for the Building department to undertake the Inspections and any enforcement-related actions deemed necessary in execution of our duties and responsibilities under the Building Code. This supplemental fee is calculated based upon the size of the proposed construction and represents the additional labour costs to inspection and enforcement related duties – the bigger and more complex the building, the more inspection and the longer they take to complete, and the higher the likelihood of follow up enforcement related costs. These fees are due payable prior to the issuance of the building permit and are added to the base fee to form the total Building Permit fees payable for permit issuance. as the baseline as well as other new changes to the structure or methodology of fee collection established by the current schedule.
Some of the new structure and methodology differs significantly in comparison to the fees structure established by the existing schedule. An outline explanation of all the significant changes in
Township of Norwich - Building Permit Fees Study & Report 4 7:00 p.m. Building Code Act Amendments to the Building By-law and Fees B... Page 30 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #6.4.1
methodology to the established fee schedule are outlined in Section IV of this report titled; Summary of Major Fees Changes:
III HISTORICAL COSTS/ REVENUE ANALYSIS (EXISTING FEES SCHEDULE)
Direct Costs Direct costs for Building Services represents all departmental costs incurred in order to provide inspection services, permit application review services, and enforcement services of the building code. These costs include all staff salaries & benefits, vehicle expenses, staff supplies, memberships & training costs, and all allocations to the vehicle replacement reserve.
The Below are the actual direct costs to operate the Building Department for the years 2016: 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Historical Direct Costs TOTAL $307,432.73 309,333.00 $353,014.24 $402,588.26 $414,733
Projected Direct Costs for the years 2021-2025 are shown below. These costs were based on the historical trends, analyzed and anticipated factors where added (as per the notes to the table) to the projections (below). 2021* 2022 2023 2024 2025 Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Direct Costs TOTAL $414,734 $417,298 $476,225 $543,101 $559,486
Notes: *proposed 2021 Budgeted direct cost
1. Salaries and Benefits were projected based on approximate 1.5% cost of living increase per calendar year. 2. Annual Transfers to Capital Reserves include $6,000 for vehicle replacement + $2,500 for computer hardware and software upgrades.
Indirect Costs Indirect costs related to Building Services would represent an appropriate percentage of all administration costs which are incurred in support of the Building Services function. This would include but not limited to costs for Council, General Administration, Municipal Office Building and Health & Safety.
For purposes of calculating a reasonable allocation percentage of all indirect costs, the following calculation was completed:
Township of Norwich - Building Permit Fees Study & Report 5 7:00 p.m. Building Code Act Amendments to the Building By-law and Fees B... Page 31 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #6.4.1
Area of Municipal Building being utilized
by the Building Department – including file storage = 1,157 sq. ft. ______
Total Area of the Municipal Building = 10,000 sq. ft.
Percentage of Space being utilized by the Building Department = 11.57 %
Utilizing the above allocation percentage, the following is an estimate of the Indirect Costs incurred by Building Services for the period of 2016-2020:
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Historical Indirect Costs Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Council $164,428 $164,949 Municipal Office Building 51,099 55,648 Health & Safety 5,471 4 ,717 TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS $177,667 $188,000 $195,000 $220,998 $220,597
Percentage Attributable 11.57% 11.57% 11.57% 11.57% 11.57%
INDEXED INDIRECT COSTS $20,479 $21,939 $22,562 $25,569 $26,069
The historical indirect costs were analyzed and based on historical trends and anticipated factors, and were projected out over the next four years (below).
2021 2022 2023 2024 Projected Indirect Costs Projected Projected Projected Projected Council $178,000 $180,000 $186,000 $188,000 Municipal Office Building 52,450 58,000 63,000 65,000 Health & Safety 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS $237,850 $247,000.00 $258,000.00 $262,000
Percentage Attributable 11.57% 11.57% 11.57% 11.57%
INDEXED INDIRECT COSTS $27,500 $28,578 $29,851 $30,575
Projected Net (Direct and Indirect) Costs
Based on the projected figures above, below is a summary of the Net Projected Costs for Building Services for the years 2021-2025:
Township of Norwich - Building Permit Fees Study & Report 6 7:00 p.m. Building Code Act Amendments to the Building By-law and Fees B... Page 32 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #6.4.1
Projected Total Costs 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
PROJECTED TOTAL COSTS $442,234 $445,876 $506,076 $573,676 $590,786
COST/REVENUE ANALYSIS (CURRENT FEES SCHEDULE)
Permit Fee Revenue Building Department revenues consist of both Permit Fee Revenue and the ancillary revenue.
Permit Fee revenue are the fees which are collected at the time of application and issuance of the Building Permit. In the context of Direct and Indirect cost/revenue balancing, permit fees may be considered a direct source of revenue for the Department, in that they are not to be shared with the general tax levy. Ancillary (indirect) revenue represents all revenues generated by Building Services other than Permit Revenue. These include fees for service provided by the Building Department that are not otherwise derived from the administration and enforcement of the Building Code. As such they can be considered an Indirect revenue source, and are subject to integration with the general tax levy.
These revenues over the past 5 years are shown totaled below; Historic Revenue (2016 - 2020) 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Permit Fee Revenue (Direct) $193,661* $341,834 $366,526 $341,713** $377,588 Ancillary Revenue (Indirect) $6,700 $6,625 $5,785 $6,259 $7,800 TOTAL REVENUE $200,361* $348,459 $372,311 $347,972** $385,388
Note: * fees generated prior to implementation of the 2017 fees study ** septic permit fees added this April of 2019
Projected Revenue (2021-2025) Projected revenues are interpolated in reflection of the previous 5-and 10-year permit revenue collected data. Based upon this data it has been found that the net total number of Permits issued has been increasing at a rate of approximately 4.3%/year for the past 5 years, and where the fees collected have been respectively increasing at an average rate of approximately $50,000/year.
Using this data, and based upon the historic revenue above, permit revenue was project over the next 5 years as follows: 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Permit Fee Revenue $375,000 $370,265 $386,186 $402,792 $420,112 Ancillary Revenue $6,750 $7,000 $7,050 $7,100 $7,150 TOTAL REVENUE $381,677.75 $422,923.04 $478,477.79 $484,689.86 $551,808.12
Township of Norwich - Building Permit Fees Study & Report 7 7:00 p.m. Building Code Act Amendments to the Building By-law and Fees B... Page 33 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #6.4.1
Cost Revenue Comparison
The building departments historic cost and revenues are summarized below along with the net balance and the percentage of Cost recovery (deficits are in red and surplus in black)
Historic Cost/Revenue (2016 – 2020) 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual TOTAL NET BUILDING COSTS $307,432.73 $309,333.00 $353,014.24 $402,588.26 $463,144.00 TOTAL GROSS BUILDING REVENUE $200,361 $348,459.00 $372,311.00 $347,972.05 $385,388.48 NET DIFFERENCE - $ -$107,071.73 $39,126.50 $19,296.76 -$54,616.21 -$77,755.52 COST/REVENUE – % RECOVERY 65.17% 112.64% 105.47% 86.43% 83.21%
Projected Costs /Revenue (2021-2025)
Using all of the above provided statistical data and assuming the average growth rates and other described variable inputs trend within the established limits, the projected cost and revenue information along with the net difference and percentage of cost recovery is predicted as per below: 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected TOT. BUILDING COSTS $442,234 $445,876 $506,076 $573,676 $590,786 TOT. BUILDING REVENUE $401,729 $418,762 $436,518 $455,026 $474,319 NET DIFFERENCE - $ -$40,505 -$27,113 -$69,558 -$118,650 -$116,467 COST/REVENUE – % RECOVERY 91% 94% 86% 79% 80%
Result of Cost /Revenue analysis The analysis of the historic costs and revenues reveals that the current fee rates have recently achieved 100% cost recovery (2017 and 2018) nevertheless, the 5-year average reveals that the Building Department is being under-funded at an average rate of approximately 12%/year under the current fees schedule. Correspondingly the Cost/revenue projections that the Building Department will be underfunded by approximately $116,000 dollars by the year 2025.
As such, the analysis concludes that adjustments to the existing permit fee rates must be adjusted in order to maintain the cost/revenue neutral status of the Building Department’s operations, going forward.
Township of Norwich - Building Permit Fees Study & Report 8 7:00 p.m. Building Code Act Amendments to the Building By-law and Fees B... Page 34 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #6.4.1
IV DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE FEES (COST RECOVERY RATIONALE)
Unit Cost Analysis In order to undertake a fair and balanced approach to adjusting the fees so as to achieve cost revenue neutrality the adjustments to the various fee rates for each type of construction permit issued must be considered and analysed. As such a Unit Cost Analysis of the fee rates was conducted. The Unit Cost Analysis provides a means to review and determine the amount and distribution of work (expressed in time and money) by each member of the Building Department for each major type of building permit issued.
Utilizing real historic permit data this analysis breaks down the work done by the Building Department attributable to each major permit type. For each major type an estimate of the time to administer, review, inspect and enforce building permit is made. This time is then translated into a unit cost for each permit, based upon the attributable hours to that permit type contributed by each staff member in the department. This cost is then distributed by the average number of permits per year of each type issued the estimated fees required in order to achieve full cost recovery is then calculated based upon this analysis and the adjustment required to maintain a revenue-neutral fee for each major group and permit type is proposed based upon it.
Summary of Major Fees Changes The results of the unit cost analysis and the fees adjustment have been translated into a percentage change/average permit value from the existing fees collected based upon the Major construction types as utilized in the current Fees schedule (Residential Main/Residential Accessory, Agricultural, Industrial, Commercial and Institutional).
As with the previous Fees study, the current fees schedule was evaluated and completed in consideration of cross subsidizing factors - offsetting of related costs occurring in one major group of permits by another group or a subcategory of permits – which were incorporated into the proposed schedule. As in the 2017 Study, these cross-subsidy factors were applied to Residential permit group, so as to subsidize the costs of residential accessory structures by adjusting the fees for new house and addition permits. A similar cross-subsidy arrangement exists between permits for new primary agricultural buildings and the permits for secondary/accessory buildings. Lastly, the cross-subsidy of commercial and institutional permits with industrial permits was also factored into the current fees study under the previous Fees Study.
These cross-subsidy arrangements have been mostly continued in the 2021 schedule, save and except for the industrial/commercial and institutional arrangement. This cross subsidy was found to be no longer needed due to the recent increase in commercial activity in the Town over the past 5 years. As such, the industrial base permit fees rate has bee shown to have decreased substantially under the above proposed model.
Township of Norwich - Building Permit Fees Study & Report 9 7:00 p.m. Building Code Act Amendments to the Building By-law and Fees B... Page 35 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #6.4.1
The following table is a comparative summary of the approximate averaged change to the rate of both the base fee and the supplement charge in comparison to the existing Fee rates and charges.
Averaged Proposed Fee Changes - New Permit Fee over current Permit Fees (% change)
Res. Residential Accessory Commercial Industrial Agricultural Institutional Septic Base Fee (Flat fee $) +53% +38% +24% +20% +23% +25% +29% Supplemental +15% -3.87% +16% -2% +18% +34% N/A charge ($/sq. ft.)
Additionally, the below is a summary of the changes that have been proposed to make effective in the 2021 Permit year.
- New Full-time Salaried Staff positions included in Study – the new study has added the additional Permit Clerk Administrative Assistant position and updated the FTC Counter Services/Plans Examiner position to a FTE salaried Building inspector. The adjusted base fees compensate for the majority of financial impact to these staffing changes. - Septic-related Fees Incomplete Cost Analysis – Though there is not yet enough data to undertake a full statistical cost revenue analysis the unit cost analysis completed suggest that the revenue generated by the current base fees set in the schedule are currently underfunding by approximately 25% of the 2019/ 2020 operational costs. The proposed change corrects for this underfunding - Implementation of a Rate Stabilization Reserve – a reserve fund established and implemented for rate-stabilization purposes may be considered a reasonable cost as required by both the Act and the Code where revenues and costs may fluctuate unpredictably year-over-year and where the funds in the reserve are utilized to offset the direct and indirect costs of administration and enforcement of the Act and Code. - Adjusted Group C Res. Fee class – to include: - “Up front” (base fee) adjustment – Where the base fees are calculated to cover the immediate cost of processing a permit prior to issuance, these “up front” fees (upon receipt of permit) are intended to immediately recover costs related to the administration processing of applications and plans review. Under the current fees schedule the base fee was well undervaluing the true cost to deliver the administration and plans review services currently offered. This change corrects the current base fee and supplemental fee balance in the existing schedule towards a truer arrangement for cost recovery. - Retirement Homes – the Building Code was amended in 2018 to reclassify Retirement Homes as being Residential Major Occupancy type (as opposed to Institutional) the fees schedule has been changed to reflect this amendment. - Apartments > 6 storeys & wood-frame mid-rise (4> 6 storey’s) – though the existing fees table did include them, the fees study did not anticipate the possibility of high-rise/high- density residential combustible construction, nor mid-rise wood-frame construction up to six-storeys in height in the Norwich Village area. With the 2016 amendments to the
Township of Norwich - Building Permit Fees Study & Report 10 7:00 p.m. Building Code Act Amendments to the Building By-law and Fees B... Page 36 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #6.4.1
OBC these types of construction have now been made possible and this expectation has now changed. - Migrant worker housing facilities – the existing fees table did not distinguish these types of units from other agricultural or residential related permit types. To correct this a fee structure for migrant worker housing facilities (i.e., bunkhouse) located on a farm property was added to the Group C Residential Renovation/Alteration/Repair & Change of Use subcategory to now specifically include Migrant Worker Housing Facilities.
Township of Norwich - Building Permit Fees Study & Report 11 7:00 p.m. Building Code Act Amendments to the Building By-law and Fees B... Page 37 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #6.4.1
Proposed New Fees Schedule (Schedule “A” amendment to Building By-law 16-2019)
The below Table is the new proposed Fees Schedule which implements the above percentage changes using the existing fees structure as a framework.
CLASS OF PERMIT CONSTRUCTION TYPE BASE FEE ADJUSTMENT FEE RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION Group C, Low Density $1000 Base fee + $.74/ sq. ft. Occupied/Finished Floor Residential: Area Single or Semi-Detached, (see also attached garages and decks - $.39/sq. Duplex, Triplex, Multi-Unit, ft. - no additional base fee added where and Townhouses attached to Dwelling) (New and Additions) Group C, Medium Density $1500 Base fee + $.86/ sq. ft. Occupied/Finished Floor Residential: Area excluding parking structures New Residential Apartment Dwellings <6 (parking/storage structure to be calculated at Construction storeys, Group Homes $.17/sq. ft. Floor Area.) Including Retirement Homes (New and Additions) Group C, High Density $2200 Base fee + $.87/ sq. ft. Occupied/Finished Floor Residential: Area excluding parking structures Apartment (>6 storeys), and (parking/storage structure to be calculated at Wood framed Mid-rise $.17/sq. ft. Floor Area.) apartments (4>6 storeys) Extensive Renovations / $550 Base fee + $0.52/sq. ft. Finished Floor Area> 592 Alterations, Converted sq.ft. (55 sq.m.) Residential buildings: Dwellings, Migrant Worker OR $12/$1000 gross estimated construction cost Renovations, Housing (Bunkhouse >10 (CBO’s Discretion) Alterations, Repairs, occupants), or Change of Use and Change of Use (adding suite(s)) Migrant Worker Basic Renovations / $400 Base fee + $0.28/sq. ft Finished Floor Area > 592 Housing: Alterations sq.ft. (55 sq.m.) New, Renovation (under $15,000 or <55 sq. OR $10/$1000 gross estimated construction cost and/or Repair m.), Migrant Worker Housing (CBO’s Discretion) (Bunkhouse <10 occupants) Attached or Detached Garage $400 Base fee + $0.33/sq. ft. Building Area / Carport / Shops / Misc. Residential Accessory Accessory Structures >592 Buildings and Related sq.ft. (55 sq. m.) Construction Decks / Garden Shed / Misc. $250 Base fee + $0.22/sq. ft. Building Area Accessory Structures <592 sq.ft. (55 sq. m.)
Township of Norwich - Building Permit Fees Study & Report 12 7:00 p.m. Building Code Act Amendments to the Building By-law and Fees B... Page 38 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #6.4.1
Accessory Building $250 discretion of C.B.O. Renovations / Alterations Pool Fence Permit See Township of Norwich Fees by-law for adjusted fees Pools with decks See Township of Norwich Fees by-law for adjusted fees + see deck construction adjustment rate (column 4) CLASS OF PERMIT CONSTRUCTION TYPE BASE FEE ADJUSTMENT FEE AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS New / Additions to New/Additions to Animal and $1000 Base fee + $0.15/ sq. ft. Building Area >1093 sq. ft. (100 sq. Principal Farm Buildings Poultry Housing Units m.) (Requiring NMA / MDS) New/Addition to Manure $550 Base fee + $0.07/ sq. ft. Building Area >1093 sq. ft. (100 sq. Storage Facilities m.)
New / Addition / Hay Sheds, Implement Storage, $400 Base fee + $0.10/ sq. ft. Building Area >1093 sq. ft. (100 sq. Alteration to Accessory Repair Shops, etc.. m.) Farm Buildings and Grain Bins, Silos, Horizontal $200 Base fee + $0.07/ sq. ft. Building Area Structures (No NMA / Bunkers, Granaries etc. MDS Required) Reno./ Repair/ Change of Use to Existing Farm Buildings INSTITUTIONAL BUILDINGS Institutional New / Additions $1500 Base fee + $1.05/ sq. ft. Floor Area >1093 sq. ft. (100 sq. (Group A & B) m.) OR $20/$1000 Gross Project Value (CBO discretion) Renovation / Alterations $750 Base fee + $0.49/ sq. ft. of Floor Area >1093 sq. ft. (100 sq. m.) OR $12/$1000 Gross Project Value (CBO discretion) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS Commercial New / Additions $900 Base fee + $0.80/ sq. ft. of Floor Area >1093 sq. ft. (100 sq. (Group D & E) m.) OR $12/$1000 Gross Project Value (CBO discretion) Renovation / Alterations $600 Base fee +$0.34/ sq. ft. of Floor Area >1093 sq. ft (100 sq. m.) OR $12/$1000 Gross Project Value (CBO discretion) INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS Industrial New / Additions $1000 Base fee + $0.24/ sq. ft. Building Area >1093 sq. ft (100 sq. (Group ‘F’) m.) OR $12/$1000 Gross Project Value (CBO Discretion) Renovation / Alterations $500 Base fee + $0.16/ sq. ft. Building Area >1093 sq. ft (100 sq. m.) OR $12/$1000 Gross Project Value (CBO Discretion) MISCELLANEOUS Demolitions $140 Base Fee + $0.07/ sq. ft. where project is required to be engineered by the Code Signs $200 Base Fee + $0.29/ sq. ft. Surface Area Woodstoves $200 N/A Water/Sewer $200 N/A Connections
Township of Norwich - Building Permit Fees Study & Report 13 7:00 p.m. Building Code Act Amendments to the Building By-law and Fees B... Page 39 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #6.4.1
Conditional Permits $600 Base Fee + $0.03/ sq. ft. Building Area Tents & Designated $200 Base Fee + $0.25/ sq. ft. where >225 sq. m. Structures (2421 sq. ft.) or required to be engineered Wind Towers $220 Base Fee + $15/ft. height for Wind Towers measured from base to hub Roof-Mounted Solar $220 Base Fee + $.10/sq. ft. Total Surface Area Occupancy Permit (> $375 N/A 1 year from last requested insp.)
Moving Building or $350 Base Fee +$0.21/sq. ft. Building Area Temporary Mobile OR $10/$1000 past first $15000 Home (CBO Discretion) Permit Renewal/ $300 N/A Revisions
SEWAGE SYSTEMS
Class IV and V – Small System (New or Replacement), Serving $875 Building(s) of any occupancy, where: - Q <3000L/day, - occupancy < 6 bedrooms / <45 FU’s, <6000 sq. ft., OR - non-residential occupancy, occ. loads <150 persons Class IV and V – Large System (New or Replacement), Serving $2250 Building(s) of any occupancy, where: - Q >3000 L/day, - occupancy >6 bedrooms / >45 FU’s, >6000 sq. ft., OR - non-residential occupancy, occ.loads >150 persons Existing Class IV and V Systems – Repair, Alteration, Extension $600 - includes tank replacement / repairs
Class II and III System – New, Replacement, Alteration, Repair $450
ENFORCEMENT Additional Inspections $250 for each additional inspection as required, paid by person/party so requesting (applied at the discretion of the CBO)
Enforcement Call-Backs $250.00 per occurrence (applied at the discretion of the CBO) (cost recovery)
Construction without Double the regular fee amount determined as per appropriate category (applied at permit the discretion of the CBO)
Township of Norwich - Building Permit Fees Study & Report 14 7:00 p.m. Building Code Act Amendments to the Building By-law and Fees B... Page 40 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #6.4.1
Existing Fees Schedule (Schedule “A” to By-law 16-2019)
For comparative purposes, below is the existing and current fees schedule as established under by-law 16-2019.
CLASS OF PERMIT TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION BASE FEE ADJUSTMENT (payable upon receipt ($/sq.ft. or $/1000’s Gross of application) Construction Value)
RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
New Residential Group C, Low Density Residential $440.00 Base fee + $0.67/ sq.ft. Occupied/Finished Floor Area (see Construction – Single Detached, or also Attached garages, decks - including Single Semi/Duplex (New/Additions) $0.32/sq.ft. - no additional base fee Family Dwellings, added where attached to Dwelling) Multiple Dwelling Units, Additions and Group C, Medium, High Density $630.00 Base fee + $0.83/ sq.ft. Change of Use but Residential – Triplexes, Multi-unit, Occupied/Finished Floor Area (see Excluding Group C Townhouses, Apartments or also Attached garages and decks - Retirement Homes Group Homes (New/Additions) $0.32/sq.ft. - no additional base fee (see “Institutional added where attached to Dwelling) Buildings” for Retirement Homes)
Renovations to Extensive Renovations / $300.00 Base fee +$0.40/sq.ft. Finished Residential Alterations, Convert Dwelling, or Floor Area OR $10/$1000 gross Dwellings but Change of Use (adding suite(s)) estimated construction cost Excluding Group C (Discretion of C.B.O.) Retirement Homes Basic Renovations / Alterations $190.00 Base fee +$0.20/sq.ft. Finished (see “Institutional under $15,000 or <592 sq.ft. (55 Floor Area OR $7/$1000 gross Buildings” for sq.m.) estimated construction cost Retirement Homes) (Discretion of C.B.O.)
Residential Attached or Detached Garage / $190.00 Base fee +$0.32/sq.ft. Building Area Accessory Buildings Carport / Shops & other and Construction Accessory Structures >592 sq.ft. (55 sq.m.)
Decks / Residential Garden $190.00 Base fee +$0.25/sq.ft. Building Area Sheds & Other Accessory Structures <592 sq.ft. (55 sq.m.)
Accessory Building Renovations/ $50.00 Discretion of the C.B.O. Alterations
Pool Fence Permit See Township of Norwich Fees by-law for adjusted fees
Pools with decks See Township of Norwich Fees by-law for adjusted fees + see deck construction adjustment rate (column 4)
Township of Norwich - Building Permit Fees Study & Report 15 7:00 p.m. Building Code Act Amendments to the Building By-law and Fees B... Page 41 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #6.4.1
AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS
New/Add. Farm New and Additions Animal and $715.00 Base fee + $0.14/ sq.ft. of Building Area Buildings Poultry Housing Units (NMA / MDS New and Additions to Manure $440.00 Base fee + $0.06/ sq.ft. of Building evaluation required) Area Storage Facilities
New/Add/Alteration Hay Sheds, Implement Storage, $275.00 Base fee + $0.08/ sq.ft. of Building Area to Farm Buildings Repair Shops, etc. (NO NMA / MDS Grain Bins, Silos, Horizontal $165.00 Base fee + $0.05/ sq.ft. of Building evaluation required) Area Bunkers, Granaries etc., & Renovations/Change of Use to Existing Farm Buildings INSTITUTIONAL BUILDINGS
Institutional New and Additions $1,000.00 Base fee + $0.90/ sq.ft. of Building Area for Building area >500 sq.ft. (Group A & B and Group C Retirement Renovations / Alterations, Change $632.50 Base fee + $0.34/ sq.ft. of Building Homes) of Use Area >500 sq.ft. OR $11.83/$1000 Gross Project Value (Discretion of C.B.O.)
COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS
Commercial New and Additions $715.00 Base fee + $0.61/ sq.ft. for Building area >500 sq.ft. (Group D & E) Renovations / Alterations, Change $440.00 Base fee +$0.34/ sq.ft. of Building of Use Area >500 sq.ft. OR $8.40/$1000 Gross Project Value (Discretion of C.B.O.)
INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS
Industrial New and Additions $715.00 Base fee + $0.23/ sq.ft. for Building area >500 sq.ft. (Group ‘F’) Renovations / Alterations, Change $440.00 Base fee + $0.17/ sq.ft. for Building of Use area >500 sq.ft. OR $11.13/$1000 Gross Project Value (Discretion of C.B.O.)
SEWAGE SYSTEMS
CLASS OF PERMIT FEE (payable upon receipt of application)
Township of Norwich - Building Permit Fees Study & Report 16 7:00 p.m. Building Code Act Amendments to the Building By-law and Fees B... Page 42 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #6.4.1
Classes IV and V - Small System (New or Replacement), $650 Serving Building(s) of: - any occupancy, where Q<3000 L/day, - residential occupancy <5 bedrooms, <45 FU’s, <6000 sq. ft., OR - non-residential occupancy with Occupant loads <150 persons.
Class IV and V - Large System (New or Replacement) $1300 Serving Building(s) of: - any occupancy, where Q>3000 L/day, <10,000 L/day, - residential occupancy, >5 bedrooms, >45 FU’s, >6000 sq. ft., OR - non-residential occupancy with occupant load >150 persons
Existing Class IV and V Systems – Repair, Alteration, Extension $450 - includes tank replacement / repairs
Class II and III System - New, Replacement, Alteration/Repair $350
MISCELLANEOUS
CLASS OF PERMIT BASE FEE ADJUSTMENT (Admin. costs) payable upon ($/sq.ft. or $/1000’s Gross Construction receipt of application Value)
DEMOLITIONS $110.00 Base Fee + $0.03/ sq.ft. where Engineer Review is required
SIGNS AND WOODSTOVES $110.00 Base Fee + $0.03/ sq.ft. surface area for signs
CONDITIONAL PERMITS $330.00 Base Fee + $0.03/ sq.ft.
DESIGNATED STRUCTURES $220.00 Base Fee + $0.10/ sq.ft. where >2422 (including Tents, Roof-mounted Solar Panels, sq.ft. (225 sq.m.) or required to be Retaining Walls, etc. Excludes Wind Towers) engineered
WIND TOWERS $220.00 Base Fee + $15/ft. height for Wind Towers measured from base to hub
OCCUPANCY PERMIT $220.00 N/A where >1 year after date of last requested inspection
MOVING BUILDING / TEMPORARY $220.00 Base Fee +$0.34/sq.ft. Building Area OR MOBILE HOME $10/$1000 past first $15,000
PERMIT RENEWAL / REVISIONS $192.50 NA
Township of Norwich - Building Permit Fees Study & Report 17 7:00 p.m. Building Code Act Amendments to the Building By-law and Fees B... Page 43 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #6.4.1
ADDITIONAL INSPECTIONS $150.00 for each additional inspection as required, paid by person/party so requesting (Applied at the discretion of C.B.O.)
ENFORCEMENT CALL-BACKS $150.00 per occurrence (Applied at the discretion of C.B.O.) (cost recovery) Where unnecessary and repeated call-backs are necessary for purposes of issuing a building permit, or other enforcement of compliance CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT PERMIT Double the regular fee amount determined as per appropriate Where construction of a building or structure has category (Applied at the discretion of C.B.O.) commenced prior to the submission of an application for a building permit
Township of Norwich - Building Permit Fees Study & Report 18 7:00 p.m. Building Code Act Amendments to the Building By-law and Fees B... Page 44 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #6.4.1
V COST/REVENUE ANALYSIS (PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE)
Where the objective of the Fee Study and Report is to create a fee schedule that is essentially revenue/cost neutral, the financial risk to this goal is in missing the mark - by either overshooting or undershooting the target - due to the unpredictability of the local construction economic and political factors as (discussed below In Section VI).
For this reason, it is advisable to be cautious and conservative in projecting revenue expectations with any Permit Fee change. In creating the proposed Fee Schedule, the subsidized side of full cost recovery for departmental operations was targeted such that the proposed fees aim at cost/revenue neutrality but also avoid significantly overshooting the mark and potentially adversely affecting local community and construction.
The below projected Cost/Revenue Comparisons are shown utilizing both the current Fees Schedule (projecting the scenario were council to choose not to adjust the Fees schedule) and the proposed amended Fees Schedule (were council to approve and adopt the fee schedule as proposed above).
The Cost/Revenue - % Recovery lines below each projected comparison reflect how close to the mark each scenario comes to producing a Revenue neutral solution to funding the building department through the following 4 years. The closer to 100% without going over or under, the more in-line with the solution is to the “user pay” methodology.
Projected Cost/Revenue Comparison (NO FEE CHANGE IMPLEMENTED) 2021 2022 2023 2024 Projected Projected Projected Projected TOT. BUILDING COSTS $442,234 $445,876 $506,076 $573,676 TOT. BUILDING REVENUE $401,729 $418,762 $436,518 $455,026 NET DIFFERENCE - $ -$40,505 -$27,113 -$69,558 -$118,650
COST/REVENUE – % RECOVERY 91% 94% 86% 79%
Projected Cost/Revenue Comparison (WITH FEE CHANGE IMPLEMENTED) 2021 2022 2023 2024 Projected Projected Projected Projected TOTAL NET BUILDING COSTS $442,234 $445,876 $506,076 $573,676 TOTAL GROSS REVENUE $465,265.23 $485,272 $506,138 $527,902 NET DIFFERENCE - $ $23,031 $39,395.63 $62.31 $-45,773.74
COST/REVENUE – % RECOVERY 105.21% 108.84% 100.01% 92.02%
NOTE: * pro-rated estimate – assuming fees implemented April 1st, 2021
Township of Norwich - Building Permit Fees Study & Report 19 7:00 p.m. Building Code Act Amendments to the Building By-law and Fees B... Page 45 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #6.4.1
VI FACTORS
Growth Factors In the above estimates, the proposed revenue is based off of the 5-year historical averages. Under these circumstances the proposed fee change may not fully meet the anticipated costs to run the department. However, it should be noted that that where these estimates are based off of the 10 year historical data and estimated at 4.3% growth/yr. and do not factor future potential projected growth increases or decreases.
Estimated Existing Operational Capacity Another factor to consider with these recent increases in growth is the implied level of work that follows. The Study identified that based upon the measurable averages of time spent/permit required that the existing staffing levels offer capacity to deal with approximately 292 permits/year under normal operating hours and circumstances. This number does not anticipate or project for overtime nor does it consider vacation, holidays or sick time or the affects of other mitigating circumstances (ie. COVID). Where the Building Department issued 289 permits in 2020 it would appear that it is currently operating near its operational capacity for the time being however, where the 5-year average permit data is considered (+/-300 permits/year over the 5-year average) this begins to cause concern for the operational years to come.
Stale Permits Building upon the above concern is the fact that where operational capacity falls short of the demand for services the issue backlogs of work arise. One particular form of backlog of work is remedial inspection and enforcement upon what are known as “Stale Permits”.
Stale Permits is an industry term which identifies the fact that despite the statutory and regulated requirements for reasonable notice to the Building Department be given of readiness to conduct inspections at prescribed stages of the construction process, many permit holders either forget to give notice or ignore these requirements all together. In these cases, the municipality retains a duty of care to complete these inspections where possible and to undertake enforcement action where necessary. Such action may be necessary where required inspections are either incomplete, or where there is work identified in outstanding contravention. In consideration of this and where there is a considerable inventory of stale permits on file already, there is a need for the Township to identify this issue and address it. The ability of the Department to address this issue will depend heavily upon the availability of resources (both logistic and financial) to undertake work in reducing and remediating this inventory of Stale permits.
* NOTE: The above numbers and analysis are secondary to the intent of the analysis provided under the scope of this report, and as such further study is recommended to ensure that the department is adequately funded and staffed – both now and in the future – so as to be capable of completing the work required to fulfil the Township’s duties and responsibilities under the Act and the Code.
Township of Norwich - Building Permit Fees Study & Report 20 7:00 p.m. Building Code Act Amendments to the Building By-law and Fees B... Page 46 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #6.4.1
Changes to the Building Code Act & Building Code Significant changes have occurred upon several occasions over the past 15 years and the roles and responsibilities of Building Officials under the Building Code has expanded substantially. Those changes resulted in increases in training costs, enforcement, and time spent in review and inspection related duties.
Examples of new duties and responsibilities that have been included within the scope of the Building Code recently are:
• Amendments to the Barrier Free Accessibility requirements, • Performance-based Code methodology and technical changes, • Further tightening of Resource Conservation/Energy Efficiency initiatives, • Regulation of Private Sewage Disposal Systems, • Review duties related to applicable laws prerequisite to permit issuance (i.e., Nutrient Management Act, Source water Protection Act, Environmental Protection Act…)
OBC Transformation/Harmonization With specific regard to the MMAH’s recent consultations and published Discussion Paper titled; “Transforming and Modernizing of Ontario’s Building Code Services” it is a near certainty that the Province will be imposing additional significant operational changes upon Building Department Services in the very near future. Where the Province continues to dynamically change the duties and responsibilities of all local municipal Building Departments in their role of administration and enforcement of the Building Code and the Building Code Act of Ontario, the services currently offered by the Building Department will continue to need to change, expand and/or be reshaped to adjust to these changes.
COVID 19 The arrival of the COVID 19 pandemic has substantially affected the Building Department’s operation over the past 12 months. The lockdown Orders interrupted the construction industry at large and as a result, the Building Code-related services provided to the industry not only in this community, but in Building Departments Province-wide. Nevertheless, the Township of Norwich Building Department has continued to persevere in its commitment to deliver service to the community and the Industry by repeatedly adjusting operational policy and adopting new systems and equipment to ensure work may continue safely and effectively under permit where required. This being said, it is uncertain at this time what the future has in store as relates to the long term affect upon the building industry at large.
Cloudpermit Adding to the above, the Department has begun to initiate the implementation of Cloudpermit software as previously outlined in the Report to council for sole-source procurement. Once implemented this software will allow continued operation in compliance with the Provincial Orders
Township of Norwich - Building Permit Fees Study & Report 21 7:00 p.m. Building Code Act Amendments to the Building By-law and Fees B... Page 47 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #6.4.1
and policies for social distancing while also modernizing and streamlining the application intake process so as to reduce red tape and procedural in efficiencies. The price of this software has been analysed during the course of the fees study and incorporated directly into the direct costs associated to the operation of the building department, effective as of the passing of the 2021 operational budget. The analysed cost for implementation of this software and web portal service over the next 5 years has been calculated as being approximately 2% - 3% of the cost of the average permit fee (i.e., approximately $70/new house permit at the new fees schedule rates).
Planning for Unpredictable Changes Where we know that changes in the construction industry can occur in a very abrupt way and with little notice, and compounded by the knowledge that the operational service levels required by the Building Code and the Act can themselves change dramatically and with little advanced notice, it is very hard to plan for the future of the Department in a reliable way such that staff may offer solutions to Council with confidence that the solutions offered are the best and most correct solutions available. Seeing that it is impractical to predict these types of changes, our best alternative is to create and maintain responsible fee structures and cost-stabilizing reserves that can help to offset unforeseen costs in the short-term until timely and necessary adjustments can be made.
Despite all of the above identified factors in consideration of the proposed fee changes, staff are confident that the analysis provided in this report is based upon the best data and information available at this time, and that the proposed fees are the best path forward to ensure that the department is funded such that we are able to continue to provide cost-effective service to the community while ensuring that our commitment to upholding the standards of public and occupant health and safety, fire protection of buildings, resource conservation and public accessibility and inclusivity of the built environment are maintained in the Township.
VII CONCLUSIONS
Staff believe that the new Fee Schedule proposed in Section IV of this report does achieve a cost/revenue neutral approach to the administration and enforcement of the Ontario Building Code in Norwich, while being a cautiously conservative approach to that cost recovery for the Building Department services currently being offered in Norwich so as to not unduly impact the cost of construction in the community.
VIII RECOMMENDATIONS
Where this report and the building permit fee study have determined the total Indirect Costs and Direct Costs for Administration, Review, Inspection and Enforcement services provided in the Township of Norwich, and based upon the criteria set out in Section 7 of the Building Code Act of Ontario, it is recommended that;
Township of Norwich - Building Permit Fees Study & Report 22 7:00 p.m. Building Code Act Amendments to the Building By-law and Fees B... Page 48 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #6.4.1
1. That Report BB 2021-05, Township of Norwich - 2021 Building Permit Fees Study Report, be received as information. 2. That the Table labelled “Proposed New Fees Schedule (Schedule “A” amendment to Building By- law 16-2019)” in this report be adopted and replace the existing Schedule “A” to By-Law 16-2019, as amended. 3. The Fees proposed in the scheduled amendment in 2., shall take affect April 1st, 2021 4. The Township immediately create a Cost Stabilization Reserve Fund and utilizes it for the purpose of mitigating the impact of fluctuations in new capital and operational costs year-over-year.
NOTE: The recommendations in this report do not preclude the Township of Norwich from establishing a fee structure that varies from the recommendations, provided they do not exceed the legislative authority under the Building Code Act.
Township of Norwich - Building Permit Fees Study & Report 23 7:00 p.m. Building Code Act Amendments to the Building By-law and Fees B... Page 49 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #6.4.1 APPENDIX “A”
OBC 2012, Div. C, Section 1.9.1. Fees
(1) The report referred to in subsection 7 (4) of the Act shall contain the following information in respect of fees authorized under clause 7 (1) (c) of the Act:
(a) total fees collected in the 12-month period ending no earlier than three months before the release of the report, (b) the direct and indirect costs of delivering services related to the administration and enforcement of the Act in the area of jurisdiction of the principal authority in the 12-month period referred to in Clause (a), (c) a breakdown of the costs described in Clause (b) into at least the following categories: (i) direct costs of administration and enforcement of the Act, including the review of applications for permits and inspection of buildings, and (ii) indirect costs of administration and enforcement of the Act, including support and overhead costs, and (d) if a reserve fund has been established for any purpose relating to the administration or enforcement of the Act, the amount of the fund at the end of the 12-month period referred to in Clause (a).
(2) The principal authority shall give notice of the preparation of a report under subsection 7 (4) of the Act to every person and organization that has requested that the principal authority provide the person or organization with such notice and has provided an address for the notice.
1.9.1.2. Change of Fees
(1) Before passing a by-law or resolution or making a regulation under clause 7 (1) (c) of the Act to introduce or change a fee imposed for applications for a permit, for the issuance of a permit or for a maintenance inspection, a principal authority shall,
(a) hold the public meeting required under subsection 7 (6) of the Act, (b) ensure that a minimum of 21 days notice of the public meeting is given in accordance with Clause (c), including giving 21 days notice to every person and organization that has, within five years before the day of the public meeting, requested that the principal authority provide the person or organization with such notice and has provided an address for the notice, (c) ensure that the notice under Clause (b), (i) sets out the intention of the principal authority to pass the by-law or resolution or make a regulation under section 7 of the Act and whether the by-law, resolution or regulation would impose any fee that was not in effect on the day the notice is given or would change any fee that was in force on the day the notice is given, (ii) is sent by regular mail to the last address provided by the person or organization that requested the notice in accordance with Clause (b), and (iii) sets out the information described in Clause (d) or states that the information will be made available at no cost to any member of the public upon request, and (d) make the following information available to the public: (i) an estimate of the costs of administering and enforcing the Act by the principal authority, (ii) the amount of the fee or of the change to the existing fee, and (iii) the rationale for imposing or changing the fee.
7:00 p.m. Building Code Act Amendments to the Building By-law and Fees B... Page 50 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #6.4.1 APPENDIX “B”
Corporation of the Township of Norwich
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
Building By-law Amendment Date: Tuesday March 23, 2021 Time: 7:00 p.m. Place: Teleconference public meeting Dial: 519-518-3600 Enter Access Code: 331398#
TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Norwich will hold a public meeting on the 23rd day of March, 2021, at 7:00 p.m., held via teleconference, in order to consider a proposed Building Permit Fee By-law under Section 7 of the Building Code Act.
PURPOSE AND EFFECT -The Township of Norwich is proposing to amend the Building By-law following a review of the building permit fees under Section 7(b) of the Building Code Act. The effect will be to change the existing fee structure and to introduce a new fee schedule to the existing Building By-law (16-2019). Information will be provided at the meeting on the estimated costs of enforcing and administering the Building Code Act, the amount of the proposed fee(s) and the rationale for changing (and/or imposing) fees.
ANY PERSON may attend the public meeting and/or make written or verbal representation either in support of or in opposition to the proposed fees.
Due to the current COVID-19 pandemic, and to help prevent the spread of the virus, Township of Norwich Public Meetings and Council Meetings are being conducted via teleconferencing. Please use the above telephone number and access code to attend such meetings.
If you wish to speak as part of the teleconference public meeting, we also suggest that you advise the Township ahead of time by contacting the Clerk’s office at 519-468-2410 or [email protected] Written submissions must be provided no later that 4:30 pm the Wednesday preceding the public meeting to be included on the agenda.
If you have any limitations affecting your ability to participate in this public meeting process, please contact the Township Clerks Office prior to the meeting date.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION related to the proposed fees is available during regular office hours by contacting the undersigned, and on the Township website at www.norwich.ca
Dated at the Township of Norwich this 1st day of March, 2021.
Kyle Kruger, CAO/Clerk Township of Norwich 285767 Airport Road Norwich, ON, N0J 1P0 Tel: 519-468-2410 [email protected]
(Note: to be advertised a minimum of 21 days prior to the public meeting. Notice has only to be given to every person and organization that has within the last 5 years before the date of the public meeting, requested to be notified and has given the municipality an address.)
7:00 p.m. Building Code Act Amendments to the Building By-law and Fees B... Page 51 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.1.
LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Board of Directors Virtual Meeting Minutes of February 3, 2021 Approved March 5, 2021
Members in attendance: Dave Beres, Robert Chambers, Michael Columbus, Valerie Donnell, Tom Masschaele, Stewart Patterson, Ian Rabbitts, John Scholten and Peter Ypma Staff in attendance: Judy Maxwell, Aaron LeDuc, Ben Hodi, Debbie Thain, Zachary Cox and Dana McLachlan. Regrets: Kristal Chopp and Ken Hewitt
1. Welcome and Call to Order
The chair called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., Wednesday, February 3, 2021.
2. Additional Agenda Items
There were no additional agenda items.
3. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest
None were declared.
4. Deputations
There were no deputations.
5. Minutes of the Previous Meeting
a) Board of Directors Meeting of January 13, 2021
There were no questions or comments.
A-17/21 Moved by R. Chambers Seconded by P. Ypma
That the minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting held January 13, 2021 be adopted as circulated. CARRIED
FULL AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS Dave Beres, Robert Chambers, Kristal Chopp, Michael Columbus, Valerie Donnell, Ken Hewitt, Tom Masschaele, Stewart Patterson, Ian Rabbitts, John Scholten, Peter Ypma - 1 -
Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ... Page 52 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.1.
6. Business Arising
There was no business arising.
7. Review of Committee Minutes
There were no committee meeting minutes for review.
8. Correspondence
There was no correspondence for review.
9. Development Applications
a) Staff Approved applications
Staff approved 13 applications since the last meeting January 13, 2021. Due to the continued high lake levels, shoreline protection upgrades, and raising and floodproofing dwellings and cottages continued to be completed within the watershed. LPRCA- 258/20, LPRCA-259/20, LPRCA-260/20, LPRCA-274/20, LPRCA-1/21, LPRCA-3/21, LPRCA-4/21, LPRCA-6/21, LPRCA-7/21, LPRCA-8/21, LPRCA-9/21, LPRCA-10/21 and LPRCA-11/21.
All of the staff approved applications met the requirements as set out in Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act.
A-18/21 Moved by D. Beres Seconded by V. Donnell
That the LPRCA Board of Directors receives the Staff Approved Section 28 Regulation Applications report dated February 3, 2021 as information. CARRIED
b) New applications
The Planning Department staff recommended two applications for approval.
A-19/21 Moved by J. Scholten Seconded by T. Masschaele
THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors approves the following Development Applications contained within the background section of this report:
FULL AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS Dave Beres, Robert Chambers, Kristal Chopp, Michael Columbus, Valerie Donnell, Ken Hewitt, Tom Masschaele, Stewart Patterson, Ian Rabbitts, John Scholten, Peter Ypma - 2 -
Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ... Page 53 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.1.
A. For Work under Section 28 Regulations, Development, Interference with Wetlands & Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulations (R.R.O. 1990 Reg. 178/06),
LPRCA-2/21 LPRCA-12/21
B. That the designated officers of LPRCA be authorized to complete the approval process for this Development Application, as far as it relates to LPRCA’s mandate and related Regulations. CARRIED
10. New Business
a) General Manager’s Report
J. Maxwell provided an overview of operations and ongoing projects..
Staff received notification that the two National Disaster Mitigation Program (NDMP) projects submitted by LPRCA have advanced to the next stage of review. The proposed projects are the Lake Erie Flood Damage Reduction Project and the Port Dover and Simcoe Two-Zone Concept for Floodplain Management.
The Chair requested an update on the site changes at Waterford North and Deer Creek conservation areas.
Phase 3 electrical and water upgrades at Waterford North will be tendered shortly. Electrical upgrades were completed at Deer Creek and ten sites have been converted to premium seasonal sites. To date, an additional 16 seasonal sites have been booked across the five campgrounds.
A-20/21 Moved by V. Donnell Seconded by I. Rabbitts
That the LPRCA Board of Directors receives the General Manager’s Report for January 2021 as information. CARRIED
b) Years of Service Recognition
There are four staff and two Board Members who reached service milestones in 2020. They will be recognized at the 2021 Annual General Meeting, March 5, 2021.
FULL AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS Dave Beres, Robert Chambers, Kristal Chopp, Michael Columbus, Valerie Donnell, Ken Hewitt, Tom Masschaele, Stewart Patterson, Ian Rabbitts, John Scholten, Peter Ypma - 3 -
Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ... Page 54 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.1.
A-21/21 Moved by J. Scholten Seconded by P. Ypma
THAT the Years of Service Recognition Report be received as information, CARRIED
c) Timber Tender LP-333-21 Tarcza-Roberts-Hird Block 2
Two bids were received by the deadline and the winning bid was over the expected bid range. Staff recommended the tender be awarded to the highest bidder.
A-22/21 Moved by I. Rabbitts Seconded by D. Beres
THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors accepts the tender submitted by Townsend Lumber Inc. for marked standing timber at the Tarzca-Roberts-Hird – Block #2 – LP- 333-21 for a total tendered price of $83,275.00. CARRIED
d) 2021 Gypsy Moth Aerial Spray Program
Staff surveyed 32 LPRCA forest tracts and identified Gypsy moth egg masses to be severe at all but one property. Gypsy moths feed on the leaves and weaken trees. Outbreaks generally occur in a 7-10 year cycle.
Board support was requested to undertake an aerial spray program on a total of 3,555 acres at 14 of the most severe properties with a biological product called Bacillus thuringiensis (Btk). The last spray program occurred in 2008 in which 1,686 acres were sprayed with good results.
Future spraying will be considered at budget time.
J. Scholten left the meeting at 7:10 p.m.
A-23/21 Moved by V. Donnell Seconded by P. Ypma
THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors supports a Gypsy Moth Aerial Spray Control Program in 2021 for specific forest tracts;
And;
FULL AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS Dave Beres, Robert Chambers, Kristal Chopp, Michael Columbus, Valerie Donnell, Ken Hewitt, Tom Masschaele, Stewart Patterson, Ian Rabbitts, John Scholten, Peter Ypma - 4 -
Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ... Page 55 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.1.
That the LPRCA Board of Directors authorizes the use of funds from the unrestricted reserve to a maximum of $100,000 for spraying LPRCA’s properties;
And;
That the LPRCA Board of Directors approves contracting of Zimmer Air Services for the spray program. CARRIED
14. Adjournment
The Chair adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m.
Michael Columbus Dana McLachlan Chair Administrative Assistant
FULL AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS Dave Beres, Robert Chambers, Kristal Chopp, Michael Columbus, Valerie Donnell, Ken Hewitt, Tom Masschaele, Stewart Patterson, Ian Rabbitts, John Scholten, Peter Ypma - 5 -
Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ... Page 56 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.1.
LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
Financial Statements December 31, 2020
Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ... Page 57 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.1. LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
INDEX TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
DECEMBER 31, 2020
Page(s)
Management Report 1
Independent Auditor’s Report 2 – 3
Statement of Financial Position 4
Statement of Operations and Change in Accumulated Surplus 5
Statement of Changes in Net Financial Assets 6
Statement of Cash Flows 7
Notes to the Financial Statements 8 – 16
Schedule 1 – Schedule of Deferred Revenue 17
Schedule 2 – Schedule of Tangible Capital Assets 18
Schedule 3 – Schedule of Internally Restricted Reserves 19
Schedule 4 – Schedule of Externally Restricted Reserves 20
Schedule 5 – Schedule of Segmented Reporting 21 – 22
Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ... Page 58 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.1. LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MANAGEMENT REPORT
Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements
The accompanying financial statements are the responsibility of the management of Long Point Region Conservation Authority and have been prepared by management in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards. Management is also responsible for the notes to the financial statements, schedules and the integrity and objectivity of these financial statements. The preparation of financial statements involves the use of estimates based on management’s judgment to which management has determined such amounts on a reasonable basis in order to ensure that the financial statements and any other supplementary information presented are consistent with that in the financial statements.
The Authority is also responsible to maintain a system of internal accounting and administrative controls that are designed to provide reasonable assurance that the financial information is relevant, reliable, available on a timely basis, and accurate, and that the transactions are properly authorized and that the Authority’s assets are properly accounted for and adequately safeguarded.
The Board of Directors are responsible for ensuring that management fulfills its responsibilities for financial reporting and internal control. The Board reviews internal financial statements on a quarterly basis with management, as well as with the external auditors to satisfy itself that each party is properly discharging its responsibilities with respect to internal controls and financial reporting. The external auditors MNP LLP have full and free access to financial information and the Board of Directors prior to the approval of the financial statements.
The financial statements have been examined by MNP LLP, the external auditors of the Authority. The responsibility of the external auditors is to conduct an independent examination in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards, and to express their opinion on whether the financial statements are fairly presented in all material respects in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards.
______Michael Columbus Chairman of the Board
______Judy Maxwell, CPA, CGA General Manager, Secretary/Treasurer
Tillsonburg, Canada March 5, 2021
Page 1 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ... Page 59 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.1.
Independent Auditor's Report
To the Board of Directors of Long Point Region Conservation Authority:
Opinion
We have audited the financial statements of Long Point Region Conservation Authority (the "Authority"), which comprise the statement of financial position as at December 31, 2020, and the statements of operations and change in accumulated surplus, changes in net financial assets and cash flows for the year then ended, and notes to the financial statements, including a summary of significant accounting policies.
In our opinion, the accompanying financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Authority as at December 31, 2020, and the results of its operations, changes in its net financial assets and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards.
Basis for Opinion
We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements section of our report. We are independent of the Authority in accordance with the ethical requirements that are relevant to our audit of the financial statements in Canada, and we have fulfilled our other ethical responsibilities in accordance with these requirements. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion.
Responsibilities of Management and Those Charged with Governance for the Financial Statements
Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards, and for such internal control as management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
In preparing the financial statements, management is responsible for assessing the Authority’s ability to continue as a going concern, disclosing, as applicable, matters related to going concern and using the going concern basis of accounting unless management either intends to liquidate the Authority or to cease operations, or has no realistic alternative but to do so.
Those charged with governance are responsible for overseeing the Authority’s financial reporting process.
Auditor's Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements
Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor's report that includes our opinion. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance, but is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. Misstatements can arise from fraud or error and are considered material if, individually or in the aggregate, they could reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions of users taken on the basis of these financial statements.
As part of an audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards, we exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit. We also:
Identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error, design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks, and obtain audit evidence that is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control. Obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Authority’s internal control.
ACCOUNTING › CONSULTING › TAX 495 RICHMOND STREET, SUITE 700, LONDON ON, N6A 5A9 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ... T: (519) 679-8550Page 60F: of (519) 200 679-1812 MNP.ca AGENDA ITEM #8.1.
Evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates and related disclosures made by management. Conclude on the appropriateness of management's use of the going concern basis of accounting and, based on the audit evidence obtained, whether a material uncertainty exists related to events or conditions that may cast significant doubt on the Authority’s ability to continue as a going concern. If we conclude that a material uncertainty exists, we are required to draw attention in our auditor's report to the related disclosures in the financial statements or, if such disclosures are inadequate, to modify our opinion. Our conclusions are based on the audit evidence obtained up to the date of our auditor's report. However, future events or conditions may cause the Authority to cease to continue as a going concern. Evaluate the overall presentation, structure and content of the financial statements, including the disclosures, and whether the financial statements represent the underlying transactions and events in a manner that achieves fair presentation.
We communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit and significant audit findings, including any significant deficiencies in internal control that we identify during our audit.
London, Ontario Chartered Professional Accountants
March 5, 2021 Licensed Public Accountants
Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ... Page 61 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.1. LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION AS AT DECEMBER 31, 2020
2020 2019
Financial Assets Cash (note 3) $ 3,114,955 $ 326,464 Investments (note 4) 5,770,114 8,156,930 Accounts receivable 1,034,444 729,440 Accrued receivable 100,568 213,347 Other assets 53,376 95,788 10,073,457 9,521,969 Financial Liabilities Accounts payable and accrued liabilities 208,655 292,099 Deferred revenue (schedule 1) 715,664 583,240 924,319 875,339
Net financial assets 9,149,138 8,646,630
Non-Financial Assets Tangible capital assets (schedule 2) 7,476,233 7,133,523
Net assets 16,625,371 15,780,153
Commitment (note 6) Contingent liabilities (note 10)
Accumulated Surplus Accumulated surplus - internally restricted (schedule 3) 3,854,607 3,430,159 Accumulated surplus - externally restricted (schedule 4) 5,294,531 5,216,471 Accumulated surplus - tangible capital assets 7,476,233 7,133,523
Total accumulated surplus $ 16,625,371 $ 15,780,153
On behalf of the Board of Directors:
______Michael Columbus Chair, Board of Directors
______Dave Beres Chair, Audit and Finance Committee
Page 4 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ... Page 62 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.1. LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND CHANGE IN ACCUMULATED SURPLUS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2020
Budget Actual Actual 2020 2020 2019 (note 5) Revenues Municipal levies: General $1,644,960 $1,644,960 $1,607,452 Special 609,450 434,450 435,750 Government grants: Provincial 35,229 35,229 35,229 Corporate services (note 7) 155,478 212,710 240,737 Planning and watershed services 279,286 468,742 768,965 Forestry services 461,659 419,684 427,439 Backus Heritage conservation area 472,748 238,763 495,609 Conservation parks 1,138,300 588,900 935,089 Donations (note 8) - 325,000 - Maintenance operations services 253,680 135,799 165,498 ALUS Elgin Partnership - 229,105 204,964 Gain on disposal of tangible capital assets (note 9) - 131,446 643,574 Total Revenues 5,050,790 4,864,788 5,960,306
Expenditures Corporate services 1,222,074 1,124,578 1,173.603 Planning and watershed services 776,307 995,119 1,195,483 Forestry services 386,197 283,889 395,589 Backus Heritage conservation area 606,661 316,683 606,313 Conservation parks 863,376 554,953 728,079 Maintenance operations services 586,725 515,243 544,479 ALUS Elgin Partnership - 229,105 204,964 Total expenditures 4,441,340 4,019,570 4,848,510
Annual Surplus $609,450 $845,218 $1,111,796
Accumulated surplus, beginning of the year 15,780,153 15,780,153 14,668,357
Accumulated surplus, end of the year $16,389,603 $16,625,371 $15,780,153
Page 5 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ... Page 63 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.1. LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN NET FINANCIAL ASSETS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2020
Budget Actual Actual 2020 2020 2019 (note 5)
Annual Surplus $609,450 $845,218 $1,111,796 Acquisition of tangible capital assets (963,450) (238,936) (705,083) Donated tangible capital assets - (325,000) - Gain on disposal of tangible capital assets - (131,446) (643,574) Proceeds on disposal of tangible capital assets - 131,491 662,698 Amortization of tangible capital assets - 221,181 185,672 Change in net financial assets (354,000) 502,508 611,509
Net financial assets, beginning of year 8,646,630 8,646,630 8,035,121
Net financial assets, end of year $8,292,630 $9,149,138 $8,646,630
Page 6 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ... Page 64 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.1. LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2020
2020 2019
Cash Flows from Operating Activities Operating activities: Annual Surplus $845,218 $1,111,796 Items not affecting cash: Amortization of tangible capital assets 221,181 185,672 Gain on disposal of tangible capital assets (131,446) (643,574) Donated tangible capital assets (325,000) - 609,953 653,894 Change in non-cash working capital: Accounts receivable (305,004) (511,024) Accrued receivable 112,779 (139,511) Other receivables 42,412 (26,792) Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (75,491) 8,742 Long term liabilities (7,953) (7,858) Deferred revenue 132,424 (297,874) 509,120 (320,423) Investing activities: Acquisition of tangible capital assets (238,936) (705,083) Change in investments 2,386,816 279,795 Proceeds on disposal of tangible capital assets 131,491 662,698 2,279,371 237,410
Change in cash 2,788,491 (83,013)
Cash, beginning of year 326,464 409,477
Cash, end of year $3,114,955 $326,464
Page 7 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ... Page 65 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.1. LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
NOTES TO THE FINANCAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2020
1. Purpose of the Organization
Long Point Region Conservation Authority (the “Authority”) is a special purpose environmental body established under the Conservation Authorities Act of Ontario and works with member municipalities, other stakeholders, and undertakes programing to protect, restore and manage the natural resources and features in the Long Point Region Watershed.
2. Significant Accounting Policies
The financial statements of Long Point Region Conservation Authority are the representation of management, prepared in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards for local governments as recommended by the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada. The policies that are considered to be particularly significant are as follows:
[a] Revenue Recognition
The Authority follows the deferral method of accounting for contributions and government transfers. Restricted contributions and government transfers are deferred and are recognized as revenues in the year in which the related expenses are incurred or services performed. Unrestricted contributions and government transfers are recognized as revenues in the period in which events giving rise to the revenue occur, provided that the transactions are authorized, any eligibility criteria have been met, and a reasonable estimate can be made of the amount to be received.
General grants and levies are recognized in the period they pertain to.
Corporate services, Planning and watershed services, Forestry services, Conservation parks and Maintenance operations services are recognized as the related expenses are incurred and the services are provided.
Interest and investment income is recognized on the accrual basis as it is earned.
[b] Accrual Accounting
Revenues and expenditures are reported on the accrual basis of accounting. The accrual basis of accounting recognizes revenues as they become available and measurable; expenditures are recognized as they are incurred and measurable as a result of receipt of goods or services and the creation of a legal obligation to pay.
Page 8 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ... Page 66 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.1. LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
NOTES TO THE FINANCAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2020
2. Significant Accounting Policies (continued from previous page)
[c] Internal Transactions
All inter-departmental revenues and expenditures have been eliminated for these financial statements.
[d] Investments
All of the investments are carried at amortized cost using the effective interest rate method. The Board of Directors has the intention to hold investments until maturity.
[e] Reserve Fund Balances
Internally restricted reserves are those with restrictions imposed by the Board of Directors in order to ensure funds are available for financial relief in the event of a significant loss of revenues or other financial emergency for which there is no other source of funding available. Internally restricted funds are as follows:
(i) The Education Centre Maintenance Fund for the maintenance of the Backus Conservation Education Centre. (ii) The OPG Forest Corridor Fund for the long-term monitoring of forest areas. (iii) The Memorial Woodlot fund for the donations to the Memorial Woodlot Fund and cost to Memorial Woodlot Fund at Backus. (iv) The Lee Brown Waterfowl M.A. Capital Replacement Fund for the capital replacements of Lee Brown Waterfowl M.A. (v) The Capital Levy fund for capital additions, replacements or improvements within the authority. (vi) The Dam Fund is for maintenance and capital upgrades to LPRCA owned flood control structures (vii)The Administration Office Fund is for the future acquisition of office space that meets the organization’s needs. (viii) The Strategic Investments in Operation/Capital Fund is for investment in operations and capital alignment with the organization’s strategic plan.
Externally restricted reserves are those with restriction imposed by individuals external to the Board of Directors. Externally restricted funds are as follows:
(i) Revenues and expenditures related to the Backus Heritage Village are recorded in the Backus Heritage Village Trust Fund. (ii) Revenues and expenditures related to the Leighton and Betty Brown scholarships are recorded in the Leighton and Betty Brown Scholarship Fund. (iii) Disposition of Lands Reserve shall use the funds for dam duties and repairs, flood hazard mapping and flood forecasting tools.
Page 9 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ... Page 67 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.1. LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
NOTES TO THE FINANCAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2020
2. Significant Accounting Policies (continued from previous page)
[f] Tangible Capital Assets
Tangible capital assets are recorded at cost which includes amounts that are directly attributable to acquisition, construction, development or betterment of the asset. The cost, less residual values, of the tangible capital asset, excluding land and landfill sites, are amortized on a straight- line basis over their estimated useful lives as follows:
Asset Useful Life - Years
Land improvements 20 years Buildings and building improvements 20 - 50 years Machinery & equipment 20 years Furniture and fixtures 10 years Computers 5 years Motor vehicles 10 years Infrastructure 10 - 50 years
Amortization is charged in the year of acquisition and in the year of disposal. Assets under construction are not amortized until the asset is available for productive use.
Contributed tangible capital assets are recorded into revenues at their fair market values on the date of a donation.
[g] Donations
Unrestricted donations are recorded as revenue in the year they are received. Externally restricted donations are deferred and recognized as revenue in the year in which the related expenses are recognized. Donated materials and services are recorded as revenue and expenditure when the fair market value of the materials and services donated is verifiable, only to the extent the Authority has issued a charitable donation receipt for those materials and services.
[h] Use of Estimates
The preparation of the financial statements of the Authority, in conformity with Canadian public sector accounting standards, requires management to make estimates that affect the reported amount of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent liabilities, at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the period. Actual results may differ from these estimates.
Page 10 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ... Page 68 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.1. LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
NOTES TO THE FINANCAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2020
2. Significant Accounting Policies (continued from previous page)
[i] Contaminated Sites
Contaminated sites are the result of contamination being introduced in air, soil, water or sediment of a chemical, organic, or radioactive material or living organism that exceed an environmental standard. A liability for remediation of contaminated sites is recognized, net of any expected recoveries, when all of the following criteria are met:
(i) an environmental standard exists; (ii) contamination exceeds the environmental standard; (iii) LPRCA is directly responsible or accepts responsibility for the liability; (iv) future economic benefits will be given up; and (v) a reasonable estimate of the liability can be made.
[j] Deferred Revenue
The Authority receives contributions principally from public sector bodies pursuant to legislation, regulations or agreements that may only be used for certain programs or in the completion of specific work. These amounts are recognized as revenue in the fiscal year the related expenditures are incurred or service is performed.
[k] Financial instruments
(i) Measurement of financial instruments
The Authority initially measures it financial assets and financial liabilities at fair value adjusted by, in the case of a financial instrument that will not be measured subsequently at fair value, the amount of transaction costs directly attributable to the instrument.
The Authority subsequently measures its financial assets and financial liabilities at amortized cost.
Financial assets measured at amortized cost include cash, accounts receivable and accrued receivables.
Financial liabilities measured at amortized cost include accounts payable and accrued liabilities and long term liabilities.
Page 11 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ... Page 69 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.1. LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
NOTES TO THE FINANCAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2020
2. Significant Accounting Policies (continued from previous page)
(ii) Impairment
Financial assets measured at amortized cost are tested for impairment when there are indicators of possible impairment. When a significant adverse change has occurred during the period in the expected timing or amount of future cash flows from the financial asset or group of assets, a write-down is recognized in the Statement of Operations and Changes in Accumulated Surplus. The write-down reflects the difference between the carrying amount and the higher of:
a) the present value of the cash flows expected to be generated by the asset or group of assets; b) the amount that could be realized by selling the assets or group of assets; c) the net realizable value of any collateral held to secure repayment of the assets of group of assets.
When the event occurring after the impairment confirms that a reversal is necessary, the reversal is recognized in the Statement of Operations and Accumulated Surplus up to the amount of the previously recognized impairment.
3. Cash
Cash consists of cash on hand and all bank account deposits. The cash balance is comprised of the following:
2020 2019
General $3,001,778 $312,387 Externally restricted: Backus Heritage Village 49,412 9,912 Leighton and Betty Brown Scholarship 63,765 4,165 $3,114,955 $326,464
General cash includes a bank account earning interest at 0.65% (2019 – 1.75%).
Page 12 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ... Page 70 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.1. LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
NOTES TO THE FINANCAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2020
4. Investments
The Authority holds short-term guaranteed investment certificates, money market funds and cash within their investments. The investment balance is comprised of:
2020 2019
Government and corporate bonds, maturing at various dates between 2021 and 2035, yields varying between 1.50% and 4.859% $3,525,000 $3,580,000
Guaranteed investment certificates maturing at various dates in 84,614 2,479,662 2021, yields varying between 0.55% and 2.0%
Principal protected notes - fixed income note, yields varying 2,000,000 2,000,000 between 0% and 7.5%
Money market funds, no specified maturity or yield 7,389 9,167
Cash 96,921 44,607 5,713,924 8,113,436
Plus: accrued interest 17,055 15,064 Plus: unamortized purchase premium 39,135 28,430 56,190 43,494
$5,770,114 $8,156,930
5. Budget Figures
The unaudited budget data presented in theses financial statements are based upon the 2020 operating and capital budgets approved by the Board of Directors on January 8, 2020.
6. Commitment
The Authority rents a premise under a long-term operating lease that expires October 2023, with three optional renewal periods. The operating lease payments are as follows:
2021 106,563 2022 108,694 2023 87,406 $302,663
Page 13 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ... Page 71 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.1. LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
NOTES TO THE FINANCAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2020
7. Investment Income
Included in corporate services revenue is interest income on investments of $62,490 (2019 $79,368).
8. Donation
The Authority received a land donation recognized at fair market value on the contribution date of $325,000.
9. Disposition of Lands
The Authority disposed of a property in 2019 under a lease to own agreement. An early transfer date of February 2021 was initiated and approved subsequent to year end. As such the proceeds will be received for the property over 3 fiscal periods (2019 – 2021) and the Authority recognized a gain on the sale of $124,398 in 2020. The Authority shall use the proceeds for specific purposes. As at December 31, 2020 the Authority has an externally restricted reserve (Lands disposition reserve) balance of $226,260 for the funds received.
10. Contingent Liabilities
From time to time, the Authority is subject to claims and other lawsuits that arise in the course of ordinary business, in which damages have been sought. These matters may give rise to future liabilities for which the Authority maintains insurance coverage to mitigate such risks. The outcome of these actions is not determinable, and accordingly, no provision has been made in these financial statements for any liability that may result. Any losses arising from these actions will be recorded in the year in which the related litigation is settled.
11. Pension Agreements
The Authority makes contributions to the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (“OMERS”) plan, which is a multi-employer plan, on behalf of full-time and qualifying part-time employees. The plan is a defined benefit pension plan, which specifies the amount of the retirement benefit to be received by employees based on the length of service, pension formula and employee earnings. Employees and employers contribute equally to the plan. In 2020, the Authority’s contribution to OMERS was $160,161 (2019 – $126,849).
The latest available report for the OMERS plan was December 31, 2019. At that time the plan reported a $3.4 billion actuarial deficit (2018 - $4.2 billion deficit), based on actuarial liabilities of $106.4 billion (2018 - $99.1 billion) and actuarial assets of $103.0 billion (2018 - $94.9 billion). Ongoing adequacy of the current contribution rates will need to be monitored and may lead to increased future funding requirements.
Page 14 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ... Page 72 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.1. LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
NOTES TO THE FINANCAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2020
11. Pension Agreements (continued from previous page)
As OMERS is a multi-employer pension plan, any pension plan surpluses or deficits are a joint responsibility of all eligible organizations and their employees. As a result, LPRCA does not recognize any share of the OMERS pension actuarial surplus or deficit.
12. Segmented information
The Authority provides a range of services. Distinguishable functional segments have been separately disclosed in the segmented information schedule. The nature of those segments and the activities they encompass are as follows: Corporate services Corporate services is comprised of Governance and general administration. These areas include the Board of Directors, Office of the General Manager, Administration, Accounting and Finance, Communications, Information Services and Human Resources.
Planning and Watershed Planning and watershed provides services related to property development, technical reviews, operation of flood control structures, flood forecasting and warning, restoration programming, source water protection and water quality monitoring.
Forestry services Forestry is comprised of Stewardship services and Forestry. Stewardship provides tree planting, restoration and establishment programs. Forestry sustainably manages the Authority’s forest tracts resources.
Backus Heritage conservation area Backus Heritage Conservation Area provides conservation education programing, heritage programming, recreational and camping activities and is home to the Backhouse National Historic Site.
Conservation parks Conservation parks provides recreational and camping activities at: Deer Creek Conservation Area, Haldimand Conservation Area, Norfolk Conservation Area and Waterford North Conservation Area.
Maintenance operations services Maintenance Operations Services provides property, plant and equipment maintenance services and includes the Lee Brown Marsh.
ALUS Elgin Partnership Alternative Land Uses Services (ALUS) Elgin Partnership provides ecosystem services on agricultural lands in Elgin County.
Page 15 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ... Page 73 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.1. LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
NOTES TO THE FINANCAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2020
13. Financial instruments and risks
Unless otherwise noted, it is management's opinion that the Authority is not exposed to significant risks. There have been no changes in the Authority's risk exposures from the prior year.
Credit risk
The Authority is exposed to credit risk through its cash and accounts receivable. The Authority reduces its exposure to credit risk by creating an allowance for bad debts when applicable. The majority of the Authority’s receivables are from government entities. The Authority mitigates its exposure to credit loss by placing its cash with major financial institutions.
Liquidity risk
Liquidity risk is the risk that the Authority will not be able to meet its obligations as they become due. The Authority manages this risk by establishing budgets and funding plans to fund its expenses.
14. Comparative Figures
The financial statements have been reclassified, where applicable, to conform to the presentation used in the current year. The changes do not affect prior year annual surplus.
15. Significant Events
The COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic has had a significant impact on businesses and organizations through the restrictions put in place by the Canadian, provincial and municipal governments regarding travel, business operations and isolation/quarantine orders. At this time, it is unknown the extent of the impact the COVID-19 outbreak may have on the Authority as this will depend on future developments that are highly uncertain and that cannot be predicted with confidence. These uncertainties arise from the inability to predict the ultimate geographic spread of the disease, and the duration of the outbreak, including the duration of travel restrictions, business closures or disruptions, and quarantine/isolation measures that are currently, or may be put, in place by Canada and other countries to fight the virus. The Authority continues to provide services throughout the watershed and no changes to essential services funding are anticipated for the coming year.
In December 2020 the Province of Ontario approved Bill 229, Ontario’s Budget Measures Act, including Schedule 6 amendments will directly impacts Conservation Authorities. The extent of the impact is unknown at this time. The Authority anticipates Bill 229 amendments to impact fiscal 2022 and beyond.
Page 16 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ... Page 74 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.1. LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
SCHEDULE 1 –SCHEDULE OF DEFERRED REVENUE FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2020
2020 2019
Balance, beginning of year $583,240 $881,114 Externally restricted contributions 534,121 370,535 Interest earned, restricted 90,774 139,325 Contributions used in operations (492,471) (807,734) Balance, end of year $715,664 $583,240
Page 17 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ... Page 75 of 200 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ...
LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
SCHEDULE 2 –SCHEDULE OF TANGIBLE CAPITAL ASSETS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2020
For the year ended December 31, 2020 Cost Accumulated Amortization 2020
Accumulated Net Carrying Amortization Accumulated Amount Opening Balance End Beginning Amortization End End Balance Additions Disposals of Year of Year Reversals Amortization of Year of Year
Land $4,276,193 $ 329,089 $ 45 $ 4,605,237 -$ -$ -$ $ - $ 4,605,237 Land improvements 75,047 1,338 - 76,385 4,954 - 3,752 8,706 67,679 Buildings 2,182,594 6,951 - 2,189,545 1,069,808 - 44,066 1,113,873 1,075,672 Machinery and equipment 453,183 13,278 - 466,461 197,510 - 20,427 217,937 248,524 Furniture and fixtures 7,611 984 - 8,595 565 - 860 1,424 7,171 Computers 236,048 9,898 - 245,946 215,419 - 10,525 225,945 20,001 Motor vehicles 507,959 68,830 - 576,789 269,721 - 47,634 317,355 259,434 Infrastructure 1,706,300 133,568 - 1,839,868 553,437 - 93,916 647,353 1,192,515 Total $9,444,935 $ 563,936 $ 45 $ 10,008,826 $ 2,311,413 -$ $ 221,181 $ 2,532,594 $ 7,476,233
For the year ended December 31, 2019 Cost Accumulated Amortization 2019
Accumulated Net Carrying Amortization Accumulated Amount Opening Balance End Beginning Amortization End End
Balance Additions Disposals of Year of Year Reversals Amortization of Year of Year AGENDA ITEM #8.1. Page 76 of 200
Land $4,281,194 $ - $ 5,000 $ 4,276,193 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,276,193 Land improvements 19,733 55,314 - 75,047 4,094 - 859 4,954 70,094 Buildings 2,085,838 96,756 - 2,182,594 1,026,090 - 43,719 1,069,808 1,112,787 Machinery and equipment 410,992 64,028 21,836 453,183 187,826 10,251 19,935 197,510 255,673 Furniture and fixtures 3,765 3,846 - 7,611 188 - 377 565 7,047 Computers 227,702 8,347 - 236,048 206,291 - 9,128 215,419 20,629 Motor vehicles 458,641 70,765 21,447 507,959 245,623 18,908 43,006 269,721 238,238 Infrastructure 1,300,271 406,027 - 1,706,300 484,790 - 68,648 553,437 1,152,862 Total $8,788,136 $ 705,083 $ 48,283 $ 9,444,935 $ 2,154,902 $ 29,160 $ 185,672 $ 2,311,413 $ 7,133,523
Page 18 AGENDA ITEM #8.1. LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
SCHEDULE 3 –SCHEDULE OF INTERNALLY RESTICTED RESERVES FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2020
Balance, beginning of Transfer from Transfer to Balance, year operations operations end of year
Education Centre $ 50,880 $ - $ - $ 50,880 OPG Forest Corridor 45,328 - - 45,328 Memorial Woodlot 13,688 1,592 - 15,280 Lee Brown Waterfowl Capital 14,676 2,575 - 17,251 Dam Reserve 50,000 - - 50,000 Administration Office 569,567 - - 569,567 Strategic Investments in operations/capital 255,645 - - 255,645 Capital Levy 361,554 434,450 298,455 497,549 Unrestricted Reserve 2,068,821 328,541 44,255 2,353,107 $ 3,430,159 $ 767,158 $ 342,710 $3,854,607
Page 19 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ... Page 77 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.1. LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
SCHEDULE 4 –SCHEDULE OF EXTERNALLY RESTICTED RESERVES FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2020
Balance, Excess Transfer to beginning of revenue over internally Balance, end of year expenditures restricted year
Backus Heritage Village $ 69,974 $ 1,500 $ - $ 71,474 Leighton & Betty Brown Scholarship 123,997 300 - 124,297 Backus Woods 4,872,500 - - 4,872,500 Disposition of Lands Reserve 150,000 76,260 - 226,260 $ 5,216,471 $ 78,060 $ - $ 5,294,531
Page 20 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ... Page 78 of 200 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ...
LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
SCHEDULE 5 –SCHEDULE OF SEGMENTED REPORTING (continued) FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2020
2020 Schedule of Segmented Reporting
Backus 2020 Planning and Heritage Maintenance Corporate watershed Forestry conservation Conservation operations ALUS Elgin services services services area parks services Partnership Total Revenue: Levies $711,025 $573,939 - $133,913 - $660,533 - $2,079,410 Grants - 35,229 - - - - - 35,229 Fees 212,710 468,742 - 238,763 588,900 135,799 229,105 1,874,019 Forestry - - 419,684 - - - - 419,684 Donations 325,000 ------325,000 Gain on disposal of tangible capital assets 131,446 ------131,446 Total revenue 1,380,181 1,077,910 419,684 372,676 588,900 796,332 229,105 4,864,788
Expenditures: Compensation 604,264 587,843 184,205 200,680 326,593 318,166 61,309 2,283,060 Administration 236,407 7,073 770 42,188 67,444 12,012 87,770 453,664 Professional/contracted services 140,204 336,832 57,624 9,411 41,228 13,378 67,149 665,826 Materials and supplies 16,756 16,643 41,290 14,604 35,209 19,848 12,166 156,516 Amortization 8,732 43,192 - 38,722 61,220 69,316 - 221,182 Repairs and maintenance 118,215 - - 10,821 22,787 39,864 316 192,003 Motor pool - 3,536 - 257 472 42,659 395 47,319 Total expenditures 1,124,578 995,119 283,889 316,683 554,953 515,243 229,105 4,019,570 AGENDA ITEM #8.1. Page 79 of 200
Surplus $255,603 $82,791 $135,795 $55,993 $33,947 $281,089 - $845,218
Page 21 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ...
LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
SCHEDULE 5 –SCHEDULE OF SEGMENTED REPORTING FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2020
2019 Schedule of Segmented Reporting
Backus 2019 Planning and Heritage Maintenance Corporate watershed Forestry conservation Conservation operations ALUS Elgin services services services area parks services Partnership Total Revenue: Levies $762,090 $683,316 - $152,708 - $445,088 - $2,043,202 Grants - 35,229 - - - - - 35,229 Fees 240,737 768,965 - 495,609 935,089 165,498 204,964 2,810,862 Forestry - - 427,439 - - - - 427,439 Donations ------Gain on disposal of tangible capital assets 643,574 ------643,574 Total revenue 1,646,401 1,487,510 427,439 648,317 935,089 610,586 204,964 5,960,306
Expenditures: Compensation 619,286 637,266 172,428 457,498 439,226 341,976 73,289 2,740,969 Administration 235,484 6,444 801 56,414 63,127 13,175 82,816 458,261 Professional/ contracted services 182,288 503,201 132,430 19,953 105,716 7,487 28,776 979,851 Materials and Supplies 20,078 11,872 89,846 23,945 41,309 26,504 17,776 231,330 Amortization 6,852 30,117 - 36,850 49,643 62,209 - 185,671 Repairs and _maintenance 109,616 6,583 84 11,225 27,815 32,770 449 188,542 Motor pool - - - 428 1,242 60,358 1,858 63,886
Total expenditures 1,173,604 1,195,483 395,589 606,313 728,078 544,479 204,964 4,848,510 AGENDA ITEM #8.1. Page 80 of 200
Surplus $472,797 $292,027 $31,850 $42,004 $207,011 $66,107 - $1,111,796
Page 22 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ...
Annual Report AGENDA ITEM #8.1. Page 81 of 200 2020 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ... Contents 3 Message from the Chair & General Manager
4 Protecting Life & Property
8 Enhancing Watershed Health
11 Connecting People to Nature
17 AGENDA ITEM #8.1.
Page 82 of 200 2020 Financial Highlights
18 Board of Directors / LPRCA Staff
19 Long Point Region Watershed Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ...
Message from the Chair & General Manager The past year has certainly been of innovation, accountability, communication and one that we will not soon forget. teamwork, we are well on our way to advancing The pandemic placed the world the objectives of the 2019-2023 Strategic Plan and into a position of uncertainty. With our vision of working together to shape the future the support of the Board, staff well-being of our watershed. navigated the pandemic disruption Michael On behalf of the Board we would like to and implemented the appropriate acknowledge the commitment of all of the Columbus policies, protocols and measures Chair, LPRCA Authority’s staff and volunteers. We have asked to ensure the safety of our staff, a lot of our people this past year, and through it community and customers while all we have witnessed inspirational teamwork, permitting the Authority to deliver respect, creativity and resilience. As we navigate our essential services. this new reality, we are confident our organization The Board is committed to leading will be able to emerge from this pandemic with the implementation of the new, innovative approaches to deliver high quality Judy 2019-2023 Strategic Plan which sets services and experiences. Maxwell out the groundwork for achieving General Manager, LPRCA our vision. Guided by our values AGENDA ITEM #8.1. Page 83 of 200 17-year Distinguished Member Since 2003, Roger Geysens has served the leadership. Long Point Region Conservation Authority. A The LPRCA Board and staff thank Councillor appointed by Norfolk County, Roger was Roger for his dedicated service instrumental in promoting the Authority’s mandate and wish him a very happy and our continued success. Roger served as the retirement. Chair of the Board from 2012 through 2014 and has provided outstanding stability, commitment and Thank you Roger.
2020 Annual Report Long Point Region Conservation Authority 3 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ... Protecting Life & Property
Planning & Regulations Authorities Act. Staff worked with local municipalities to review and provide technical Long Point Region Conservation Authority’s advice on 121 Planning Act applications, including Planning and Regulation services help protect the review of Official Plan updates for Brant
the Long Point watershed from loss of life and County and Haldimand County. Hundreds of AGENDA ITEM #8.1. Page 84 of 200 property damage due to natural hazards such additional inquiries from the public relating to the as flooding and erosion. Under the Conservation sale of properties, development proposals, and Authorities Act, it is the responsibility of LPRCA to other general inquiries relating to flooding, erosion, regulate development in and around watercourses, wetlands and dynamic beaches were received and floodplains, valley systems, wetlands and along the responded to by staff. Lake Erie shoreline. 2020 2019 In 2020, Planning and Regulations department Permit Applications Reviewed 296 259 staff reviewed and issued 296 permits for development under Section 28 of the Conservation Municipal Applications Consulted On 121 156
4 Long Point Region Conservation Authority 2020 Annual Report Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ...
Throughout 2020, Planning and Regulations staff flood potential, issuing flood messages and continued to implement recommendations from communicating updates to municipalities, the the 2017 Customer Service Plan, pursuing process media and the public. This system helps to ensure improvements and providing timely reviews the welfare of residents and minimize property and approvals. An interactive mapping tool that damage due to flooding. presents areas regulated by Ontario Regulation 178/06 within the Long Point Region Watershed A total of 23 flood messages were issued in 2020. was launched, allowing visitors to LPRCA’s website to search for properties and view regulated areas. 2020 2019 Conditions Statements 9 9 Flood Watches 10 10 Flood Warnings 4 2
In 2020, Lake Erie’s water level remained well above average and risk of flooding was high throughout the year, even in the summer months when flood risk is typically low. LPRCA issued a Lake Erie Conditions Statement – Flood Outlook that remained in effect throughout much of the
year to highlight the increased risk of flooding. AGENDA ITEM #8.1. Page 85 of 200 High water levels combined with periods of strong southwesterly winds resulted in multiple occasions Flood Forecasting of flooding along the Lake Erie shoreline. On Long Point Region Conservation Authority is November 15, 2020 significant southwesterly winds responsible for operating a flood forecasting caused substantial flooding; gauges in Port Dover and warning system in collaboration with the and Port Colborne measured levels second only to Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and the record set on December 2, 1985. Forestry (MNRF). The system includes monitoring weather conditions and forecasts, forecasting
2020 Annual Report Long Point Region Conservation Authority 5 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ...
Low Water Response gauges through the watershed, Beginning in May, a lack of rainfall left many areas facilitated across the watershed with lower than typical development of stream flow and groundwater levels. By August, flood thresholds conditions were particularly dry with the northern and allowed for the end of the watershed receiving only 50-75% of implementation average rainfall for the months of June, July, and of automated data August. On August 17, LPRCA issued a Level 1 acquisition. Low Water Advisory, encouraging water users throughout the watershed to reduce their water LPRCA and consumption by 10 percent and restrict non- Norfolk County essential uses of water. These measures proactively staff identified the assist in minimizing the impacts of low water on need for a real- aquatic ecosystems, conserving water supplies, time gauge to and reduces the need for stronger water restriction measure and report measures. The Level 1 Low Water Advisory was Lake Erie levels in the Inner Long Point Bay. Staff lifted on October 30. completed project planning and are preparing for the installation of a gauge on the Port Rowan pier. Once the gauge is installed, the water level data collected will improve forecasts of and responses
Flood Forecasting & Warning AGENDA ITEM #8.1.
Page 86 of 200 to Lake Erie flood events. System Improvement Project Funding assistance from the Federal Disaster Mitigation Program has permitted Long Point Floodplain, Natural Hazard & Region Conservation Authority to continue Regulation Mapping improvement and automation of the Flood Forecasting and Warning System. In 2020, In 2020, LPRCA completed three multi-year automated hydrometric data collection data has projects to update flood and erosion mapping been made available in real-time through LPRCA’s with support from the Federal National Disaster website. The program has also added additional Mitigation Program. Two of these projects focused
6 Long Point Region Conservation Authority 2020 Annual Report Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ...
on updating over 94 km of flood, erosion, and erosion control, power generation and to serve as dynamic hazard mapping along the shoreline municipal drinking water sources. Most of these of Lake Erie in Haldimand and Norfolk Counties. structures were constructed in the 1960’s though The third project updated over 89 km of riverine some were built over 100 years ago. In 2020, four of floodplain mapping in areas most vulnerable to LPRCA’s dams had substantial work performed: flood damage, including Tillsonburg, Norwich, • The Norwich Dam underwent a safety Vienna, Port Burwell, Cultus, Gilbertville, Simcoe, review with financial support from the Port Dover, Waterford, Jarvis and Garnett. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry’s The new mapping provide the most up-to-date Water and Erosion Control Infrastructure and accurate information available on flooding program. The safety review is a detailed and erosion hazards in the study areas. The study completed by an engineer that information was provided to municipalities to determines the dam’s hazard classification, support the preparation of their Official Plans and assesses the stability and evaluates all other Zoning By-Law documents. LPRCA will further use factors that affect public and operator safety. the information to provide technical advice and • The Deer Creek Dam has mechanical comment on municipal documents, Planning Act operation equipment housed in a concrete Applications, permitting under Ontario Regulation chamber. In 2020, modifications were made 178/06, and flood forecasting and warning. to the chamber and a side door was added to provide an improved work environment Building on these mapping projects, LPRCA staff for dam operators. updated the area regulated by O.Reg. 178/06 along AGENDA ITEM #8.1. Page 87 of 200 the shoreline in Norfolk and Haldimand Counties • The Vittoria and Teeterville Dams had their and the Lynn River watershed. stop logs sealed by a specialized diving contractor in summer 2020. Stop logs within the dam bays were jacked down and a semi- Dams & Water Control Structures impermeable seal installed on the upstream face to reduce water loss through the logs. LPRCA owns and operates 13 dams and water This work will extend the operational life of control structures throughout the watershed. the stop logs and help maintain water levels Historically these structures were constructed for in the reservoirs during drought conditions. flood control, low flow augmentation, recreation,
2020 Annual Report Long Point Region Conservation Authority 7 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ... Enhancing Watershed Health
Stewardship Stewardship Program (HSP), Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC) and ALUS Norfolk. AGENDA ITEM #8.1.
Page 88 of 200 Working together to shape the future well- • Continuation of the Long Point Region being of our watershed is the guiding vision by invasive Phragmites australis control which Long Point Region Conservation Authority program. Environment and Climate operates. A large part of doing so is collaborating Change Canada’s Habitat Stewardship on environmental stewardship initiatives with Program funding allowed LPRCA to work municipal, institutional and private partners. with Nature Conservancy Canada (NCC) Highlights from 2020 include: to implement invasive Phragmites control • Completion of 5 wetland projects, with measures on private land in the lower Big funding and support from Environment Creek watershed, treat 9.25 hectares of and Climate Change Canada’s Habitat land at the Lee Brown Marsh and control
8 Long Point Region Conservation Authority 2020 Annual Report Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ...
invasive Phragmites at Walsingham Flats, Drinking Water Source Rowan Mills, Middleton Swamp, Sutton CA, Waterford North CA, Haldimand CA and Protection Dereham Wetlands. Developed throughout 2019 and submitted in • Establishment of 150 acres of cover crops, January 2020, an amended Assessment Report funded by Environment and Climate and Source Protection Plan for the village of Change Canada’s Integrated Conservation Otterville was approved by the Province. Action Plan (ICAP). A two-part Long Point Region Source Protection ALUS Elgin continues their collaborative Plan update came into effect in May 2020. The environmental stewardship efforts, adding 94 Source Protection Plan presents a history of the acres of land into the program in 2020 thereby Clean Water Act and source protection planning, bringing the total acres to 544. The restored land sets out the objectives of the Protection Plan, supports alternative use for marginal farmland by describes the Long Point Region watershed and establishing tallgrass prairie, tree plantings and identifies the policies and programs involved. The wetlands. Source Protection Plan and additional information can be found on the Lake Erie Source Protection Region website, sourcewater.ca. AGENDA ITEM #8.1. Page 89 of 200
2020 Annual Report Long Point Region Conservation Authority 9 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ...
Water Quality Monitoring Several program partnerships with the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks depend on water quality data collected by LPRCA. The Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Program (PWQMN), the Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network (PGMN) and the Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network (OBBN) support LPRCA and our partners to monitor the changing watershed conditions and facilitate data-lead management of our water resources.
2020 sampling saw a delayed start, however LPRCA collected surface water from nine PWQMN sites, measured groundwater levels at 11 PGMN wells and sampled 10 sites for aquatic benthic invertebrates.
Tree Planting AGENDA ITEM #8.1.
Page 90 of 200 Despite a year of uncertainty and restrictions, LPRCA planted 32,955 trees throughout the support from Ontario Power Generation. watershed: • 319 trees were planted within the • 13,695 trees were planted through Forests Municipality of Bayham and the Township of Ontario’s 50 Million Trees Program. South-West Oxford as part of LPRCA’s Trees for Roads Program. • 6,400 trees were planted as part of the Ontario Horticultural Trades Foundation’s • 2,431 seedlings sales were made through Highway of Heroes Program. LPRCA’s Private Land Tree Planting Program. • 10,110 trees were planted with funding
10 Long Point Region Conservation Authority 2020 Annual Report Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ... Connecting People to Nature
Conservation Areas & Land LPRCA carefully monitored provincial and local health unit guidelines, adjusting safety processes
Holdings as required to ensure the wellbeing of staff and AGENDA ITEM #8.1. Page 91 of 200 the public. In June, LPRCA was able to open our Long Point Region Conservation Authority owns campgrounds to seasonal campers, followed by 11,087 acres of conservation lands, including five the resumption of overnight camping for self- parks with a total of 682 campsites. 2020 was an contained camping units in July. Working with unconventional year and the camping season was, the provider of our campsite reservation system, inevitably, impacted by the pandemic. Though LPRCA implemented a day-use reservation the situation was changing on a near-daily basis, system to ensure the number of visitors to each LPRCA was able to find creative ways to adapt our Conservation Area remained manageable and safe. services and provide safe access to healthy outdoor fun and adventure.
2020 Annual Report Long Point Region Conservation Authority 11 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ...
Despite the often-changing restrictions and Forest Management limitations on services that could be provided, LPRCA was able to offer a safe and enjoyable LPRCA manages our forest tracts with a focus experience for seasonal campers, overnight on enhancing watershed health and protecting campers and day-use visitors. wildlife habitat and species at risk.
Various improvement projects were completed 2020 was an active field season for LPRCA. Some across LPRCA’s campgrounds: project highlights include: • The creation of a new wetland and • 285 acres of land across four LPRCA- interpretive trail at the Backus Heritage managed tracts were surveyed to collect Conservation Area. Near the entrance to the data on species at risk and provincially rare park, the loop trail leads visitors over to the plants and vegetation. wetland, showcasing the natural diversity • 9-1-1 response signs were installed at forest and rich ecosystems of wetland areas. tracts throughout Norfolk County and the • Backus Heritage Conservation Area had Municipality of Bayham in 2020. Haldimand a native seed garden planted as part of County, Brant County and Oxford County a volunteer partnership to increase the properties will have signage in place by availability of local native wildflower seeds spring 2021. Once installed, the 9-1-1 signage for future restoration projects throughout will enhance safety on LPRCA properties the watershed. and supplement the new interactive
property map available on LPRCA’s website. AGENDA ITEM #8.1.
Page 92 of 200 • Seven Deer Creek Conservation Area sites were upgraded with hydro and water • Four properties, amounting to a total of hookups, and nine sites were converted to 293 acres, were marked and tendered for premium status. harvest. • The final phase of a three-part upgrade project at Waterford North Conservation Area began in 2020, to support the upgrade of 52 sites in 2021.
12 Long Point Region Conservation Authority 2020 Annual Report Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ...
Several LPRCA properties are also involved in Mr. O’Dwyer, a farmer in Simcoe, applies best environmental studies and research projects. management practices to ensure sustainable use Projects in 2020 included: of the land. Active in his community, Mr. O’Dwyer • Dr. Altaf Arain of McMaster University has works with organizations including the Norfolk been monitoring the Wilson Tract since 2011, Federation of Agriculture and ALUS Norfolk. to study carbon exchange in temperate The preservation of habitat for native species deciduous forests in southern Ontario. is of particular interest to Mr. O’Dwyer and he • Birds Canada conducted studies for their has undertaken numerous wetland and forest Ontario Forest Birds at Risk program, restoration projects. Since 2008, over 28,000 trees monitoring several LPRCA properties for have been planted on his property. Cultivating species such as the Acadian Flycatcher and native species while monitoring for invasive ones the Cerulean Warbler. has provided ample room for both plants and • In 2001, a partnership was established with wildlife to thrive. Long Point Region Conservation the MNRF to conduct a study on the Landon Authority is proud to have worked with Mr. Tract to examine how opening gaps in the O’Dwyer on several restoration projects and we forest canopy impacts the growth of trees thank him for his tireless efforts to protect the with moderate shade tolerance. Using data environment in the Long Point Region watershed. from the first stage of the study, in 2020 eight new gaps were formed in the canopy
throughout the tract to promote growth of AGENDA ITEM #8.1.
Page 93 of 200 Oak and Carolinian species.
Conservation Stewardship Award Mike O’Dwyer has been selected as the recipient of the 2020 Long Point Region Conservation Stewardship Award, having been nominated by ALUS Norfolk for his extensive contributions to conservation in the Long Point Region watershed.
2020 Annual Report Long Point Region Conservation Authority 13 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ...
Backhouse Homestead Heritage Designation On September 22, 2020, Norfolk County approved a by-law designating the Backhouse Homestead, located in the Backus Heritage Conservation Area, under the Ontario Heritage Act. The designation serves as a means for a municipality to publicly acknowledge the heritage value of a site and helps ensure the conservation of important places for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future The Backhouse Homestead as it is today. generations. The Homestead is a key feature of the Backhouse Historic Site which also includes the John Backhouse and his family arrived in 1798 Backhouse Grist Mill National Historic Site. Walsingham in 1796 from the Niagara region, constructing and settling in a single-room log cabin before building a larger home in 1799. The brick Homestead that still sits atop the hill overlooking the bright red mill was built in the early 1850s by his grandson, John H. Backhouse for his wife Sarah Dedrick. AGENDA ITEM #8.1.
Page 94 of 200 Completed in 1852, this 15-room home has brick walls that are three layers thick and are made using clay taken directly from the surrounding property. In 1956, the Big Creek Conservation Authority purchased the property including the homestead from the Backus family (who had shortened their family name) with the intention of developing the heritage village that is found The Backhouse Homestead in approximately 1930. on the site today. In the 1970s, the homestead underwent a major renovation and was used as the
14 Long Point Region Conservation Authority 2020 Annual Report Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ...
headquarters of Bird Studies Canada. Additional enhancements and features were also added to improve user experience, including a Originally, the homestead had a large wooden search bar, interactive mapping tools that show pagoda-style porch that extended around the what areas of the Long Point Region Watershed full house. This was removed in the early 1920s are regulated under the Conservation Authorities in favour of an Italian piazza-style front porch. In Act and near-real-time data charts that showcase the 1990s, a replica of the original porch was re- the information LPRCA’s gauges collect. Further installed at the front of the home and is what website enhancements will be made in 2021, with remains there today. The Backhouse Homestead features like online donation processing and flood is a fascinating cultural site and a great example status email alerts coming soon. of a mid-19th century middle-class home. Backus Heritage Conservation Area is steeped in history and is truly a must-see destination.
Website Launch In December 2020, LPRCA launched a new website to better serve our partners and communities. LPRCA staff spent the year refining content to create a clean and modern site that presents AGENDA ITEM #8.1.
Page 95 of 200 information that is accurate and easy to navigate.
The new site is fully compliant with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), ensuring that all visitors to the site can access content in a format that suits their needs. Mobile usability was also a key requirement, with up to 72% of visitors accessing lprca.on.ca from mobile devices. Now the site scales dynamically to the size of the screen being used.
2020 Annual Report Long Point Region Conservation Authority 15 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ...
Virtual Memorial Forest Service In Memoriam - Craig Ashbaugh To protect the health and safety of LPRCA staff It is with sadness that Long and our communities, the annual Memorial Forest Point Region Conservation Dedication Service was held virtually in 2020. A Authority notes the passing service was filmed, featuring LPRCA Chair Michael of Craig Ashbaugh in Columbus, Lay Worship Leader Phyllis Buchner November 2020. Craig was and musicians Brenda Atkinson, Joe Rohrer and the Vice-Chair of the Long Jody Dedrick. The video premiered on YouTube on Point Region Conservation September 20, 2020. With support from Backus Authority Board of Directors park staff, the recorded service was also featured from 2001 through 2006, footage of the memorial trees being planted. Strict also stepping into the role COVID-19 protocols were followed to safely produce of Chair from September to the virtual event, allowing friends and family December 2006. During his from around the world to reflect on and cherish time with LPRCA, Craig was memories of their loved ones who have passed. a member of numerous committees, including the Budget Committee, the 2003 Fundraising Committee and the 2005 Safety Committee. Land Donations Extensively passionate about the health and Land donations to LPRCA benefit the watershed wellbeing of the environment, Craig was AGENDA ITEM #8.1.
Page 96 of 200 by preserving important natural areas. In 2020, appointed as the inaugural Chair of Lake Erie LPRCA was fortunate to receive a land donation Source Protection Committee, a position he held from Sharon Clarmo, Lynda Allman, Cathy Gage from November 2007 through July 2015. It was and Dianne Lang in memory of their parents with his leadership that the Source Protection Robert and Lucy Gage, and their brother Bill. The Committee developed Source Protection Plans 50-acre property, now the Gage Tract, was the for the Catfish Creek, Grand River, Kettle Creek dowry of Roxa Beemer when she married William and Long Point Region Source Protection Areas. A Gage in 1892. It has been passed down through the lifetime educator and conservationist, Craig will be family since, now being donated to LPRCA by Roxa greatly missed. and William’s great-granddaughters.
16 Long Point Region Conservation Authority 2020 Annual Report Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ...
2020 Financial Highlights
2020 Revenue Municipal Levy - Operating $ 1,644,960 34% Municipal Levy - Capital $ 434,450 9% Provincial Funding $ 35,229 1% Fees $ 1,874,019 38% Forestry Sales $ 419,684 8% Donations $ 325,000 7% Gain on Sale of Assets $ 131,446 3% Total $ 4,864,788 100%
2020 Expenditures Planning and Watershed Services $ 995,119 25% Backus Heritage Conservation Area $ 316,683 8% Maintenance Operations Services $ 515,243 13% Forestry Services $ 283,889 7% Conservation Parks $ 554,953 14% Corporate Services $ 1,124,578 28% ALUS Elgin Partnership $ 229,105 5% Total $ 4,019,570 100%
Use of 2020 Corporate Services $ 711,025 43% Planning & Watershed Services $ 466,978 29% Operating Levy Backus Heritage Conservation Area $ 133,912 8% AGENDA ITEM #8.1.
Page 97 of 200 Maintenance Operations Services $ 333,045 20% Total $ 1,644,960 100%
Share of 2020 Haldimand County $ 232,601 14% Norfolk County $ 865,971 53% Operating Levy Oxford County $ 349,760 21% Brant County $ 109,970 7% Bayham Municipality $ 74,792 4% Malahide Township $ 11,866 1% Total $ 1,644,960 100%
2020 Annual Report Long Point Region Conservation Authority 17 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ...
2020 Board of Directors LPRCA Staff
Chair Judy Maxwell, General Manger/Secretary-Treasurer Michael Columbus, Norfolk County Aaron LeDuc, Manager Corporate Services Ben Hodi, Watershed Services Manager Vice Chair Lorrie Minshall, Project Manager, Watershed Services John Scholten, Township of Norwich Helen Bartens, Assistant Curator Directors Bonnie Bravener, Resource Technician Dave Beres, Town of Tillsonburg Kim Brown, Marsh Manager Robert Chambers, County of Brant Jeff Calliauw, Carpenter Kristal Chopp, Norfolk County Matthew Churley, Water Resources Analyst Roger Geysens, Norfolk County Zachary Cox, Marketing Coordinator Ken Hewitt, Haldimand County Nathan Dunbar, Operations Support Tom Masschaele, Norfolk County Paul Gagnon, Lands & Waters Supervisor Stewart Patterson, Haldimand County Brandon Good, Superintendent of Conservation Areas Ian Rabbitts, Norfolk County Carolyn Jacques, Accounting & Administration Supervisor Peter Ypma, Township of South West Oxford Jumanah Khan, ALUS Elgin Coordinator Valerie Donnell, Municipality of Bayham & Leigh-Anne Mauthe, Supervisor of Planning Services Township of Malahide Dana McLachlan, Administrative Assistant Lee Brown Marsh Management Committee Nicole Petker, Outdoor Educator Tom Haskett, Chair David Proracki, Natural Hazards Technician Trevor Brown Chris Reinhart, Forestry Technician Larry Chanda Frank Schram, Workshop Supervisor AGENDA ITEM #8.1. Page 98 of 200 Michael Columbus Nicole Sullivan, Reception John Scholten Debbie Thain, Supervisor of Forestry Barry Smith Ginny Vanlouwe, Accounting Clerk And our many seasonal staff and summer students Backus Museum Committee Betty Chanyi, Chair Dave Beres Roger Geysens Michael Columbus Heather Smith Robert Chambers Julie Stone Dene Elligson Madeline Wilson
18 Long Point Region Conservation Authority 2020 Annual Report Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ...
Long Point Region Watershed AGENDA ITEM #8.1. Page 99 of 200
2020 Annual Report Long Point Region Conservation Authority 19 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Re: Board of Directors Meeting ...
Member of the Conservation Ontario Network
4 Elm Street, Tillsonburg, Ontario N4G 0C4
Phone: 519-842-4242 Toll free: 1-888-231-5408 Fax: 519-842-7123 Email: [email protected]
www.lprca.on.ca AGENDA ITEM #8.1. Page 100 of 200
@lpr_ca @LongPointConservation @longpointca
THANK YOU TO OUR MUNICIPAL PARTNERS Municipality of Bayham / County of Brant / Haldimand County / Town of Tillsonburg Township of Malahide / Norfolk County / Township of Norwich / Township of South West Oxford AGENDA ITEM #8.2.
“Inspiring a Healthy Environment”
March 8, 2021
County of Oxford 21 Reeve Street PO Box 1614 Woodstock, ON N4S 7Y3
Attention: Chloe Senior, Clerk
Dear Ms. Senior:
The Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) hosted its Annual General Meeting on February 18, 2021. As part of this meeting the Board of Directors approved the 2021 Budget which includes revenue generated from municipal levy as authorized under the Conservation Authorities Act. This notice and levy invoice is being provided via registered mail to the Clerk of each member municipality and stipulates the amount of levy owing for 2021 along with the basis for levy apportionment.
Conservation Authority levies are apportioned to their member municipalities based on relative benefits received. Apportionment of the municipal levy for 2021 has been established in accordance with the formula set forth in Ontario Regulation 670/00 which assesses benefit pursuant to the modified current value assessment of each municipality. A second method of apportionment is used for much of the flood control section of the levy which considers benefits received from the flood control structure itself (e.g., Wildwood Dam) rather than using current value assessment. Apportionment values are detailed in the 2021 UTRCA Municipal Levy table at the back of the budget document.
The UTRCA’s Board of Directors approved two resolutions regarding the budget (see below). The first approves an overall operating budget of $16 million. The second approves capital expenditures of $1.1 million. Note that municipal levy is only a proportion of these total amounts:
1. That the UTRCA Board of Directors approve the 2021 Draft Operating Budget under Section 27 of the Conservation Authorities Act in the amount of $16,054,952 and that staff be directed to circulate the Approved Budget to member municipalities as part of the required 30 day review period. Please note the 2021 new levy component of the operating budget of $5,779,537 will be apportioned to member municipalities based on a general levy formula as developed by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry using Current Value Assessment data from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and by Special Benefitting Percentages for structure operations.
Upper Thames River Conservation Authority Re: 2021 Approved Budget http:... Page 101 of 200 1424 Clarke Road, London, Ontario N5V 5B9 · Phone: 519.451.2800 · Fax: 519.451.1188 · Email: [email protected] · www.thamesriver.on.ca AGENDA ITEM #8.2.
2. That the UTRCA Board of Directors approve the 2021 Capital Budget under Section 26 of the Conservation Authorities Act in two parts:
a) The amount of $736,851 to support the Authority’s 20 year Flood Control Capital Plan. Apportionment of the flood control portion of the 2021 capital levy of $537,879 is based on Special Benefiting Percentages, by structure, as presented in the 2021 Draft Budget. It is noted this levy amount has been set based on cooperative discussions with participating municipalities and assumes that the majority of the works will receive a matching funding contribution through the provincial Water and Erosion Control Infrastructure Program (WECI) or federal Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund program (DMAF).
b) The amount of $391,000 to support the Authority’s other (non-flood control) capital spending needs. The municipal levy share of this capital amount is $178,626 and will be apportioned to member municipalities based on a general levy formula as developed by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry using Current Value Assessment data from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation.
A copy of the 2021 Approved Budget is attached for your reference.
This letter and attachments have been forwarded to your municipal clerk by registered mail as required by the Conservation Authorities Act and triggers the beginning of the thirty day notice period, during which time municipalities have the right to consider an appeal of the levy.
Should you have any questions regarding the UTRCA’s Approved Budget please contact the undersigned or Christine Saracino at [email protected].
Yours truly UPPER THAMES RIVER CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
Ian Wilcox General Manager/ Secretary Treasurer
Attachments: 1. UTRCA 2021 Approved Operating Budget 2. Levy Invoice
cc: Michael Duben, CAO Will Jaques, Clerk Lynn Buchner, Director of Corporate Services Kyle Kruger, CAO/Clerk Amy Humphries, Clerk Julie Forth, Clerk Michael Graves, Clerk Donna Wilson, Director of Corporate Services Roger Mordue, CAO/Clerk
Upper Thames River Conservation Authority Re: 2021 Approved Budget http:... Page 102 of 200 1424 Clarke Road, London, Ontario N5V 5B9 · Phone: 519.451.2800 · Fax: 519.451.1188 · Email: [email protected] · www.thamesriver.on.ca AGENDA ITEM #8.3.
CHLOÉ J. SENIOR, CLERK 21 Reeve Street, PO Box 1614 Woodstock, ON N4S 7Y3 519.539.9800, ext. 3001 1.800.755.0394 oxfordcounty.ca
March 11, 2021
The Honourable Steve Clark Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing VIA EMAIL
Minister Clark:
This will acknowledge your letter of December 15, 2020 extending the deadline by which Oxford County was to complete a review of its council composition to March 31, 2021. I am writing to inform you that following several council reports, a public meeting, a public engagement campaign and several delegations to the area municipalities by the County Warden, Oxford County Council was unable to reach triple-majority consensus to either change or maintain its composition to take effect the next municipal election.
Oxford County Council, at its meeting of August 12, 2020 adopted a resolution that its composition be maintained as status quo beyond the current term of council. The chart below outlines the results on the triple majority test for maintaining status quo beyond the current term of council:
Triple Majority Status for Maintaining Status Quo:
Triple Majority Support is defined in the Municipal Act as follows:
1. “A majority of all votes on upper tier council”: A majority of the members of County of Oxford Council is defined in subsection 237(1) of the Municipal Act as “a majority of members representing at least one-half of the lower-tier municipalities is necessary to form a quorum”. This was attained on August 12, 2020.
2. “A majority of all the lower-tier councils have passed resolutions consenting to the by-law” Five of the Eight Area Municipal Councils must be in support of the proposed by-law. The following area municipalities voted in support of maintaining status quo beyond the current term of council: Township of Blandford-Blenheim, Township of East Zorra-Tavistock, Township of Norwich, Township of South-West Oxford and the Township of Zorra.
3. “The total number of electors in the lower-tier municipalities that have passed resolutions consenting to the proposal form a majority of the electors of the upper- tier municipality” The sum of the electors in the Area Municipalities who have passed resolutions in support of the proposed by-law must add up to a minimum of 40,934 electors (one half plus one)
County of Oxford Re: County Council Composition Page 103 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.3. March 11, 2021 Page 2 of 2
The sum of the electors in the Area Municipalities who have passed resolutions in support of maintaining status quo beyond the current term of council add up to 30,349, a shortfall of 10,585.
2020 Council Composition and Election of Warden Resolutions received from area municipalities number of Support for Municipality Electors (2018) electors status quo? represented Township of Blandford- 5,940 1 5,940 Blenheim Township of East Zorra- 5,157 1 5,157 Tavistock Town of Ingersoll 9,264 0 0 Township of Norwich 7,711 1 7,711
Township of South-West Oxford 5,367 1 5,367
Town of Tillsonburg 12,583 0 0 City of Woodstock 29,669 0 0 Township of Zorra 6,174 1 6,174 Total Eligible Voters Oxford 81,865 5 30,349 County (2018) Majority 40,934
Notwithstanding their position regarding council composition, Oxford County Council reaffirmed its continued support of the current two-tier municipal government structure by resolution at its meeting held March 10, 2021.
Supplementary to the composition review, there has been some interest expressed by a few of the area municipalities for consideration of weighted voting and election of the Warden at large, which may be explored pending either the outcome of the Minister’s review of council’s composition or if directed by council.
Enclosed for your information is the latest Council report, which contains all of the background information with respect to our review of Council’s composition. Also enclosed are resolutions from the area municipalities received since the publication of that report on October 14, 2020.
Do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns. We look forward to your response and direction.
Sincerely,
Chloé J. Senior Clerk
Encl. Report No. CS 2020-41; Resolutions from Area Municipalities since October 14, 2020 Cc: Oxford County Council, Area Municipal Clerks of Oxford County, M. Duben, CAO – Oxford County, Ernie Hardeman – MPP for Oxford County, Ian Kerr – Regional Director, Western Municipal Services Office, Joanna Saraiva - Municipal Advisor, Saffullah Sumbal, Manager, Local Government and Housing
County of Oxford Re: County Council Composition Page 104 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.3.
Report No: CS 2020-41 CORPORATE SERVICES Council Date: October 14, 2020
To: Warden and Members of County Council
From: Director of Corporate Services
County Council Composition and Election of Head of Council (Warden) – Final Report
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the information contained in Report No. CS 2020-41 titled “County Council Composition and Election of Head of Council (Warden) – Final Report” be received;
2. And further, that Report No. CS 2020-41 and all related reports and resolutions be forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS
. Area Municipalities’ Councils positions regarding the future composition of County Council and the method of election for the Head of Council (Warden)
Implementation Points
In accordance with Section 218 of the Municipal Act, the Clerk will forward all copies of the reports and resolutions to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to meet the County’s requirement to review the composition of council by December 1, 2020.
Financial Impact
This report has no financial implications beyond that approved within the 2020 Business Plan and Budget.
The Treasurer has reviewed this report and agrees with the financial impact information.
Risks/Implications
In accordance with Section 218 of the Municipal Act, 2001, if the County does not pass a by-law to change, or a resolution to affirm, the number of members of its lower tier municipalities represented in the number of members of its council, that is supported by triple majority support of its lower tier municipalities, the Minister may make regulation to conduct a review.
In response to the Minister’s review, the Minister may make a regulation to change the composition of the upper tier council or affirm the number of members of lower tier
Page 1 of 6
County of Oxford Re: County Council Composition Page 105 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.3.
Report No: CS 2020-41 CORPORATE SERVICES Council Date: October 14, 2020
municipalities represented in the number of members in the upper tier council. In consideration of forming a regulation, the Minister shall have regard to the principle of representation by population.
Strategic Plan (2015-2018)
County Council adopted the County of Oxford Strategic Plan (2015-2018) at its regular meeting held May 27, 2015. The initiative contained within this report supports the Values and Strategic Directions as set out in the Strategic Plan as it pertains to the following Strategic Directions:
3. i. A County that Thinks Ahead and Wisely Shapes the Future – Influence federal and provincial policy with implications for the County by: - Advocating for fairness for rural and small urban communities - Advocating for federal and provincial initiatives that are appropriate to our county
4. i. A County that Informs and Engages - Harness the power of the community through conversation and dialogue by: - Providing multiple opportunities for public participation and a meaningful voice in civic affairs - Understanding and addressing public aspirations for a more livable community 4. ii. A County that Informs and Engages - Inform the public about County programs, services and activities through planned communication that includes: - Regular County-Area Municipal information exchange
DISCUSSION
Background
The Municipal Act states that a key principle of fair representation is ensuring that local representation at the regional level keeps up with changing demographics over time. To ensure council composition continues to reflect local and demographic needs, the Municipal Act, through the Modernizing Ontario’s Municipal Legislation Act, 2017, (Bill 68) requires that all regional municipalities review their council composition. This requirement began after the 2018 municipal election and must be done within two years after every second regular municipal election. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has set a deadline of December 1, 2020 for the County of Oxford’s review to take effect at the beginning of the 2023-2026 term of council.
Although review of the election of the head of council is not a legislated requirement, County Council has expressed an interest in carrying out a concurrent review to ensure the election process continues to effectively serve the County’s constituents.
On March 11, 2020, Oxford County Council adopted Report No. CS 2020-11, titled “County Council Composition and Election of Head of Council (Warden) Review”, which outlined a process and timelines required in order to meet the December 1, 2020 deadline as set out by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
Page 2 of 6
County of Oxford Re: County Council Composition Page 106 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.3.
Report No: CS 2020-41 CORPORATE SERVICES Council Date: October 14, 2020
At its meeting of June 10, 2020, Oxford County Council was presented with a follow-up report (number CS 2020-21) to review and consider the input provided by the Area Municipal Councils and to recommend a draft position to take effect at the next municipal election. The following recommendations were adopted:
1. That County Council consider the input provided by the Area Municipal Councils with respect to Oxford council composition and election of the head of council; 2. And further, that County Council prepare a draft position with respect to the future composition and method of electing the head of council to take effect at the beginning of the 2023-2027 term of council; 3. And further, that a copy of this report and draft position be circulated to the Councils of the Area Municipalities; 4. And further, that Council direct staff to provide public notice for a public meeting to be held at the July 8, 2020 meeting of Council to consider Council’s draft position; 5. And further, that Council composition remain as status quo.”
A public meeting was held July 8, 2020 at which time one resident participated. Oxford County Council was also presented with Council report number CS 2020-26, outlining the details of the community engagement campaign which ran from June 17 to August 1, 2020. The following recommendations were adopted:
1. That the information contained in the “County Composition and Election of Head of Council (Warden) – Community Engagement Update” report be received; 2. And further, that the comments received by the residents of Oxford County with respect to County Council Composition and Election of Head of Council be considered along with written submissions as outlined in this report at the regular meeting of Council scheduled for August 12, 2020.
At its meeting of August 12, 2020, Oxford County Council was presented with Council report number CS 2020-33, which contained the community engagement campaign’s survey results and responses. The following recommendations were adopted:
1. That the information contained in the “County Composition and Election of Head of Council (Warden) – Next Steps” report be received; 2. And further, that County Council draft a final position with respect to the future composition and method of electing the head of council to take effect at the beginning of the 2023-2027 term of council; 3. And further, that a copy of this report and resolutions of Council’s final position be circulated to the Councils of the Area Municipalities for adoption; 4. And further, that Oxford County's council composition be maintained as status quo beyond the current term of council; 5. And further, that the current process of electing a Warden from a sitting member of County council continue beyond the current term of council.
Page 3 of 6
County of Oxford Re: County Council Composition Page 107 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.3.
Report No: CS 2020-41 CORPORATE SERVICES Council Date: October 14, 2020
Comments
Triple Majority Support
Regional municipalities can either change their council composition by passing a by-law or affirm their council composition by adopting a resolution. If the regional municipality does not receive “triple majority” support for either by the deadline, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has the authority to make a regulation to change the regional municipality’s composition.
Triple Majority Support is defined in the Municipal Act as follows:
• “A majority of all votes on upper tier council”: o A majority of the members of County of Oxford Council is defined in subsection 237(1) of the Municipal Act as “a majority of members representing at least one-half of the lower-tier municipalities is necessary to form a quorum”
• “A majority of all the lower-tier councils have passed resolutions consenting to the by-law” o Five Area Municipal Councils must be in support of the proposed by-law
• “The total number of electors in the lower-tier municipalities that have passed resolutions consenting to the proposal form a majority of the electors of the upper-tier municipality” o The sum of the electors in the Area Municipalities who have passed resolutions in support of the proposed by-law must add up to a minimum of 40,934 electors (one half plus one)
Table 1 below sets out the number of electors by Area Municipality for the purposes of meeting the triple majority requirements with regards to council composition and for assessing the appropriateness of the County’s council representation based on the 2018 electorate listing.
Table 1 – Number of Electors by Area Municipality – 2018 Election Area Municipalities Electors (2018) Sum of Electors whose Council in favour of Status Quo (Council Composition)
Township of Blandford-Blenheim 5,940 5,940
Township of East Zorra-Tavistock 5,157 N/A
Town of Ingersoll 9,264 N/A
Page 4 of 6
County of Oxford Re: County Council Composition Page 108 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.3.
Report No: CS 2020-41 CORPORATE SERVICES Council Date: October 14, 2020
Area Municipalities Electors (2018) Sum of Electors whose Council in favour of Status Quo (Council Composition)
Township of Norwich 7,711 7,711
Township of South-West Oxford 5,367 5,367
Town of Tillsonburg 12,583 N/A
City of Woodstock 29,669 N/A
Township of Zorra 6,174 6,174
Number of Resolutions Received in favour of Status Quo: 4
Total Eligible Voters Oxford County 81,865 25,192 (2018) (Majority = 40,934)
Result: Triple Majority not attained
Responses received from each of the lower tier municipalities to County Council’s position to affirm its composition of lower tier member representation are attached as Attachment 1.
Triple majority has not been attained with respect to maintaining status quo regarding the composition of County Council, therefore the Minister can make regulation under subsection 14(7) of the Municipal Act to change the composition of council, which may include anything that could be included in a by-law of the upper-tier municipality under sections (1) to (5), with regard for the principle of representation by population.
As the review of the election of the head of council is not a legislated requirement, a triple majority is not required to maintain status quo. Therefore, the current process of electing the Warden from a sitting member of County council will continue beyond the current term of council as adopted by resolution at their meeting held August 12, 2020 unless Council reconsiders their decision prior to the year-end deadline.
Page 5 of 6
County of Oxford Re: County Council Composition Page 109 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.3.
Report No: CS 2020-41 CORPORATE SERVICES Council Date: October 14, 2020
Conclusions
As outlined within the report, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing will determine the outcome of the future composition of Oxford County Council.
SIGNATURES
Report Author:
Original signed by
Chloé J. Senior Clerk
Departmental Approval:
Original signed by
Lynn S. Buchner, CPA, CGA Director of Corporate Services
Approved for submission:
Original signed by Michael Duben, B.A., LL.B. Chief Administrative Officer
ATTACHMENT
Attachment 1 Responses from Area Municipalities
Page 6 of 6
County of Oxford Re: County Council Composition Page 110 of 200 CS 2020-41 AGENDA ITEM #8.3. Attachment 1
County of Oxford Re: County Council Composition Page 111 of 200Page 1 of 7 AGENDA ITEM #8.3.
From: Will Jaques Sent: September-22-20 10:06 AM To: Chloe Senior
Hi Chloe,
Council reviewed this matter at its September 2, 2020 Meeting. While a formal position was not adopted through resolution, Council’s position through discussion at the September 2, 2020 meeting would be that it has no additional comments on this matter. This is consistent with Council’s position on the matter from its March 18, 2020 meeting, where it also had no comments on this matter.
Thanks Chloe,
Will Jaques, MPA Corporate Services Manager/ Clerk Township of East Zorra-Tavistock
Phone 519.462.2697 x7825 Fax 519.462.2961
Email [email protected] Website www.ezt.ca
County of Oxford Re: County Council Composition Page 112 of 200Page 2 of 7 AGENDA ITEM #8.3.
County of Oxford Re: County Council Composition Page 113 of 200Page 3 of 7 AGENDA ITEM #8.3.
From: Julie Forth Sent: September-23-20 2:47 PM To: Chloe Senior
Hi Chloe,
South-West Oxford Council received Report No. CS 2020-33 for information and didn’t pass a resolution. They considered this back in March and passed the following resolution in support of the status quo:
RESOLVED that the Council of the Township of South-West Oxford provide direction to staff to respond to the Oxford County Council composition report requesting that the status quo remain for the composition of County Council.
Julie
Julie Forth Clerk 312915 Dereham Line, Mount Elgin ON N0J 1N0 P: 519-485-0477 x 7023 | F: 519-485-2932 C: 226-970-1343 | E: [email protected] Website | Facebook | Twitter
“A leader in the development and delivery of municipal services for the growth and well being of our community.”
County of Oxford Re: County Council Composition Page 114 of 200Page 4 of 7 AGENDA ITEM #8.3.
September 30, 2020
Chloe Senior, Clerk County of Oxford
Sent by email
RE: County Council Composition and the Election of the Warden
At the September 28, 2020 meeting of Tillsonburg Town Council, the following resolution was passed:
Resolution # 2020-442 Moved By: Councillor Luciani Seconded By: Deputy Mayor Beres
THAT given the changes in population in the County and given the feedback from the public regarding the County Composition Survey for Oxford County, the status quo model not be supported and consideration be given to an increase in County Council representatives for municipalities that have a higher population;
AND THAT the Town of Tillsonburg supports an increase in the number of their County Council representatives to 2 members;
AND FURTHER THAT the residents of Oxford County should vote in a Warden every four years.
Thank you
Michelle Smibert, MPA, CMO, AOMC Town Clerk
County of Oxford Re: County Council Composition Page 115 of 200Page 5 of 7 AGENDA ITEM #8.3.
Office of the City Clerk Woodstock City Hall P.O. Box1539 500 Dundas Street Woodstock, ON N4S 0A7 Telephone (519) 539-1291
September 18, 2020
Chloe Senior, County Clerk P.O. Box 1614 21 Reeve St. Woodstock, ON N4S 7Y3
Via e-mail [email protected]
Re: County Council Composition
At the regular meeting of Woodstock City Council held on September 17, 2020, Council considered your correspondence regarding Couty Council Composition dated August 12 and August 19, 2020. The following resolution was passed in response:
"That Woodstock City Council does not support Oxford County Council’s position that the Council composition be maintained as status quo beyond the current term of Council;
And further that Woodstock City Council does not support Oxford County Council’s position of continuing to elect a Warden from a sitting member of County Council beyond the current term of Council."
Yours Truly,
Amelia Humphries, City Clerk
County of Oxford Re: County Council Composition Page 116 of 200Page 6 of 7 AGENDA ITEM #8.3. TOWNSHIP OF ZORRA 274620 27th Line, PO Box 306 Ingersoll, ON, N5C 3K5 Ph. 519-485-2490 • 1-888-699-3868 • Fax 519-485-2520 Website www.zorra.ca • Email [email protected]
September 3, 2020
Oxford County Council c/o Chloe Senior, Clerk
Via email: [email protected]
In response to County Council’s request that the area municipality consider County Council’s position with regards to both the composition and the method of electing the Warden, the Township of Zorra Council passed the following resolution at their meeting on September 2, 2020.
Moved by: Katie Davies Seconded by: Ron Forbes “THAT the Township of Zorra supports County Council’s resolution that Oxford County Council composition be maintained as status quo beyond the current term of Council;
AND THAT the current process of electing a Warden from a sitting member of County Council continue beyond the current term of Council. Disposition: Carried
Please let me know if you require anything further.
Regards,
Donna Wilson
Donna Wilson Director of Corporate Services/Clerk 20-056
County of Oxford Re: County Council Composition Page 117 of 200Page 7 of 7 AGENDA ITEM #8.3.
TOWN OF INGERSOLL Town Centre
October 13, 2020
Chloe J. Senior, Clerk 21 Reeve Street, P.O. Box 1614 Woodstock, ON N4S 7Y3
Dear Chloe,
Please be advised that Ingersoll Council, at its October 13, 2020 meeting, passed the following resolution:
Moved by Councillor Eus; seconded by Deputy-Mayor Freeman;
THAT Staff Memorandum A-033-20 - County Council Composition and Election of Warden be received as information;
AND FURTHER that the Town of Ingersoll does not support maintaining the status quo for Oxford County Council composition beyond the current term of council;
AND FURTHER, that the Town of Ingersoll does not support maintaining the current process of electing a Warden from a sitting member of County Council beyond the current term of council.
"Carried"
I trust that this is satisfactory, should you need anything further do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours truly,
Michael Gra\ Director of Corporate Services/Clerk-Deputy CAO
County130 ofOxford Oxford Street Re: County • Ingersoll, Council Ontario Composition N5C 2V5 • Tel.: 519-485-0120 • Fax:519-485-3543Page 118 of • www.ingersoll.ca200 AGENDA ITEM #8.3. Township of East Zorra-Tavistock
Box 100 / 90 Loveys Street Hickson, Ontario N0J 1L0
Email [email protected] Phone 519.462.2697 Web www. ezt.ca Fax 519.462.2961
November 19, 2020
Ms. Chloe Senior Clerk County of Oxford 21 Reeve Street Woodstock, ON N4S 7Y3
Sent via email: [email protected]
Dear Ms. Senior:
Please be advised that at their November 18, 2020 meeting, Township of East Zorra- Tavistock Council considered and passed the following resolution:
Moved by: Jeremy SMITH Seconded by: Matthew GILLESPIE
Resolved that the Council of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock supports maintaining the status quo for Oxford County Council composition. CARRIED.
Sincerely,
Will Jaques Corporate Services Manager/ Clerk
County of Oxford Re: County Council Composition Page 119 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.3.
Office of the City Clerk Woodstock City Hall P.O. Box1539 500 Dundas Street Woodstock, ON N4S 0A7 Telephone (519) 539-1291
November 20, 2020
Larry Martin, Warden County of Oxford P.O. Box 1614 21 Reeve St. Woodstock, ON N4S 7Y3
Via e-mail – [email protected]
Re: Delegation 7a – Oxford County Warden Larry Martin – Request for Woodstock City Council to Support the Status Quo Composition of Oxford County Council
At the Council meeting held electronically on November 19th, 2020, Woodstock City Council considered your presentation. The following resolution was passed in response:
That Woodstock City Council received the request from the Oxford County Warden to reconsider its position from the regular Council meeting held on September 17, 2020 in which council did not support the status quo composition of Oxford County Council as information.
Yours Truly,
Amelia Humphries, City Clerk
Cc: (via e-mail) Chloe Senior, Clerk - [email protected]
County of Oxford Re: County Council Composition Page 120 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.3.
Town of Ingersoll Resolution of Council Regular Meeting of Council February 8, 2021
Moved by Deputy Mayor Freeman_
Seconded by Councillor Petrie
THAT The Council of the Corporation of the Town of Ingersoll receives report numbered A-002-21 as information;
AND FURTHER THAT the Council approves the restructuring of Oxford County Council utilizing a weighted voting mechanism based on a minimum of one vote per municipality for any number of electors up to 6,000 and an additional vote for every 6,000 electors thereafter,
AND FURTHER THAT the metric to be used shall be the total number of eligible electors following each regularly scheduled election and that this weighting shall remain until the next regularly scheduled election,
AND FURTHER THAT the distribution of weights be split equally where the area municipality has more than one representative at County Council,
AND THAT the proposal be circulated to the seven other municipalities and Oxford County for consideration of a restructured County Council. CARRIED
County of Oxford Re: County Council Composition Page 121 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.3.
Department: Administration
Report Number: A-002-21
Council Meeting Date: February 8, 2021
Title: County Composition Consideration
Objective
To provide Council with an option for discussion and consideration on realigning the Composition of County Council.
Background
Council is aware that the County, as required by the Province, is to review and establish its composition prior to the next municipal election. It was to have been completed by December 31st 2020 but has been granted and extension until March 31, 2021. A new composition or retaining the status quo both require a triple majority of municipalities as defined by the Municipal Act. The Status Quo was proposed by County Council but has failed to meet the threshold required. Primarily the Urban municipalities have not approved the status quo, where 50 percent of the Council is made up of Urban Councillors and 50 percent of Rural Councillors, as acceptable for the following reasons: 1. Urban municipalities represent more that 65 percent of the population of the County. 2. Assessment of the Urbans represents more than 65 percent of the total for Oxford County. As such the basic tenant of democracy or representation by population is not being expressed in the current County Council Structure.
Department Report A-002-21 Regular meeting of Council County of OxfordFebruary Re: 8, 2021County Council Composition Page 122 of 200
AGENDA ITEM #8.3.
The current Warden of the County attended Ingersoll Council in December 2020, where Ingersoll expressed its concerns with the status quo. Including the required need to elect the Warden at large, considering the term and remuneration for the position. To Staff’s knowledge it is unaware of any other activity on addressing the legislative requirement. Failure to submit to the province will leave the composition to the Minster to determine. Staff do not believe that this would be a concern, however a local solution would be preferable in most cases.
Analysis
Staff have considered the situation and understand that the Province may be unwilling to significantly increase the number of County elected representatives. However there is a way to ensure better representation without adding significantly to the number at County Council. Based on Warden Martin’s own numbers better representation could be achieved by utilizing a weighted voting system. In today’s technological era the implementation of a weighted voting system would be relatively straight forward and easily accomplished. To argue otherwise is not being realistic. Woodstock would not have to reduce the number of representatives at County Council, their current three members could be allocated 1.33 votes each, totaling the four that they should have under a more balanced system. They could arrange them in a format to suit the City, this is just one option. Likewise no municipalities would lose any votes, if each municipality were guaranteed at least one vote and an additional vote for each multiple of 6000 electors thereafter. The Warden expressed concern that those municipalities that did not have at least 6000 elector should maintain at least one vote, that should be avoided by ensuring the base for each municipality is one vote. In this way Tillsonburg would be able to have two votes based on the Warden’s own numbers. Electing a Warden at large is also something the Council has requested be given consideration, in any restructuring of the County Council. Although this is not an unreasonable idea, staff would suggest that it not be pursued at this time for the following reasons: 1. The Province, prior to the municipal elections in 2018, eliminated directly elected heads of Council in four regional governments. The likelihood of that option finding favour with this government at this time is unrealistic.
Department Report A-002-21 Regular meeting of Council County of OxfordFebruary Re: 8, 2021County Council Composition Page 123 of 200
AGENDA ITEM #8.3.
2. County Councillors themselves are not likely to support the proposal, where the weighted voting system is less contentious, just fairer. County Council members themselves have expressed that they would not support a directly elected head of Council change. Achieving a better balance of representation through a weighted vote is more advantageous than achieving nothing by proposing too many changes that would not find favour at the County level of governance. Based on the current numbers the voting totals would be as follows under a weighted system for one vote for every 6000 electors, if implemented: Woodstock 4 votes Tillsonburg 2 votes Ingersoll 1 vote Norwich 1 vote SWOX 1 vote Zorra 1 vote EZT 1 vote B-B 1 vote Total 12 votes The change here would provide that the Urbans would have 58 percent of the vote while the rurals would retain 42 percent. This still does not achieve a true representation of the elector distribution but it is a move in the right direction. As has been seen in the past County Councillors vote not necessarily along urban/rural lines, there is nothing that would suggest a redistribution would impede that going forward. Each member of County Council is independent in their decision making relative to the position their home municipal Councils may support. There have been recent examples of this to demonstrate the practice.
Interdepartmental Implications
N/A
Financial Implications
No financial impacts on the Town of Ingersoll
Department Report A-002-21 Regular meeting of Council County of OxfordFebruary Re: 8, 2021County Council Composition Page 124 of 200
AGENDA ITEM #8.3.
Recommendation
That The Council of the Corporation of the Town of Ingersoll receives report numbered A-002-21 as information; And further that the Council approves the restructuring of Oxford County Council utilizing a weighted voting mechanism based on a minimum of one vote per municipality for any number of electors up to 6,000 and an additional vote for every 6,000 electors thereafter, And further that the metric to be used shall be the total number of eligible electors following each regularly scheduled election and that this weighting shall remain until the next regularly scheduled election, And further that the distribution of weights be split equally where the area municipality has more than one representative at County Council,
And that the proposal be circulated to the seven other municipalities and Oxford County for consideration of a restructured County Council. Attachments
None.
Approved by: William Tigert, Chief Administrative Officer
Department Report A-002-21 Regular meeting of Council County of OxfordFebruary Re: 8, 2021County Council Composition Page 125 of 200
AGENDA ITEM #8.3.
From: Rodger Mordue To: Chloe Senior Subject: County Council composition Date: February 18, 2021 11:28:44 AM
Chloe,
Please be advised that Blandford-Blenheim Council passed the following resolution at their February 17, 2021 Council meeting:
Be it hereby resolved that the correspondence from the Town of Ingersoll be received; and,
Whereas the Council of the Township of Blandford-Blenheim believes that the current composition of Oxford County Council provides a forum whereby each member holds equal importance and is afforded the opportunity to contribute equally and meaningfully to the business that benefits all of the residents of the County of Oxford;
Be It Resolved That the Council of the Township of Blandford-Blenheim re-affirm its position that the current status quo at County Council be maintained.
Rodger Mordue CAO/Clerk Township of Blandford-Blenheim
County of Oxford Re: County Council Composition Page 126 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.3.
Office of the City Clerk Woodstock City Hall P.O. Box1539 500 Dundas Street Woodstock, ON N4S 0A7 Telephone (519) 539-1291
February 19, 2021
William Tigert, Chief Administrative Officer Town of Ingersoll 130 Oxford Street (2nd Floor), Ingersoll, ON, N5C 2V5
Via e-mail [email protected]
Re: County Council Composition Consideration
At the Woodstock City Council meeting held electronically on February 18, 2021, Council considered your correspondence dated February 8, 2021. The following resolution was passed in response:
“That Woodstock City Council supports the proposed changes to the composition of Oxford County Council as outlined in Report Number A-002-21 from the Town of Ingersoll.”
Yours Truly,
Amelia Humphries, City Clerk
Cc: via e-mail - Chloe Senior, Clerk, Oxford County - [email protected]
County of Oxford Re: County Council Composition Page 127 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.3.
From: Amelia Jaggard To: Chloe Senior; [email protected]; [email protected]; Donna Wilson; Julie Forth; Kim Armstrong; Sarah Matheson Cc: Michelle Smibert; Kyle Pratt Subject: Council Decision Letter - County Composition Consideration Date: February 23, 2021 2:12:18 PM Attachments: image001.png
Good afternoon,
At the February 22, 2021 meeting of Tillsonburg Town Council, the following resolution was passed:
Resolution # 2021-090 Moved By: Councillor Luciani Seconded By: Councillor Esseltine THAT the Council approves the restructuring of Oxford County Council utilizing a weighted voting mechanism based on a minimum of one vote per municipality for any number of electors up to 6,000 and an additional vote for every 6,000 electors thereafter; AND FURTHER THAT the metric to be used shall be the total number of eligible electors following each regularly scheduled election and that this weighting shall remain until the next regularly scheduled election; AND FURTHER THAT the distribution of weights be split equally where the area municipality has more than one representative at County Council; AND FURTHER THAT the proposal be circulated to the seven other municipalities and Oxford County for consideration of a restructured County Council.
Please ensure this information is provided to your Council. Thank you for your time and assistance.
Regards,
Amelia Jaggard, CMM I Deputy Clerk Town of Tillsonburg 200 Broadway, Suite 204 Tillsonburg, ON N4G 5A7 Phone: 519-688-3009 Ext. 4041
www.Tillsonburg.ca www.DiscoverTillsonburg.ca www.Facebook.com/TillsonburgON
Individuals who submit letters and other information to Council should be aware that any personal information contained within their communications may become part of
County of Oxford Re: County Council Composition Page 128 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.3.
From: Kyle Kruger To: Mary Ellen Greb; William Tigert; Don Macleod; Karen DePrest; Rodger Mordue; Kyle Pratt; David Creery; Michael Duben Cc: Kim Armstrong; Chloe Senior Subject: County Council Composition Date: February 24, 2021 10:34:40 AM Attachments: image001.png
Good morning all,
For your information, at its’ meeting February 23rd, 2021, Norwich Council considered the February 8 2021 resolution from the Town of Ingersoll regarding County Council Composition. After consideration, Norwich Council adopted the following resolution:
“That the Correspondence as listed in Agenda Items 8.1 to 8.8 be received as information.
And Whereas the Council of the Township of Norwich believes that the current composition of Oxford County Council provides a forum whereby each member holds equal importance and is afforded the opportunity to contribute equally and meaningfully to the business that benefits all of the residents of the County of Oxford;
Be It Resolved That the Council of the Township of Norwich re-affirm its position that the current status quo at County Council be maintained.”
Yours truly,
Kyle Kruger CAO/Clerk Township of Norwich [email protected] 519-468-2410 ext 227
County of Oxford Re: County Council Composition Page 129 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.4.
PUBLIC WORKS 21 Reeve Street, PO Box 1614 Woodstock, ON N4S 7Y3 519.539.9800 I 1.800.755.0394 oxfordcounty.ca
March 3, 2021
Township of Norwich 285767 Airport Road Norwich, ON N0J 1P0
Attention: Kimberley Armstrong Deputy Clerk, Township of Norwich Council
Re: Intersection of Oxford Road 59 and Quaker Street – Safety Review
At the February 23, 2021 Norwich Township Council meeting, County staff presented the findings and recommendations of the speed and road safety reviews undertaken in the communities of Norwich and Otterville.
Several speed management recommendations were identified for immediate implementation including elimination of the 60km/hr speed transition (step-down) zone at the north end of Norwich on Oxford Road 59 that currently extends beyond the limits of the built up area. Speed step-down transition zones that extend beyond the built-up area are considered ineffective in reducing speeds for incoming traffic.
At the meeting, Norwich Township Council identified potential intersection safety concerns at Oxford Road 59 and Quaker Street, north of the built up area, due to visibility restrictions and vehicle operating speeds. County staff indicated they would review specific operating conditions at this location before finalizing the speed management recommendations proposed for immediate implementation.
Following the February 23, 2021 Norwich Township Council meeting, County staff reviewed previous assessments undertaken at this location along with current collision data and surrounding land use.
Operating conditions at the intersection of Oxford Road 59 and Quaker Street were previously reviewed in response to safety concerns identified by a local resident, as summarized in the attached email dated August 21, 2019. The review findings at that time did not identify any intersection sightline obstructions or speed related collision trends to warrant a reduction of the current 80km/hr posted speed in this area.
Page 1 of 2 County of Oxford Re: Intersection of Oxford Road 59 and Quaker Street – ... Page 130 of 200
AGENDA ITEM #8.4.
Historical intersection collision data current to the end of 2020 is summarized below:
• Five intersection related collisions from 2013 to 2020 inclusive; • Three of five intersection related collisions occurred in 2019; • Average annual number of collisions over eight year period is 0.63 collisions/year; and • Average annual number of collisions does not meet Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM) collision warrant for an All Way Stop Control (4/year over three consecutive years).
County staff reassessed intersection visibility and found that sightlines were acceptable. Norwich Township staff also advised they were not aware of intersection sightline restrictions at this location.
Adjacent land in the south west quadrant of this intersection is zoned Industrial and is within the serviced limits of the village of Norwich as defined in the Oxford County Official Plan. However these lands are undeveloped and are currently being used for agricultural purposes.
Consistent with the findings identified in the previous assessment completed in August of 2019, County staff did not identify any apparent intersection operational concerns at the intersection of Oxford Road 59 and Quaker Street.
The proposed speed zone adjustments at the north end of Norwich and are not expected to negatively impact intersection safety at Quaker Street and will ensure that speed transitions align with changes in the built environment.
We trust this addresses the safety concerns raised by Norwich Township Council.
Sincerely,
David Simpson, P.Eng., PMP Director of Public Works
CC Frank Gross, Manager of Transportation and Waste Management Services, Oxford County Shawn Vanacker, Supervisor of Transportation, Oxford County
County of Oxford Re: Intersection of Oxford Road 59 and Quaker Street – ... Page 131 of 200 Page 2 of 2
AGENDA ITEM #8.4.
From: David Simpson To: [email protected] Cc: Larry Martin; Frank Gross; Scott Boughner; Chelsea Martin Subject: RE: Another accident at the corner of Quaker and 59 Date: August 21, 2019 3:13:24 PM
Hi David
I received your correspondence through Warden Martin and appreciate your concern regarding safety of the road network around Oxford Road 59 and Quaker Street.
Our Road Operations staff have since completed their review and assessment of contributing factors that can have an influence on driver behaviour such as road design elements, sight lines, speed zone limits, etc. Oxford Rd 59 north of Norwich near Quaker Street has wide shoulders, is relatively flat, and has limited development. On Oxford Road 59, there is a horizontal curve south of Quaker Street but there does not appear to be any sightline obstructions for westbound traffic on Quaker Street. Staff review of historical collision data (2013 to 2018) on this section of Oxford Rd 59 showed a total of nine collisions and did not reveal any speed related and/or critical injury collision trends.
Based on our review of the driving environment and historical collision data, a reduced speed on Oxford Rd 59 in this area is not warranted at this time as reduced speed zones that extend beyond urban built up areas (such as in this case beyond the limits of Norwich) are generally ineffective in reducing operating speeds due to the surrounding rural driving environment.
We will certainly continue to monitor traffic patterns in this road area and evaluate further traffic calming measures, if warranted, in the future.
Regards, David
DAVID SIMPSON, P.Eng., PMP | Director of Public Works OXFoRD CoUNTY | 21 Reeve St., PO Box 1614, Woodstock, ON, N4S 7Y3 www.oXFoRDcoUNTY.cA | T 519.539.9800 / 1-800-755-0394, ext 3100
This e-mail communication is CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the intended recipient, use or disclosure of the contents or attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the author by return e-mail and delete this message and any copy of it immediately. Thank you.
þ Think about our environment. Print only if necessary.
------Original message ------From: David Kerr
County of Oxford Re: Intersection of Oxford Road 59 and Quaker Street – ... Page 132 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.4.
Date:08-12-2019 7:13 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Larry Martin
This morning at 8:30 there was a T-Bone when an east bound car carrying special needs people pulled out from the stop sign in front of a 5 ton travelling north on 59. The car was pushed into the oncoming traffic lane and luckily there was no traffic coming at them. No injuries but both vehicles were towed. I don’t believe the truck was speeding. I think the driver at the stop sign was either distracted or blind. That’s 3 accidents in 5 months at the corner, all requiring police and tow trucks. Somebody is going to die in a major accident and I don’t really care unless they end up on my property and cause more damage because nobody seems to be paying attention to the warning signs. I think with the population density in this area that the 60 zone should extend to just past Dejong’s.
The Quaker street intersection sees a lot of west bound heavy vehicle traffic with a blind curve and many people exceeding the posted speed limit of 80.
County of Oxford Re: Intersection of Oxford Road 59 and Quaker Street – ... Page 133 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.5.
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA City Clerk’s Department 255 Christina Street N. PO Box 3018 Sarnia ON Canada N7T 7N2 519-332-0330 (phone) 519-332-3995 (fax) 519-332-2664 (TTY) www.sarnia.ca [email protected]
March 4, 2021
The Honourable Doug Ford Premier of Ontario Legislative Building Queen's Park Toronto, ON M7A 1A1
Dear Premier Ford, Re: Colour Coded Capacity Limits
At its meeting held on March 1, 2021, Sarnia City Council discussed the challenges local businesses are facing with respect to the colour coded system within the Province’s COVID-19 Response Framework. The following motion was adopted:
That Sarnia City Council strongly advocate to the Province of Ontario that they adjust the capacity limits for dining, restaurants, sporting and recreational facilities, places of worship, event centers, and all retail/small businesses as part of the colour coded system.
The following rationale was provided with the introduction of the motion:
The red zone currently only allows 10 people indoors at a dining or a sporting / recreational facility (regardless of the size), places of worship are capped at 30% or 50 people, and retail / small business is limited to a 50% capacity. These businesses and organizations have heavily invested in facility improvements and expensive upgrades to ensure safe social distancing and have all the appropriate safety and protection measures in place. Businesses in particular cannot properly plan under the current uncertainty and that means the loss of jobs and income for both workers and owners as well as mental health challenges.
City of Sarnia Re: Colour Coded Capacity Limits Page 134 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.5.
Indoor capacity limits for restaurants, dining, sporting / recreational facilities, event centers, retail / small business, and places of worship should not involve arbitrary numbers (regardless of size), but instead be changed to the amount of people per facility which ensures that strict and safe social distancing can be maintained.
Sarnia City Council has requested that all municipalities in Ontario join this advocacy effort.
On behalf of Sarnia City Council, I look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
Amy Burkhart Acting City Clerk
Cc: All Ontario Municipalities Ms. Marilyn Gladu, MP Sarnia-Lambton Mr. Bob Bailey, MPP Sarnia-Lambton
City of Sarnia Re: Colour Coded Capacity Limits Page 135 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.6. Administration Office of the Regional Clerk 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way, PO Box 1042, Thorold, ON L2V 4T7 Telephone: 905-980-6000 Toll-free: 1-800-263-7215 Fax: 905-687-4977 www.niagararegion.ca
March 4, 2021
CL 4-2021, February 25, 2021
DISTRIBUTION LIST
SENT ELECTRONICALLY
Re: Schedule 6, Bill 197, COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020
Regional Council, at its meeting held on February 25, 2021, passed the following resolution:
WHEREAS Schedule 6 of Bill 197, COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020 considers amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act relating to municipal autonomy and the principle that municipalities can veto a development outside their municipal boundary in an adjacent municipality;
WHEREAS Bill 197 empowers multiple municipalities to ‘veto’ development of a landfilling site within a 3.5 km zone inside the boundary of an adjacent municipality;
WHEREAS Bill 197 establishes a dangerous precedent that could be expanded to other types of development;
WHEREAS Bill 197 compromises municipal autonomy and the authority of municipal councils to make informed decisions in the best interest of their communities and municipal taxpayers; and
WHEREAS amendments in Schedule 6 could cause conflict in the effective management of landfill sites, put significant pressure on existing landfill capacity, and threaten the economic activity associated with these sites.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That while the Region of Niagara supports the Act’s open-for-business approach, the municipality CALLS upon the Government of Ontario (Ministry of the Environment, Conservation & Parks (MOECP) to amend Bill 197, COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020, to eliminate the development approval requirement provisions from adjacent municipalities and that the ‘host’
Niagara Region Re: Schedule, Bill 197, COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2... Page 136 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.6. Schedule 6, Bill 197, COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020 March 4, 2021 Page 2
municipality be empowered to render final approval for landfills within their jurisdiction;
2. That a copy of this motion BE FORWARDED to Premier Doug Ford, Jeff Yurek, Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks, Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, local M.P.Ps., and the Association of Municipalities Ontario (AMO) and;
3. That a copy of this resolution BE FORWARDED to all Ontario municipalities with a request for supporting motions to be passed by respective Councils and copies of the supporting motion be forwarded to Premier Doug Ford, Jeff Yurek, Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks, Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, local Members of Provincial Parliament, and the Association of Municipalities Ontario (AMO).
In accordance with the resolution, it is respectfully requested that your municipality consider passing a supporting resolution to be forwarded to Premier Doug Ford, Jeff Yurek, Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks, Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, local Members of Provincial Parliament, and the Association of Municipalities Ontario (AMO).
Yours truly,
Ann-Marie Norio Regional Clerk
CLK-C 2021-043
Distribution List:
All Municipalities in Ontario
Niagara Region Re: Schedule, Bill 197, COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2... Page 137 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.6. Administration Office of the Regional Clerk 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way, PO Box 1042, Thorold, ON L2V 4T7 Telephone: 905-685-4225 Toll-free: 1-800-263-7215 Fax: 905-687-4977 www.niagararegion.ca
March 4, 2021 CL 4-2021, February 25, 2021 PHSSC 2-2021, February 16, 2021 Minute Item No. 5.1, February 16, 2021
MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPALITIES OF ONTARIO (AMO)
SENT ELECTRONICALLY
Motion respecting Homelessness, Mental Health and Addiction in Niagara Minute Item No. 5.1
Regional Council, at its meeting held on February 25, 2021, approved the following resolution from its Public Health and Social Services Committee: WHEREAS Niagara Region prides itself as being a caring and compassionate community that continually strives to be a place where people want to live, work and play; WHEREAS providing access to safe, adequate and affordable housing for everyone is fundamental to achieving that goal; WHEREAS Niagara Region acknowledges that mental health, mental illness, addiction and homelessness, while important issues, are not homogenous, interchangeable or consistently interconnected, and doing so may over simplify exceptionally complex issues that require targeted policy solutions and intervention; WHEREAS Niagara Region’s 10-year Housing and Homelessness Action Plan (HHAP), A Home For All, outlines the Region’s vision, challenges, and the actions required to achieve its goals; WHEREAS Niagara Region has embarked on an ambitious effort to end chronic homelessness through participation in the national Built for Zero campaign; WHEREAS Regional Council formally adopted Mental Health and Wellbeing (2.2) and Addressing Affordable Housing Needs (2.3) as strategic priorities for the current term of our Council; WHEREAS a recent KPMG report commissioned by Niagara Region indicated that Council invests more levy funding than its peers into homelessness, demonstrating a steadfast commitment to addressing the issue; WHEREAS Niagara Region acknowledges that people living in shelters are part of the crisis and not the solution; WHEREAS Niagara Region has two planned housing projects that would directly address those in Niagara who experience chronic homelessness;
Niagara Region Re: Schedule, Bill 197, COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2... Page 138 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.6. Motion Respecting Homelessness, Mental Health and Addiction in Niagara March 4, 2021 Page 2
WHEREAS the implementation plan for Council’s strategic objectives states that staff will identify gaps within the mental health system to increase the functionality and collaboration within it; WHEREAS the same implementation plan directed staff to partner with Ontario Health (formally the LHIN) to review the local landscape to identify opportunities, including new investment; WHEREAS the treatment and supports for mental illness, addiction, and homelessness are predominantly funded and directed by the Province; WHEREAS the success of the Region’s Housing and Homelessness Action Plan is dependent on a commitment of sustained and increased funding (both operational and capital) from all levels of government to address the issues of housing insecurity and homelessness in Niagara; and WHEREAS the needs of the community far outweigh Niagara Region’s available resources and funding required to effectively address these issues, and the support of both the Provincial and Federal governments are needed to meet these needs. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. That Niagara Region Council officially ACKNOWLEDGE that a significant crisis exists in Niagara in regard to the prevalence of chronic homelessness and the lack of affordable housing that far surpasses the Region’s ability to meet the vision dictated in its 10-year Housing and Homelessness Action Plan (HHAP); 2. That the Regional Chair BE DIRECTED to send advocacy letters directly to the appropriate Federal and Provincial ministries outlining Niagara’s current situation and requesting additional funding be provided to ensure Niagara can meet the vision outlined in its housing action plan; 3. That the Regional Chair BE DIRECTED to advocate to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development for the required operational funding for the planned supportive and bridge housing initiatives; 4. That Regional staff BE DIRECTED, in alignment with the planned review of Council’s strategic priorities, to produce a report specifically highlighting the progress being made and critical gaps in regard to services related to mental health, addictions and wellbeing; 5. That Regional staff BE DIRECTED to continue providing Regional Council updates on the HHAP and Built for Zero initiatives; 6. That Regional staff BE DIRECTED to request an update from the Overdose Prevention and Education Network of Niagara (OPENN) regarding the current status of the actions being taken to address addiction related issues in Niagara; and
Niagara Region Re: Schedule, Bill 197, COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2... Page 139 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.6. Motion Respecting Homelessness, Mental Health and Addiction in Niagara March 4, 2021 Page 3
7. That a copy of this motion be sent to all members of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO).
Yours truly,
Ann-Marie Norio Regional Clerk :kl
CLK-C 2021- 044
Niagara Region Re: Schedule, Bill 197, COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2... Page 140 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.7.
7855 Sideroad 30 Alliston, ON L9R 1Vl p.: 705-434-5055 f.: 705-4.34-5051
February 26, 2021
The Honourable Ernie Hardeman Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs By email only: ernie.hardeman(@.pc.ola.org
Dear Mr. Hardeman,
Please be advised that the following resolution was passed at the February 10, 2021 Township of Adjala-Tosorontio Council meeting.
Moved by: Deputy Mayor Meadows Seconded by: Councilor Hall-Chancey
Resolved, Tl-IA T the Council of the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio request the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs amend the Tile Drainage Installation Act and/or the regulations under the Act that would require tile drainage contractors file farm tile drainage installation plans with the local municipality; and further,
THAT this resolution be fonrvarded to Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (Minister Ernie Hardeman), Jim Wilson, MPP Simcoe-Grey, Lisa Thompson, MPP Huron Bruce, Randy Pettapiece, MPP Perth Wellington, /~ural Ontario Municipal Association, Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Christian Farmers Federation Of Ontario, Land Improvement Contractors of Ontario, Drainage Superintendents of Ontario and all Ontario municipalities. If you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Sincerely, .521tlice 'By[
Alice Byl Deputy Clerk Township of Adjala-Tosorontio
www.aditos.ca
Township of Adjala-Tosorontio Re: Request for Amendment to the Tile Drai... Page 141 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.7.
·Howick 44816 Harriston Road, RR 1, Gorrie On NOG 1XO Tel: 519-335-3208 ext 2 Fax: 519-335-6208 TOWN S'H IP www.howick.ca
December 3, 2020
The Honourable Ernie Hardeman Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
By email only [email protected]
Dear Mr. Hardeman:
Please be advised that the following resolution was passed at the December 1, 2020 Howick Council meeting: Moved by Councillor Hargrave; Seconded by Councillor Ulman: Be it resolved that Council request the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs amend the Tile Drainage Installation Act and/or the regulations under the Act that would require tile drainage contractors file farm tile drainage installation plans with the local municipality; and further, this resolution be forwarded to Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Huron-Bruce MPP Lisa Thompson, Perth-Wellington MPP Randy Pettapiece, Rural Ontario Municipal Association, Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Christian Farmers Federation Of Ontario, Land Improvement Contractors of Ontario, Drainage Superintendents of Ontario and all Ontario municipalities. Carried. Resolution No. 288/20
If you require any further information, please contact this office, thank you.
Yours truly,
Carol Watson, Clerk Township of Howick
Township of Adjala-Tosorontio Re: Request for Amendment to the Tile Drai... Page 142 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.7.
Howick 44816 Harriston Road , RR 1, Gorrie On NOG 1XO Tel: 519-335-3208 Fax: 519-335-6208 TOWNSHIP www.howick.ca Background Information to the Township of Howick Resolution No. 288-20 Requesting Amendments to the Agricultural Tile Drainage Installation Act
Rational for Proposed Amendments
Over the years, Howick Township staff have received many requests for tile drainage information on farmland. Usually these requests come after a change in ownership of the farm. Some of these drainage systems were installed recently but many are 30 to 40 or more years old. Many were installed by contractors who are no longer in business or who have sold the business and records are not available. Information is generally available if the tile was installed under the Tile Drain Loan Program because a drainage plan is required to be filed with the municipality. If the tile system was installed on a farm without using the Tile Drain Loan Program, there likely are no records on file at the municipal office. The other benefits to filing tile drainage plans with the municipality are identified in Section 65 of the Drainage Act. • 65(1) - Subsequent subdivision of land (severance or subdivision) • 65(3) - Drainage connection into a drain from lands not assessed to the drain • 65(4) - Drainage disconnection of assessed lands from a drain • 65(5) - Connecting to a municipal drain without approval from council
Section 14 of the Act states:
(1) "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,
(a) providing for the manner of issuing licences and prescribing their duration, the fees payable therefor and the terms and conditions on which they are issued; (a.1) exempting classes of persons from the requirement under section 2 to hold a licence, in such circumstances as may be prescribed and subject to such restrictions as may be prescribed; (b) Repealed: 1994, c. 27, s. 8 (5) . (c) establishing classes of machine operators and prescribing the qualifications for each class and the duties that may be performed by each class;
Howick: a strong, independent, healthy, rural community. Proud to be different
Township of Adjala-Tosorontio Re: Request for Amendment to the Tile Drai... Page 143 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.7.
Howick 44816 Harriston Road, RR 1, Gorrie On NOG 1XO Tel: 519-335-3208 Fax: 519-335-6208 ·ro W f\J s'H 1 P www.howick.ca
(d) providing for courses of instruction and examinations and requiring licence holders or applicants for a licence under this Act to attend such courses and pass such examinations; (e) prescribing the facilities and equipment to be provided by persons engaged in the business of installing drainage works; (f) prescribing standards and procedures for the installation of drainage works; (g) prescribing performance standards for machines used in installing drainage works; (h) prescribing forms and providing for their use; (i) respecting any matter necessary or advisable to carry out effectively the intent and purpose of this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. A.14, s. 14; 1994, c. 27, s. 8 (4, 5)."
I believe it would be beneficial if a regulation required the installer, of agricultural drainage, to file a plan of the drainage system with the municipality following completion of the work. While most of Section 14 deals with contractor, machine and installer licences, I think that Section 14(f) or 14(i) may allow a regulation change. This would be a better solution than an amendment to the Act. Recommendations:
a Request by municipal resolution that the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural ~ffairs amend the Tile Drainage Installation Act and/or the regulations, under the Act, that would require tile drainage contractors file all farm tile drainage installation plans in the Municipality where the installation took place • Send the municipal resolution to: o Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs o Lisa Thompson, MPP Huron Bruce o Randy Pettapiece, MPP Perth Wellington o Rural Ontario Municipal Association [email protected] o OFA o CFFO o All Ontario municipalities o the Land Improvement Contractors of Ontario (LICO), and o the Drainage Superintendents Association of Ontario (DSAO)
Wray Wilson, Drainage Superintendent Township of Howick [email protected]
Howick: a strong, independent, healthy, rural community. Proud to be different
Township of Adjala-Tosorontio Re: Request for Amendment to the Tile Drai... Page 144 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #8.8.
CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH GLENGARRY
MOVED BY l"t le uJe11 Q e-tJ RESOLUTION NO 7 5 - Z02 I
SECONDED BY Scft rn ([V)C0t?.-v.o l( DA TE March 1 , 2021
WHEREAS COVID-19, a disease caused by the 2019 novel coronavirus, has resulted in the deaths of almost 7,000 Ontarians;
AND WHEREAS Canada currently lags behind dozens of nations in terms of the proportion of the population that has received doses of COVI D-19 vaccines;
AND WHEREAS the federal government has moved too slowly and is failing to foster domestic vaccine-production capacity;
AND WHEREAS the number of administered vaccines in Ontario is not keeping pace with the number of doses that have been received by the provincial government;
AND WHEREAS the provincial COVID-19 vaccine booking system is not yet operational;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Township of South Glengarry urges Premier Doug Ford and the Province of Ontario to procure approved COVI D-19 vaccines to be distributed to the residents of the Province of Ontario, increase the Province's vaccination rate to keep pace with the doses that have been received and accelerate the launch of its COVID-19 vaccine booking system;
AND FURTHERMORE that this resolution be forwarded to Premier Doug Ford , MPP Jim McDonell, Hon. Christine Eilliot, Minister of Health, Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy, Minister of Finance and all Ontario municipalities.
~RRIED D DEFEATED 0 POSTPONED
Township of South Glengarry Re: Provincial Vaccine Rollout Page 145 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #10.5.1
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: 2021 PULVERIZING AND PAVING REPORT NO. PW-2021-05 COUNCIL MEETING DATE MARCH 23, 2021
Approved Approved with Amendments Other Resolution #
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND Our annual asphalt tender closed on March 17th and we received 5 bids. Unlike 2020, we are experiencing realistic oil prices now that the uncertainty of covid 19 has settled and this is reflected in the prices submitted. Asphalt and gravel are showing an 11% and 10% increase respectively over last year. As you will recall, this year’s work includes an asphalt overlay on Old Stage Road and (provisionally) Middletown Line as well as the pulverizing and paving of East Street. The low bidder this year was Permanent Paving who completed our contract last year and in several other years as well.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS The bid from Permanent Paving came in over budget for Old Stage Road and Middletown Line but substantially under budget for East Street. We are facing a budget shortfall of $60,890 or 11% which can be covered by our road construction reserve. Permanent Paving have done quality work in the past and have always stood behind their workmanship. The Middletown Line project was also bid provisionally for surface treatment which could be considered alternatively.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS N/A
FINANCIAL/STAFFING/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
Table 1 below outlines the tender results compared to the 2021 Council approved capital budget and related funding. Please note these amounts include non-refundable HST. Road Budget ($) Low Bid ($) Surplus/(Deficit) Old Stage Road 186,300 195,186 (8,886) Middletown Line 218,700 284,750 (66,050) East Street 64,000 49,954 14,046 Total 469,000 529,890 (60,890)
Although the surface treatment tender has not closed yet, there would be an estimated $100,000.00 savings compared to asphalt.
2021 Pulverizing and Paving Report PW 2021-05 Page 146 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #10.5.1
As mentioned earlier, if this contract is approved (using asphalt on Middletown Line) this shortfall can be covered by our road construction reserve without adversely affecting future projects that are projected to draw on this reserve as well.
RECOMMENDATION That Report PW-2021-05 Pulverizing and Paving Report be received as information and that Council accept the bid from Permanent Paving of Woodstock for the 2021 Pulverizing and Paving contract to include the Old Stage Road and East Street but defer Middletown Line until surface treatment prices are in.
ATTACHMENTS Asphalt Tender Results
Prepared by: Approved by: Marty Lenaers Kyle Kruger Manager of Public Works CAO/Clerk
2021 Pulverizing and Paving Report PW 2021-05 Page 147 of 200 2021 Pulverizing and Paving Report PW 2021-05
2021 Township of Norwich Pulverizing and Hot Asphalt Tender Results Prices do not include HST COMPANY ITEM A ITEM B ITEM C TOTAL TOTAL OLD STAGE East Street (PROVISIONAL) A&B A,B&C ROAD MIDDLETOWN LINE DUFFERIN $238,344.99 $61,057 335,345.10 $299,401.99 $634,747.09 CONSTRUCTION COCO PAVING $210,940.00 $57,165.00 $283,380.00 $268,105.00 $551,485.00
PERMANENT $191,810.00 $49,090.00 $279,825.00 $240,900.00 $520,725.00 PAVING
STEED AND $225,600.00 $61,290.00 $277,200.00 $286,890.00 $564,090.00 EVANS
AGENDA ITEM #10.5.1 J-AAR $239,615.00 $70,788.00 $333,210.00 $310,403.00 $643,613.00 Page 148 of 200 EXCAVATING LTD.
Opened by; Marty Lenaers Manager of Public Works James Johnson Director of Finance March 17, 2021 10:00 am 2021 Pulverizing and Paving Report PW 2021-05
AGENDA ITEM #10.5.1 Page 149 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #10.5.2
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS & FINANCIAL SERVICES SUBJECT: PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD REPORT NO. FS 2021-06 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: MARCH 23, 2021
Approved Approved with Amendments Other Resolution #
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND This report is prepared for Council in cooperation between the Public Works and the Finance Departments. On November 26th, 2020 the 2021 Capital Budget was passed that included a 20-year capital plan related to the Township’s assets including a schedule of road reconstruction. The road reconstruction plan is based on a road needs study completed in 2017. Pleasant Valley Road is currently identified as having a partial depth reconstruction in 2026.
During the March 9, 2021 Council meeting the following reconsideration was made and was carried:
Resolution #19
10.5.2 Pleasant Valley Road Discussion Moved by John Scholten, seconded by Lynne DePlancke; That staff bring forward a report outlining the potential financing implications of amending the capital budget to remove Florence Street and replacing it with the Pleasant Valley Road reconstruction.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS The road construction schedule represents Norwich Townships most significant financial spending and also requires significant coordination of the projects. Therefore, road needs studies are performed to outline roads projects based on condition, coordination with Oxford County, and scheduling the projects to ensure proper and affordable financial planning.
For 2021, there are nine road construction projects that total $1,061,500 in spending, of which $481,142 are funded through Provincial grants. The remaining funds are from the roads reserve ($50,000) and $530,358 from the tax levy. To ensure no levy increase, adverse reserve affects, and maximizing grant funding, to add a road project in 2021 would involve delaying already scheduled 2021 projects. Florence street was identified as a potential delayed project. Details of each project are:
Pleasant Valley Road Report Report FS 2021-06 Page 150 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #10.5.2
Pleasant Valley Road Florence Street Partial depth reconstruction Full depth reconstruction $654,900 $280,000 (net of engineering) 3.70 Km 0.30km 439 AADT* 316 AADT Low Class Bituminous (LCB) High Class Bituminous (HCB) Condition 3 Condition 3 * - average annual daily traffic
The cost difference between these two projects is $374,900 which would mean more adjustments would be needed for the shortfall. The combinations of additional projects delayed and funding options are endless and would mean juggling of projects in years to come.
Fortunately, the timing of the reconsideration coincides with an updated road needs study that is currently under way. This was a planned road needs study that would alter the 20- year road construction schedule based on 2021 information. Staff were able to obtain preliminary information on the road construction capital plan which moved Pleasant Valley Road to 2022 and Quaker Street to 2023.
Below are two options for Council to consider regarding the year in which Pleasant Valley Road is reconstructed:
Option 1 – 2022
This option would essentially mean the 2021 capital projects related to roads would remain status quo as presented last November. Staff would ensure Pleasant Valley Road would be the priority in 2022. However, it is worth noting there would be a significant cost to maintain Pleasant Valley Road in 2021.
Option 2 – 2021
This option would add Pleasant Valley Road to this year’s construction schedule and likely to be started in the summer. Provincial funding has been fully utilized for projects this year, therefore rescheduling Florence Street and an advance from reserves would be needed to avoid a levy increase. Details of the funding are outlined below under Financial Implications.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
Public Works and Finance have worked cooperatively to provide this report to Council.
Pleasant Valley Road Report Report FS 2021-06 Page 151 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #10.5.2
FINANCIAL/STAFFING/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
Option 1 would have no impacts on the 2021 Capital Budget and related funding.
Table 1 below outlines the funding shortfall from Option 2 (in dollars):
Project Capital Expense Reserves/Grants Tax Levy Impact 2021 Capital Projects - Roads 1,061,500 531,142 530,358 Remove Florence Street (280,000) (280,000) - Add Pleasant Valley Road 654,900 280,000 374,900 Subtotal 1,436,400 531,142 905,258 Advance - Road Construction Reserve - 374,900 (374,900) Total 1,436,400 906,042 530,358
The Florence Street project is funded from the Federal Gas Tax Grant. If Option 2 is recommended then that funding will be used for Pleasant Valley Road.
There is a funding shortfall of $374,900. To avoid an impact on the taxes, staff are suggesting an advance from the road construction reserve. The advance from the road construction reserve must be replaced in 2022 from the tax levy in order to fund future projects and stay within the 20-year financial plan. The road needs study will be incorporated in the 2022 capital budget and 20-year plan and the associated funding will be determined at that time.
CONCLUSION
Staff are ready to implement either option. While there are an infinite amount of possibilities to rearrange the capital projects, staff have presented the option with the least amount of disruption on future timing and funding of roads projects.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Report FS 2021-06, Pleasant Valley Road, be received as information;
AND THAT Council adopt Option 1, status quo, and to schedule Pleasant Valley Road reconstruction in 2022. OR
AND THAT Council adopt Option 2, per Table 1 in Report FS 2021-06 to approve the budget amendments in the 2021 Capital Budget to include Pleasant Valley Road.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Page 9 from the Council Approved Capital Budget - Roads
Prepared by: Approved by: James Johnson, CPA, CGA Kyle Kruger Director of Financial Services/Treasurer CAO / Clerk
Pleasant Valley Road Report Report FS 2021-06 Page 152 of 200 Pleasant Valley RoadReport ReportFS 2021-06
2021 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE BUDGET
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 20212021 CAPITAL FINANCING 2021 BUDGETED NET BUDGET ROAD CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL GRANTS RESERVES OTHER TAX IMPACT
1 Old Stage Road ‐ Sect 009 2‐300‐4631 93,150 66,122 ‐ ‐ 27,028 (Sweaburg Rd to Horn Rd) OCIF Formula Funding ‐ Overlay
2 Old Stage Road ‐ Sect 010 2‐300‐4631 93,150 66,122 ‐ ‐ 27,028 (Horn Rd to Oxford Rd 59) OCIF Formula Funding ‐ Overlay
3 New Road ‐ Sect 073 2‐300‐4647 126,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 126,000 (Oxford Rd 13 to Zenda Ln) ‐ Surface Treatment
4 Summerville Line ‐ Sect 137 & 085 2‐300‐4676 120,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 120,000 (Oxford Rd 59 to Potters Rd) ‐ Surface Treatment
5 Middletown Line ‐ Sect 090 2‐300‐4652 113,400 ‐ 25,000 ‐ 88,400 (Pattullo Ave to Oxford Centre Rd) ‐ Overlay
6 Middletown Line ‐ Sect 091 2‐300‐4652 105,300 ‐ 25,000 ‐ 80,300 (Oxford Centre Rd to Firehall Road) ‐ Overlay
7 Florence St Norwich ‐ Sect 225 2‐300‐4703 316,500 316,500 ‐ ‐ ‐ AGENDA ITEM#10.5.2 (Main St to Carman St) Federal Gas Tax Page 153 of200 ‐ Full Depth Reconstruction
8 East Street Eastwood ‐ Sect 280 2‐300‐4704 64,000 32,398 ‐ ‐ 31,602 (Hwy 2 to Oxford 55) Federal Gas Tax ‐ Pulverize & Pave
9 Improvement to Intersection 2‐300‐4644 30,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 30,000 (Gunn's Hill & HWY 59) TOTAL ROAD CONSTRUCTION 1,061,500 481,142 50,000 ‐ 530,358
TOWNSHIP OF NORWICH HISTORICAL ~ AGRICULTURAL ~ BEAUTIFUL Page 9 AGENDA ITEM #10.8.1
DEPARTMENT: FINANCIAL SERVICES SUBJECT: STATEMENT OF COUNCIL REMUNERATION AND EXPENSE REPORT NO. FS 2021-05 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: MARCH 23, 2021
Approved Approved with Amendments Other Resolution #
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
As required by the Municipal Act, 2001, this report outlines the amounts of remuneration and expenses paid during the year 2020 to Members of Council, and to each person appointed by Council to serve as a member of any body, including a local board.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
This report provides information to the public regarding the remuneration and expenses paid in 2020 to Members of Council and Council Appointees to local boards in order to meet the reporting requirements under Section 284 of the Municipal Act, 2001.
Section 284(1) of The Municipal Act 2001, S.O. 2001, as amended states:
The Treasurer of a municipality shall in each year on or before March 31 provide to the council of the municipality an itemized statement on remuneration and expenses paid in the previous year to, (a) each member of council in respect of his or her services as a member of the council or any other body, including a local board, to which the member has been appointed by council or on which the member holds office by virtue of being a member of council; (b) each member of council in respect of his or her services as an officer or employee of the municipality or other body described in clause (a); and (c) each person, other than a member of council, appointed by the municipality to serve as a member of any body, including a local board, in respect of his or her services as a member of the body. 2001, c. 25, s. 284 (1).
Statement of Council Remuneration and Expense Report FS 2021-05 Page 154 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #10.8.1
INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS N/A
FINANCIAL/STAFFING/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
The Approved 2020 Operating Budget with confirming By-Law 14-2020 included funds for the payment of remuneration and expenses to the Mayor and Members of Council, as well as persons appointed by Council to serve on bodies, including local boards, as outline in the attached statement.
CONCLUSION
This report and the attached Statement of Council Remuneration and Expenses will satisfy Section 284(1) of The Municipal Act 2001, S.O. 2001, as amended for the year 2020.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Report FS 2021-05, Statement of Council Remuneration and Expenses, be received as information.
ATTACHMENTS
Statement of Council Remuneration and Expenses for the Year Ending December 31, 2020
Prepared by: Approved by: James Johnson, CPA, CGA Kyle Kruger Director of Financial Services/Treasurer CAO / Clerk
Statement of Council Remuneration and Expense Report FS 2021-05 Page 155 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #10.8.1
Statement of Council Remuneration and Expenses For the Year Ending December 31, 2020
Prepared pursuant to Section 284(1) of The Municipal Act 2001, S.O. 2001, as amended. Authorized under Norwich Township By-Law 14-2020.
Members of Council Remuneration Expenses $ $ Dale, Alan 21,312.67 1,642.67 DePlancke, Lynne 18,180.65 1,720.09 Martin, Larry 24,519.64 1,444.37 Palmer, Jim 18,180.65 - Scholten, John 18,358.98 1,676.67
Members of the Police Services Board
TenHove, Gerrit 600.00 - Scholten, John 700.00 - Vermeersch, Lori 600.00 -
James Johnson, CPA, CGA Director of Financial Services/Treasurer Township of Norwich March 23, 2021
Statement of Council Remuneration and Expense Report FS 2021-05 Page 156 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #10.9.1
Subject: T:GO 2020 Performance Summary Report Number: Author: Alex Piggott, Transit Coordinator Meeting Type: Advisory Committee Meeting Meeting Date: Wednesday, March 3, 2021
RECOMMENDATION THAT the Committee receive this report as information.
BACKGROUND In August of 2020, the Town launched the Inter Community Transit project to compliment the Intown service. This report summarizes the ridership, bus pass sales and bus stop usage for the Inter Community Transit service.
DISCUSSION
This service commenced August 4, 2020 operating with four routes.
Ridership:
Route 1 is averaging 4.65 boarding’s per day and continues to be busiest route. Since the start of the service, 104 days of service has been provided.
Route 2 is averaging 1.57 boarding’s per day. 42 days of service has been provided. Ridership on this route started off slow but is increasing steadily.
Route 3 is averaging 1.02 boarding’s per day. Same as Route 2, 42 days of service has been provided. Ridership on this route started off strong in August and has declined as winter approached. Despite the decline in ridership, the service provided has mentioned that they are starting to see an increase in regular passengers using this route.
Page 1 of 17
Inter Community Transit Re: Town of Tillsonburg T-GO 2020 Performance Su... Page 157 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #10.9.1 Choose an item. Click or tap here to enter text.
Route 4 continues to be steady, averaging 4.33 boarding’s per day over the 40 days of service.
Bus Stop Usage:
Route 1- The majority of the boarding’s are in Woodstock, with 39% from the three bus stops in Woodstock. Tillsonburg is generating 34% of the boarding’s, followed by Ingersoll with 9% and Norwich with 8%.
The departures show a similar trend with Woodstock at 43% of the departures, followed by Tillsonburg with 27%, and Ingersoll with 18%.
Route 2- The majority of the travel on Route 2 is between Tillsonburg and Courtland. Downtown Delhi is generating 9% of the boarding’s and 12% of the departures.
Route 3 is performing as expected with the majority of travel between Tillsonburg and Port Burwell.
Route 4 is performing as expected with the majority of travel between Tillsonburg and Ingersoll through to London’s Victoria Hospital.
Bus Pass Usage and Retail Sales:
44% of the transactions on the Inter Community service are exact cash fares. 56% of transactions are made with prepaid tickets purchased at retailers throughout the service area. Single ride tickets are the majority of tickets being sold at 49% of sales followed by day passes at 36%. 10 ride passes are 14% of the sales and Monthly passes are 2% of passes sold.
42% of the bus passes sold are at the Foodland in Woodstock. Coward Pharmacy and Metro follow at 15% and 11% respectively of the passes sold. Market by the Falls in Otterville generates 9% of the bus passes sold followed by Kings Variety in Ingersoll with 6% of the passes sold. The sale of bus passes at the retail locations supports the local economy by bringing customers into their establishments. Retailers are paid a nominal commission on the sale of the bus passes and in 2020, $196.75 was paid in retail commissions.
CONSULTATION Staff consulted with the service provider to provide some comments on the ridership usage and trends.
FINANCIAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE None.
Page 2 of 17
Inter Community Transit Re: Town of Tillsonburg T-GO 2020 Performance Su... Page 158 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #10.9.1 Choose an item. Click or tap here to enter text.
COMMUNITY STRATEGIC PLAN (CSP) LINKAGE 1. Excellence in Local Government ☒ Demonstrate strong leadership in Town initiatives ☐ Streamline communication and effectively collaborate within local government ☒ Demonstrate accountability
2. Economic Sustainability ☒ Support new and existing businesses and provide a variety of employment opportunities ☐ Provide diverse retail services in the downtown core ☐ Provide appropriate education and training opportunities in line with Tillsonburg’s economy
3. Demographic Balance ☒ Make Tillsonburg an attractive place to live for youth and young professionals ☒ Provide opportunities for families to thrive ☒ Support the aging population and an active senior citizenship
4. Culture and Community ☒ Promote Tillsonburg as a unique and welcoming community ☐ Provide a variety of leisure and cultural opportunities to suit all interests ☒ Improve mobility and promote environmentally sustainable living
ATTACHMENTS Route 1 Ridership Route 1 Boarding’s Route 1 Departures Route 2 Ridership Route 2 Boarding’s Route 2 Departures Route 3 Ridership Route 3 Boarding’s Route 3 Departures Route 4 Ridership Route 4 Boarding’s Route 4 Departures Inter Community Pass Sales by Location Inter Community Pass Sales by Type
Page 3 of 17
Inter Community Transit Re: Town of Tillsonburg T-GO 2020 Performance Su... Page 159 of 200 Inter Community Transit Re: Town of Tillsonburg T-GO 2020 Performance Su... AGENDA ITEM #10.9.1 Page 160 of 200
Page 4 of 17
Inter Community Transit Re: Town of Tillsonburg T-GO 2020 Performance Su...
Choose an item. Click or tap here to enter text. AGENDA ITEM #10.9.1
Page 161 of 200
Page 5 of 17
Inter Community Transit Re: Town of Tillsonburg T-GO 2020 Performance Su...
Choose an item. Click or tap here to enter text. AGENDA ITEM #10.9.1
Page 162 of 200
Page 6 of 17
Inter Community Transit Re: Town of Tillsonburg T-GO 2020 Performance Su...
Choose an item. Click or tap here to enter text. AGENDA ITEM #10.9.1 Page 163 of 200
Page 7 of 17
Inter Community Transit Re: Town of Tillsonburg T-GO 2020 Performance Su...
Choose an item. Click or tap here to enter text. AGENDA ITEM #10.9.1
Page 164 of 200
Page 8 of 17
Inter Community Transit Re: Town of Tillsonburg T-GO 2020 Performance Su...
Choose an item. Click or tap here to enter text. AGENDA ITEM #10.9.1
Page 165 of 200
Page 9 of 17
Inter Community Transit Re: Town of Tillsonburg T-GO 2020 Performance Su...
Choose an item. Click or tap here to enter text. AGENDA ITEM #10.9.1 Page 166 of 200
Page 10 of 17
Inter Community Transit Re: Town of Tillsonburg T-GO 2020 Performance Su...
Choose an item. Click or tap here to enter text. AGENDA ITEM #10.9.1
Page 167 of 200
Page 11 of 17
Inter Community Transit Re: Town of Tillsonburg T-GO 2020 Performance Su...
Choose an item. Click or tap here to enter text. AGENDA ITEM #10.9.1
Page 168 of 200
Page 12 of 17
Inter Community Transit Re: Town of Tillsonburg T-GO 2020 Performance Su...
Choose an item. Click or tap here to enter text. AGENDA ITEM #10.9.1 Page 169 of 200
Page 13 of 17
Inter Community Transit Re: Town of Tillsonburg T-GO 2020 Performance Su...
Choose an item. Click or tap here to enter text. AGENDA ITEM #10.9.1
Page 170 of 200
Page 14 of 17
Inter Community Transit Re: Town of Tillsonburg T-GO 2020 Performance Su...
Choose an item. Click or tap here to enter text. AGENDA ITEM #10.9.1
Page 171 of 200
Page 15 of 17
Inter Community Transit Re: Town of Tillsonburg T-GO 2020 Performance Su...
Choose an item. Click or tap here to enter text.
AGENDA ITEM #10.9.1
Page 172 of 200
Page 16 of 17
Inter Community Transit Re: Town of Tillsonburg T-GO 2020 Performance Su...
Choose an item. Click or tap here to enter text. AGENDA ITEM #10.9.1 Page 173 of 200
Page 17 of 17
AGENDA ITEM #10.9.2
MEMORANDUM
DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATION SUBJECT: ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION PATIO REQUEST COUNCIL MEETING DATE: MARCH 23, 2021
BACKGROUND
In 2020, as part of the provincial “reopening” during the COVID 19 pandemic at the time, the province put certain policies and regulations in place permitting bars and restaurants to operate utilizing outdoor dine-in services. This included patios, curbside service, parking lots and adjacent properties.(with proper health and safety measures in place).
It is staff understanding that the changes to AGCO policy respecting liquor sales licencing for outdoor patios, and provisions under the Planning Act to exempt certain zoning amendments from the public notice/meeting/appeal provisions under the Act both continue for 2021.
The Township has now received a request from the Royal Canadian Legion to provide confirmation that it does not object to an extension of their liquor sales licence to include an outdoor patio for their property at 55 Stover Street South in Norwich, on the same basis as approved in July 2020.
DISCUSSION
Attached is the sketch provided by the Legion in 2020 outlining the dimensions of their proposed patio area on their property.
Staff note that the current zoning for the Legion property does not permit the installation of an outdoor patio. In 2020, a By-law was adopted allowing such on a temporary basis, for the duration of the Provincial State of Emergency. As the declared Emergency is not longer applicable, Planning staff have prepared the attached zoning by-law for a temporary outdoor patio with a one year term, for Council consideration. As mentioned, the requirements for public notice, meeting, and appeal process for this temporary use has been suspended by the Province.
Council may also direct confirmation to the AGCO that the Township does not object to the extension of the Legion liquor sales licencing to the patio area. It is suggested that the Legion be advised that any such letter be conditional on the Legion meeting the following requirements:
• The Legion be responsible to ensure they meet all requirements of other agencies (Provincial, Health Unit, Alcohol and Gaming Commission, etc.). • That the patio area will be fully fenced at all times. • That the hours of operation will be limited to those hours permitted in its liquor sales licence • That the Legion will be required to comply with any and all directions provided will by the appropriate Fire and Building department officials.
Submitted by: Kyle Kruger CAO/Clerk
Royal Canadian Legion Patio Request Memorandum Page 174 of 200 RECEIVED MAR 0 5 ZOZ1 AGENDA ITEM #10.9.2 The Royal Canadian Legion ----- Branch 190 ----- Legion 55 Stover Street South, Norwich, Ontario NOJ lPO Telephone (519) 468-3303 www.norwichlegion.ca • email: [email protected]
March.2,2021
Township of Norwich
285767 Airport Road
Norwich, Ontario
NOJ lPO
Kyle Kruger:
With AGCO extending the Extension of a Liquor Sales Licence for 2021 as we work to recover from COVID-19 the Norwich Legion Branch 190 is asking for approval from the Township for our outside extension for 2021 as we did in 2020 with the Townships approval.
The outside extension will be the same as was applied for in 2020 and we meet all guidelines set out by AGCO.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions and I look forward to hearing from you regarding the above request.
Thank you,
Tom Boyce
Past President
Norwich Branch 190 Legion
Cell: 519-318-1094
Like us onlJ Royal Canadian Legion Patio Request MemorandumThey served till death! Why not we? Page 175 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #10.9.2 Proposed patio extension for 2020 Summer Celebrations
---E-----30M -----:ll---- t Proposed Extension 7 .. 5M Patio
Entrance OJ Bar .,m
Currently Lice need Area
Legion BRANCH 190. tJOlll'.'lrll
Royal Canadian Legion Branch 190 Norwich Entrance
County Road # 59 (Stover St. South)
Royal Canadian Legion Patio Request Memorandum Page 176 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #10.9.3
MEMORANDUM
DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATION SUBJECT: EXTENSION OF LEASE AGREEMENT – OXFORD PALLET COUNCIL MEETING DATE: MARCH 23, 2021
BACKGROUND
As part of the purchase of the property at 285725 Airport Road, a lease with Oxford Pallet and Recyclers Limited was provided to allow Oxford Pallet to continue operations on the site once the Township took possession. The current lease expires March 31, 2021.
Though Oxford Pallet has not formally approached the Township, the Manager of Public Works has been advised verbally that an extension is required, likely for several months.
Therefore, a formal extension should be in place for March 31st. The attached Amendment to Agreement to Lease has been prepared to extend the original lease period to now expire May 31st, 2021. Staff have incorporated a recommended inflationary increase to the monthly amount of 2.5%. The agreement would continue as is for all other aspects.
As Council is aware, engineering is nearing completion for renovations, and tenders are planned in the relatively near future. Extensions beyond May 31st may have impacts on the ability to complete renovations this year, and therefore further extensions may require higher lease amounts to offset those impacts.
ATTACHMENTS
Proposed By-law 21-2021, To Authorize Execution of a Lease Extension Agreement with Oxford Pallet and Recyclers Limited.
Submitted by: Kyle Kruger CAO/Clerk
Extension of Lease Agreement – Oxford Pallet Memorandum Page 177 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #10.9.3 Amendment to Agreement to Lease Commercial Form 513 for use in the Province of Ontario
BETWEEN: TENANT: ...... Oxford Pallet and Recyclers Limited AND LANDLORD: ...... Township of Norwich
RE: Agreement to Lease (Agreement) between the Landlord and Tenant, dated the ...... 14 day of ...... ,August 20...... ,19
concerning the premises known as ...... 285725 Airport Road
...... asTownship of Norwich more particularly described in the aforementioned Agreement.
The Tenant and Landlord herein agree to the following Amendments to the aforementioned Agreement: Delete 3. Term of Lease:
The lease shall be for a term of twelve (12) months commencing on the 1 st day of April 2020 and terminating on the 31 day of March 2021.
INSERT:
The lease shall be for a term of fourteen (14) months commencing on the 1 st day of April 2020 and terminating on the 31st day of May 2021.
From 31/03/21 to 31/05/21 inclusive, being $9225.00 per month.
INITIALS OF TENANT(S): INITIALS OF LANDLORD(S):
The trademarks REALTOR®, REALTORS®, MLS®, Multiple Listing Services® and associated logos are owned or controlled by The Canadian Real Estate Association (CREA) and identify the real estate professionals who are members of CREA and the quality of services they provide. Used under license. © 2021, Ontario Real Estate Association (“OREA”). All rights reserved. This form was developed by OREA for the use and reproduction by its members and licensees only. Any other use or reproduction is prohibited except with prior written consent of OREA. Do not alter Extensionwhen printing of Leaseor reproducing Agreement the standard pre-set – Oxford portion. OREA Pallet bears Memorandumno liability for your use of this form. PageForm 178513 of Revised 200 2020 Page 1 of 2 AGENDA ITEM #10.9.3 IRREVOCABILITY: This Offer to Amend the Agreement shall be irrevocable by ...... Landlord until ...... 5:00 on the ...... 25 (Landlord/Tenant) (a.m./p.m.) ✘ day of ...... ,March 20...... ,21 after which time, if not accepted, this Offer to Amend the Agreement shall be null and void.
For the purposes of this Amendment to Agreement, “Tenant” includes lessee and “Landlord” includes lessor. Time shall in all respects be of the essence hereof provided that the time for doing or completing of any matter provided for herein may be extended or abridged by an agreement in writing signed by Landlord and Tenant or by their respective solicitors who are hereby expressly appointed in this regard.
All other Terms and Conditions in the aforementioned Agreement to remain the same.
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED in the presence of: IN WITNESS whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal:
......
...... (Witness) (Tenant/Landlord/Authorized Signing Of cer) (Seal) (Date)
...... (Witness) (Tenant/Landlord/Authorized Signing Of cer) (Seal) (Date)
I, the Undersigned, agree to the above Offer to Amend the Agreement.
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED in the presence of: IN WITNESS whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal:
......
...... (Witness) (Tenant/Landlord/Authorized Signing Of cer) (Seal) (Date)
...... (Witness) (Tenant/Landlord/Authorized Signing Of cer) (Seal) (Date)
CONFIRMATION OF ACCEPTANCE: Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, I con rm this Amendment to Agreement with all changes both
typed and written was nally accepted by all parties at ...... this ...... day of...... , 20...... (a.m./p.m.)
...... (Signature of Landlord or Tenant)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I acknowledge receipt of my signed copy of this accepted Amendment to I acknowledge receipt of my signed copy of this accepted Amendment to Agreement and I authorize the Agent to forward a copy to my lawyer. Agreement and I authorize the Agent to forward a copy to my lawyer.
...... (Landlord) (Date) (Tenant) (Date) ...... (Landlord) (Date) (Tenant) (Date) Address for Service...... Address for Service......
...... (Tel. No.) (Tel. No.) Landlord’s Lawyer...... Tenant’s Lawyer......
Address...... Address...... Email...... Email...... (Tel. No.) (Fax. No.) (Tel. No.) (Fax. No.)
The trademarks REALTOR®, REALTORS®, MLS®, Multiple Listing Services® and associated logos are owned or controlled by The Canadian Real Estate Association (CREA) and identify the real estate professionals who are members of CREA and the quality of services they provide. Used under license. © 2021, Ontario Real Estate Association (“OREA”). All rights reserved. This form was developed by OREA for the use and reproduction by its members and licensees only. Any other use or reproduction is prohibited except with prior written consent of OREA. Do not alter Extensionwhen printing of Leaseor reproducing Agreement the standard pre-set – Oxford portion. OREA Pallet bears Memorandumno liability for your use of this form. PageForm 179513 of Revised 200 2020 Page 2 of 2 AGENDA ITEM #13.1.
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF NORWICH
BY-LAW NUMBER 08-2021
A BY-LAW TO PROVIDE FOR A DRAINAGE WORKS IN THE TOWNSHIP OF NORWICH IN THE COUNTY OF OXFORD (BECK DRAIN BRANCH B 2021)
WHEREAS the requisite number of owners have petitioned the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Norwich in the County of Oxford in accordance with the provisions of the Drainage Act requesting that the following lands and roads be drained by a drainage works: Beck Drain Branch B 2021, serving parts of Lot 1, Concession 10 in the Township of Norwich, former Township of South Norwich, County of Oxford.
AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of The Township of Norwich has procured a report under Section 78 of the Drainage Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, Chapter D.17, by K Smart Associates Limited, dated December 14, 2020 and the report is attached hereto as Schedule “A” and forms part of this by-law;
AND WHEREAS the estimated total cost of constructing the drainage works is Sixty-Three Thousand, Three Hundred dollars ($63,300.00);
AND WHEREAS Seventeen Thousand, Two Hundred and Seventy dollars ($17,270.00) is the estimated amount to be contributed by the municipality for the construction of the drainage works;
AND WHEREAS the Council is of the opinion that the drainage of the area is desirable;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of The Township of Norwich under the Drainage Act, enacts as follows:
1. The report prepared by K Smart Associates Limited, dated December 14, 2020 and attached hereto as Schedule “A” is hereby adopted and the drainage works as therein indicated and set forth is hereby authorized and shall be completed in accordance therewith.
2. This by-law comes into force on the passing thereof and may be cited as the Beck Drain Branch B 2021 By-law.
No. 8-2021 To Provide for Drainage Works – Beck Drain Branch B 2021 Page 180 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #13.1.
READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME AND PROVISIONALLY ADOPTED THIS 9th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021.
______MAYOR LARRY MARTIN
______CAO / CLERK KYLE KRUGER
READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 23rd DAY OF MARCH, 2021
______MAYOR LARRY MARTIN
______CAO / CLERK KYLE KRUGER
No. 8-2021 To Provide for Drainage Works – Beck Drain Branch B 2021 Page 181 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #13.2. THE CORPORATION OF THE
TOWNSHIP OF NORWICH
BY-LAW NUMBER 02-2021-Z
A By-Law to amend Zoning By-Law Number 07-2003-Z, as amended.
WHEREAS Section 39 of the Planning Act, as amended, authorizes Municipal Councils to pass by- laws to permit temporary land uses for specific periods of time;
AND WHEREAS the Executive Council of Ontario, under the Reopening Ontario (A Flexible Response to COVID-19) Act, 2020, and Ontario Regulation 345/20, exempts the temporary use of land for an outdoor patio under Section 39 of the Planning Act from Subsection 34 (12) to (14.3), (14.5) to (15) and (19) of the Planning Act and paragraphs 4 and 5 of subsections 6(9) of Ontario Regulation 545/06 under the Act;
AND WHEREAS the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the Township of Norwich deems it advisable to amend By-Law Number 07-2003-Z, as amended to permit the establishment of a temporary outdoor patio on certain lands within the Village of Norwich;
THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the Township of Norwich, enacts as follows:
1. This by-law shall apply to the lands legally described as Part Lot 7, Concession 5 (North Norwich), located on the east side of Stover Street South, lying between South Street and Jerdon Street in the Village of Norwich, being municipally known as 55 Stover Street South, in the Village of Norwich;
2. A temporary outdoor patio, meaning an outdoor eating area, accessory to a permitted use, where seating accommodation is provided and where meals or refreshments are served to the public for consumption on the premises and which is located entirely within the owner’s property limits, shall be permitted on lands described in clause 1, to a maximum of 20 m (65.5 ft) to the south of the existing building and to a maximum of 6 m (19.6 ft) to the east of the existing building;
3. A temporary outdoor patio may be permitted on the subject lands for a temporary period, being one year from the date of passing of this By-law, being in effect until March 23, 2022, at which time the temporary outdoor patio shall be removed from the subject lands unless a request is submitted for an extension of the temporary patio, and approved pursuant to Section 39 of the Planning Act.
This By-law comes into force in accordance with Sections 34 (21) and (30) and Section 39 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended.
READ a first and second time this 23rd day of March, 2021.
READ a third time and finally passed this 23rd day of March, 2021.
Larry Martin - Mayor
Kyle Kruger - CAO/Clerk
No. 2-2021-Z To Permit the Establishment of a Temporary Outdoor Patio Ro... Page 182 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #13.3.
Township of Norwich
By-Law No. 19-2021
A By-law to Amend Development Charges By-law 34-2019 for the Township of Norwich
WHEREAS Section 19 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c27 (“the Act”) provides for amendments to be made to development charges by-laws;
AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Norwich (hereinafter called “the Council”) has determined that certain amendments should be made to the Development Charge By-law of the Corporation of the Township of Norwich, being By- law 34-2019;
AND WHEREAS, in accordance with the Act, a development charges background study has been completed in respect of the proposed amendment;
AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Norwich has given notice and held a public meeting in accordance with the Act; and
AND WHEREAS the Council, at its meeting of March 23, 2021, approved a report dated January 22, 2021 entitled “2021 Development Charge Update Study”.
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE TOWNSHIP OF NORWICH ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. By-law 34-2019 is hereby amended as follows:
a. Section 4 is deleted and replaced with the following:
(1) Notwithstanding Section 3 above, no Development Charges shall be imposed with respect to Developments or portions of Developments as follows:
(a) The enlargement of an existing dwelling unit;
(b) the creation of a maximum of two additional dwelling units in an existing single detached dwelling or structure ancillary to such dwelling. The total gross floor area of the additional dwelling unit or units must be less than or equal to the gross floor area of the dwelling unit already in the existing residential building/dwelling;
(c) the creation of additional dwelling units equal to the greater of one or 1% of the existing dwelling units in an existing residential rental building containing four or more dwelling units or within a structure ancillary to such residential building;
No. 19-2021 To Amend Development Charges By-law 34-2019 Page 183 of 200 Township of Norwich AGENDABy-law ITEMNo. 19-2021 #13.3.
(d) the creation of one additional dwelling unit in any other existing residential building/dwelling or within a structure ancillary to such residential building/dwelling. The gross floor area of the additional dwelling unit must be less than or equal to the gross floor area of the smallest dwelling unit already in the existing residential building/dwelling; or
(e) the creation of a second dwelling unit in a proposed new Single Detached, Semi-Detached or Row Townhouse dwelling or in a building ancillary to such dwelling, subject to the following restrictions:
Name of Class of Description of Class of Proposed New Item Proposed New Restrictions Residential Buildings Residential Buildings Proposed new residential buildings that would not The proposed new detached dwelling must only contain two be attached to other buildings and that are dwelling units. Proposed new detached permitted to contain a second dwelling unit, that 1 dwellings being either of the two dwelling units, if the units The proposed new detached dwelling must be located on a have the same gross floor area, or the smaller of parcel of land on which no other detached dwelling, semi- the dwelling units. detached dwelling or row dwelling would be located. Proposed new residential buildings that would The proposed new semi-detached dwelling or row dwelling have one or two vertical walls, but no other parts, must only contain two dwelling units. Proposed new semi- attached to other buildings and that are permitted 2 detached dwellings or row to contain a second dwelling unit, that being either The proposed new semi-detached dwelling or row dwelling dwellings of the two dwelling units, if the units have the must be located on a parcel of land on which no other same gross floor area, or the smaller of the detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or row dwelling dwelling units. would be located. The proposed new detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or row dwelling, to which the proposed new residential building Proposed new residential would be ancillary, must only contain one dwelling unit. buildings that would be Proposed new residential buildings that would be ancillary to a proposed new ancillary to a proposed new detached dwelling, 3 detached dwelling, semi- semi-detached dwelling or row dwelling and that The gross floor area of the dwelling unit in the proposed new detached dwelling or row are permitted to contain a single dwelling unit. residential building must be equal to or less than the gross dwelling floor area of the detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or row dwelling to which the proposed new residential building is ancillary.
(2) For the purposes of Subsection 4(1) “existing residential building/dwelling”, means:
(a) A residential building/dwelling, containing at least one dwelling unit, that existed on a parcel of land as of April 1, 2021 and which was not exempt from the payment of development charges pursuant to Section 2(3)(b) of the Act; or
(b) The first residential building/dwelling, containing at least one dwelling unit, constructed on a vacant parcel of land after April 1, 2021, and for which development charges were paid.
(3) In addition to the restrictions outlined in Subsection 4(1)(e), for the purposes of the exemption for an additional residential unit in a building ancillary to a proposed new Single Detached, Semi-Detached or Row Townhouse Dwelling, the proposed new Single Detached, Semi-Detached or Row Townhouse Dwelling must be located on a parcel of land on which no other Single Detached, Semi-Detached or Row Townhouse dwelling is or would be located.
No. 19-2021 To Amend Development Charges By-law 34-2019 Page 184 of 200 Township of Norwich AGENDABy-law ITEMNo. 19-2021 #13.3.
(4) For the purposes of Subsection 4(1)(e), “parcel of land” means a lot or block within a registered plan of subdivision or draft plan of subdivision or any land that may be legally conveyed under the exemption provided in clause 50 (3) (b) or clause 50 (5) (a) of the Planning Act.
b. The following Subsections are added to Section 5 of the by-law:
(5) Notwithstanding Subsection 5(1), development charges for rental housing and institutional developments are due and payable in 6 equal installments commencing with the first installment payable on the date of occupancy, and each subsequent installment, including interest, payable on the anniversary date each year thereafter.
(6) Notwithstanding Subsection 5(1), development charges for non-profit housing developments are due and payable in 21 installments commencing with the first installment payable on the date of occupancy, and each subsequent installment, including interest, payable on the anniversary date each year thereafter.
(7) Notwithstanding subsections 5(1) and 5(3), where the development of land results from the approval of a Site Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment application received on or after January 1, 2020, and the approval of the application occurred within 2 years of building permit issuance, the Development Charges under Section 2 shall be calculated based on the rates set out in Schedule “B” on the date of the planning application. Where both planning applications apply, Development Charges under Section 2 shall be calculated on the rates set out in Schedule “B” on the date of the later planning application.
(8) Interest for the purposes of Subsections 5(5) and 5(6) shall be determined as the Bank of Canada Prime Interest Rate plus 2% as at the April 1st immediately prior to:
(a) The date of building permit issuance for installment payments under Section 26.1 of the Act for rental housing, institutional development, and non-profit housing;
(9) Notwithstanding Subsection 5(8), the interest rate shall not be less than 0%.
(10) For the purposes of Subsection 5(5) “institutional development” means development of a building or structure intended for use:
(a) as a long-term care home within the meaning of Subsection 2 (1) of the Long Term Care Homes Act, 2007;
No. 19-2021 To Amend Development Charges By-law 34-2019 Page 185 of 200 Township of Norwich AGENDABy-law ITEMNo. 19-2021 #13.3.
(b) as a retirement home within the meaning of Subsection 2(1) of the Retirement Homes Act, 2010.
(c) By any institution of the following post-secondary institutions for the objects of the institution:
(i) a university in Ontario that receives direct, regular and ongoing operation funding from the Government of Ontario;
(ii) a college or university federated or affiliated with a university described in subclause (i); or
(iii) an Indigenous Institute prescribed for the purposes of section 6 of the Indigenous Institute Act, 2017;
(d) as a memorial home, clubhouse or athletic grounds by an Ontario branch of the Royal Canadian Legion; or
(e) as a hospice to provide end of life care;
(11) For the purposes of Subsection 5(5) “Rental housing” means development of a building or structure with four or more dwelling units all of which are intended for use as rented residential premises;
(12) For the purposes of Subsection 5(6) “Non-profit housing development” means development of a building or structure intended for use as residential premises by:
(a) a corporation without share capital to which the Corporations Act applies, that is in good standing under that Act and whose primary objective is to provide housing;
(b) a corporation without share capital to which the Canada Not-for- profit Corporation Act applies, that is in good standing under that Act and whose primary objective is to provide housing; or
(c) a non-profit housing co-operative that is in good standing under the Co-operative Corporations Act;
c. The following paragraph is added to Subsection 3 (2) of the by-law:
(e) land vested in or leased to a university that receives regular and ongoing operating funds from the government for the purposes of
No. 19-2021 To Amend Development Charges By-law 34-2019 Page 186 of 200 Township of Norwich AGENDABy-law ITEMNo. 19-2021 #13.3.
post-secondary education if the development in respect of which development charges would otherwise be payable is intended to be occupied and used by the university.
d. Schedule “A” is deleted and the attached Schedule “A” substitutes therefore.
e. Schedule “B” is deleted and the attached Schedule “B” substitutes therefore.
f. This By-law shall come into force and effect on April 1, 2021.
READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2021.
______MAYOR LARRY MARTIN
______CAO/CLERK KYLE KRUGER
No. 19-2021 To Amend Development Charges By-law 34-2019 Page 187 of 200 AGENDATownship of NorwichITEM #13.3. By-law No. 19-2021
SCHEDULE “A”
TO BY-LAW NO. 19-2021
DESIGNATED MUNICIPAL SERVICES UNDER THIS BY-LAW
(1) Roads and Related
(2) Fire Services
(3) Parks & Recreation
DESIGNATED MUNICIPAL CLASSES OF SERVICES UNDER THIS BY-LAW
(1) Growth-Related Studies
No. 19-2021 To Amend Development Charges By-law 34-2019 Page 188 of 200 AGENDATownship ITEM of Norwich #13.3. By-law No. 19-2021
SCHEDULE “B”
TO BY-LAW NO. 19-2021
SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL Apartments - Service/Class Single and Semi- Apartments - 2 (per m2 of Gross Bachelor and 1 Other Multiples (per wind turbine) Detached Dwelling Bedrooms + Floor Area) Bedroom Municipal Wide Services/Classes of Service: Roads and Related 1,907 1,017 688 1,198 6.68 1,907 Fire Services 2,926 1,560 1,055 1,838 10.01 2,926 Parks & Recreation 2,276 1,213 821 1,430 4.03 - Growth-Related Studies 311 166 112 195 1.15 311 Total Municipal Wide Services/Classes of Servce 7,420 3,956 2,676 4,661 21.87 5,144
No. 19-2021 To Amend Development Charges By-law 34-2019 Page 189 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #13.4.
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF NORWICH
BY-LAW NUMBER 20-2021
TO AMEND BY-LAW NUMBER 16-2019, BEING A BY-LAW RESPECTING CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION, CHANGE OF USE PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS.
WHEREAS Section 7 of the Building Code Act 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 23, empowers Council to pass certain by-laws respecting construction, demolition and change of use permits and inspections.
AND WHEREAS the Council for the Township of Norwich passed By-law No. 16-2019 March 12, 2019 respecting construction, demolition and change of use permits and inspections for the Township of Norwich.
AND WHEREAS the Council for the Township of Norwich deems it necessary and expedient to amend Schedule “A” to By-law 16-2019 insofar as it prescribes fees for the various classes of permits with respect to the construction, demolition and change of use of buildings and inspections.
NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of The Township of Norwich hereby enacts as follows:
1. That Schedule “A” to By-law No. 16-2019 insofar as it prescribes fees for the various classes of permits with respect to the construction, demolition and change of use of buildings and inspections, be and it is hereby replaced in its entirety with Schedule “A” attached hereto and forming part of this By-law.
2. That any other by-laws or provisions in other by-laws found to be inconsistent with this By- law are hereby deemed repealed.
3. That this by-law shall be effective upon the passing thereof.
READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 23rd DAY OF MARCH, 2021.
______MAYOR LARRY MARTIN
______CAO/CLERK KYLE KRUGER
No. 20-2021 To Amend By-law 16-2019, being a By-law Respecting Construct... Page 190 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #13.4. SCHEDULE “A” TO BY-LAW 20-2021
CLASS OF PERMIT CONSTRUCTION TYPE BASE FEE ADJUSTMENT FEE (payable upon receipt of application) RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION Group C, Low Density $1000 Base fee + $.74/ sq. ft. Occupied/Finished Floor Residential: Area Single or Semi-Detached, (see also attached garages and decks - $.39/sq. Duplex, Triplex, Multi-Unit, ft. - no additional base fee added where and Townhouses attached to Dwelling) (New and Additions) Group C, Medium Density $1500 Base fee + $.86/ sq. ft. Occupied/Finished Floor Residential: Area excluding parking structures New Residential Apartment Dwellings <6 (parking/storage structure to be calculated at Construction storeys, Group Homes $.17/sq. ft. Floor Area.) Including Retirement Homes (New and Additions) Group C, High Density $2200 Base fee + $.87/ sq. ft. Occupied/Finished Floor Residential: Area excluding parking structures Apartment (>6 storeys), and (parking/storage structure to be calculated at Wood framed Mid-rise $.17/sq. ft. Floor Area.) apartments (4>6 storeys) Extensive Renovations / $550 Base fee + $0.52/sq. ft. Finished Floor Area> 592 Alterations, Converted sq.ft. (55 sq.m.) Residential buildings: Dwellings, Migrant Worker OR $12/$1000 gross estimated construction cost Renovations, Housing (Bunkhouse >10 (CBO’s Discretion) Alterations, Repairs, occupants), or Change of Use and Change of Use (adding suite(s)) Migrant Worker Basic Renovations / $400 Base fee + $0.28/sq. ft Finished Floor Area > 592 Housing: Alterations sq.ft. (55 sq.m.) New, Renovation (under $15,000 or <55 sq. OR $10/$1000 gross estimated construction cost and/or Repair m.), Migrant Worker Housing (CBO’s Discretion) (Bunkhouse <10 occupants) Attached or Detached Garage $400 Base fee + $0.33/sq. ft. Building Area / Carport / Shops / Misc. Accessory Structures >592 Residential Accessory sq.ft. (55 sq. m.) Buildings and Related Decks / Garden Shed / Misc. $250 Base fee + $0.22/sq. ft. Building Area Construction Accessory Structures <592 sq.ft. (55 sq. m.) Accessory Building $250 discretion of C.B.O. Renovations / Alterations
No. 20-2021 To Amend By-law 16-2019, being a By-law Respecting Construct... Page 191 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #13.4. Pool Fence Permit See Township of Norwich Fees by-law for adjusted fees Pools with decks See Township of Norwich Fees by-law for adjusted fees + see deck construction adjustment rate (column 4) AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS New / Additions to New/Additions to Animal and $1000 Base fee + $0.15/ sq. ft. Building Area >1093 sq. ft. (100 sq. Principal Farm Buildings Poultry Housing Units m.) (Requiring NMA / MDS) New/Addition to Manure $550 Base fee + $0.07/ sq. ft. Building Area >1093 sq. ft. (100 sq. Storage Facilities m.)
New / Addition / Hay Sheds, Implement Storage, $400 Base fee + $0.10/ sq. ft. Building Area >1093 sq. ft. (100 sq. Alteration to Accessory Repair Shops, etc.. m.) Farm Buildings and Grain Bins, Silos, Horizontal $200 Base fee + $0.07/ sq. ft. Building Area Structures (No NMA / Bunkers, Granaries etc. MDS Required) Reno./ Repair/ Change of Use to Existing Farm Buildings INSTITUTIONAL BUILDINGS Institutional New / Additions $1500 Base fee + $1.05/ sq. ft. Floor Area >1093 sq. ft. (100 sq. (Group A & B) m.) OR $20/$1000 Gross Project Value (CBO discretion) Renovation / Alterations $750 Base fee + $0.49/ sq. ft. of Floor Area >1093 sq. ft. (100 sq. m.) OR $12/$1000 Gross Project Value (CBO discretion) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS Commercial New / Additions $900 Base fee + $0.80/ sq. ft. of Floor Area >1093 sq. ft. (100 sq. (Group D & E) m.) OR $12/$1000 Gross Project Value (CBO discretion) Renovation / Alterations $600 Base fee +$0.34/ sq. ft. of Floor Area >1093 sq. ft (100 sq. m.) OR $12/$1000 Gross Project Value (CBO discretion) INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS Industrial New / Additions $1000 Base fee + $0.24/ sq. ft. Building Area >1093 sq. ft (100 sq. (Group ‘F’) m.) OR $12/$1000 Gross Project Value (CBO Discretion) Renovation / Alterations $500 Base fee + $0.16/ sq. ft. Building Area >1093 sq. ft (100 sq. m.) OR $12/$1000 Gross Project Value (CBO Discretion) MISCELLANEOUS Demolitions $140 Base Fee + $0.07/ sq. ft. where project is required to be engineered by the Code Signs $200 Base Fee + $0.29/ sq. ft. Surface Area Woodstoves $200 N/A Water/Sewer $200 N/A Connections Conditional Permits $600 Base Fee + $0.03/ sq. ft. Building Area Tents & Designated $200 Base Fee + $0.25/ sq. ft. where >225 sq. m. Structures (2421 sq. ft.) or required to be engineered Wind Towers $220 Base Fee + $15/ft. height for Wind Towers measured from base to hub Roof-Mounted Solar $220 Base Fee + $.10/sq. ft. Total Surface Area
No. 20-2021 To Amend By-law 16-2019, being a By-law Respecting Construct... Page 192 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #13.4. Occupancy Permit (> $375 N/A 1 year from last requested insp.)
Moving Building or $350 Base Fee +$0.21/sq. ft. Building Area Temporary Mobile OR $10/$1000 past first $15000 Home (CBO Discretion) Permit Renewal/ $300 N/A Revisions
SEWAGE SYSTEMS
Class IV and V – Small System (New or Replacement), Serving $875 Building(s) of any occupancy, where: - Q <3000L/day, - occupancy < 6 bedrooms / <45 FU’s, <6000 sq. ft., OR - non-residential occupancy, occ. loads <150 persons Class IV and V – Large System (New or Replacement), Serving $2250 Building(s) of any occupancy, where: - Q >3000 L/day, - occupancy >6 bedrooms / >45 FU’s, >6000 sq. ft., OR - non-residential occupancy, occ.loads >150 persons Existing Class IV and V Systems – Repair, Alteration, Extension $600 - includes tank replacement / repairs Class II and III System – New, Replacement, Alteration, Repair $450
ENFORCEMENT Additional Inspections $250 for each additional inspection as required, paid by person/party so requesting (applied at the discretion of the CBO)
Enforcement Call-Backs $250.00 per occurrence (applied at the discretion of the CBO) (cost recovery)
Construction without Double the regular fee amount determined as per appropriate category (applied at permit the discretion of the CBO)
No. 20-2021 To Amend By-law 16-2019, being a By-law Respecting Construct... Page 193 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #13.4. DEPOSITS
MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE Damage Deposit shall be $600.00 where no sidewalk is involved, $1,200.00 where a WITHIN URBAN AND VILLAGE sidewalk is in place and/or work is being done within the right of way. AREAS Damage Deposits will be returned upon verification by the Township Roads Superintendent or designate, subsequent to the completion of any work done on entrance culverts, curbs, gutters, or ditches that is deemed necessary and performed by the Corporation, less any amount that is expended by the municipality to make repairs or for cleanup. Where work has been done within the municipal lands, roads, etc., the deposit will be held for the period of one calendar year, after which the deposit becomes subject to the provisions below for extensions. Notwithstanding such an extension granted by the Township Roads Superintendent, a remaining balance of the deposit will become forfeit to the Corporation. NOTE: The Damage Deposit provisions are not applicable where the Corporation and applicant have entered into a subdivision agreement, severance agreement or site plan agreement that specifies the terms and conditions of a deposit for work done by the Corporation on lot grading, entrance culverts or ditches. LOT GRADING AND DRAINAGE When an Engineered Lot Grading and Drainage Plan is required by the Chief DEPOSIT Building Official, a deposit of $750.00 dollars shall be made. Use of the Deposit may be deemed necessary when, in the opinion of the Chief Building Official; • The lot grading (including topsoil) has not been completed in accordance with the approved Engineered Grading and Drainage plan and where the Chief Building Official receives confirmation of such non-conformance by the Engineer of record, or • Grass sodding has not been placed, or there is no established growth from seeding over the distribution area of a septic system within one year from the last date of inspection, or completion of construction of the system, whichever is the lesser. The deposit may be used when the depositor does not complete the grading and drainage work in compliance with the Engineered Grading and Drainage plan, as approved in accordance with the issuance of a Building Permit. In such a case, the deposit shall be used in balance against the cost of any work to grade, drain, seed or sod the lot as necessary to conform to the approved plan, and the requirements of Building Code. REFUND OF DEPOSITS This deposit less any portion expended by the municipality to obtain compliance will be refunded upon receipt of verification of compliance with the plan from the Professional Engineer or Ontario Land Surveyor who developed the plan. The balance of the deposit remaining, if any, is refundable, without interest, when the construction is substantially completed and a final inspection of the construction has been completed in accordance with the Building Code requirements, and all entrance culverts approved by the Township Roads Superintendent. NOTE: The Lot Grading and Damage deposit provisions are not applicable where the Corporation and applicant have entered into a subdivision agreement, severance agreement or site plan agreement that specifies the terms and conditions of a deposit for work done by the Corporation on lot grading, entrance culverts or ditches.
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION The Building Construction and Inspection deposit is secured to ensure that all AND INSPECTION DEPOSIT construction or demolition work commenced under a building or demolition permit is completed, inspected, and finalized in conformance with the provisions of this by-
No. 20-2021 To Amend By-law 16-2019, being a By-law Respecting Construct... Page 194 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #13.4. law, the Building Code, and the Act. All deposits are to be held to secure compliance with the provisions of the Building Code which describe the prescribed inspections, notice of intent to occupy, conditions to the issuance of an occupancy permit, and requirement to request final inspections. VALUE OF DEPOSITS REQUIRED (BY TYPE OF USE) Where a notice of intent and permit to occupy a building for the purposes of a new residential dwelling unit is required, a deposit of $1000 dollars per building permit will be made. Where an occupancy or use permit is required for the purposes of establishing a new Industrial, Commercial or Institutional suite of occupancy, a deposit of $500 dollars per suite will be made. Where an occupancy or use permit is required for the purposes of establishing a new Agricultural livestock housing unit or the use of a new nutrient storage facility, a deposit of $500 dollars per building will be made. REFUND OF DEPOSITS This deposit, less any portion expended by the municipality in enforcement of compliance, will be refunded without interest upon: • issuance of an Occupancy or Use Permit for the building under permit where applicable; and • confirmation of completion of a final inspection by a building inspector, noting that construction has been fully completed in compliance with the Act, the Building Code, and in accordance with the application documentation. FORFEITURE OF DEPOSIT In the event that a building permit is revoked in accordance with Subsection 8.(10) of the Building Code Act, or where construction or demolition occurs in contravention of Subsection 8.(13) of the Building Code Act, the deposit shall be forfeited to the Corporation. The balance of the deposit shall be retained by the Corporation and dispensed to the Building Department Cost Stabilization Reserve Fund. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION The applicants shall have the right to request an extension to any of the time periods prescribed under the DEPOSITS section of Schedule “A” as described above, provided such requests are received in writing no later than thirty days prior to the set time period. The Chief Building Official will consider such requests made upon the merits of the explanation and may, upon his or her discretion, allow a refund of the deposit in part or in full, without interest.
No. 20-2021 To Amend By-law 16-2019, being a By-law Respecting Construct... Page 195 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #13.5.
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF NORWICH
BY-LAW NUMBER 21-2021
TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF A LEASE EXTENSION AGREEMENT WITH OXFORD PALLET AND RECYCLERS LIMITED
WHEREAS Section 8 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended, provides that a municipality has the capacity, rights, powers, and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority under this or any other Act. AND WHEREAS Oxford Pallet and Recyclers and the Township of Norwich entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale respecting the property situated at 285725 Airport Road.
AND WHEREAS such Agreement of Purchase and Sale included a condition whereby the Seller entered a tenancy agreement with the Buyer, to a maximum of twelve (12) months.
AND WHEREAS the tenancy agreement expires on March 31, 2021 and Oxford Pallet and Recycling Limited have requested a lease extension agreement for a period of two (2) months.
AND WHEREAS the Council of the Township of Norwich deems it necessary and expedient to execute a Lease Extension Agreement between The Corporation of The Township of Norwich and Oxford Pallet and Recycling Limited respecting the said premises. NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of The Township of Norwich hereby enacts as follows:
1. That the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute on behalf of the Municipality, the Lease Extension Agreement attached hereto as Schedule “A” with Oxford Pallet and Recycling Limited respecting property situated at 285725 Airport Road.
2. That this by-law shall be effective upon the passing thereof.
READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 23rd DAY OF MARCH, 2021.
______MAYOR LARRY MARTIN
______CAO/CLERK KYLE KRUGER
No. 21-2021 To Authorize Execution of a Lease Extension Agreement with O... Page 196 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #13.5. Amendment to Agreement to Lease Commercial Form 513 for use in the Province of Ontario
BETWEEN: TENANT: ...... Oxford Pallet and Recyclers Limited AND LANDLORD: ...... Township of Norwich
RE: Agreement to Lease (Agreement) between the Landlord and Tenant, dated the ...... 14 day of ...... ,August 20...... ,19
concerning the premises known as ...... 285725 Airport Road
...... asTownship of Norwich more particularly described in the aforementioned Agreement.
The Tenant and Landlord herein agree to the following Amendments to the aforementioned Agreement: Delete 3. Term of Lease:
The lease shall be for a term of twelve (12) months commencing on the 1 st day of April 2020 and terminating on the 31 day of March 2021.
INSERT:
The lease shall be for a term of fourteen (14) months commencing on the 1 st day of April 2020 and terminating on the 31st day of May 2021.
From 31/03/21 to 31/05/21 inclusive, being $9225.00 per month.
INITIALS OF TENANT(S): INITIALS OF LANDLORD(S):
The trademarks REALTOR®, REALTORS®, MLS®, Multiple Listing Services® and associated logos are owned or controlled by The Canadian Real Estate Association (CREA) and identify the real estate professionals who are members of CREA and the quality of services they provide. Used under license. © 2021, Ontario Real Estate Association (“OREA”). All rights reserved. This form was developed by OREA for the use and reproduction by its members and licensees only. Any other use or reproduction is prohibited except with prior written consent of OREA. Do not alter No. 21-2021when printing Toor reproducing Authorize the standard Execution pre-set portion. of aOREA Lease bears no Extension liability for your Agreementuse of this form. with O... PageForm 197513 of Revised 200 2020 Page 1 of 2 AGENDA ITEM #13.5. IRREVOCABILITY: This Offer to Amend the Agreement shall be irrevocable by ...... Landlord until ...... 5:00 on the ...... 25 (Landlord/Tenant) (a.m./p.m.) ✘ day of ...... ,March 20...... ,21 after which time, if not accepted, this Offer to Amend the Agreement shall be null and void.
For the purposes of this Amendment to Agreement, “Tenant” includes lessee and “Landlord” includes lessor. Time shall in all respects be of the essence hereof provided that the time for doing or completing of any matter provided for herein may be extended or abridged by an agreement in writing signed by Landlord and Tenant or by their respective solicitors who are hereby expressly appointed in this regard.
All other Terms and Conditions in the aforementioned Agreement to remain the same.
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED in the presence of: IN WITNESS whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal:
......
...... (Witness) (Tenant/Landlord/Authorized Signing Of cer) (Seal) (Date)
...... (Witness) (Tenant/Landlord/Authorized Signing Of cer) (Seal) (Date)
I, the Undersigned, agree to the above Offer to Amend the Agreement.
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED in the presence of: IN WITNESS whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal:
......
...... (Witness) (Tenant/Landlord/Authorized Signing Of cer) (Seal) (Date)
...... (Witness) (Tenant/Landlord/Authorized Signing Of cer) (Seal) (Date)
CONFIRMATION OF ACCEPTANCE: Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, I con rm this Amendment to Agreement with all changes both
typed and written was nally accepted by all parties at ...... this ...... day of...... , 20...... (a.m./p.m.)
...... (Signature of Landlord or Tenant)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I acknowledge receipt of my signed copy of this accepted Amendment to I acknowledge receipt of my signed copy of this accepted Amendment to Agreement and I authorize the Agent to forward a copy to my lawyer. Agreement and I authorize the Agent to forward a copy to my lawyer.
...... (Landlord) (Date) (Tenant) (Date) ...... (Landlord) (Date) (Tenant) (Date) Address for Service...... Address for Service......
...... (Tel. No.) (Tel. No.) Landlord’s Lawyer...... Tenant’s Lawyer......
Address...... Address...... Email...... Email...... (Tel. No.) (Fax. No.) (Tel. No.) (Fax. No.)
The trademarks REALTOR®, REALTORS®, MLS®, Multiple Listing Services® and associated logos are owned or controlled by The Canadian Real Estate Association (CREA) and identify the real estate professionals who are members of CREA and the quality of services they provide. Used under license. © 2021, Ontario Real Estate Association (“OREA”). All rights reserved. This form was developed by OREA for the use and reproduction by its members and licensees only. Any other use or reproduction is prohibited except with prior written consent of OREA. Do not alter No. 21-2021when printing Toor reproducing Authorize the standard Execution pre-set portion. of aOREA Lease bears no Extension liability for your Agreementuse of this form. with O... PageForm 198513 of Revised 200 2020 Page 2 of 2 AGENDA ITEM #13.6.
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF NORWICH
BY-LAW NUMBER 22-2021
TO CONFIRM ALL ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS OF COUNCIL
WHEREAS there may be instances where actions taken or authorized by Township Council are done so with benefit of the passage of an appropriate by-law;
AND WHEREAS there may be by-laws, rules and statutes of this municipality, the County of Oxford, the Province of Ontario, and the Government of Canada which require such actions to have benefit of the passage of an appropriate by-law in order for these actions to be legally undertaken;
AND WHEREAS the failure of Township Council to pass appropriate by-laws under these circumstances would be considered to be a matter of oversight and ignorance that would not have occurred had Council been aware of the requirement to pass appropriate by-laws;
AND WHEREAS such failures should they occur, may be rectified after the fact through the passage of a confirming by-law;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of The Township of Norwich hereby enacts as follows:
1. That all actions and proceedings of the Council taken at its meetings on the dates listed in Schedule “A” attached, not done with benefit of by-law but which in accordance with the rules and requirements of the laws and statutes of this municipality, the County of Oxford, the Province of Ontario, and the Government of Canada require such actions to have benefit of the passage of an appropriate by-law in order for these actions to be legally undertaken, are hereby sanctioned, ratified and confirmed as though set out herein.
2. That any member of Council who dissented from any action or proceeding or has abstained from discussion and voting thereon shall be deemed to have dissented or abstained, as the case may be, in respect to the by-law as it applies to such action or proceeding.
READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 23rd DAY OF MARCH 2021.
______MAYOR LARRY MARTIN
______CAO / CLERK KYLE KRUGER
No. 22-2021 To Confirm All Actions and Proceedings of Council Page 199 of 200 AGENDA ITEM #13.6.
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF NORWICH BY-LAW N0. 22-2021
List of meetings at which all actions and proceedings of Council taken but not done with benefit of by- law, and which in accordance with the rules and requirements of the laws and statutes of this municipality, the County of Oxford, the Province of Ontario, and the Government of Canada, requiring such actions to have benefit of the passage of an appropriate by-law in order for these actions to be legally undertaken, which are hereby sanctioned, ratified and confirmed by this by-law:
March 23, 2021
No. 22-2021 To Confirm All Actions and Proceedings of Council Page 200 of 200