County of Peterborough County Council Agenda Wednesday, May 6, 2015 - 9:30 a.m. Council Chamber, County Court House Page
1. Call To Order
2. Invocation
Removed due to the Supreme Court Decision (Saguenay). Procedural by- law to come forward at a regular meeting for consideration of an amendment by Council.
Be it resolved that County Council: 1. Waives the Rules of Procedure (Section 14) by removing the Invocation due to the recent Supreme Court Decision (Saguenay) and replacing it with a Moment of Silent Reflection.
2. Directs the Clerk to prepare the necessary amending By-law to the Procedural By-law relating to the removal of the Invocation.
3. Provides Public Notice in accordance with the Municipal Act and the County Notice By-law of the holding of a Public Meeting on May 20th, 2015 at 9:35 a.m. in the Council Chamber concerning the proposed amendment regarding the removal of the Invocation from the County procedural by-law and the County’s intention to pass a new procedural by-law incorporating this change.
3. Moment of Silence (if required)
4. Roll Call
5. Adoption of Agenda Be it resolved that County Council adopts the agenda as circulated.
6. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest
7. Adoption of Minutes 9 - 25 Be it resolved that the minutes of the County Council meeting of April 15, 2015 be adopted as circulated. Minutes
Page 1 of 119 County of Peterborough County Council - Regular Meeting Agenda Wednesday, May 6, 2015
Page
8. Delegations, Petitions and Presentations a. 9:35 a.m. Patti Kraft, Director of Human Resources Re: Recognition of Mental Health Week – May 4th to 10th, 2015 Be it resolved that County Council receives the presentation from Patti Kraft, Director of Human Resources regarding Recognition of Mental Health Week - May 4th - 10th, 2015 for information.
b. 9:45 a.m. Gary King, CAO and Warden J. Murray Jones Re: Presentation of Queen’s University Certificates for “Workplace Mental Health Leadership” to Patti Kraft, Director of Human Resources; Bill Linnen, Manager of Operations; Randy Mellow, Chief of PCCP; Don Oettinger, Deputy Chief, Professional Standards; and Mary Spence, Manager of Human Resources. Be it resolved that County Council receives the presentation of Gary King, CAO and Warden J. Murray Jones regarding the Presentation of Queen's University Certificates for "Workplace Mental Health Leadership” to Patti Kraft, Director of Human Resources; Bill Linnen, Manager of Operations; Randy Mellow, Chief of PCCP; Don Oettinger, Deputy Chief, Professional Standards; and Mary Spence, Manager of Human Resources.
9. Referrals
10. Staff Reports 27 - 28 a. Administration - Corporate Projects & Services Re: Tender for the Delivery of Sodium Chloride – T-04-2015 Be it resolved that County Council awards the County of Peterborough’s portion of the Tender for Delivery of Sodium Chloride to Archer Bulk Carriers, as their tender was the lowest total price submitted meeting the tender call and is within the designated budgetary appropriation. Report
29 - 33 b. Planning Re: Bill 73 – Proposed Changes to The Development Charges Act and The Planning Act Be it resolved that County Council: 1. Receives the staff report entitled “Bill 73 – Proposed Changes to
Page 2 of 119 County of Peterborough County Council - Regular Meeting Agenda Wednesday, May 6, 2015
Page The Development Charges Act and The Planning Act” and,
2. That the report be forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing with copies sent to Minister Jeff Leal and MPP Laurie Scott. Report
35 - 43 c. Finance Re: 2015 Tax Policy Be it resolved that County Council:
1. Receives the 2015 Tax Policy report; and
2. That the tax ratios for 2015 remain unchanged from 2014,
Property Class Ratio Residential 1.0000 Farm Property 0.2500 Multi-Residential 1.7802 New Multi-Residential 1.0000 Commercial 1.0986 Industrial 1.5432 Pipeline 0.9386
3. That the threshold on the tax level for eligible new construction remains at 100% for 2015, and
4. That the discount rates for vacant units, vacant land and excess land remain at 30% for the commercial class and 35% for the industrial class, and
5. That the 2015 tax rate for farmland awaiting development subclasses remain at 35% of the residential rate, and
6. That capping be based on a maximum increase threshold at the greater of: a. 10% of the previous year’s annualized capped taxes and b. 5% of the previous year’s annualized Current Value Assessment (CVA) tax for the eligible property, and
Page 3 of 119 County of Peterborough County Council - Regular Meeting Agenda Wednesday, May 6, 2015
Page 7. That a $250 capping adjustment threshold be set for both increasing and decreasing properties, and
8. That properties that reached CVA tax in 2014 remain at CVA tax in 2015, and
9. That properties that moved from being capped in 2014 to being clawed back in 2015 or from being clawed back in 2014 to being capped in 2015 be excluded from capping and achieve CVA tax, and
10. That the cap be funded within the Multi-Residential, Commercial and Industrial property classes and that any shortfall be funded by the County of Peterborough and its local municipalities as calculated by the Ontario Property Tax Analysis (OPTA) program and that the necessary by-law be prepared. Report
11. Staff Reports for Information Only 45 - 49 a. Greater Peterborough Area Economic Development Corporation (GPA EDC) (Peterborough Economic Development) Re: First Quarter Economic Development Report 2015 Recommendation: Receive for information. Report
51 - 69 b. Finance Report prepared by: John Butler, Director of Finance/Treasurer Re: Comparison of Tax Ratios (and tax rates) for Residential, Commercial, and Industrial property classes in Municipalities approximately one and half hours driving time from Toronto. Recommendation: Receive for information. Report
71 - 84 c. Administration - Clerk Report prepared by: Lynn Fawn, Deputy Clerk/Office Supervisor Re: Correspondence Report Recommendation: Receive for information. Report AMO Watch File - April 16, 2015 AMO Watch File - April 23, 2015 EOWC Report on Bill 73
85 - 89 d. Planning
Page 4 of 119 County of Peterborough County Council - Regular Meeting Agenda Wednesday, May 6, 2015
Page Report prepared by: Ann Hamilton, Secretary-Treasurer, Land Division Committee Re: Land Division Report - January - December 2014 Recommendation: Receive for information. Report
12. Correspondence - Action Items 91 a. Gardiner Roberts LLP letter dated April 10, 2015 Re: Commencement of Appeals - Township of North Kawartha and County of Peterborough re Official Plan Amendments, Zoning Bylaw Amendments and approval of a Plan of Condominium by Burleigh Bay Corporation (Appellant) Be it resolved that County Council: 1. Receives the letter from Gardiner Roberts LLP dated April 10, 2015 concerning Commencement of Appeals - Township of North Kawartha and County of Peterborough re Official Plan Amendments, Zoning Bylaw Amendments and approval of a Plan of Condominium by Burleigh Bay Corporation (Appellant); and
2. Refers this matter to the Director of Planning. Letter
13. Committee Reports 93 - 106 a. Councillor John Fallis Accessibility Advisory Committee Re: Minutes of March 26, 2015 and April 22, 2015 Be it resolved that County Council receives and adopts the Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting minutes of March 26, 2015 (Second Legislative Review of AODA, 2005) and April 22, 2015. Minutes - March 26, 2015 Appendix A - March 26, 2015 Appendix B - March 26, 2015 Minutes - April 22, 2015
107 - 114 b. Councillor Bev Matthews Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee Re: Minutes of March 31, 2015 Be it resolved that County Council receives and adopts the Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee meeting minutes of March 31, 2015. (Revised Terms of Reference) Minutes
Page 5 of 119 County of Peterborough County Council - Regular Meeting Agenda Wednesday, May 6, 2015
Page Appendix A
115 - 117 c. Warden J. Murray Jones, Chair Warden's Advisory Committee Meeting Re: Minutes of March 18, 2015 Be it resolved that County Council receive and adopt the Warden's Advisory Committee meeting minutes of March 18, 2015. Minutes
14. Liaison Reports from External Committees, Boards and Agencies a. Greater Peterborough Area Economic Development Corporation - Gary King, CAO and GPA EDC Board Member
b. Greater Peterborough Chamber of Commerce – Councillor Moher
c. Peterborough Housing Corporation - Councillor Matthews
d. Shining Waters Railway Board of Directors - Councillor Martin
e. Trent Severn Waterway Working Group - Councillor Senis
15. Resolutions
16. Notices of Motion
17. New Business
18. Closed Session a. Under the authority of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, s. 239(2) to discuss: Personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees A proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board Litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board Advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose.
19. Rise from Closed Session With/Without a Report
20. Adoption of Amended Agenda to Add Closed Session Items Being Reported
Page 6 of 119 County of Peterborough County Council - Regular Meeting Agenda Wednesday, May 6, 2015
Page
21. Reading and Passing of By-laws a. A By-law to authorize the County to enter into an Agreement with Coco Paving Inc. (Tender T-05-2015) (Hot Mix Paving) (See Staff Report under Agenda Item 10.f. from April 15, 2015 Council Agenda)
b. (Subject to Council Approval) A By-law to establish the tax capping and threshold parameters for the County of Peterborough for the Year 2015.
c. (Subject to Council Approval) A By-law to Adopt Optional Tools for the Purposes of Administering Limits for Eligible Properties Within the Meaning of Section 331 of the Municipal Act (New Construction) for the Commercial, Industrial and Multi- Residential Property Classes.
d. (Subject to Council Approval) A By-law to establish 2015 Tax Decrease Limits for Property in Multi-Residential, Commercial and Industrial Property Classes.
e. (Subject to Council Approval) A By-law to establish the Tax Ratios and Tax Reductions for prescribed property classes for the County of Peterborough and for Local Municipal purposes for the Taxation Year 2015.
f. (Subject to Council Approval) A By-law to Establish the Tax Rates for the County of Peterborough for the Year 2015.
22. Confirming By-law To confirm the proceedings of the Council of the County of Peterborough held this 6th day of May, 2015.
23. Future Meeting Schedule 119 Future Meeting Schedule May - August, 2015 Future Meeting Schedule
24. Adjournment
Page 7 of 119 Page 8 of 119 County of Peterborough Meeting of County Council Minutes Wednesday, April 15, 2015
1. Call To Order
A quorum of Council being present, Warden Jones called the meeting to order at 9:37 a.m.
2. Invocation
Warden Jones led Council in prayer.
"Most merciful God, we yield Thee our humble and hearty thanks for Thy Fatherly care and preservation of us this day, and for the work which Thou has enabled us to perform."
"We pray for Your Guidance and direction in our deliberations during this meeting, so that we may render a service to the Community that we are trying to serve. - Amen"
3. Moment of Silence
a. Donald Clark - Past Reeve of the former Belmont & Methuen Township (Township of Havelock-Belmont-Methuen) from 1995 to 1997.
A Moment of Silence was held in memory of Donald Clark - Past Reeve of the former Belmont & Methuen Township (Township of Havelock-Belmont-Methuen) from 1995 to 1997. Condolences were extended to the Clark family.
4. Roll Call
The Clerk conducted the roll call.
Present: Warden J. Murray Jones (Douro-Dummer), Deputy Warden Joe Taylor (Otonabee-South Monaghan), Councillors Rodger Bonneau (Asphodel-Norwood), John Fallis (Cavan Monaghan), Ronald Gerow (Havelock-Belmont-Methuen), Doug Hutton (North Kawartha), Terry Low (Asphodel- Norwood), Jim Martin (Havelock-Belmont-Methuen), Bev Matthews (Trent Lakes), Scott McFadden (Cavan
Page 1
Page 9 of 119 Minutes of Peterborough County Council Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Monaghan), Karl Moher (Douro-Dummer), David Nelson (Otonabee-South Monaghan), Sherry Senis (Selwyn), Mary Smith (Selwyn), and Ron Windover (Trent Lakes).
Absent: Councillor Rick Woodcock (North Kawartha).
Staff Chris Bradley, Director of Public Works; John Butler, Present: Director of Finance/Treasurer; Sheridan Graham, Director, Corporate Projects & Services; Gary King, Chief Administrative Officer; Patti Kraft, Director of Human Resources; Randy Mellow, Chief of Paramedics; Peter Nielsen, Manager, Engineering & Design; Sally Saunders, Clerk; and Bryan Weir, Director of Planning.
5. Adoption of Agenda
180-2015 Moved by: Councillor Fallis Seconded by: Councillor Windover
Be it resolved that County Council adopts the agenda as circulated. Carried
6. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest
There were no declarations of pecuniary interest made.
7. Adoption of Minutes
181-2015 Moved by: Councillor Gerow Seconded by: Councillor Hutton
Be it resolved that the minutes of the County Council meeting of April 1, 2015 be adopted as circulated. Carried
8. Delegations, Petitions and Presentations
a. Brianna Salmon, Manager, Transportation & Urban Design Programmes, GreenUP, Janet Dawson, Health Promoter, Peterborough County-City Health Unit and Susan Sauvé, Transportation Demand Management Planner, City of Peterborough Re: Peterborough City and County Active Transportation and Health Indication Report
Janet Dawson, the Health Unit Health Promoter, thanked Council
Page 2
Page 10 of 119 Minutes of Peterborough County Council Wednesday, April 15, 2015 for the opportunity to present the first ever active transportation indicators for the County and City. She advised that the concept of transporting people around using active means is growing but there is not one comprehensive method for tracking changes in active transportation rates in the community. She explained that the Indicators Report is a foundational document that will allow active transportation in the community to be tracked in order to see measured levels of change. Ms. Dawson noted that the Indicators Report was produced by the City, Peterborough Green-up and the Health Unit in partnership with a host of other agencies including the County. She explained the three goals of the Report.
Brianna Salmon, the Manager, Transportation & Urban Design Programmes, GreenUP, provided a review of the report results highlighting that: a. Transportation is strongly linked to age, gender and income with males between the ages of 15-24 more likely to bike to work and that persons earning less than $30,000/year are more likely to walk and bike than persons who earn more. b. 32% of all trips made in the County are less than 5 km, a bikeable distance. c. Active transportation has very real health benefits, including lower incidence of heart disease, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes and obesity.
Susan Sauvé, the City of Peterborough Transportation Demand Management Planner listed the relevant report findings:
1. Built environment influences level of physical activity. 2. Safety and comfort are associated with infrastructure. 3. Streets designed for all modes increase quality of life.
In closing, Ms. Sauvé noted that the County is about to embark on creating its first ever Active Transportation Plan which will identify and prioritize key corridors to support walking and cycling and that the presenters look forward to participating in that process to create the Plan.
The delegates responded to Council questions.
Page 3
Page 11 of 119 Minutes of Peterborough County Council Wednesday, April 15, 2015
182-2015 Moved by: Councillor Hutton Seconded by: Councillor Bonneau
Be it resolved that County Council receives the presentation of Brianna Salmon, Manager, Transportation & Urban Design Programmes, GreenUP, Janet Dawson, Health Promoter, Peterborough County-City Health Unit and Susan Sauvé, Transportation Demand Management Planner, City of Peterborough regarding Peterborough City and County Active Transportation and Health Indication Report. Carried
9. Referrals
There were no referrals brought forward.
10. Staff Reports
a. Peterborough County/City Paramedics Re: Emergency Preparedness Week
The Chief of Paramedics advised Council that Emergency Preparedness Week (May 4th to 10th, 2015) is celebrated nationwide, with all levels of government playing an important role in emergency preparedness and response. Mr. Mellow noted that Emergency Preparedness Week is designed to educate individuals on how to plan ahead and respond accordingly during and after a disaster. Locally, the Peterborough County and City Community Emergency Management Coordinators will be distributing a 15-20 page Emergency Preparedness pull-out section within the May 6, 2015 edition of Peterborough This Week, with an anticipated circulation of approximately 45,000 households within the City and County.
183-2015 Moved by: Councillor Moher Seconded by: Councillor Senis
Be it resolved that the Council of the Corporation of the County of Peterborough, do hereby proclaim the week of May 4th to 10th, 2015, to be Emergency Preparedness Week in Peterborough County and encourage all citizens to participate in educational activities on emergency preparedness. Carried
Page 4
Page 12 of 119 Minutes of Peterborough County Council Wednesday, April 15, 2015
b. Public Works - Administration Re: National Public Works Week - May 17 to May 23, 2015
The Director of Public Works advised Council that 2015 marks the 55th Anniversary of the celebration of Public Works Week (May 17th to 23rd) in North America, a time used to educate and inform the public about the essential role that public works plays in the quality of their community. Equally important is promoting the choice of public works as a career choice for the working force of the future and recognizing those who currently serve in these crucial public roles.
Mr. Bradley added that the County Public Works Department will celebrate Public Works Week by continuing to build on its success from past years’ participation of the elementary schools throughout the County to involve classes of local school children in our activities. This year’s program will involve a friendly competition between the schools with the painting of the County snow plows. An electronic drop-off event is being organized by the Waste Management section with the theme “Bring Your E-Waste to Work Week” encouraging County Council and staff to bring their electronic waste to County workplaces.
184-2015 Moved by: Councillor Fallis Seconded by: Councillor Gerow
Be it resolved that County Council officially declares May 17th to 23rd, 2015 as National Public Works Week. Carried
c. Administration - Corporate Projects & Services Re: Sole Source – Repairs to 17HP Sawyer Massey Steam Engine - Lang Pioneer Village Museum
The Director, Corporate Projects & Services advised Council that the Sawyer Massey Steam Engine has been at Lang Pioneer Village Museum since 1985 and it has not worked for the last two seasons. Mrs. Graham noted that the power of this artifact’s ability to tell this story is weakened immeasurably when it is reduced to a static non-working piece of machinery. She emphasized that its importance to the Village becomes magnified now that Lang is augmenting its interpretation of the agricultural history of Peterborough County with the construction of a new building to exhibit our agricultural implements.
Page 5
Page 13 of 119 Minutes of Peterborough County Council Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Mrs. Graham informed Council of the available 2014 pricing from a sole source provider (Oliver’s Boilers) who has agreed to hold the price into 2015. She explained that this company is the only authorized repair facility in Ontario that can do the boiler construction and the work required to dismount and remount the engine portion. While there are other qualified boiler builders and other qualified mechanical people, most do not work together and do not offer the same “turnkey” service required by the County. She advised that the steam engine will be floated to Auburn, Ontario by the Public Works Department to facilitate the repair.
Mrs. Graham indicated that a sole source purchase for the repairs to the steam engine is appropriate and falls within the Sole Source Procurement section of the County Purchasing Policy CO-6. She responded to Council questions.
185-2015 Moved by: Councillor Moher Seconded by: Councillor Taylor
Be it resolved that Council approves a sole source award to Oliver’s Boilers for the repair of the 17HP Sawyer Massey Steam Engine at Lang Pioneer Village Museum at a total cost of $65,000.00 plus HST. Carried
d. Administration - Corporate Projects & Services Re: Rural Identity- Gateway Signage Project
The Director, Corporate Projects and Services reviewed her power point presentation report advising Council that the County received Rural Economic Development (RED) funding for a rural identity project in 2015, which includes a new Gateway sign and new design to incorporate into corporate media. Mrs. Graham explained that the Peterborough County rural identity and gateway feature is intended to be more than simply a welcome sign and draws on fundamental elements and imagery of the County to create a tableau that evokes an experience of place.
Mrs. Graham advised Council that the sign will be placed on a modest slope elevated above the roadway for visibility located just past a curve on Highway 115, south of Tapley Quarter Line and just north of Glamorgan Road within the boundaries of Peterborough County.
Page 6
Page 14 of 119 Minutes of Peterborough County Council Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Mrs. Graham explained that the vision for the sign focuses on the natural aspects of the County using stone, metal and natural plantings (birds and ornamental grasses). It is hoped that travellers passing by the display will recognize the image of a flock of birds in flight over granite rock and grasses. The large groupings of ornamental grasses may remind travellers of a field of grain, thus paying homage to the agriculture roots of the County as the birthplace of Red Fife wheat.
Mrs. Graham responded to Council questions.
186-2015 Moved by: Councillor Taylor Seconded by: Councillor Low
Be it resolved that Council approve the design concept proposed by RKLA Inc., for the Rural Identity Project – Gateway sign design and logo. Carried
e. Administration - Corporate Projects & Services Re: Amendment to Remuneration By-law # 2015-02
The Director, Corporate Projects & Services reviewed her report advising that the current remuneration by-law does not include conditions for attending Committee/Working Group meetings through teleconference or web-conference meetings. Mrs. Graham recommended that an amendment be made to the remuneration by-law to include the following wording: “External Committee/Working Group meetings that take place as phone or web conference calls will be eligible for the per diem rate to members of Council; provided the meeting is a regularly scheduled meeting of the external committee/working group and the meeting is in excess of 30 minutes in duration.”.
187-2015 Moved by: Councillor Taylor Seconded by: Councillor Hutton
Be it resolved that a By-law be passed to amend By-law No. 2015-02 (Remuneration and Expenses for the Warden, Deputy Warden and Members of the Council of the Corporation of the County of Peterborough for 2015 to 2017) to allow for committee phone or web conference meetings. Carried
Page 7
Page 15 of 119 Minutes of Peterborough County Council Wednesday, April 15, 2015
f. Administration - Corporate Projects & Services Re: T-05-2015 Hot Mix Paving
The Manager, Engineering & Design advised Council that two bids for the Hot Mix Paving Tender were received with a difference between the two bids of $131,620.47. Mr. Nielsen provided a summary of the bids received versus the estimated budget for each of the County road locations.
Bid vs. Budget Road Budget % variance CR 45-Catch Basin, Storm Sewer & $63,000 47.9% Curb (Ouse River Bridge approach) CR 36-Volturno Creek to Nogies $825,000 9.5% Creek Bridge CR 620-spot repairs (N. of Balmer $173,750 -33.3% Road) * Hope’s & Keene Station Bridge $10,000 -25.1% Approaches CR 25-Young’s Point Clearzone $75,000 -12.4% CR 46- Catch Basin and Storm $45,000 -45.9% Sewer ** Douro Depot Parking Lot ** $100,000 1.8% CR 41-Entrance Repair ** $10,000 -20.7% Miscellaneous spot repairs *** $71,519 -11.1% $1,373,269.00 4.9%
* hot mix repairs within surface treatment project location ** funded from operating accounts *** hot mix repairs within Microsurface project locations
Mr. Nielsen responded to Council questions.
188-2015 Moved by: Councillor Bonneau Seconded by: Councillor Fallis
Be it resolved:
1. That the tender T-05-2015 for Hot Mix Paving be awarded to Coco Paving Inc. in the amount of $1,602,793.92 (including 13% HST). 2. That a by-law be passed to authorize the Warden and Clerk to enter into an Agreement with Coco Paving
Page 8
Page 16 of 119 Minutes of Peterborough County Council Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Inc. for Tender T-05-2015 for Hot Mix Paving. Carried
g. Finance Re: Cross Border Billing Agreement between County of Haliburton and County of Peterborough
The Director of Finance/Treasurer reviewed the report advising that staff have been negotiating with Haliburton County staff to enter into a cross border calls agreement. He noted that both parties are now in receipt of final paramedic service call statistics for 2014 and wish to establish a revised cross-border billing agreement to facilitate closing out any 2014 compensation claims and provide a basis for settling 2015 payable calls at the end of 2015.
Mr. Butler explained how the final compensation is determined. He advised that the proposed rate is based on a standard costing formula with a special rural and remote service premium to the County of Haliburton to recognize their traditionally higher cost per call. He emphasized that the new Agreement identifies that if the County is in a compensable position (more allowable calls than Haliburton in the year) the County calls are compensated at $206.10/call. He added that if, on the other hand, Haliburton is in a net compensable position, Haliburton will be compensated at a rate of $412.20/call.
Mr. Butler recommended that the County enter into a two-year Cross Border Billing Agreement with the County of Haliburton for the fiscal years 2014 and 2015.
189-2015 Moved by: Councillor Low Seconded by: Councillor Moher
Be it resolved that County Council direct that a by-law be prepared, and authorize the Warden and Clerk to execute a Cross Border Billing new agreement between the County of Peterborough and the County of Haliburton for the fiscal years 2014 and 2015, and, that this agreement shall supersede all other previous agreements. Carried
At 10:55 a.m., Council recessed until 11:02 a.m.
Page 9
Page 17 of 119 Minutes of Peterborough County Council Wednesday, April 15, 2015
11. Staff Reports for Information Only
The Warden asked if any member of Council would like to deal with any staff report for information only separately.
a. Finance Report prepared by: John Butler, Director of Finance/Treasurer Re: Investment Report By-law 2010-68
b. Finance Report prepared by: John Butler, Director of Finance/Treasurer Re: Accounts for the month of March, 2015
c. Finance Report prepared by: John Butler, Director of Finance/Treasurer Re: Monthly Financial Update
d. Administration - Clerk Report prepared by: Lynn Fawn, Deputy Clerk/Office Supervisor Re: Correspondence Report
Item 6 of the Correspondence Report being the March 30th, 2015 letter from the Honourable Minister of Community and Social Services, Dr. Helena Jaczek, addressed to the Warden, will be provided to the City of Peterborough and to the Health Unit.
e. Administration - Corporate Projects & Services Report prepared by: Cathy Bazinet, Purchasing Coordinator Re: Purchasing Awards – March 2015
f. Administration - CAO Report prepared by: Gary King, CAO Re: 2015 First Quarter Activity Report
g. Administration Report prepared by: Warden J. Murray Jones Re: Meetings Attended during March, 2015
h. Administration Report prepared by: Deputy Warden Joe Taylor Re: Meetings Attended during March, 2015
190-2015 Moved by: Councillor Fallis Seconded by: Councillor Bonneau
Page 10
Page 18 of 119 Minutes of Peterborough County Council Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Be it resolved that County Council receives the above noted Staff Reports for Information Only items a. through h. Carried
12. Correspondence - Action Items
a. Township of Ignace letter dated March 31, 2015 Re: Bill 46, Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Off-Road Vehicles), 2015
During the discussion of this matter, the Director of Public Works provided an overview of the County approach for handling requests for off-road vehicles.
191-2015 Moved by: Councillor Gerow Seconded by: Councillor Bonneau
Be it resolved that County Council receives and supports the Township of Ignace’s letter dated March 31, 2015 concerning Bill 46, Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Off-Road Vehicles), 2015. Lost
192-2015 Moved by: Councillor Smith Seconded by: Councillor Hutton
Be it resolved that County Council receives the Township of Ignace’s letter dated March 31, 2015 relating to the Township’s support of Bill 46, Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Off-Road Vehicles), 2015. Carried
b. The Radius Project email dated March 30, 2015 Re: Sponsorship Request
193-2015 Moved by: Councillor Moher Seconded by: Councillor Taylor
Be it resolved that County Council receives the email dated March 30th, 2015 from The Radius Project requesting the County of Peterborough become a major funder of the project. Carried
c. Safe Wind Energy for All Residents (SWEAR) letter dated March 27, 2015 Re: Financial support for the Charter Challenge of Ontario's Wind Turbine approval process
194-2015 Moved by: Councillor Smith Seconded by: Councillor Martin
Page 11
Page 19 of 119 Minutes of Peterborough County Council Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Be it resolved that County Council receives the letter from Safe Wind Energy for All Residents (SWEAR) dated March 27, 2015 requesting financial support for the Charter Challenge of Ontario's Wind Turbine approval process. Carried
13. Committee Reports
a. Warden J. Murray Jones Awards and Bursaries Committee Re: Minutes of April 2, 2015
195-2015 Moved by: Councillor Bonneau Seconded by: Councillor Matthews
Be it resolved that County Council receives and adopts the Awards and Bursaries Committee meeting minutes of April 2, 2015. Carried
14. Liaison Reports from External Committees, Boards and Agencies
a. Affordable Housing Action Committee - Councillor Woodcock was absent.
b. Agricultural Advisory Committee - Councillor Fallis reported that the Committee met last night and received a presentation by Dr. Mehdi Sharifi of Trent University on the research being conducted at Trent University concerning soil conditioning and cover crops.
c. Fairhaven Committee of Management - Councillor Gerow reported that the Committee met last week and continues to struggle with the Case Mix Indexing (CMI) funding which is still a problem. Councillor Gerow advised that the Committee had a very successful and beneficial strategic planning session facilitated by Steven Smith which provided a snapshot of 2014 and how that is linked into the overall Strategic Plan. He added that the Committee will review the items from the strategic planning session for approval. He noted that due to the recent resignation of the Chair, the Chair of the Committee is City Councillor Keith Riel and that Councillor Gerow was elected as Vice-Chair.
d. Peterborough County-City Health Unit - Councillor Smith reported that Andy Sharpe attended the March 11th Board Meeting as he has been appointed to the Board as a provincial appointee. She noted that the 2014 Annual Report is available on video which
Page 12
Page 20 of 119 Minutes of Peterborough County Council Wednesday, April 15, 2015
should be a better tool to describe the services provided by the Health Unit. She reported that a Request for Expression of Interest was issued since the sale of the Hospital Drive property did not proceed. Councillor Smith noted that the Health Unit completed its negotiations with both ONA and CUPE.
e. Peterborough County Federation of Agriculture - Councillor Low reported that during the April 8th Federation meeting that Brian Cowie, a Federal Liberal candidate seeking the nomination for the Peterborough riding, was the guest speaker. Councillor Low advised that the Federation is a very aggressive group looking into various agricultural areas. He referred to the current California drought and what that state ships to Ontario. He mentioned that the Federation also checks with ORCA for the soil moisture content.
196-2015 Moved by: Councillor Windover Seconded by: Councillor Senis
Be it resolved that the Liaison Representative reports and supporting documentation be received for information. Carried
15. Resolutions
There were no resolutions presented for Council consideration.
16. Notices of Motion
There were no notices of motion presented.
17. New Business
a. Day of Mourning – April 28, 2015 – Councillor Taylor advised that the Township of Otonabee-South Monaghan passed a resolution proclaiming April 28, 2015 as a Day of Mourning and suggested that County Council may wish to proclaim that date as well.
197-2015 Moved by: Councillor Hutton Seconded by: Councillor Matthews
Be it resolved that County Council proclaims April 28, 2015 as a “Day of Mourning” in the County of Peterborough to remember those workers who have been killed, injured or who suffer from work related
Page 13
Page 21 of 119 Minutes of Peterborough County Council Wednesday, April 15, 2015
illness and encourages everyone to work together to make safety a priority. Carried
b. Provincial Budget – April 23, 2015 – The CAO advised Council that the 2015 Provincial Budget will be released at 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 23, 2015.
c. Premier Wynne in Peterborough on May 1st - Councillor Smith mentioned that the Chamber of Commerce Newsletter noted that Premier Wynne will be attending the Peterborough Curling Club on May 1st and that tickets are available online. More information is available at: http://connectingptbo.ca/news/2015/2/25/business-challenges- heres-your-chance-to-tell-premier-wynne.html
d. Selwyn Community Policing Awards – Councillor Senis advised that the Selwyn Community Policing Awards Ceremony has been rescheduled to June 17th at 7:00 p.m. in the Selwyn Township Council Chambers.
18. Closed Session
198-2015 Moved by: Councillor Bonneau Seconded by: Councillor Martin
Be it resolved that under the authority of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, s. 239(2) County Council move into closed session at 11:32 a.m. to discuss:
The security of the property of the municipality or local board. Personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees. A proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board. Labour relations or employee negotiations. Litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board. Advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose. Carried
19. Rise from Closed Session With/Without a Report
199-2015 Moved by: Councillor Gerow Seconded by: Councillor Bonneau
Page 14
Page 22 of 119 Minutes of Peterborough County Council Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Be it resolved that County Council rise from closed session at 11:37 a.m. without a report. Carried
20. Adoption of Amended Agenda to Add Closed Session Items Being Reported
There were no items being reported.
21. Reading and Passing of By-laws
Due to time constraints, the Warden dispensed with the reading of the by- laws. The Clerk highlighted the listed by-laws.
a. A by-law to authorize the County of Peterborough to enter into a two-year Loan Agreement with the Mount Community Centre for $1.7 million bearing interest at an annual rate of 2.5% secured by a Charge/Mortgage. (See April 1st Council Meeting Agenda Item 12.d) (By-law No. 2015-27)
b. A by-law to amend By-law No. 2015-02 (Remuneration and Expenses for the Warden, Deputy Warden and Members of the Council of the Corporation of the County of Peterborough for 2015 to 2017) to allow for external committee/working group phone or web conference meetings. (See Staff Report 10.e) (By-law No. 2015-28)
c. A by-law to authorize the County of Peterborough to enter into Articles of Agreement with Royel Paving Ltd. (T-03-2015) (Surface Treatment) (See April 1st Council Meeting Agenda Item 10.e). (By-law No. 2015-29)
d. A by-law to authorize the County of Peterborough to enter into Articles of Agreement with Miller Paving Ltd. (T-01-2015) (Microsurfacing) (See April 1st Council Meeting Agenda Item 10.d). (By-law No. 2015-30)
200-2015 Moved by: Councillor Nelson Seconded by: Councillor Smith
Be it resolved that by-laws a. through d. be passed, signed by the Warden and the Clerk, sealed with the Seal of the Corporation and Numbered. Carried
Page 15
Page 23 of 119 Minutes of Peterborough County Council Wednesday, April 15, 2015
22. Confirming By-law
201-2015 Moved by: Councillor Senis Seconded by: Councillor Martin
Be it resolved that the by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council of the County of Peterborough held this 15th day of April, 2015 be passed, signed by the Warden and the Clerk, sealed with the Seal of the Corporation and Numbered By-law 2015-31. Carried
23. Future Meeting Schedule
April . 22 3:00 p.m. Accessibility Advisory Committee (Township of Selwyn, Lower Boardroom) . 23 9:30 a.m. Land Division Committee (County Council Chambers)
May . 6 9:30 a.m. County Council (County Council Chambers) . 11 2:00 p.m. Waste Management Committee (City Hall, Sutherland Room) . 20 9:30 a.m. County Council (County Council Chambers) . 22 10:00 a.m. Awards and Bursaries Committee (Buckhorn Community Centre) . 22 7:00 p.m. Awards and Bursaries Committee – Recognition Awards Ceremony (Buckhorn Community Centre – doors open at 6:00 p.m.) . 26 9:30 a.m. Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee (Court House Boardroom) 27 9:30 a.m. Special County Council Meeting (County Council Chambers) 28 3:00 p.m. Accessibility Advisory Committee (Court House Boardroom)
June . 3 9:30 a.m. County Council (County Council Chambers) . 3 Following Awards and Bursaries Committee – 2015 Critique (Court House County Boardroom) Council Meeting . 11 3:45 p.m. JSSC Meeting (City Hall, Council Chambers) 17 9:00 a.m. Special County Council Meeting – Road Tour (Douro Depot) . 22 2:00 p.m. Waste Management Committee (City Hall, Sutherland Room) . 23 9:30 a.m. Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee (Court House Boardroom) . 24 9:30 a.m. County Council (County Council Chambers) 25 3:00 p.m. Accessibility Advisory Committee (Township of Selwyn, Lower Boardroom)
Page 16
Page 24 of 119 Minutes of Peterborough County Council Wednesday, April 15, 2015
. 24 8:45 a.m. Awards and Bursaries Committee – Bursary Award Selection (Court House Boardroom) July . Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee – Annual Field Trip – Date and Location TBD
August . 5 9:30 a.m. County Council (County Council Chambers) . 16-19 AMO Annual Conference – Niagara Falls, Ontario . 26 9:30 a.m. County Council (County Council Chambers)
24. Adjournment
202-2015 Moved by: Councillor Low Seconded by: Councillor Gerow
Be it resolved that the County Council meeting adjourn at 11:39 a.m. Carried
______J. Murray Jones Warden
______Sally Saunders County Clerk
Page 17
Page 25 of 119 Page 26 of 119 The County of Peterborough County Council
To: Warden and Members of Council
From: Bill Linnen, Manager of Operations
Date: May 6, 2015
Subject: Tender for the Delivery of Sodium Chloride – T-04-2015
Recommendation: That the County of Peterborough’s portion of the Tender for Delivery of Sodium Chloride be awarded to Archer Bulk Carriers, as their tender was the lowest total price submitted meeting the tender call and is within the designated budgetary appropriation.
Financial Impact: No impact in excess of Budget.
Background: The tender was issued by the County of Peterborough on behalf of the following Participating Agencies:
Township of Asphodel-Norwood, Township of Douro-Dummer, Township of Havelock-Belmont-Methuen, Township of Otonabee-South Monaghan, Township of Selwyn, Municipality of Trent Lakes, City of Peterborough, City of Kawartha Lakes, County of Northumberland, County of Haliburton, Township of Center Hastings, Municipality of Marmora and Lake, Trent University and Sir Sandford Fleming College.
There was a separate tender for the supply of salt.
The tender shall be in effect for a period of three years, with the right to extend the contract for two additional one-year periods.
The County has forwarded the tender results to each participating Municipality to allow individual awards to be made.
Analysis: Three (3) bids were received for the County of Peterborough.
Archer Bulk Carriers Buckham Transport Glenn Windrem Trucking
Page 27 of 119 Page 2
The County of Peterborough’s portions are as follows, based on the estimated annual usage in tonnes:
Archer Bulk Buckham Glen Windram Agency Location Carrier Transport Trucking County of Buckhorn Dome $ 36,245.88 $ 38,646.00 $ 40,273.20 Peterborough Millbrook Depot $ 13,291.20 $ 15,336.00 $ 16,741.80 Centerline Depot $ 12,396.80 $ 16,688.00 $ 17,999.20 Douro Depot $ 27,768.61 $ 27,306.50 $ 29,407.00 Apsley Dome $ 25,615.00 $ 27,250.00 $ 29,430.00 Havelock Depot $ 28,868.70 $ 29,707.50 $ 32,328.75 Nephton Depot $ 6,277.60 $ 8,360.00 $ 8,588.00 Total $150,463.79 $163,294.00 $ 174,767.95
Recommendation:
That the County of Peterborough’s portion of the Tender for Delivery of Sodium Chloride be awarded to Archer Bulk Carriers as their tender was the lowest total price submitted meeting the tender call and is within the designated budgetary appropriation.
Respectfully submitted, Respectfully submitted,
Cathy Bazinet Bill Linnen Purchasing Coordinator Manager of Operations
Approved by,
Originally signed by
Gary King, CAO/Deputy Clerk
Page 28 of 119 The County of Peterborough County Council
To: Warden and Members of Council
From: Bryan Weir, Director of Planning
Date: May 6, 2015
Subject: Bill 73 – Proposed Changes to The Development Charges Act and The Planning Act
Recommendation: That the staff report entitled “Bill 73 – Proposed Changes to The Development Charges Act and The Planning Act” be received, and,
That the report be forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing with copies sent to Minister Jeff Leal and MPP Laurie Scott.
Financial Impact: None at this time
Overview:
In the Fall of 2013, the Provincial government undertook a review of the Land Use Planning regime including the appeal system, as well as the Development Charges system to determine if the needs of Ontario’s municipalities were currently being met.
Comments received by the Province strongly indicated that the planning system is too complex and unpredictable while the development charges system needs to more realistically balance how growth is financed when considering the competing objectives between municipal and development interests. Consequently, Bill 73 (proposed Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015) was introduced on March 5, 2015 to amend The Development Charges Act, and The Planning Act.
A summary of some of the more significant changes are listed as follows together with an indication of staff’s position. Following this chart, those changes that are not supported by staff are discussed.
Development Charges Act:
Page 29 of 119 Page 2
Proposed Change Staff position 1. Increase the potential amounts which could be collected to Support but support the expansion of a transit system. This would have no current no impact on the County of Peterborough at this time impact on County 2. Municipalities would be able to recover capital costs Support as associated with waste diversion. This could result in the this would additional DC revenue for the County. increase revenues 3. Increased requirements for incorporating new infrastructure Support into the County’s asset management plan.
4. Require the preparation of a “Parks Plan” in advance of No County completing an Official Plan update. Consultation with local position but school boards is required and the plan is to examine the will affect need for additional parkland in the community. This would local not affect the County as recreation is a local responsibility. municipalities
5. Requiring the annual treasurer’s report to be made publicly Support available
The Planning Act:
Proposed Change Staff Position 1. “Global” appeals of an entire new Official Plan will not be Support permitted.
2. Enable the use of alternate dispute resolution to resolve Support but certain types of objections to planning approvals. details of costs unknown 3. Modifications to the “development permit system”. This Not system is used in limited circumstances in a small number supported of Ontario municipalities at present. Change would allow the Province to require certain municipalities to implement such a system.
4. If the approval authority concludes that a policy in a lower Support as tier official Plan does not conform to an upper tier OP planning policy, it may refuse to approve the policy and that decision principle has is non-appealable. already been established 5. Extend review of new official plans from five to ten years. Support
6. New Official Plans cannot be amended for two years after Not
Page 30 of 119 Page 3
their approval unless initiated by the municipality itself. supported
7. Similarly, if a new zoning by-law is adopted, amendments Not cannot be considered for two years unless initiated by the supported municipality.
8. For site-specific zoning by-law amendments, no No County applications for a minor variance may be made for two position as years after the adoption of the zoning by-law amendment authority without authorization by Council. rests at local level 9. Before adopting the official plan policies for acquiring land No County for park purposes or for obtaining cash in lieu, a local position but municipality must prepare and make available to the public will affect a parks plan that examines the need for parkland in the local municipality. This does not affect the County. municipality
10. The council of every upper-tier municipality and the council Not of every lower-tier municipality will have to appoint a supported planning advisory committee, the members of which shall be chosen by the council and shall include at least one resident of the municipality who is neither a municipal councilor nor an employee of the municipality.
Analysis:
While many of the proposed changes do assist both the land use planning system and the development charges system, there are a number of proposed changes to The Planning Act that provide some cause for concern. The following changes are not supported by staff.
Number 3: Modifications to the “development permit system”. This system is used in limited circumstances in a small number of Ontario municipalities at present. Change would allow the Province to require certain municipalities to implement such a system. This change is not supported as it is considered to interfere with the local responsibility for land use planning. At present, municipalities may choose to adopt a Development Permit System (DPS), which is an alternative approval mechanism that combines the processes for a building permit, minor variance or zoning change and also provides some architectural control elements. In Bill 73 and accompanying documents, there is no explanation of why or when this would be imposed. While the DPS is not widely used at present, this does not mean that municipalities are opposed to it. However, having it imposed upon a municipality is something that is opposed.
Page 31 of 119 Page 4
Numbers 6 and 7: New Official Plans cannot be amended for two years after their approval unless initiated by the municipality itself. Similarly, if a new zoning by- law is adopted, amendments cannot be considered for two years unless initiated by the municipality. It is difficult to imagine how a municipality operates effectively after such adoption of a new by-law or official plan given that a rezoning is often a condition of certain types of development. Many times, a rezoning is a condition of severance or of a plan of subdivision/condominium. This provision would eliminate the completion of in-process or new applications. In addition, the Zoning By-law may not, purposely, conform to the Official Plan because the Zoning can only proceed for a development subject to certain studies being carried out in accordance with Official Plan policies. An example of this may be a golf course where the Official Plan will permit the use but a rezoning is required subject to the review and acceptance of certain studies needed to justify the use. In another example, the Official Plan may designate an area for Residential Use but the zoning has not been determined and may require a rezoning to accommodate certain densities and types of Residential Uses. This change to The Act only serves to handcuff development opportunities and curtail local planning initiatives. There is also another element; one where an important economic opportunity for the municipality arises. Official Plans do not take into account those instances where a solid and beneficial proposal presents itself; one which may require an Official Plan change or Zoning amendment and one which is perceived to be in the greater public interest. While Official Plans are, indeed, longer range policy documents, the world can change quickly hence the existence of an amendment process. Again, this change constitues a road block to such circumstances.
Number 8: For site-specific zoning by-law amendments, no applications for a minor variance may be made for two years after the adoption of the zoning by-law amendment without authorization by Council. While the County does not have the authority for amendments to the Zoning By-law or Minor Variances, there is the potential to affect decisions made at the County level on other types of applications. The same concerns emerge for this change as they do for the previous point above.
Number 10: The council of every upper-tier municipality and the council of every lower-tier municipality will have to appoint a planning advisory committee (PAC), the members of which shall be chosen by the council and shall include at least one resident of the municipality who is neither a municipal councilor nor an employee of the municipality. In the absence of any description of its purpose, we are left wondering why this change is being presented. The prescribed public process for public consultation has been securely in place for decades in the Planning Act and its Regulations. Files are open to the public and accessible at any time. The current in-force provisions are there to assist in obtaining the opinion of the public. By having a PAC (with or without the requirement to have a member of the public), a municipality may be faced with a somewhat narrowed opinion on matters, hence the on-going need for the broader public consultation process. A PAC would not appear to streamline the approval process and runs
Page 32 of 119 Page 5
counter-productive to the Province’s past “streamlining” efforts. A PAC has the potential to substantially frustrate an otherwise streamlined application because of the need for meetings, notices, agendas, minutes, delegations, etc. With staff being given authority for approving “straight-forward” applications (as determined by criteria previously approved by County Council), a PAC has the very real potential to complicate an application process; one that already has a public component to it.
In the absence of any explanation of rationale for a PACV, several questions arise, including the following:
• What are the Terms of Reference for a PAC? • Does it meet on all Planning Act Applications and act as a filter or just on certain types of applications? • Would it meet only on broader issues that affect policy and implementation (ie. Provincial proposals for legislative changes)? • In our County, we have a “hybrid plan” (general County-wide policies and specific local policies for 4 of our 8 townships), so would the County need to have multiple public appointees? • How many Committee members should there be in a PAC?
There are too many unanswered questions about the requirement for a PAC in order to support this proposed change.
Conclusion
Going forward, the government plans to assemble both a development charges working group and a land use planning work group to help provide feedback and make recommendations on the legislation. This move as a next step by the Province is a welcome one. It is then hoped that another round of consultation regarding proposed changes occurs since any change to legislation can have a profound effect on how municipalities operate.
It is therefore recommended that this staff report on Bill 73 be received and that it be forwarded as our response to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Copies of such correspondence to MMAH should also be sent to Minister Jeff Leal and MPP Laurie Scott.
Respectfully submitted,
Original signed by
Bryan Weir
Page 33 of 119 Page 34 of 119 The County of Peterborough County Council
To: Warden and Members of Council
From: John Butler, Director of Finance/Treasurer
Date: May 6, 2015
Subject: 2015 Tax Policy
Recommendation:
That the 2015 tax policy options for the non-residential property classes and capping parameters for the Multi-residential, Commercial and Industrial classes be as follows:
1. That the tax ratios for 2015 remain unchanged from 2014,
Property Class Ratio Residential 1.0000 Farm Property 0.2500 Multi-Residential 1.7802 New Multi-Residential 1.0000 Commercial 1.0986 Industrial 1.5432 Pipeline 0.9386
2. That the threshold on the tax level for eligible new construction remains at 100% for 2015, and
3. That the discount rates for vacant units, vacant land and excess land remain at 30% for the commercial class and 35% for the industrial class, and
4. That the 2015 tax rate for farmland awaiting development subclasses remain at 35% of the residential rate, and
5. That capping be based on a maximum increase threshold at the greater of: a. 10% of the previous year’s annualized capped taxes and b. 5% of the previous year’s annualized Current Value Assessment (CVA) tax for the eligible property, and
6. That a $250 capping adjustment threshold be set for both increasing and decreasing properties, and
Page 35 of 119 Page 2
7. That properties that reached CVA tax in 2014 remain at CVA tax in 2015, and
8. That properties that moved from being capped in 2014 to being clawed back in 2015 or from being clawed back in 2014 to being capped in 2015 be excluded from capping and achieve CVA tax, and
9. That the cap be funded within the Multi-Residential, Commercial and Industrial property classes and that any shortfall be funded by the County of Peterborough and its local municipalities as calculated by the Ontario Property Tax Analysis (OPTA) program and that the necessary by-law be prepared.
Financial Impact:
Based on OPTA calculated tax rates a capping shortfall is not projected in 2015, therefore no anticipated financial impact at this time.
Overview:
All upper tier municipalities in Ontario are required to annually make tax policy decisions that will affect the apportionment of the tax burden both within and between property classes. Those choices include setting the tax ratios (to determine the weighted assessment for each property), the treatment of new construction for the non-residential classes, discount levels for commercial and industrial vacant units and excess land, discount levels for farmland awaiting development, and tax capping parameters to limit tax increases for the commercial, industrial, and multi-residential property classes.
Peterborough County Council has remained historically consistent with its tax policy decisions since the inception of the CVA tax system at the end of the 1990s. In addition to the initial tax policy choices, periodic policy application latitude has been introduced by the Provincial government allowing municipalities’ greater flexibility in developing their tax policies. By incorporating the new and revised options into the historical tax policy choices, County Council has developed a tax policy philosophy which has been consistently applied over time.
An example of one such tax policy latitude implementation are the amendments contained in Ontario Regulation (O. Reg.) 160/09 which added to the list of choices available for capping calculation options. This amendment allowed municipalities to: exclude properties at CVA from capping, exclude properties that would cross over CVA from capped into claw back, and exclude properties that would cross over CVA from claw back to capped.
The consensus amongst the County’s Treasurers and/or Chief Administrative Officers (CAO) at the time O. Reg. 160/09 came into effect was to recommend incorporating these tax policy options into our capping parameters. Council
Page 36 of 119 Page 3
approved this recommendation and the options were adopted and have remained in place since that time.
In preparation for this report, County Finance staff canvassed the lower tier treasurers to seek their input. Once again their voice was unanimous to recommend to County Council to stay the course and continue with the same tax policy parameters for the 2015 taxation year. The group feels the existing tax philosophy provides a fair, equitable, and consistent distribution of the property tax burden amongst the various property classes within our jurisdiction.
Policy Options:
Tax Ratios
Tax ratios are defined by the Ontario Property Tax Analysis (OPTA) tool as:
Indicators of the mathematical relationship between the tax rate for the residential class and the tax rates for other property classes. The concept was introduced with the property tax reform in 1998 to ensure that the historical tax burden for a property class remained the same after the reassessment. As the residential class is the basis for comparison for other classes; its tax ratio is always 1.0. That means, if the tax ratio for a class has a value of 2.0, the tax rate for that class, when measured against the residential rate, is two times greater.
Single and upper tier municipalities are required to pass an annual by-law to adopt tax ratios for a year. The tax ratios can be equal to or less than transition ratios (those set in the previous year). Transition ratios represent the new ceiling or maximum tax ratio values that municipalities can adopt in their annual tax ratio by-law. Once the tax ratio by-law is passed, the transition ratios cease to exist until the next tax year, when the cycle is repeated.
While Council has latitude to change the tax ratios in a given year, once changed the ratio becomes subject to the range of fairness established by the Ontario Provincial Government. The range of fairness represents the target levels of taxation that are prescribed by the Ontario government for each property class to encourage the reduction of tax rate differences and tax shifting between classes. The general rule respecting movement of tax ratios is that if the tax ratio of a property class falls outside (either above or below) the range of fairness prescribed for that class, the municipality must either maintain the existing tax ratio or adjust the ratio so that it moves closer to the range of fairness. A municipality cannot move its tax ratios away from the ranges of fairness.
It is important to note reassessment and valuation changes do not affect tax revenue per se. The same amount of tax dollars will need to be raised through
Page 37 of 119 Page 4
the tax rates calculated on the assessment dollars regardless of reassessed value. Reassessment values can however affect the distribution of the tax burden between properties, between classes, and between municipalities in a two tier structure.
Prior to bringing this tax policy report to County Council, County Finance staff canvass the lower tier Treasurers for comment and direction. Once again, the County Treasurers collectively and unanimously wish to recommend that Council not change the existing ratios. The Treasurers feel the existing ratios represent a consistent, proportionate balance of tax burden that is both historical and reasonable. According to OPTA, the distribution of CVA within the County of Peterborough shows that the residential property class represents over 92% of the total assessment (see pie chart following). Any reduction in tax ratio for the non-residential classes would see a subsequent shift in tax requirement dollars to the residential property owners, thus increasing their proportionate share of the tax burden.
Treatment of New Construction Eligible Properties
In 2005, municipalities had the choice to phase-out tax protection for new construction/new to class properties (multi residential, commercial and industrial) by means of setting a minimum tax level for eligible properties. The tax levels were, and are as follows:
• 2005 – 70% minimum tax level
Page 38 of 119 Page 5
• 2006 – 80% minimum tax level • 2007 – 90% minimum tax level • 2008 – 100% minimum tax level • 2009 to present – 100% minimum tax level
This allowed municipalities in 2005 to tax eligible properties at the average tax level for the comparable properties selected, or at a specified percentage of the current year’s CVA taxes to a maximum of 70%, whichever amount is greater. The threshold limit was increased each year until it reached 100% in 2008 where it has remained since.
The recommended 2015 minimum tax level of 100% only applies to properties eligible in 2015 and not to properties already capped in prior years.
Discount Rates
In 1998, the County implemented legislated reductions of 30% for commercial and 35% for industrial vacant units, vacant land and excess land. Council could elect however, to set a uniform discount rate for both classes that is between 30% and 35%.
Farmland Awaiting Development is currently discounted in the County at 65%. We have latitude to move this rate up or down by 10% in any year, provided we stay between 25% and 75% if the Farmland Awaiting Development is residential. We currently do not have any assessment as Farmland Awaiting Development.
Capping Options
In 2001, the County implemented the 5% tax cap program, which limited property tax increases to 5% not including the levy change. The 5% tax cap program was utilized from 2001 through 2005. The tax cap was funded entirely from the property owners in the classes by allowing a “top up” by the County and local municipalities in the years when the cap could not be funded within the class.
In 2005, the Municipal Act made provision for additional capping possibilities in the Multi-Residential, Commercial and Industrial classes.
The tax capping options given to the Upper and Single tier municipalities were:
(1) Continue with existing 5% capping rule; or (2) Increase the annual cap from 5% of last year’s capped taxes up to a maximum of 10% of last year’s capped taxes; and/or (3) Set an upper limit on annual increases at the greater of the amount calculated under (1) or (2) and up to 5% of the previous year’s annualized CVA tax; and/or
Page 39 of 119 Page 6
(4) Up to a maximum $250 threshold may be set for increasing properties, decreasing properties or both; this would move properties with a billing adjustment of less than the threshold to their full CVA tax liability for the year.
The Council of the day opted to select a combination of the greater of options, #2 (with an increased maximum cap of 10% of previous year’s annualized taxes), #3 (with a maximum cap of 5% over the previous year’s CVA tax) and/or option #4 (with a maximum $250 threshold for increasing properties, decreasing properties or both, moving properties with a billing adjustment of less than the threshold to their full CVA tax liability for the year). Section 329.1(1) of the Ontario Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25 as amended, continues to allow municipalities to incorporate the above options into their annual tax policy. The consensus amongst the County’s Treasurers is to recommend that Council continue with the same policy in 2015.
Two new capping options were introduced in 2009 giving municipalities the opportunity to exclude properties in certain situations from the capping program:
• The ‘Stay at CVA Tax’ option excluded properties that were at CVA tax in 2008 from the capping and claw back calculation in 2009. • The “Cross CVA Tax” option excludes properties that would move from being capped in 2008 to being clawed back in 2009 or from being clawed back in 2008 to being capped in 2009.
During a reassessment year, properties that may have already been paying CVA tax in the prior year could experience a large enough change in assessment to throw them back into the capping and claw-back program. The above noted capping options, first adopted in 2009, limit the capping impact of changes to CVA tax year over year and moves properties to (or holds them at) their CVA tax level. Council decided at the time to endorse the new options and have continued with this policy each year since. It is our recommendation that these exclusion options remain in place for the 2015 taxation year.
As a result of Council’s historic tax policy decision, the number of properties affected by capping in 2015 is estimated at 38, reduced from 192 in 2009 and 45 in 2014.
Capping Analysis:
As previously noted, each year the County Finance department canvasses the local treasurers regarding the setting of tax policy. The underlying goal in the Treasurer’s recommendations has been to reduce the number of properties being capped and to provide a larger percentage decrease to those properties that are being clawed back. Essentially, to move more capped and clawed back properties to CVA tax and hold them there. Once again, the County treasurer’s group
Page 40 of 119 Page 7
response was unanimous in their recommendation to ‘stay the course’ and maintain our tax policy consistent with previous years.
It is worth noting that each lower tier treasurer reviews properties with substantial increases to determine if new construction or a change in use has triggered the increase in assessment and that these properties did not receive supplementary assessments for the previous year. Property owners should also investigate these changes to their assessment with MPAC to help understand and possibly mitigate increases in their taxation.
Following is a chart summarizing the capped properties in the commercial industrial and multi residential realty property classes for 2013, 2014, and 2015.
2015 Capping Summary Commercial Industrial Multi Residential 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 final final estimate final final estimate final final estimate Properties at CVA tax 1122 1119 1138 168 168 171 20 21 20 Retained Percentage 7.75% 35.72% 24.28% 0.00% 26.66% 6.93% 100% 100% 100% Clawed Back properties 11 11 9 14 15 13 0 0 0 Clawed Back percentage 92.25% 64.28% 75.72% 100.00% 73.34% 93.07% 0% 0% 0% Capped Properties 14 11 10 9 8 6 0 0 0 Total Properties in Class 1147 1141 1157 191 191 190 20 21 20
The above analysis is based on OPTA calculated tax rates for 2015. The OPTA calculated rates are used as the local municipal tax rates and the County rates have not been entered into the system at the time of the report. Once the tax rates (upper and lower tier) have been approved and entered, and the assessment data is frozen in the OPTA system, the capping impact will be more accurately known. Figures for 2013 and 2014 however have been updated to represent the final statistics for those years. Based on the preliminary 2015 capping numbers, it appears that 38 properties may be affected by capping. This is a significant reduction from the 100s of properties impacted by the capping system at its introduction.
Use of Full Capping Options
Advantages
• Continues the migration to the elimination of capping by accelerating movement to CVA tax, • Does not allow current CVA properties to be reintroduced to capping program, • Can reduce capping costs in instances where properties would otherwise be eligible for capping protection,
Page 41 of 119 Page 8
• Fewer tax bills will be issued with capping adjustments, hence, easier to understand, fewer administrative requirements, and a greater number of properties will be billed at CVA tax.
Disadvantages
• Results in a more complicated capping calculation and is difficult to explain to tax payers, • Could lead to increased risk of capping shortfalls as pool of potential claw‐back properties is reduced or eliminated, • Some properties may lose protection when increases are experienced at a rate to which they have not been accustomed.
Education tax rates
Education tax is a tax collected by a municipality, at the direction of the Provincial Government, as part of the property tax system that is used to fund the cost of elementary and secondary school education. The Ontario Ministry of Finance sets the education tax rates for all property classes annually. The County’s 2015 education tax rates are shown in the table below along with the comparative rates for 2013, 2014 for your information.
Education Tax Rates: 2013 to 2015 % % Change Change 2013 to 2014 to Class 2013 2014 2015 2014 2015 Residential 0.212000% 0.203000% -4.25% 0.195000% -3.94% Farm Property & Managed 0.053000% 0.050750% -4.25% 0.048750% -3.94% Forests Multi-residential & New Multi- 0.212000% 0.203000% -4.25% 0.195000% -3.94% residential Commercial 1.260000% 1.220000% -3.17% 1.190000% -2.46% Industrial 1.590000% 1.560000% -1.89% 1.530000% -1.92% Pipelines 1.163820% 1.144015% -1.70% 1.124941% -1.67%
Business Education Tax (BET) Rates:
The BET is the maximum education tax rate that can apply to properties with new construction within the business property classes (i.e. Commercial, Industrial). Instead of the education tax rate that normally applies to business properties in the municipality, the education tax rate for new construction is limited to a target
Page 42 of 119 Page 9
rate that varies each year. The target BET rate applies unless the current tax rate for the property falls below the target rate for the year, in which case the existing lower rate is maintained.
The BET rate only applies to those properties where construction commenced after March 22, 2007 and where the structure is complete and in use. Separate property classes exist to identify qualifying new construction.
The BET rate at the time of its inception in December 2007 was a maximum of 1.60%. Since that time, the BET has been adjusted annually and is now set at 1.19% for Commercial and Industrial new construction in 2015.
Respectfully submitted,
Original signed by
John Butler
Page 43 of 119 Page 44 of 119 PED 2015 First Quarter Report
Page 45 of 119 1 PED 2015 First Quarter Report
APPENDIX A: 2015 Annual Performance Measures Scorecard
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 FY2015 PUBLIC SCORECARD RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS NOTES
CORPORATE MISSION Business Retention and Expansion
1.1 Achieve 72 business start-ups, 14 of 72 Investment Expansion = 1 relocations or expansions by PED Achieved Business Advisory Centre = 13 clients.
1.2 Peterborough Economic Development client announcements of additional jobs 89 of 165 Long Term = 50 or retention which will over the course Achieved Short Term = 39 of one year result in the net addition/retention of 165 jobs.
Page 46 of 119 1.3 Achieve an economic impact of Company information confidential $3,000,000 (includes salary impact and $39,000,000 at this time for IE Clients. Tourism Tourism Regional Economic Impact Achieved results will be reported in Q4 Model). Tourism: $1,000,000; I.E.: following completion of TMAC and $2,000,000). Wildfire events.
2 Report PED15-002 – PED 2015 First Quarter Report
APPENDIX A: 2015 Annual Performance Measures Scorecard
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 FY2015 PUBLIC SCORECARD RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS NOTES
Key Economic Development Priority Achievement
2.1 Build, maintain and support a key relationship Aviation = 2 file with a minimum of 13 clients considering Investment Expansion = 10 significant new business investment in the 12 of 13 next two years. (IE: 10; Aviation: 3). (A Achieved* * Company information significant new investment is greater than confidential at this time. $1,000,000 in investment (real estate, payroll, operations and capital) and/or 10 or more Employees.)
2.2 Achieve 20 external media coverages 7 of 20 Tourism = 4 promoting Peterborough region initiated by Achieved Investment Expansion = 3 PED. (Tourism = 15; IE = 5)
2.3 Create a business plan to develop Initial Peterborough’s start-up ecosystem by Outline Page 47 of 119 31/12/2015. Report due mid-April
2.4 Execute Travel Media Association of Canada TBD - PED AGM to be held April 30th (TMAC) conference in June and PED AGM in - TMAC Conference to be held th th April 2015. June 8 to 17
3 Report PED15-002 – PED 2015 First Quarter Report
APPENDIX A: 2015 Annual Performance Measures Scorecard
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 FY2015 PUBLIC SCORECARD RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS NOTES
Quality of Life - Regional Income Increase
3.1 20% of the jobs created by PED clients will have 84% * 84% achieved of jobs an average wage rate greater than $17.78/hr Achieved * created in Q1 (Average wage rate for the region). (Source: CMHC and Statistics Canada 2010)
STAKEHOLDER AWARENESS & SATISFACTION Service Satisfaction
4.1 Achieve a minimum 90% satisfaction rate from all Pending Survey will be conducted stakeholders in the service and value of their in Q4. interaction with PED.
Awareness of PED role
5.1 Achieve 185,000 digital interactions (includes 41,649 of Tourism = 30,496
Page 48 of 119 social media likes and follows and web traffic - 185,000 not restricted to unique visits). Achieved Investment Expansion = (Tourism: 150,000; IE: 35,000.) 11,153
Achieve 80 Tourism community business 5.2 engagements (partnerships, consultations, 26 of 80 projects and collaborations). Achieved
4 Report PED15-002 – PED 2015 First Quarter Report
APPENDIX A: 2015 Annual Performance Measures Scorecard
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 FY2015 PUBLIC SCORECARD RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS NOTES
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT Financial Responsibility
6.1 Manage a balanced budget. Forecasted balanced budget Financial value added leverage to the City and County investment in PED
7.1 Lever a minimum of $300,000 of $315,800 PKT Partners Annual Web Profiles $2,800 additional investment for economic Achieved Peterborough Destination Assoc. $75,000 development activities in the region KEGI (in-kind concert for TMAC) $12,000 RTO8 (TMAC) $10,000 from sources external to the City and Ontario Parks(inkind TMAC music gala) $7,000 County. (Includes cash and 'hard' in- RED Funding (TMAC) $70,000 kind.) (Tourism: $150,000; IE: RED Funding (IE) $139,000 Total: $315,800 $150,000).
MOU Appendix A, Section 3 Page 49 of 119 PED involvement in 100% of key economic development discussions with Senior City and County Staff. TBD (MOU Appendix A, Section 3).
Note: Detailed breakdown from Councillors or staff on specific items are available upon request.
5 Page 50 of 119 The County of Peterborough County Council
To: Warden and Members of Council
From: John Butler, Director of Finance/Treasurer
Date: May 6, 2015
Subject: Comparison of Tax Ratios (and tax rates) for Residential, Commercial, and Industrial property classes in Municipalities approximately one and half hours driving time from Toronto.
Recommendation: Receive for information
Financial Impact: None
Overview:
At various times, Council discussions have questioned the impact our tax ratios may have on economic development in the commercial and industrial property classes within the County. Some councillors felt that our tax ratios for these classes (and hence our tax rates) could be deterring commercial and industrial investment in our area. To assist with this discussion, staff was asked to compile data related to comparator ratios in municipalities approximately the same distance from Toronto as the County of Peterborough. It was suggested at the time that approximately a one and half hour driving distance would be appropriate, see Figure A below.
Over the past year, staff have visited the websites of 63 municipalities, townships, cities and towns within the study parameters to gather tax ratio and rate information for their residential, commercial, and industrial property classes. A complete list of municipal jurisdictions included in the study is provided on page three for your reference.
Page 51 of 119 Page 2
Figure A - Map of Study Area – 1.5 hours driving time from Toronto
While the residential class was not specifically identified in Council’s direction, no discussion regarding the impact of a change in tax ratios can be truly undertaken without including the residential group. As depicted in Figure B, the current value assessment (CVA) for the County is roughly 92% residential. Any change in tax ratio for either the commercial or industrial property class, will shift the corresponding displaced amount of tax burden to the other classes, primarily residential. For that reason, information regarding the residential class has also been gathered and included in the statistics for comparison purposes.
Figure B – 2014 distribution of assessment by property class
Page 52 of 119 Page 3
Municipal Jurisdictions Included in the study:
Northumberland County (Upper Tier Rate) Town of Barrie Municipality of Alnwick/Haldimand Town of Orillia Municipality of Brighton Dufferin County (Upper Tie Town of Cobourg Township of Amaranth Town of Cramahe Township of East Garafrax Township of Hamilton Township of Melancthon Municipality of Port Hope Ward 1 Township of Mulmur Municipality of Port Hope Ward 2 Town of Grand Valley Municipality of Trent Hills Town of Mono City of Kawartha Lakes - Bexley Town of Orangeville City of Kawartha Lakes - Bobcaygeon Town of Shelburne City of Kawartha Lakes - Carden/Dalton County of Wellington (Upp City of Kawartha Lakes - Laxton, Digby & Longford Town of Minto City of Kawartha Lakes - Omemee Township of Guelph-Eram City of Kawartha Lakes - Woodville Township of Puslinch Simcoe County (Upper Tier Rate) Township of Centre Wellin Township of Adjala-Tosorontio Township of Mapleton Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury City of Waterloo Township of Clearview County of Brant Town of Collingwood Norfolk County Township of Essa Haldimand County Town of Innisfil County of Peterborough ( Town of New Tecumseth Selwyn Township Town of Midland Trent Lakes Township of Oro-Medonte Havelock Belmont Methue Town of Penetanguishene Otonabee South Monagha Township of Ramara Cavan Monaghan Township of Severn Douro Dummer Township of Springwater Asphodel Norwood Township of Tay North Kawartha Township of Tiny City of Peterborough Town of Wasaga Beach
Background Information:
The Ontario Property Tax Analysis tool (OPTA), developed by the Provincial Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, offers the following definitions in their glossary of terms that may be helpful:
Tax Ratios
OPTA defines tax ratios as, “Indicators of the mathematical relationship between the tax rate for the residential class and the tax rates for other property classes. The concept was introduced with the property tax reform in 1998 to ensure that
Page 53 of 119 Page 4
the historical tax burden for a property class remained the same after the reassessment. As the residential class is the basis for comparison for other classes; its tax ratio is always 1.0 (or CVA times a weighting ratio of 1). That means, if the tax ratio for a class has a value of 2.0, the assessment value used to calculate tax rate for that class, is two times greater than the current value assessment (CVA times a weighting ratio of 2). When the CVA is multiplied by the tax (or weighting) ratio, the result is referred to as the ‘weighted assessment’, which is the property value amount used in the tax rate calculation.
Single and upper tier municipalities are required to pass an annual by-law to adopt tax ratios for a year. The tax ratios can be equal to or less than transition ratios (those set in the previous year). Transition ratios represent the new ceiling or maximum tax ratio values that municipalities can adopt in their annual tax ratio by-law. Once the tax ratio by-law is passed, the transition ratios cease to exist until the next tax year, when the cycle is repeated.”
Transition Ratios
OPTA defines transition ratios as, “Indicators of the historical share of the municipal levy associated with each property class, they represent the ceiling or maximum tax ratio values that municipalities can adopt in their annual tax ratio by- law. Tax ratios can only be equal to or less than transition ratios, since the overall aim is to equalize the proportion of taxes payable by each class. Transition ratios are normally assigned by the province for each reassessment, but Ontario Regulation 385/98 allows for changes in the interim. Specifically, when one or more of the automatically calculated revenue neutral ratios determined for a municipality have higher values than the current tax ratio(s), they automatically become transition ratios. After the tax ratio by-law is passed, transition ratios cease to exist until the next tax year.”
Range of Fairness
The ‘range of fairness’ represents the “target levels of taxation that are prescribed by the Ontario government for each property class to encourage the reduction of tax rate differences and tax shifting between classes. At reassessment, the tax burden associated with each class was established and measured relative to the residential class which was deemed to have a transition ratio of 1.0. Most municipalities adopted the prescribed transition ratios, but others chose tax ratios within or that moved towards the allowable range of fairness for the class. The general rule respecting movement of tax ratios is that if the tax ratio of a property class falls outside (either above or below) the range of fairness prescribed for that class, the municipality must either maintain the existing tax ratio or adjust the ratio so that it moves closer to the range of fairness. A municipality cannot move its tax ratios away from the ranges of fairness”.
Page 54 of 119 Page 5
Tax Rate Process:
Each year, municipalities receive their property assessment values (or returned roll) from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporate (MPAC). In this MPAC report, properties are identified and summarized by property class (property type i.e. residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) and qualifier (identifies the property as taxable, excess land, vacant land, farmland awaiting development, etc.). Municipal treasury staff then compiles this information into analysis workbooks which multiply the assessment totals by the Council approved tax ratio or weighting factor. The end result of this calculation is the weighted assessment.
Figure C provides a graphic representation of how the CVA translates into weighted assessment. In the case of 2015, the total CVA for the County is approximately $11.35 Billion. While the weighted assessment is $11.05 Billion. The reduction is attributed to discounts relating to farmland, managed forests, unused commercial and industrial land, and vacant commercial and industrial units.
Figure C – 2015 Current Value Assessment vs. Weighted Assessment
The municipality’s treasurer or tax collector then applies the total tax requirement dollars for the coming year, as approved through the municipality’s budget process proportionately across the weighted assessment to determine the tax rate to be applied to each individual property.
Page 55 of 119 Page 6
How taxes are calculated:
1. The County’s total property current value assessment, broken down by property class (i.e. residential, commercial, industrial, multi-residential, pipeline, farm, managed forest) is provided by MPAC. 2. The CVA for reach class of property is then multiplied times the tax ratio (or weighting factor) to produce the weighted assessment. 3. The approved budgetary tax requirement for the taxation year is divided by the weighted assessment resulting in the tax rate for the respective classes of property. 4. The tax rate is then applied to each individual property’s weighted assessment to determine the County’s portion of their annual tax bill. This is also the same process applied by each of the lower tier municipalities in establishing their annual tax rates and individual property tax bills.
It should be noted, a change to the ratios used to establish the municipalities weighted assessment does not alter the total of tax dollars to be raised within a given year. The tax dollar requirement amount is established through the annual municipal budget process. Changes in a ratio will change the distribution of taxes amongst the various property classes however, thus increasing or decreasing the amount levied against each property within that class. If either or both of the commercial or industrial ratios were to be reduced, the rest of the property classes will experience a proportionate tax rate increase to redistribute the approved budgeted tax requirement.
Given that the residential class accounts for approximately 92% (approximately $10.1 Billion in 2014) of the County’s total assessed property value (approx. $11.1 Billion in 2015), it is fair to say that the residential property owners will bear the brunt of the consequences related to any ratio changes, all other things being equal.
Again, the important point to remember is that the total tax requisition amount doesn’t change; it is set by the budget By-law. Only the distribution of the tax burden is altered, which is accomplished by diverting a proportionate amount of the levy to the other property classes. The underlying question is then, is the value of the amount diverted away from one property class significant enough to be material in a growth and development sense, would the benefit of the change be sufficient to alter or influence a business investment decision, and, would the benefit of the change to one property class warrant or offset the impact on the other classes, particularly the residential rate payers? These are the fundamental questions to keep in mind while discussing our tax ratios.
The Continued Protection of Property Taxpayers Act, 2001 (Bill 140) permits the upper tier municipality to amend their transition ratios toward the range of fairness. Once so changed and approved as part of the County’s annual tax policy, that transition ratio will then become the tax ratio for the given taxation year. The residential class is stipulated as a 1.0 ratio (or, the returned
Page 56 of 119 Page 7
assessment value x a factor of 1), no discounted or grossed up weighting factor. You will see in Figure D following, the range of fairness as it is currently legislatively established.
The County has not opted to change their ratios since 1998, when they were first adopted. While some currently marginally exceed the range of fairness, they are within the allowable range as established through the articles of the Ontario Municipal Act.
Chart of Ratios and special Tax Rates and Limits:
The following information has been compiled for your reference and is drawn from legislative documentation relating to the range of fairness for tax ratios and other pertinent information regarding special tax rates and limits. This information is summarized from Section S.308 of Municipal Act and Ontario Regulations 386/98 and 73/03 (see Figure D).
Figure D – Allowable Ranges of for Tax Ratio
Ontario Regulation 386/98 - formerly under the Municipal Act. Last amended O. Reg. 212/05 Tax Matters - Allowable Ranges for Tax Ratios
1.(1) The allowable ranges for tax ratios set out in the following Table are prescribed, for the purposes of subsection 308(8) of the Act, for the property classes set out in the Table. 'O. Reg 386/98 s.1(1); O. reg. 302/03, s.1. 1.(2) The upper and lower limits of the ranges are included in the rages. O. Reg. 386/98, 2.1(2).
Property Class Allowable range for Tax Ratio Multi residential property class 1.00 to 1.1 Commercial property class 0.60 to 1.1 Industrial property class 0.60 to 1.1 Pipe line property class 0.60 to 0.7 New Multi-residential property class 1.00 to 1.1 Shopping center property class 0.60 to 1.1
Tax Matters - Special Tax Rates and Limits, 2003 and Later Years (selected provision) O.Reg. 73/03, amended to O.Reg 61/12 Managed Forests 0.25 or less Farmland 0.25 or less
Discounts Farmland Pending Development is discounted by 65% Commercial discount rate for excess units and vacant land 30% Industrial discount rate for excess units and vacant land 35%
How do we compare?
Figure E shows the tax ratios employed by the County of Peterborough. These ratios have remained unchanged since their introduction when the CVA method of tax calculation was introduced.
Page 57 of 119 Page 8
Figure E – County of Peterborough Tax Ratios
Property Class Ratio Property Class Ratio Residential 1.0000 Industrial 1.5432 Multi Residential 1.7802 New Industrial 1.5432 New Multi Residential 1.0000 Pipeline 0.9386 Commercial 1.0986 Farmland 0.2500 New Commercial 1.0986 Managed Forests 0.2500
Figures F and G following provide a graphic representation of the commercial tax ratios for the sample municipalities in this study. The purple bar at the right end of the histograms shows a simple average ratio for the group. The red line is a reference to evaluate each municipality’s relative positioning against the average ratio. Of the municipalities in the study, Peterborough County has the lowest commercial ratio within the group and is also amongst the lower ratios in the industrial group.
Figure F – Comparison of 2014 Commercial Property Class Tax Ratios for the study area
Page 58 of 119 Page 9
Commercial Municipality Tax Ratio Northumberland County 1.5152 City of Kawartha Lakes 1.2776 Simcoe County 1.2519 Town of Barrie 1.4331 Town of Orillia 1.9387 Dufferin County 1.2200 County of Wellington 1.4400 City of Waterloo 1.9500 County of Brant 1.9150 Norfolk County 1.6929 Haldimand County 1.6929 County of Peterborough 1.0986 City of Peterborough 1.6202 Average Commercial Ratio 1.5420
Figure G – Comparison of 2014 Industrial Class Tax Ratios for the study area.
Page 59 of 119 Page 10
Industrial Tax Municipality Ratio Northumberland County 2.6300 City of Kawartha Lakes 1.2776 Simcoe County 1.5380 Town of Barrie 1.5163 Town of Orillia 1.9434 Dufferin County 2.1984 County of Wellington 2.4400 City of Waterloo 1.9500 County of Brant 2.5710 Norfolk County 1.6929 Haldimand County 2.3274 County of Peterborough 1.5432 City of Peterborough 1.7632 Average Industrial Ratio 1.9532
By looking at the tax ratios alone, it is very difficult to make a case that our commercial and industrial ratios presents a significant barrier to growth and development. While we may not have the absolute lowest ratio in all cases, we are arguably sufficiently low to not pose a material deterrent to development.
The flow through effect on Tax Rates:
Tax ratios in themselves do not tell the entire picture. Ratios must be understood with respect to the resultant tax rates to truly understand their importance to the discussion.
To put this in perspective, tax rates for the residential, commercial, and industrial property classes for the taxation year 2014 were collected from each of the study’s municipal jurisdictions. These were consolidated into a single tax rate for each township to produce an all-in tax rate for the three property classes in question.
Figures H, I, and J following show the results of the all in rates for 2014. To reiterate, this includes the upper (or single) tier rate, lower tier rate, education rate, and all local area rates. Again, the purple bar at the end is the simple average rate for all included in the study and the red line extends the average across the histogram to show a relative position of each township to the overall average.
In figures H, I, and J the following abbreviations are used to indicate the Municipal Upper or single tier jurisdiction:
Page 60 of 119 Page 11
Abbreviation County
CB County of Brant CKL City of Kawartha Lakes CP County of Peterborough CTP City of Peterborough CTW City of Waterloo CW County of Wellington DC Dufferin County HC Haldimand County NC Northumberland County NFC Norfolk County SC Simcoe County TB Town of Barrie TO Town of Orillia
In each of the charts, the orange bars represent the all-in combined tax rates for the County of Peterborough. Again, the purple bar to the right side represents a simple average rate for the group and the red line provides an average reference point to compare each municipal jurisdiction to.
Figure H – Comparison of 2014 Residential Tax Rates for the Study Area
The list following shows the combined 2014 residential tax rates for the survey group organized from highest to lowest rate. The County of Peterborough townships are shown in bolded blue font.
Page 61 of 119 Page 12
Combined 2014 Municipal Jurisdiction Residential Tax Rate NC-Municipality of Port Hope Ward 1 0.01593188 NC-Town of Cobourg 0.01519260 SC-Town of Midland 0.01429447 NC-Municipality of Trent Hills 0.01427475 NC-Town of Cramahe 0.01422597 CTP-City of Peterborough 0.01416227 DC-Town of Orangeville 0.01406786 CW-Town of Minto 0.01401061 TO-Town of Orillia 0.01345804 DC-Town of Shelburne 0.01329825 DC-Town of Grand Valley 0.01319003 TB-Town of Barrie 0.01312302 HC-Haldimand County 0.01279717 SC-Town of Collingwood 0.01263156 CW-Township of Mapleton 0.01247053 NC-Municipality of Brighton 0.01222847 NC-Township of Hamilton 0.01213665 NFC-Norfolk County 0.01211790 SC-Town of Penetanguishene 0.01206290 CTW-City of Waterloo 0.01179211 PC-Asphodel Norwood 0.01172501 CW-Township of Centre Wellington 0.01168471 SC-Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury 0.01141131 NC-Municipality of Alnwick/Haldimand 0.01133363 NC-Municipality of Port Hope Ward 2 0.01128223 SC-Township of Tay 0.01126307 CW-Township of Guelph-Eramosa 0.01121624 SC-Town of Innisfil 0.01118629 SC-Township of Clearview 0.01112952 PC-Cavan Monaghan 0.01095517 CB-County of Brant 0.01087460 DC-Township of Amaranth 0.01079791 SC-Town of New Tecumseth 0.01055704 PC-Otonabee South Monaghan 0.01051838 DC-Township of Melancthon 0.01036820 DC-Township of Mulmur 0.01030829 CW-Township of Puslinch 0.01027680 DC-Township of East Garafraxa 0.01026334 DC-Town of Mono 0.01005382 CKL-City of Kawartha Lakes - Bobcaygeon 0.01004800 CKL-City of Kawartha Lakes - Omemee 0.01004800 SC-Town of Wasaga Beach 0.00996599 CKL-City of Kawartha Lakes - Woodville 0.00984400 CKL-City of Kawartha Lakes - Bexley 0.00972900 CKL-City of Kawartha Lakes - Carden/Dalton 0.00972900 CKL-City of Kawartha Lakes - Laxton, Digby & Longford 0.00972900 PC-Havelock Belmont Methuen 0.00941307 SC-Township of Oro-Medonte 0.00884352 PC-Trent Lakes 0.00865899 PC-Douro Dummer 0.00863556 SC-Township of Ramara 0.00857787 SC-Township of Severn 0.00852570 SC-Township of Springwater 0.00850748 PC-Selwyn Township 0.00844153 PC-North Kawartha 0.00843785 SC-Township of Tiny 0.00766062 SC-Township of Essa 0.00736093 SC-Township of Adjala-Tosorontio 0.00732098
Page 62 of 119 Page 13
Analysis of the residential all-in rate reveals that relatively speaking, the County collectively sits slightly below the group’s average. We are not the lowest but we are not the highest either. When considering this however, special consideration should be given to the range of services provided by some of the municipalities such as the Towns of Barrie and Orillia, and the Cities of Peterborough and Waterloo when reflecting on their higher tax rates.
Figure I - Comparison of 2014 Commercial Tax Rates for the study area
The list following shows the combined 2014 commercial tax rates for the survey group organized from highest to lowest rate. The County of Peterborough townships are shown in bolded blue font.
Page 63 of 119 Page 14
Combined 2014 Municipal Jurisdiction Commercial Tax Rate NC-Municipality of Port Hope Ward 1 0.03566412 TO-Town of Orillia 0.03554064 NC-Town of Cobourg 0.03454389 CTP-City of Peterborough 0.03411344 CTW-City of Waterloo 0.03363612 NC-Municipality of Trent Hills 0.03315325 NC-Town of Cramahe 0.03307933 HC-Haldimand County 0.03205081 NFC-Norfolk County 0.03167780 CB-County of Brant 0.03153740 NC-Municipality of Brighton 0.03005272 NC-Township of Hamilton 0.02991359 NC-Municipality of Alnwick/Haldimand 0.02869685 NC-Municipality of Port Hope Ward 2 0.02861897 TB-Town of Barrie 0.02768920 SC-Town of Midland 0.02755634 SC-Town of Collingwood 0.02547422 SC-Town of Penetanguishene 0.02476220 SC-Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury 0.02394634 SC-Township of Tay 0.02376072 SC-Town of Innisfil 0.02366459 SC-Township of Clearview 0.02359350 SC-Town of New Tecumseth 0.02287670 PC-Asphodel Norwood 0.02285094 CKL-City of Kawartha Lakes - Bobcaygeon 0.02244300 CKL-City of Kawartha Lakes - Omemee 0.02244300 CKL-City of Kawartha Lakes - Woodville 0.02218300 SC-Town of Wasaga Beach 0.02213666 CKL-City of Kawartha Lakes - Bexley 0.02203600 CKL-City of Kawartha Lakes - Carden/Dalton 0.02203600 CKL-City of Kawartha Lakes - Laxton, Digby & Longford 0.02203600 PC-Cavan Monaghan 0.02200518 PC-Otonabee South Monaghan 0.02152533 SC-Township of Oro-Medonte 0.02073121 SC-Township of Ramara 0.02039859 SC-Township of Severn 0.02033327 PC-Havelock Belmont Methuen 0.02031104 SC-Township of Springwater 0.02031045 PC-Trent Lakes 0.01948261 PC-Douro Dummer 0.01945686 SC-Township of Tiny 0.01925010 PC-Selwyn Township 0.01924370 PC-North Kawartha 0.01923966 SC-Township of Essa 0.01887486 SC-Township of Adjala-Tosorontio 0.01882436 CW-Town of Minto 0.01640722 DC-Town of Orangeville 0.01584629 DC-Town of Shelburne 0.01490737 DC-Town of Grand Valley 0.01477534 CW-Township of Mapleton 0.01418950 CW-Township of Centre Wellington 0.01305792 CW-Township of Guelph-Eramosa 0.01238333 DC-Township of Amaranth 0.01185696 DC-Township of Melancthon 0.01133272 DC-Township of Mulmur 0.01125963 DC-Township of East Garafraxa 0.01120479 CW-Township of Puslinch 0.01103054 DC-Town of Mono 0.01094917
Page 64 of 119 Page 15
Looking at our commercial rate, the County sits within the middle of the group, generally at or below the average rate.
Figure J – Comparison of 2014 Industrial Tax Rates for the study area
The list following shows the combined 2014 industrial tax rates for the survey group organized from highest to lowest rate. The County of Peterborough townships are shown in bolded blue font.
Page 65 of 119 Page 16
Combined 2014 Municipal Jurisdiction Industrial Tax Rate NC-Municipality of Port Hope Ward 1 0.05216195 NC-Town of Cobourg 0.05021761 NC-Municipality of Trent Hills 0.04780401 NC-Town of Cramahe 0.04767540 NC-Municipality of Brighton 0.04242199 NC-Township of Hamilton 0.04218049 HC-Haldimand County 0.04065951 NC-Municipality of Alnwick/Haldimand 0.04006853 NC-Municipality of Port Hope Ward 2 0.03993337 CB-County of Brant 0.03833950 TO-Town of Orillia 0.03750246 CTP-City of Peterborough 0.03699205 CTW-City of Waterloo 0.03463612 SC-Town of Midland 0.03446888 NFC-Norfolk County 0.03267780 SC-Town of Collingwood 0.03191049 SC-Town of Penetanguishene 0.03103561 PC-Asphodel Norwood 0.03056134 SC-Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury 0.03003314 TB-Town of Barrie 0.02989652 SC-Township of Tay 0.02980505 SC-Town of Innisfil 0.02968694 SC-Township of Clearview 0.02959959 PC-Cavan Monaghan 0.02937333 SC-Town of New Tecumseth 0.02871885 PC-Otonabee South Monaghan 0.02869927 SC-Town of Wasaga Beach 0.02780951 PC-Havelock Belmont Methuen 0.02699356 SC-Township of Oro-Medonte 0.02608290 PC-Trent Lakes 0.02582987 CKL-City of Kawartha Lakes - Bobcaygeon 0.02584300 CKL-City of Kawartha Lakes - Omemee 0.02584300 PC-Douro Dummer 0.02579369 SC-Township of Ramara 0.02567389 SC-Township of Severn 0.02559362 CKL-City of Kawartha Lakes - Woodville 0.02558300 SC-Township of Springwater 0.02556559 PC-Selwyn Township 0.02549427 PC-North Kawartha 0.02548859 CKL-City of Kawartha Lakes - Bexley 0.02543600 CKL-City of Kawartha Lakes - Carden/Dalton 0.02543600 CKL-City of Kawartha Lakes - Laxton, Digby & Longford 0.02543600 SC-Township of Tiny 0.02426270 SC-Township of Essa 0.02380162 DC-Town of Orangeville 0.02375550 SC-Township of Adjala-Tosorontio 0.02373900 DC-Town of Shelburne 0.02206360 CW-Town of Minto 0.02185406 DC-Town of Grand Valley 0.02182568 CW-Township of Mapleton 0.01809626 DC-Township of Amaranth 0.01656689 CW-Township of Centre Wellington 0.01617887 DC-Township of Melancthon 0.01562218 DC-Township of Mulmur 0.01549048 DC-Township of East Garafraxa 0.01539166 CW-Township of Guelph-Eramosa 0.01503580 DC-Town of Mono 0.01493103 CW-Township of Puslinch 0.01274357
Page 66 of 119 Page 17
Based on the average industrial rate, the townships of the County sit for the most part at or below the average. Generally speaking, it is slightly higher than our similar relative positioning for residential and commercial but not significantly so.
Growth Figures drawn from the OPTA system:
The schedule below is based on annual property assessment growth figures drawn from the OPTA property tax assessment tool for the taxation years 2011 through 2015. It does not include PIL numbers and the New Commercial and New Industrial growth figures have been netted against the base Commercial and Industrial property assessment classes to show a single commercial and industrial assessment growth amount.
2011 Net 2012 Net 2013 Net 2014 Net 2015 Net Property Class Asse ssme nt Asse ssme nt Asse ssme nt Asse ssme nt Asse ssme nt Growth $'s Growth $'s Growth $'s Growth $'s Growth $'s Residential $ 72,707,947 $ 85,867,186 $ 185,417,882 $ 89,979,674 $ 116,018,813 Commercial $ (2,269,639) $ (4,057,899) $ (4,733,405) $ (4,645,464) $ 3,448,842 Industrial $ 603,986 $ 7,512,265 $ 322,946 $ 187,410 $ 3,414,279
Figure K depicts the information shown in the above schedule in graph form for your reference.
Figure K – Assessment Growth 2011 through 2015 for the Residential, Commercial and Industrial property classes:
Page 67 of 119 Page 18
Assessment growth in all County property classes, including PIL per the OPTA system, from 2011 to 2015 is as follows:
2011 - 0.79%, 2012 - 0.93%, 2013 - 0.93%, 2014 - 0.88%, 2015 - 1.17%
Data Interpretation
The big question coming out of this survey is how to interpret this data. Would a change in tax ratio (and subsequently tax rate) present a clear stimulant to industrial and commercial development?
In speaking to a Greater Peterborough Area Development Corporation representative, they noted that during their discussions with various potential development investors, none have identified tax rates as being a barrier to entry into the local market. Generally, taxes have not come up in the discussions. While tax rates haven’t appeared to be a principle investment driver, questions about available services, ease of accessibility, and quality/quantity of the available labour market were points of consideration. This being the case, there may even be an argument to forego lower taxes in favour of increasing services to stimulate real growth. There are no conclusive numbers to support the argument either way but it does however lend a perspective on the interpretation and complexity of the data.
As mentioned earlier this report, the other critical side of this discussion relates to the impact of diverting taxes to the residential (and other classes) resulting from a reduction in the commercial or industrial ratio/rate. Our property demographic clearly shows a considerable proportionate share of residential assessment, approximately 92% of the total County assessment (refer Figure B above). A change in ratio to any of the other classes will automatically result in shifting even greater amounts of tax burden to the residential class. While the residential tax ratio is set by legislation at 1.0, the amount of tax dollars to be raised also remains constant for a given taxation year once the annual budget is approved by Council. If the tax ratio for one of the property classes other than residential is changed, the resulting reduction in tax dollars to be raised through that class will be proportionately redistributed to the other property classes, primarily the residential class. Given that much of our annual assessment growth has been in the residential class, it is important that the flow through impact from a reduction in commercial or industrial rates be evaluated in terms of the growth deterrent and public backlash likely to come from the residential property owners.
Interestingly enough, the County’s ratio for the commercial property class is well below the mean average for the survey group. In fact, it is the lowest of the group. The County’s tax rate for the commercial class sits at or below the mean average for the group. In spite of this, the commercial property class has been consistently the area experiencing the greatest growth challenges based on the information provided by OPTA. It is encouraging to see a turnaround to this trend
Page 68 of 119 Page 19
in the 2015 assessment data and hopefully future years will continue to exhibit this behaviour.
In contrast, the County’s industrial tax ratio is positioned relatively higher in the survey group than the commercial ratio, while remaining well below the mean average. The industrial ratio is also somewhat above the Provinces target as identified in the range of fairness guidelines. The County’s tax rate for the industrial class shows some of the County’s townships slightly above the mean average while the majority are again at or below the average. Viewing the assessment growth data however, there has been a consistent net assessment growth trend in this class.
While the data provided doesn’t provide any conclusive or definitive answer to the degree of correlation between assessment growth and tax ratios it does highlight that real economic growth is a complicated issue. There are more factors at play than simply changing a ratio or tax rate. It must be approached from a comprehensive, all-encompassing perspective that takes into account, municipal services, labour force pressures, ease of access, market depth, and availability of materials to name a few.
Each year before presenting the County’s tax policy to County Council, the lower tier treasurers are canvassed as a group to ensure the annual tax policy proposal reflects the group’s recommendations. The result has always been the same, stay the course, leave the policy as it is. The Treasurer’s group have consistently expressed the opinion that the County’s tax ratios represent a fair, equitable, and consistent distribution of tax burden and should not be changed. The 2015 tax policy report again reflects this recommendation to County Council.
Respectfully submitted,
Original signed by
John Butler, Director of Finance/Treasurer.
Page 69 of 119 Page 70 of 119 The County of Peterborough County Council
To: Warden and Members of Council
From: Lynn Fawn, Deputy Clerk/Office Supervisor
Date: May 6, 2015
Subject: Correspondence Report – Information Only
Recommendation: Receive for information.
Financial Impact: None
Overview:
Since the last meeting of County Council, the Information Only Correspondence items listed below have been received. Copies are available upon request from the Clerk’s Office. Copies being provided are indicated by an asterisk (*).
General Correspondence
1. Christine Lang: Card thanking the County of Peterborough for the lovely retirement gift. 2. Trent Valley Archives: Letter dated April 10, 2015 regarding “Request for Funding from the County”. The letter thanks the County of Peterborough for granting their request for a third instalment of a grant to work on preserving and processing the archives of the Peterborough Examiner. 3. Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) Communications: 1. News Release dated April 13, 2015 announcing “Ontario Premier Announces Cap and Trade System to Reduce Greenhouse Gases.” 2. Breaking News dated April 14, 2015 announcing “Government Announces Consultation to Update Ontario’s Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy.” 3. Policy Update dated April 16, 2015 announcing “Release of Premier’s Advisory Council on Government Assets Report.” 4. Policy Update dated April 17, 2015 announcing “What Happened in Waste This Week.” 5. Policy Update dated April 21, 2015 announcing “Federal Budget Provides New Public Transit Fund, Limited Housing Support.” 6. Policy Update dated April 22, 2015 announcing “2015 Steward Obligation for Blue Box.” 7. Breaking News dated April 23, 2015 announcing “2015 Ontario Budget Highlights.”
Page 71 of 119 Page 2
8. Breaking News dated April 27, 2015 announcing “AMO Releases Policing Modernization Report.” To view the report click here. 9. AMO Watch File dated April 16, 2015.* 10. AMO Watch File dated April 23, 2015.* 4. Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario (AMCTO): Email dated April 23, 2015 concerning “2015 Ontario Budget Highlights.” For more information click here. 5. Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM): Email dated April 21, 2015 regarding “FCM’s response to Budget 2015.” For more information click here. 6. Ontario Good Roads Association (OGRA): Heads Up Alert dated April 29, 2015 regarding “OGRA Welcomes Recommendations Following Release of the Auditor General Report on Winter Highway Maintenance.” To view the alert click here. 7. Province of Ontario: 1. News Release dated April 9, 2015 announcing “Ontario investing $55 Million to Help More People Enter the Skilled Trades – Government Boosting Funding for Apprenticeship Training Programs.” 2. News Release dated April 9, 2015 announcing “Ontario Investing $19 Million to Support Local Festivals and Events – Province Supporting Communities and Creating Jobs.” 3. News Release dated April 13, 2015 announcing “Cap and Trade System to Limit Greenhouse Gas Pollution in Ontario – Provincial System will Reward Innovative Companies and Create More Opportunities for Investment in Ontario.” 4. Statement dated April 13, 2015 announcing Joint Statement from Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne and Québec Premier Philippe Couillard - "Climate change is endangering the air we breathe, the water we drink and the health of our children and grandchildren. It is already costing the people of Ontario and Québec -- it has devastated communities, damaged homes, businesses and crops, and increased insurance rates.” 5. News Release dated April 14, 2015 announcing “Ontario Launches Public Consultations to Improve Access to Affordable Housing – Province Making Progress on Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy.” 6. News Release dated April 16, 2015 announcing “Ontario Expanding Beer Sales to Grocery Stores – Ownership of Hydro One to be Broadened with $4 Billion Raised to be Invested in Infrastructure Projects.” 7. News Release dated April 20, 2015 announcing “Ontario Introduces New Connecting Links Program to Support Municipalities, Improve Infrastructure. Province Committing $15 Million Annually to Connect Municipal Roads to Highways.”
Page 72 of 119 Page 3
8. News Release dated April 24, 2015 announcing “Ontario Expanding Natural Gas Service to More Communities - Natural Gas Access Loan and Natural Gas Economic Development Grant to Lower Prices, Help Businesses and Create Jobs.” 9. Statement dated April 24, 2015 announcing “Joint Statement on Climate Change from the Premiers of Ontario and Quebec.” 10. News Release dated April 29, 2015 announcing “Bill Strengthening Retirement Security for Millions of Workers Passes in Ontario Legislature – Ontario Retirement Pension Plan to Become Law.” 11. Statement dated April 29, 2015 announcing “Statement by the Minister of Transportation on Winter Maintenance.” 8. Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus (EOWC): Correspondence dated April 28, 2015 regarding “Bill 73 – An Act to Amend the Development Charges Act, 1997 and the Planning Act (1st Reading March 5, 2015).” * 9. Ministry of Energy: Letter dated April 1, 2015 following up on a letter sent from the County of Peterborough related to energy projects in the community. The letter outlines the Municipal Energy Plan Program which supports municipalities’ efforts to understand their local energy needs, develop plans and identify opportunities. The MEP program can offer municipalities up to $90,000 for the program. For more information click here. 10. Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade: Letter dated April 2015 announcing “Lincoln M. Alexander Award 2015” presented annually to honour young Ontarian’s who have demonstrated exemplary leadership in contributing to the elimination of racial discrimination. Deadline for nominations is May 31, 2015. For more information click here. 11. Minister Responsible for Seniors Affairs: Letter dated April 2015 regarding “Senior Achievement Award.” The Senior Achievement Award highlights the significant voluntary and professional achievements made by individuals over the age of 65. For more information click here. 12. Ontario Provincial Police: Email dated April 15, 2015 regarding “Launch of OPP Text with 9-1-1 Service”. Text 9-1-1 is a service for persons who are deaf, hard of hearing or speech impaired (DHHSI) who can register their cellular device with their provider in order to communicate with OPP Communications Centres in an emergency. For more information click here. 13. Council for Persons With Disabilities: Email dated April 10, 2015 announcing “The Council for Persons with Disabilities Presents the 2015 Inclusion Conference – Active Together: Inclusive Sport & Physical Recreation.” The Conference will be held on Friday May 29, 2015 from 9:45 a.m. to 4:40 p.m. at Fleming College. For more information click here. 14. Greater Peterborough Chamber of Commerce: Email dated April 15, 2015 announcing “Outcomes of Chamber of Commerce Young Professionals Group Policy Forum.” 15. County of Peterborough: Notice of Study Completion County of
Page 73 of 119 Page 4
Peterborough Class Environmental Assessment for the Reed Bridge. Copies of this environmental assessment are available for review at the County of Peterborough Public Works Office (310 Armour Road), the Municipality of Trent Lakes Office (701 County Road 36), and the Kinmount Public Library (3980 County Road 121) and online at www.county.peterborough.on.ca. 16. City of Peterborough: Email dated April 24, 2015 regarding “Peterborough Renovates Program – Funding Now Available.” For more information click here. 17. Fleming College: News Release dated April 15, 2015 announcing “Fleming College signs agreement to provide water sector training in India.” 18. Huron Perth Landowners Association: Press Release dated April 18, 2015 regarding “Wind Leaseholders May Be On The Hook For Billions.” (County Council previously received the letter from Safe Wind Energy for All Residents (SWEAR) at its April 15, 2015 meeting). 19. Ecotec Environmental Consultants Inc: Letter dated March 31, 2015 regarding “Highway 7 from Fowlers Corners to County Road 28 Transportation Environmental Study Report (TESR) Addendum Notice of Submission – MTO Work Project (W.P.) 73-99-00.” 20. Sacred Water Circle: Email dated April 10, 2015 announcing 1. “Seven Generations Ahead: Celebrating Water Solutions hosted by Fleming College.” Friday May 8, 2015 Fleming College Brealy Campus, Whetung Theatre starting at 1:30 p.m. 2. “Kawartha Lakes Water Walk 2015” The 6th Annual Water Awareness Walk in the Kawarthas will take place on Sunday May 10, 2015 at the First People’s House of Learning Tipi at Trent University starting at 6:30 a.m.
Communications, Minutes and Reports on County-funded Projects
21. Greater Peterborough Economic Development Corporation (GPA EDC): 1. Media Release dated April 9, 2015 “Eastern Ontario Development Program Supports Skills Training for Regional Manufacturers.” For more information click here. 2. Media & Stakeholder Advisory dated April 13, 2015 “Peterborough Economic Development Announces Departure of President & CEO.” 3. Media Release dated April 8, 2015 “Now Accepting Applications for Summer Company.” For more information click here. 22. Sustainable Peterborough: Email dated April 10, 2015 announcing “Our Change – Taking Action on Climate Change.” For more information click here. 23. Peterborough Social Planning Council: 1. Info Notes dated April 22, 2015 regarding “Federal Budget Released.”
Page 74 of 119 Page 5
2. Info Notes dated April 30, 2015 regarding “Highlights of the Provincial Budget.”
Information Only Correspondence
24. Regional Municipality of Durham: Council Highlights dated April 1, 2015 Volume 13, Issue 4.
Respectfully submitted,
Original signed by
Lynn Fawn, Deputy Clerk/Office Supervisor /eh
Page 75 of 119 Page 76 of 119 AMO Watch File - April 16, 2015
AMO Watch File not displaying correctly? View the online version | Send to a friend Add [email protected] to your safe list
April 16, 2015 In this issue - 2015 P.J. Marshall Award - Deadline May 1st. - Private Member Bill introduced that impacts municipalities. - Grant for Municipal Energy Planning still available. - Local Poverty Reduction Fund. - Effective Open and Closed Meetings Workshop. - What is land use planning? - Fill up on savings with the LAS Fuel Program. - Childhood Obesity Prevention for Community Leaders, Toronto, April 29. - Ontario Biodiversity Summit 2015, May 19-22, Niagara Falls. - Career opportunity with Sarnia.
AMO Matters Submit your municipal government project that demonstrates excellence in the use of innovative approaches to improve capital and/or operating efficiency and to generate effectiveness through alternative service delivery initiatives and partnerships. Apply for the 2015 P. J. Marshall Municipal Innovation Award today! Deadline May 1, 2015.
Provincial Matters Private Member Bill, Bill 87 Long-Term Care Homes Amendment Act (Preference for Veterans), 2015 (would introduce a definition of “veteran” and ensure preference for veterans in admission to LTC homes), was introduced and received First Reading.
The Municipal Energy Plan program (MEP) provides funding for 50 per cent of eligible costs. A new funding stream for municipalities that have a complete or partial Municipal Energy Plan, Climate Action Plan or other energy plan is available.
The Province has launched a Local Poverty Reduction Fund to evaluate innovative, community-driven programs that improve the lives of people living in poverty. Municipalities and District Social Service Administration Boards are eligible to apply. For more information on the Expression of Interest process due May 5th, visit the government website.
Eye on AMO/LAS Events The 2015 Meetings Series workshops focus beyond generic tips and tricks and will look at your municipal needs to run effective open and closed meetings. Space still available in Kingston, London, Temiskaming Shores and Orillia. Don't delay, register today!
What is land use planning? Why do municipalities need to plan? AMO presents a new online self- directed course in Land Use Planning. Log-in to the AMO online portal and become familiarized with the basics of land use planning today!
LAS Access lower costs for gasoline, diesel and heating oil; reduce administrative burden on staff; and enjoy the flexibility of a no volume or timeframe commitment with the LAS Fuel Procurement Program. Find out how much you could save today with a FREE Fuel Analysis!
Municipal Wire* Unique opportunity to attend a one-day workshop, Toronto, April 29. The EPODE Canada team will Page 77 of 119 http://amo.informz.ca/...rvice/onlineversion/ind/bWFpbGluZ2luc3RhbmNlaWQ9NTM3ODQ1JnN1YnNjcmliZXJpZD05MDEzMDI1Mzg=[4/16/2015 10:12:18 AM] AMO Watch File - April 16, 2015
share global best practices for more effective childhood obesity prevention. Special rates apply. Register now.
Policy makers, planners and others should attend the Ontario Biodiversity Summit to learn about the state of biodiversity and what we are doing to protect it (Niagara Falls, May 19-22).
Careers Fleet Trainer - City of Sarnia. Closing date for recruitment: May 1, 2015. Please submit a resume to: The Corporation of the City of Sarnia, ATT: Human Resources, 255 North Christina Street, P.O. Box 3018, Sarnia, ON N7T 7N2. Fax: 519.332.8951; Email: [email protected].
About AMO AMO is a non-profit organization representing almost all of Ontario's 444 municipal governments. AMO supports strong and effective municipal government in Ontario and promotes the value of municipal government as a vital and essential component of Ontario's and Canada's political system. Follow @AMOPolicy on Twitter!
AMO Contacts AMO Watch File Team, Tel: 416.971.9856 Conferences/Events Policy and Funding Programs LAS Local Authority Services MEPCO Municipal Employer Pension Centre of Ontario OMKN Ontario Municipal Knowledge Network Media Inquiries, Tel: 416.729.5425 Municipal Wire, Career/Employment and Council Resolution Distributions
*Disclaimer: The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) is unable to provide any warranty regarding the accuracy or completeness of third-party submissions. Distribution of these items does not imply an endorsement of the views, information or services mentioned.
Association of Municipalities of Ontario Please consider the environment 200 University Ave. Suite 801,Toronto ON Canada M5H 3C6 before printing this. To unsubscribe, please click here
Page 78 of 119 http://amo.informz.ca/...rvice/onlineversion/ind/bWFpbGluZ2luc3RhbmNlaWQ9NTM3ODQ1JnN1YnNjcmliZXJpZD05MDEzMDI1Mzg=[4/16/2015 10:12:18 AM] AMO Watch File - April 23, 2015
AMO Watch File not displaying correctly? View the online version | Send to a friend Add [email protected] to your safe list
April 23, 2015 In this issue - 2015 P.J. Marshall Award - deadline next week. - Supreme Court decision on prayer at Saguenay council meetings. - 2015 AMO Gas Tax Awards. - Pre-AMO Conference Heads of Council - limited space left. - AMO Conference keynote speakers added. - What makes municipal meetings unique? - What is land use planning? - Empower your asset management and capital planning with energy analysis. - LAS natural gas price expected to decrease in 2015. - Career opportunities with West Perth, Simcoe County and OPS.
AMO Matters May 1st deadline fast approaching for the 2015 P. J. Marshall Municipal Innovation Award. Submit your municipal government project that demonstrates excellence in the use of innovative approaches to improve capital and/or operating efficiency and to generate effectiveness through alternative service delivery initiatives and partnerships.
Federal Matters The Supreme Court of Canada ordered Saguenay Council to cease its prayer in its council chambers on the basis of governments’ responsibility to remain neutral. While the decision is not an expansive ruling, it is generating interest across the country. Attached is a note that provides important background on the case, some analysis and suggested actions. Read the April 15 Supreme Court decision here.
The AMO Gas Tax Project Awards showcase infrastructure that makes a difference in our communities. Winners are honoured on the main stage at the AMO Annual Conference. Learn more about how winners are selected.
Eye on AMO/LAS Events Join fellow Heads of Council at AMO's Heads of Council Training on Sunday, August 16 in Niagara Falls. Get the information you need to be an effective Head of Council. Learn what skills and tools you need to lead, manage and collaborate and more. Don't miss out, reserve your space today!
AMO Conference program planning is well underway, with a number of hot topics to be explored by a variety of speakers, including keynote speakers Anthony D. Williams, Linda Nazareth and Dr. Katharine Loflin. Learn more about these speakers, their topics and more!
What makes municipal meetings unique? What rules govern closed meetings? What makes a good meeting? Explore these questions and more at the remaining Meeting Series sessions in London (April 25) and Orillia (May 2). Don't delay, space is limited!
What is land use planning? Why do municipalities need to plan? AMO presents a new online self- directed course in Land Use Planning. Log-in to the AMO online portal and become familiarized with the basics of land use planning today!
LAS' practical Energy Finance Workshop will provide staff and councillors with the tools required to understand lifecycle costs of potential money-saving energy projects and learn how to position projects in asset management and other municipal strategic plans and objectives. Page 79 of 119 http://amo.informz.ca/...rvice/onlineversion/ind/bWFpbGluZ2luc3RhbmNlaWQ9NTQwNDk2JnN1YnNjcmliZXJpZD05MDEyOTMwMzU=[4/24/2015 8:48:57 AM] AMO Watch File - April 23, 2015
LAS Based on current program purchases, remaining targets and estimated spot market prices, the LAS Natural Gas Procurement Program price is expected to decrease 5% to 16 cents/m3 or less starting November 1, 2015. Not currently a member? Learn how to join the LAS Natural Gas Program today.
Careers Chief Administrative Officer - Municipality of West Perth. Please submit your resume prior to 2:00 p.m., May 20, 2015 to: Susan Duke, Interim Clerk/CAO, Municipality of West Perth, 169 St. David St., Box 609, Mitchell, ON N0K 1N0; [email protected]; 519.348.8429 ext. 224.
General Manager, Social & Community Services - County of Simcoe. To view the complete opportunity profile or to apply for this position, please visit Simcoe Careers.
Senior Policy Advisor, Water Management and Infrastructure - Ontario Public Service. Location: Peterborough. Please apply online only, quoting Job ID 76844, by May 12, 2015.
About AMO AMO is a non-profit organization representing almost all of Ontario's 444 municipal governments. AMO supports strong and effective municipal government in Ontario and promotes the value of municipal government as a vital and essential component of Ontario's and Canada's political system. Follow @AMOPolicy on Twitter!
AMO Contacts AMO Watch File Team, Tel: 416.971.9856 Conferences/Events Policy and Funding Programs LAS Local Authority Services MEPCO Municipal Employer Pension Centre of Ontario OMKN Ontario Municipal Knowledge Network Media Inquiries, Tel: 416.729.5425 Municipal Wire, Career/Employment and Council Resolution Distributions
*Disclaimer: The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) is unable to provide any warranty regarding the accuracy or completeness of third-party submissions. Distribution of these items does not imply an endorsement of the views, information or services mentioned.
Association of Municipalities of Ontario Please consider the environment 200 University Ave. Suite 801,Toronto ON Canada M5H 3C6 before printing this. To unsubscribe, please click here
Page 80 of 119 http://amo.informz.ca/...rvice/onlineversion/ind/bWFpbGluZ2luc3RhbmNlaWQ9NTQwNDk2JnN1YnNjcmliZXJpZD05MDEyOTMwMzU=[4/24/2015 8:48:57 AM] Haliburton Lanark Renfrew Eeeds & Crenville Hastings Prescott & Russell Peterborough Stormont Dundas & Glengarry Kawartha Cakes Northumberland [Owc Prince Edward Lennox and Addington Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus Acting in Partnership.
do United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry 26 Pitt Street, Suite 323, Cornwall ON K6i 3P2
April 29, 2015
Warden J. Murray Jones, Vice-Chair — County of Peterborough Warden Robert Kirby — United Counties of Prescott and Russell Warden David Gordon — United Counties of Leeds and Grenville Warden Gordon Schermerhorn — County of Lennox and Addington Warden Marc Coombs — County of Northumberland Warden Robert Quaiff — County of Prince Edward Warden Peter Emon — County of Renfrew Warden Rick Phillips — County of Hastings Warden Keith Kerr — County of Lanark Warden Denis Doyle — County of Frontenac Warden Murray Fearrey — County of Haliburton Mayor Andy Letham — City of Kawartha Lakes (via e-mail)
Re: Bill 73 — An Act to Amend the Development Charges Act, 1997 and the Planning Act fist Reading March 5, 2015)
Dear fellow members of the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus:
Several counties in eastern Ontario have made the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus (EOWC) aware of serious concerns with Bill 73, particularly as it relates to proposed changes to the Planning Act. These changes may impact all counties in Ontario, especially the land use planning approval functions that rest with the upper tier.
The following changes to the specified sections of the Planning Act have been highlighted as areas of concern:
• Subsection 26 (1) — (1.2) — The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) will be updated every 10 years instead of 5 years, however, Official Plans will be required to be updated after 70 years initially and then every 5 years thereafter. Official Plans should be updated every 10 years similar to the PPS.
• Section 8 — Upper tiers will be mandated to have a planning advisory committee with at least one member of the public. There is no indication of the role of this Committee, why this change is necessary, or of any consultation with upper tiers.
Page 81 of 119 • Subsection 22(2.1) and 34(10.0.0.1 — Private land owner amendments to Official Plans and zoning by-laws would be prohibited for two years after adoption of the documents.
• Subsections 45 (1.2) — (1.3) — Owner-initiated minor variances would be prohibited for two years from the date of the passing of a site specific rezoning amendment.
A letter from the Warden of the County of Renfrew is attached and includes a discussion of the impacts of these changes. The Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus felt that every county should be made aware of the potential impacts of these changes, as they may wish to submit individual comments to the Honourable Ted McMeekin, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
Yours sincerely,
Eric Duncan Chair, 2015, Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus
Page 82 of 119 9 INTERNATIONAL DRIVE PEMBROKE, ON, CANADA K8A 6W5 613‐735‐7288 Office of the FAX: 613‐735‐2081 County Warden www.countyofrenfrew.on.ca
April 22, 2015
Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing 777 Bay Street, 17th Floor Toronto, ON M5G 2E5
Dear Sir/Madam:
RE: Bill 73 – An Act to Amend the Development Charges Act, 1997 and the Planning Act
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Bill 73. Our comments are related to the proposed changes to the Planning Act. The section numbers below refer to the section numbers in the proposed legislation.
1. Subsections 26(1)-(1.2) – We agree with the proposed changes that would extend the review interval of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and new official plans from every 5 years to every 10 years. The five year review cycle comes around very quickly and places a strain on the resources of municipalities and puts them in a constant state of review at the expense of other planning initiatives. The 10-year cycle provides a balance between ensuring stability of the documents while ensuring they are updated appropriately to reflect changing trends. Unfortunately, the benefits of these changes are somewhat undermined by the continued requirement in Bill 73 that official plans be reviewed every five years thereafter. Since most updates to official plans are through the five year review process, the proposed changes to the Planning Act will have negligible impact. In order to fully realize the benefits of the 10-year review cycle all official plans, new and updated ones, should be reviewed every ten years. Since the PPS itself is proposed to be reviewed every ten years, and since the main purpose of official plan updates is to ensure consistency with the PPS, it only makes sense in our mind to make the 10-year timeframe standard across all reviews. The option of reviewing all or parts of its official plan sooner than the 10-year timeframe would always be available to a municipality and would strengthen local autonomy, which is a stated objective of Bill 73.
2. Section 8 – We are opposed to making planning advisory committees mandatory at the upper tier. We are also opposed to requiring at least one member of the public sit on these committees. Most, if not all, of our County colleagues have standing committees of County Council which have served their communities well as reporting vehicles on planning matters. It is difficult to see how requiring the creation of another committee at the upper tier streamlines the planning process or enhances local autonomy. We also fail to see how having one member from the public on a committee engages the wider public. The Planning Act already requires extensive public engagement and public consultation. It is important to acknowledge that elected officials play a significant role in representing the public interest. The Bill should be amended by making planning advisory committees optional at the upper tier, as is proposed for lower tiers. The decision to have citizen representation on these committees should also be left to the municipality, thus enhancing local autonomy.
Page 83 of 119 Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing - 2 - April 22, 2015
3. Subsections 22(2.1) and 34(10.0.0.1) – We do not agree with the proposed change that would prohibit amendments to a new official plan or global replacement to a zoning by-law in the first two years except those initiated by the municipality. This has never been an issue in the County of Renfrew and we do not see the need for this change.
We would also like to point out a possible discrepancy in what is intended by the proposed legislation and what the legislation actually states. The backgrounder on Bill 73 dated March 5, 2015 prepared by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) states that, once a municipality establishes a new official plan, it would be frozen and therefore not subject to new amendments for two years unless changes are initiated by the municipality (emphasis added). We note, however, that the wording in the proposed legislation in Section 22(2.1) states that ‘no person or public body shall request an amendment...’ Under the Planning Act public body includes a municipality. Therefore, a straight reading of the proposed legislation would lead one to believe that no amendments, including those by a municipality, would be permitted within two years. The legislation should be amended to reflect the true intent.
4. Subsections 45 (1.2)-(1.3) – This would prohibit a minor variance to an owner-initiated, site specific rezoning within two years unless council passes a resolution permitting such an application. We find this an unnecessary complication of the process without any perceived gain. This and other various changes to time-frames and notice procedures sprinkled throughout Bill 73 (e.g., subsection 34 (18.1) requiring a brief explanation in the notice of passing of a zoning by-law of the effect, if any, that written and oral submissions had on the decision) add more administrative complexities to the Planning Act, making the implementation of planning matters all the more difficult for municipalities without resulting in commensurate benefits.
We would like to conclude by noting some of the proposals in Bill 73 which we fully support. These include clarifying what is meant by “minor” in minor variances, requiring greater explanation of appeals in certain cases, removing the requirement to review employment land policies in five year official plan reviews, and removing the ability to appeal entire new official plans.
Once again we thank you for the opportunity to comment on Bill 73 and hope that you will take our comments into consideration in your further review of the proposed legislation.
Sincerely,
Peter R. Emon, Warden County of Renfrew [email protected]
c: John Yakabuski, MPP, Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke File
Page 84 of 119 Page 1
The County of Peterborough County Council
To: Warden and Members of Council
From: Ann Hamilton, Land Division Secretary-Treasurer
Date: May 6, 2015
Subject: Land Division Committee Report January to December, 2014 Recommendation: Receive for Information Financial Impact: None
Please receive the following annual report for 2014; Schedule ‘A’ is attached to show the breakdown by Township and Ward and Schedule ‘B’ is attached to show Straight Forward Consent Approvals by the Director of Planning.
2014 Land Division Committee Activity
Received Applications Committee Decisions Staff Received Amended Validation LDC Hearing Approved Denied Withdrawn Adjourned Approval Jan 9 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 14 Feb 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Mar 22 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 Apr 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 May 11 0 0 3 1 0 0 2 8 Jun 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Jul 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Aug 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Sept 7 0 0 3 1 0 0 2 11 Oct 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Nov 3 0 0 4 2 2 0 0 4 Dec 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 YTD 2014 114 1 0 16 10 2 0 4 96 YTD 2013 82 3 1 33 9 22 0 2 57
Respectfully submitted,
Original signed by
Ann Hamilton
Page 85 of 119 Page 2
Schedule ‘A’
Received Applications by Municipality New Lot Addition R-O-W Easement Validation Amended Lease Total Asphodel-Norwood 5 8 13 Cavan-Monaghan 19 2 21 Douro-Dummer 15 2 2 19 Galway-Cav & Harvey 11 3 3 1 18 Havelock-Bel-Meth 2 8 10 North Kawartha 3 3 Oton South Mon 6 2 1 9 Smith-Ennis-Lake 6 12 1 1 1 1 22 Total 64 40 7 2 0 1 1 115 115
Received Applications by Ward New Lot Addition R-O-W Easement Validation Amended Lease Total Anstruther 0 Asphodel 5 8 13 Belmont 2 4 6 Burleigh 2 2 Cavan 12 1 13 Cavendish 1 1 Chandos 1 1 Douro 4 1 5 Dummer 11 1 2 14 Ennismore 3 3 Galway 1 1 1 3 Harvey 11 2 1 14 Havelock 0 Lakefield 2 1 3 Methuen 4 4 Millbrook 5 5 North Monaghan 2 1 3 Norwood 0 Otonabee 6 1 1 8 South Monaghan 1 1 Smith 1 11 1 1 1 1 16 Total 64 40 7 2 0 1 1 115 115
Page 86 of 119 Page 3
Schedule ‘B’
2014 Planning Director Decisions - Straight Forward Consents
Jan 9 B-11-13 James Weir & Elizabeth Lenz Harvey New Lot
Jan 9 B-12-13 James Weir & Elizabeth Lenz Harvey New Lot
Jan 9 B-19-13 June Tripp Cavan New Lot
Jan 9 B-37-13 Doris Veronica McCurdy Belmont New Lot
Jan 9 B-50-13 Robert & Shannon Wilson Cavan New Lot
Jan 21 B-9-13 Wasyl Sadiwnyk Smith New Lot
Jan 21 B-24-13 David & Donna King Harvey ROW
Jan 21 B-25-13 Paul Scarborough & Christine Molnar Harvey ROW
Jan 21 B-36-13 564517 Ontario Ltd Otonabee Addition
Jan 21 B-52-13 Deshane et al Belmont Addition
Jan 21 B-53-13 Marilyn & Gregory McIntyre Otonabee Addition
Jan 21 B-55-13 William Walter Cimowsky Harvey Addition
Jan 21 B-56-13 Carl & Anne Powers Otonabee Addition
Jan 21 B-62-13 Susan & Brian Petch Cavan New Lot
Feb 6 B-63-13 Norma Earl Cavan New Lot
Feb 6 B-64-13 Carolyn Kelly Boyd Chandos Addition
Feb 6 B-65-13 Daniel & Jillian Bell Burleigh Addition
Feb 6 B-70-13 Brenda & Marty Douglas Douro New Lot
Feb 6 B-71-13 Mike Sullivan Douro New Lot B-106- Feb 6 12A Michael Kidd & Joanne Neale Otonabee New Lot
Feb 27 B-66-13 Robert John Janzen Ennismore Addition
Feb 27 B-67-13 Walter James Janzen Ennismore Addition
Mar 31 B-5-14 Clayton & Wendy Heffernan Asphodel Addition
Mar 31 B-81-13 Mark & Kelly Remmer Dummer Addition
Apr 15 B-4-14 David/Harriett Terrell & Gordon/Joanne Morash Galway Easement
May 6 B-31-13 Jan Lau Investments Otonabee Addition
May 6 B-58-13 Richard Spirk Douro Addition
May 6 B-59-13 Jiri & Jana Sprik Douro New Lot
May 16 B-11-14 Earl, Ira & Kyle Cooper Dummer ROW
May 16 B-12-14 Ruth Cooper Dummer ROW
May 16 B-69-13 Megan & Don Ekblad Harvey New Lot
May 29 B-15-14 John & Cynthia Crowley Asphodel Addition
May 29 B-80-13 Sandra Brown & Peter Penkala Burleigh ROW
June 16 B-8-14 Chad & Courtney Mader Harvey New Lot
June 16 B-31-14 10601742 Ontario Ltd Harvey Addition South June 16 B-68-13 Ronald Patmore Monaghan New Lot
June 16 B-73-13 Delmonte Acres Inc Otonabee Addition
June 16 B-74-13 Roy & Diane Zajac Otonabee Addition
June 17 B-10-14 Brian & Kim Condon Douro New Lot
June 17 B-38-14 Wayne & Mary Green Asphodel New Lot
June 17 B-39-14 Wayne & Mary Green Asphodel New Lot
June 24 B-13-14 Larry & Marilyn Ellis Belmont Addition
June 24 B-20-14 David Alan Abramsky Smith Addition/ROW
June 24 B-21-14 David Alan Abramsky Smith Addition/ROW
June 24 B-22-14 David Alan Abramsky Smith Addition/ROW
June 24 B-23-14 David Alan Abramsky Smith Addition/ROW Page 87 of 119 Page 4
June 24 B-24-14 David Alan Abramsky Smith Addition/ROW
June 24 B-25-14 David Alan Abramsky Smith Addition/ROW
June 24 B-26-14 David Alan Abramsky Smith Addition/ROW
July 10 B-16-14 Wanda Hawkins Dummer New Lot
July 10 B-17-14 Wanda Hawkins Dummer New Lot
July 10 B-18-14 Wanda Hawkins Dummer New Lot
July 10 B-18-14 Wanda Hawkins Dummer New Lot North July 10 B-28-14 Albert Cormier Monaghan New Lot North July 10 B-29-14 Albert Cormier Monaghan New Lot
July 10 B-40-14 James & Marg Vyn Douro New Lot
July 10 B-75-13 John & Mary Bartley Cavan New Lot
July 10 B-82-13 Verity Barrett Dummer New Lot
July 18 B-43-14 Estate of Lily Edgerton Cavan New Lot
July 31 B-14-14 Paul Brown Asphodel New Lot
July 31 B-42-14 Nizar Misheal Harvey Additon
July 31 B-46-14 Kloosterman Capital Corporation Otonabee New Lot
July 31 B-47-14 Mary Webster Dummer New Lot B-127- July 31 08A Barry McLennan & Maxine Heffernan Smith Addition
Aug 8 B-27-14 Margaret Leonardo Smith Addition/ROW
Aug 8 B-34-14 Betty Watts Dummer New Lot
Aug 8 B-35-14 Betty Watts Dummer New Lot
Aug 8 B-44-10 Randy Langlois Belmont Addition/ROW
Sep-10 B-6-14 Raymond Haines Belmont Addition
Sep-10 B-41-14 Wayne Newton Belmont Addition
Sep-10 B-44-14 Linda Armor Cavan New Lot
Sep-10 B-45-14 Linda Armor Cavan New Lot
Sep-10 B-48-14 Gerald L Tedford Estates Smith Addition
Sep-10 B-49-14 David & Brenda Wigmore Cavan New Lot
Sep-10 B-54-13 Mark & Corinne Jenden-Selway Smith New Lot
Sep-10 B-56-14 Angela Marie Jones Belmont Addition
Sep-10 B-57-13A Graham & Donna Beck Burleigh New Lot
Sep-10 B-57-14 Kelly Coleman, Charlie Delworth, Dave Berrey, Craig Saruk Burleigh Additon Julie Bell, Danny & Richard Driscoll, Jane Haywood, Martha Jill Larocque & Sep-10 B-65-14 Joanne Stevenson Otonabee Additon
Oct-09 B-9-14 PJ & Caroline Koole Belmont New Lot
Oct-17 B-32-14 Joseph & Lenore Moloney Otonabee ROW
Oct-17 B-70-14 John Crowley Asphodel New Lot
Oct-17 B-76-13 Larry Toms Belmont New Lot
Oct-17 B-77-13 Larry Toms Belmont Addition
Oct-17 B-82-14 James & Barbara Rosborough Lakefield Addition
Oct-17 B-83-14 Steve & Mary ten Doeschate Dummer New Lot
Oct-24 B-61-14 2057413 Ontario Inc. (In trust for Gerald Meharg) Methuen Addition
Oct-24 B-62-14 2057413 Ontario Inc. (In trust for Gerald Meharg) Methuen Addition
Oct-24 B-63-14 2057413 Ontario Inc. (In trust for Gerald Meharg) Methuen Addition
Nov-12 B-58-14 Barry Hunt Lakefield New Lot
Nov-12 B-59-14 Barry Hunt Lakefield New Lot
Nov-12 B-69-14 Karl & Norma Gillis Cavan Addition North Nov-12 B-79-14 David Stanley Mitchell Monaghan Addition Page 88 of 119 Page 5
Dec-08 B-85-14 Peter and Clare Hartleib Smith Addition
Dec-08 B-86-14 Rolleen Bullock Dummer New Lot
Dec-08 B-87-14 Elizabeth Madill Douro Addition
Page 89 of 119 Page 90 of 119 Page 91 of 119 Page 92 of 119 Accessibility Advisory Committee Minutes Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 3:15 p.m. Peterborough County Courthouse – Board Room
Present: Thomas Campbell Alec Denys, Chair John Fallis, County Councillor Anita Locke, Township of Selwyn Councillor Eric Thornley, Vice Chair
Resource: Angela Chittick, Clerk, Township of Selwyn Lynn Fawn, Deputy Clerk/Recording Secretary, County of Peterborough Sally Saunders, Clerk, County of Peterborough
Call to Order
Mr. Denys, Chair, called the meeting to order at 3:15 p.m.
Declaration of Pecuniary Interest
There were no declarations of pecuniary interest.
1. Deputations and/or Invited Persons
a) Peter Nielsen, Manager, Engineering & Design Re: 2015 County Roads and Bridges – Proposed Projects
Mr. Nielsen provided the Committee with a summary of work to be undertaken as part of the 2015 capital budget recently approved by County Council on March 18th (see Appendix “A” and Appendix “B” attached).
Mr. Nielsen advised that in the Municipality of Trent Lakes, the Reed Bridge and Dutch Line Bridge Environmental Assessment will be completed within the next couple of weeks. He noted the Dutch Line Bridge does not meet the criteria for a County Bridge.
The Manager, Engineering & Design noted that traffic signals are scheduled to be installed at County Road 18/County Road 29 (Maples Corners). Underground ducting had previously been installed by MTO when it owned then Highway 28 (now CR 29). There are no sidewalks at this location and, subject to the Township’s requirements, an audible pedestrian push button control may be installed on the north crosswalk. Mr. Nielsen noted the Ontario Traffic Manual lists the many factors to be considered to warrant installation of traffic signals. It is hoped the signals will be live by Labour Day, 2015.
Page 93 of 119 Accessibility Advisory Committee March 26, 2015 Page 2
A Public Information Centre is being held on April 8, 2015 from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Township of Douro-Dummer Municipal Office for a Class Environmental Assessment for the Reconstruction of County Road 4 in the settlement area of Warsaw. County Road 4 has a rural cross section with poor asphalt condition and numerous drainage problems. There is also limited parking and pedestrian facilities within Warsaw. The purpose of the study is to investigate alternatives for improving the pavement condition, drainage, parking and pedestrian movement along the County Road 4 corridor.
Mr. Nielsen advised the sidewalk is to be replaced and there is an opportunity to develop accessible parking on the east side of County Road 4. Mr. Nielsen invited feedback from the Committee as to suggested locations for the accessible parking.
Mr. Nielsen responded to Committee questions.
The Chair thanked Mr. Nielsen for providing an update to the Committee.
2. Minutes
Moved by: Mr. Thornley Seconded by: Mr. Fallis
Be it resolved that the minutes of the meeting held February 19, 2015 be approved as presented. Carried
Business arising out of minutes:
Second Legislative Review of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 – Mayo Moran
Mayo Moran is undertaking the Second Legislative review of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (AODA). The Act calls for a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of the Act and regulations after four years, with subsequent reviews every three years. The reviewer is to consult with the public, and in particular, persons with disabilities and may make recommendations. The First Legislative Review of the AODA took place in 2009-2010 by Charles Beer.
Moved by: Ms. Locke Seconded by: Mr. Thornley
Whereas the Committee has reviewed the Second Legislative Review of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 conducted by Reviewer Mayo Moran, dated November, 2014;
Page 94 of 119 Accessibility Advisory Committee March 26, 2015 Page 3
Now therefore be it resolved that the Accessibility Advisory Committee recommends to the Councils of the Township of Selwyn and the County of Peterborough that:
1. The Second Legislative Review of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, be supported;
2. A letter be sent to Minister Brad Duguid, Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure congratulating the provincial government on having this Second Legislative Review of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 conducted;
3. The provincial government be encouraged to follow-up on the recommendations and to consider providing additional funding to municipalities and local businesses to ensure that the spirit of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act is met. Carried
Active Together Conference – Mr. Denys advised he has come across some attitudinal barriers relating to the Active Together Conference. The City of Peterborough does not allow sledges at public skating and Trent University will not allow wheelchairs in their gymnasium for any organized events. Both have been cited as being liability issues.
3. Question Period
No questions were posed.
4. Correspondence for Discussion and/or Decision
There were no correspondence items.
5. Reports
There were no reports.
6. Other, New and Unfinished Business
a) 10th Anniversary of the AODA – April 8th Peterborough Events to Celebrate Success Stories
Mrs. Fawn noted that if anyone is planning to attend the 10th Anniversary event, they need to RSVP to AMCTO. Mr. Denys advised he submitted a success story.
Page 95 of 119 Accessibility Advisory Committee March 26, 2015 Page 4
b) Year 12 Work Plan
Format of the Work Plan - Mr. Thornley advised the new format of the Work Plan makes it easier to read.
Time in My Shoes - Apsley Central School – April 23, 2015 (Change to Date)
Mr. Denys advised the date of the Time in My Shoes event at Apsley Central School has been changed to the rain date which was scheduled for April 23. It was suggested that everyone be at the school by 9:00 a.m. Mr. Denys confirmed the CNIB participants are available on April 23. Mr. Campbell is not available on April 23.
Accessible Election Measures - Mr. Campbell had nothing to report.
New Township Website - Review for Accessibility
Mr. Thornley noted the new Township website is accessible, however it is not really usable. His main concern is the single key navigation which he has previously discussed with Mrs. Chittick. Mrs. Chittick offered Mr. Thornley to come in a bit early prior to the meeting on April 22 and he can speak directly with the web designer to address his concerns.
Other Updates
Mr. Denys recommended that the tours which are outlined in the Work Plan start to be scheduled.
A Holnbeck Committee meeting is scheduled for May 4, 2015 for the selection of the Gordon and Arbie Holnbeck Award. The deadline to submit nominations is April 24, 2015 at 4:30 p.m.
Ms. Locke advised she attended a session at OGRA/ROMA regarding Accessibility and the Design of Public Spaces. It was suggested that the presenter could be invited as a guest speaker to provide a presentation to staff. Mr. Denys suggested this could be a Lunch and Learn session and added to the Work Plan. Mrs. Chittick advised that it may be cost prohibitive, depending on what the speaker charges for such events.
7. Adjournment and Next Meeting
Mrs. Chittick will check to determine if the Ennismore Community Centre is available to host the next meeting on April 22. If the Community Centre is available, the Committee could tour the final improvements made to the Community Centre and the Ennismore Curling Club after the meeting.
Page 96 of 119 Accessibility Advisory Committee March 26, 2015 Page 5
Wednesday, April 22 - 3:00 p.m. - Township of Selwyn, Lower Boardroom Thursday, May 28 - 3:00 p.m. - County Court House, Boardroom Thursday, June 25 - 3:00 p.m. - Township of Selwyn, Lower Boardroom Thursday, September 24 - 3:00 p.m. - County Court House, Boardroom Wednesday, October 28- 3:00 p.m. - Township of Selwyn, Lower Boardroom Wednesday, November 25 - 11:30 a.m. - Meeting and Christmas Lunch to follow (Chemong Lodge)
Moved by: Mr. Thornley Seconded by: Mr. Fallis
Be it resolved that the Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting adjourn at 4:45 p.m. Carried
______Chair
______Lynn Fawn Deputy Clerk
Page 97 of 119 Page 98 of 119 Page 99 of 119 Page 100 of 119 Appendix "B" County of Peterborough - Public Works 2015 Approved Capital Program
County Road Extent Rehabilitation technique Estimate CR 2 CR 39 to 1 km East Microsurface $40,000 CR 4 University Road to Eight Line EA & 50mm HMA overlay $0 CR 4 CR 38 to English Ln (urbanization) EA & design $700,000 CR 18 Cr 23 to CR 20 Microsurface $279,200 CR 20 At 10th Line/11th Line Microsurface $40,000 CR 21 (King Street) Culvert replacement at #25 King St. W. $300,000 CR 23 CR 20 to 14th Line Smith Microsurface $120,000 CR 36 Quarry/Tait's Bay Rd to Nogie's Creek CIP + 90mm HM $825,000 CR 42 CR 45 to 1.3 km E. Microsurface $86,000 CR 44 N & S of CR 47 Double Surface Treatment $130,000 CR 45 Hwy 7 to Norwood limits Microsurface; HMA & CB's $60,000 CR 45 Norwood limits to Hastings N. Limits Microsurface $280,800 CR 620 Balmer Rd to Clydesdale Rd Excavate & Double Surface Treatment $360,000 $3,181,000
Bridges Location Rehabilitation technique Estimate 05431 Culvert - CR 48 (Cordova) design $10,000 099065 Reed Bridge replace $760,000 099004 Distillery Street Bridge rehabilitation $419,600 046001 North River Bridge rehabilitation $493,000 045001 Ouse River bridge rehabilitation $63,000 023001 Lower Buckhorn Bridge reserve contribution $637,436 023002 Trent Canal Bridge reserve contribution $473,319 Misc. Deck condition surveys study $25,000 $2,881,355
Transportation Plan Projects Estimate CR 18/29 Intersection Traffic signals rehabilitation $150,000 Ward St. (CR 18) Widening Environmental Assessment study $0 Gifford Causeway EA Permit approvals & CSP culvert repairs rehabilitation $200,000 Clear Zone repairs Steel beam/3 cable guiderail installations rehabilitation $0 Cycling Master Plan County wide study $50,000 Hwy 115 Gateway Sign On Hwy 115 at western boundary design & construction $50,000 $450,000
2014 Carry Overs $6,512,355
County Road Extent Rehabilitation technique Estimate CR 4 CR 38 to English Ln (urbanization) EA & design $70,000 $70,000 Bridges Location Rehabilitation technique Estimate 023001 Lower Buckhorn Bridge EA + design $6,000 023002 Trent Canal Bridge EA + design $6,000 046001 North River Bridge EA + design $32,000 099004 Distillery Street Bridge EA + design $55,000 099065 Reed Bridge EA + design $31,000 $130,000 Transportation Plan Projects Estimate CR 20 (Selwyn Rd) CR 18 to CR 23 functional design $50,000 Clear Zone repairs Steel beam/3 cable guiderail installations rehabilitation $176,000 Airport Road Reconstruction Mervin Line to south airport limits pre-loading contract $2,128,065 $2,354,065
$2,554,065
Page 101 of 119 Page 102 of 119 Accessibility Advisory Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 3:15 p.m. Township of Selwyn Ennismore Community Centre 553 Ennis Road, Ennismore, Ontario
Present: Thomas Campbell Alec Denys, Chair John Fallis, County Councillor Anita Locke, Township of Selwyn Councillor Eric Thornley, Vice Chair
Resource: Angela Chittick, Clerk, Township of Selwyn Lynn Fawn, Deputy Clerk/Recording Secretary, County of Peterborough Sally Saunders, Clerk, County of Peterborough
Guest: Meaghan McGowan, Community Development Intern, Township of Selwyn
Call to Order
Mr. Denys, Chair, called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m.
Declaration of Pecuniary Interest
There were no declarations of pecuniary interest.
1. Deputations and/or Invited Persons
There were no deputations.
2. Minutes
Moved by: Ms. Locke Seconded by: Mr. Thornley
Be it resolved that the minutes of the meeting held March 26, 2015 be approved as presented. Carried
Business arising out of minutes:
At the March 26th meeting, the “Time in My Shoes” event for County Councillors was briefly discussed. Mrs. Saunders advised this item will be discussed at the Management Team meeting on April 27th to determine when the best time would be to hold this event.
Page 103 of 119 Accessibility Advisory Committee April 22, 2015 Page 2
Mrs. Saunders will be in contact with Mrs. Chittick to discuss this item once it has been discussed by Management Team at the County and will be brought forward to the next AAC meeting.
Selwyn Township Council supported the Committee’s recommendation regarding the Second Annual Legislative Review of the AODA. A letter will be sent to the Province once the matter has been dealt with by County Council.
3. Question Period
Mr. Thornley advised that Described Video is available for the visually impaired when watching Netflix on Apple Television.
Mr. Thornley reported that Galaxy Cinemas has video description available on headsets for the visually impaired.
Ms. Locke suggested including a column in the Lakefield Herald on Accessibility. Mrs. Chittick advised the information could also be posted on the Township website’s Accessibility page. Mr. Thornley will work with Township staff to put some information together.
Mr. Denys advised that the Quarry Golf Club in Ennismore is providing free golf instructions for the visually impaired in May, 2015. Kawartha Blind Sport or Active Together is the contact.
4. Correspondence for Discussion and/or Decision
There were no correspondence items.
5. Reports
There were no reports.
6. Other, New and Unfinished Business
a) Active Together: Inclusive Sport and Physical Recreation – May 29, 2015 - 9:45 a.m. to 4:40 p.m. – Fleming College, Peterborough
The Council for Persons with Disabilities 2015 Inclusion Conference is taking place on Friday, May 29, 2015 at Fleming College from 9:45 a.m. to 4:40 p.m. There is a registration fee which includes lunch. Mr. Denys advised that financial subsidies are available, if you ask.
Mrs. Chittick advised that if anyone wishes to attend the Conference to let her know and the cost would be covered through training funds from the Municipality.
Page 104 of 119 Accessibility Advisory Committee April 22, 2015 Page 3
b) Adapted Sports Expo – May 30, 2015 – 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. – Kenner Collegiate, Peterborough
Mr. Denys advised that the Adapted Sports Expo is being held on Saturday, May 30, 2015 at Kenner Collegiate School (location was changed from Trent University) from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. He noted there will be demonstrations and Special Olympics Coaching Clinics. This event is free for anyone wishing to attend. c) Year 12 Work Plan
Time in My Shoes – Apsley School – April 23, 2015
Mr. Denys reminded the Committee that the Time in My Shoes event is taking place at Apsley Central Public School on Thursday, April 23, 2015. The schedule has been sent to the Committee. He suggested everyone be at the school for 9:30 a.m. The Assembly will commence at 10:00 a.m. with the sessions starting at 11:00 a.m. The sessions will include:
. Wheelchair Basketball . Wheelchair Obstacle Course . Visual Impairment with CNIB . Nurse speaking on Disabilities
New Township Website – Review for Accessibility (Eric)
Mrs. Chittick reported that Mr. Thornley has reviewed his concerns with Township staff who will be passing the information along to the eSolutions Group. Mr. Thornley advised the website is accessible, but not very useful.
Mrs. Chittick advised that updates would be made to the Year 12 Work Plan.
Prior to the meeting, the Committee toured the final improvements made to the Ennismore Community Centre. Mr. Campbell expressed his concern regarding there not being an accessible route from the back entrance of the arena (Zamboni entrance) to the parking lot in the case of an emergency.
Page 105 of 119 Accessibility Advisory Committee April 22, 2015 Page 4
7. Adjournment and Next Meeting
Thursday, May 28 - 3:00 p.m. - County Court House, Boardroom Thursday, June 25 - 3:00 p.m. - Township of Selwyn, Lower Boardroom Thursday, September 24 - 3:00 p.m. - County Court House, Boardroom Wednesday, October 28- 3:00 p.m. - Township of Selwyn, Lower Boardroom Wednesday, November 25 - 11:30 a.m. - Meeting and Christmas Lunch to follow (Chemong Lodge)
Moved by: Mr. Thornley Seconded by: Mr. Campbell
Be it resolved that the Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting adjourn at 4:05 p.m. Carried
______Chair
______Lynn Fawn Deputy Clerk
Page 106 of 119 County of Peterborough Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee Minutes Lang Pioneer Village, MacKelvie Room Tuesday, March 31, 2015
1. Call To Order
Ms. Adema, Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:35 a.m.
2. Roll Call
Present: Kendra Adema, Chair; Heather Caldwell, Joe Crowley, James Glenn, Vice Chair; John Jennings, Councillor Bev Matthews, Councillor David Nelson and Councillor Ron Windover
Staff Present: Lynn Fawn, Deputy Clerk, Sheridan Graham, Director, Corporate Projects & Services and Laurie Siblock, Acting Museum Manager
Lang Staff Present: Audrey Caryi, Museum Specialist; Jill Chapman, Visitor Experience Co-ordinator; Julia Gregory, Lead Interpreter; Elizabeth King, Acting Assistant Manager; Trevor Merriam, Facilities Assistant Ruth O’Connell, Acting Administrative/Volunteer Co-ordinator; Graham Varrin, Facilities Co-ordinator
3. Adoption of Agenda
Moved by: Mrs. Caldwell Seconded by: Councillor Matthews
Be it resolved that the Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee adopt the Agenda as circulated. Carried
4. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest
There were no declarations of pecuniary interest made at this time.
5. Adoption of Minutes – February 10, 2015
Moved by: Councillor Nelson Seconded by: Mr. Glenn
Be it resolved that the Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee adopt the minutes of its meeting held February 10, 2015, as circulated. Carried
Page 107 of 119 Minutes of Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee March 31, 2015 Page 2 of 6
6. Delegations, Petitions and Presentations
a. J. Murray Jones, Warden and Kendra Adema, Chair, Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee Re: Presentation to Michael Gillespie, Past-Chair and Member of the Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee
Warden Jones advised that Mr. Gillespie has been a volunteer at Lang since 2001 and been a member of the Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee for eleven years. Warden Jones presented Mr. Gillespie with an Award of Recognition to honour his years of service to the Lang Pioneer Village Advisory Committee and the County of Peterborough.
Ms. Adema, Chair, presented Mr. Gillespie with a gift on behalf of the Committee.
Ms. Siblock presented Mr. Gillespie with a gift (Blue Jays T-Shirt) on behalf of Mr. Corrigan who was unable to attend.
Mr. Gillespie expressed his thanks to Warden Jones and the Committee.
Moved by: Councillor Matthews Seconded by: Mr. Glenn
Be it resolved that the Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee receives the presentation from J. Murray Jones, Warden and Kendra Adema, Chair, Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee regarding the presentation to Michael Gillespie, Past-Chair and Member of the Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee. Carried
The Lang staff who were in attendance introduced themselves to the Committee. The Committee also did introductions. All Lang staff left the meeting, with the exception of Graham Varrin, Facilities Co-ordinator.
7. Referrals/Business Arising Out of Previous Minutes
a. Sheridan Graham, Director, Corporate Projects & Services and Graham Varrin, Facilities Coordinator Re: Facilities Update
Mrs. Graham advised the Reserve Study spreadsheet which was developed in 2008 from a walk around of the Village has been provided for the Committee’s information. Mr. Varrin has made updates to the spreadsheet with the status identified in red. The spreadsheet will be sent electronically to each member for discussion at the next meeting.
Page 108 of 119 Minutes of Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee March 31, 2015 Page 3 of 6
Mrs. Graham remarked that a significant amount of work has been undertaken between January and March. She noted the loom platform in the Weaver Shop looks phenomenal.
The Facilities Co-ordinator detailed the remaining work which has been done:
. Laundry machine restoration . McCormick Deering binder painting and final restoration . Grist Mill windows . Food Booth floor is being repaired . Snow Removal
The Village Power and Equipment Club is receiving a “Restoration of Culturally Significant Artifacts” Award from the Historical Society this evening (March 31st). It was requested that a letter of congratulations be sent to the members of the Village Power and Equipment Club on behalf of the Committee.
Moved by: Mr. Crowley Seconded by: Mrs. Caldwell
Be it resolved that the Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee receive the report of the Director, Corporate Projects & Services and the Facilities Coordinator regarding the Facilities Update. Carried
8. Staff Reports
a. Sheridan Graham, Director, Corporate Projects & Services Re: Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee Terms of Reference - Amendment
Mrs. Graham stated the reason for revising the Terms of Reference was to acknowledge the value of the Advisory Committee.
Moved by: Councillor Windover Seconded by: Councillor Matthews
Be it resolved that the Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee recommend to County Council that the Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee Revised Terms of Reference (Appendix “A to minutes) be approved:
1. With the inclusion of a paragraph under Delegated Authority that states: “The Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee is a valued committee of County Council and Council relies on the Committee to advise and make recommendations to County Council with respect to Lang Pioneer Village Museum.” Page 109 of 119 Minutes of Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee March 31, 2015 Page 4 of 6
2. With a change of the word “selected” to “mandated” in the Purpose to now state “The purpose of the Lang Pioneer Village Advisory Committee “the Committee” is to advise and make recommendations to County Council with respect to mandated matters pertaining to Lang Pioneer Village Museum “the Museum” in the County of Peterborough “the County.” Carried
The Chair thanked Mrs. Graham for revising the Terms of Reference to incorporate these changes.
b. Laurie Siblock, Acting Museum Manager Re: Recommendations for John “Jack” McIntyre Recognition
Ms. Siblock suggested that a plaque be hung in the Visitor Centre, alongside his father’s, to honour the Late Jack McIntyre. Other options were discussed.
Moved by: Councillor Nelson Seconded by: Councillor Matthews
Be it resolved that staff be directed to bring a report back to the Committee with design, material and placement options for a bench with plaque to further honour Jack McIntyre’s contributions to Lang Pioneer Village Museum. Carried
The Chair requested that Volunteer Recognition be placed on an upcoming agenda for discussion.
9. Staff Reports for Information Only
a. Laurie Siblock, Acting Museum Manager Re: Manager’s Report
The Acting Museum Manager provided an update on activities at the Museum. She reported that Mr. Corrigan is on a gradual return to work and is currently working two – half days per week.
Moved by: Mrs. Caldwell Seconded by: Mr. Glenn
Be it resolved that the Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee receive the Manager’s Report for Information Only. Carried
10. Correspondence
There were no items of correspondence.
Page 110 of 119 Minutes of Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee March 31, 2015 Page 5 of 6
11. Sub-Committee Reports
There were no sub-committee reports.
12. Accounts
There were no accounts presented.
13. New Business
There were no new business items.
14. Closed Session
Moved by: Mr. Crowley Seconded by: Councillor Windover
Be it resolved that, under the authority of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, s. 239(2), the Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee move into closed session at 11:14 a.m. to discuss “personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees.” Carried
15. Rise from Closed Session With/Without a Report
Moved by: Councillor Windover Seconded by: Mr. Jennings
Be it resolved the Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee rise from closed session at 11:15 a.m. without a report. Carried
16. Future Meeting Schedule
a. Tuesday, May 26 - 9:30 a.m. - County Court House, Boardroom b. Tuesday, June 23 - 9:30 a.m. - County Court House, Boardroom c. July – Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee Annual Field Trip – Location and Date TBD d. Tuesday, September 22 - 9:30 a.m. - Lang Pioneer Village, MacKelvie Room e. Tuesday, November 24 - 9:30 a.m. - County Court House, Boardroom – Christmas Lunch to follow (TBD)
Page 111 of 119 Minutes of Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee March 31, 2015 Page 6 of 6
17. Adjournment
Moved by: Councillor Matthews Seconded by: Mrs. Caldwell
Be it resolved that the Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee meeting adjourn at 11:16 a.m. Carried
______Chair
______Lynn Fawn Deputy Clerk
Page 112 of 119 Appendix “A”
Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee
Terms of Reference
Purpose The purpose of the Lang Pioneer Village Advisory Committee “the Committee” is to advise and make recommendations to County Council with respect to mandated matters pertaining to Lang Pioneer Village Museum “the Museum” in the County of Peterborough “the County”.
Mandate The mandate of the Committee is to advise and/or make recommendations to County Council with respect to the following areas:
i. Short term and long term planning to provide recommendations on the development of the Museum;
ii. Provide input into programs and services to be offered at the Museum;
iii. Provide input into marketing and fundraising activities to raise public awareness of the Museum;
iv. Facility development of the Museum;
v. Advising the Museum Manager with respect to the museum collection and ensuring that the collection is being cared for under proper conditions.
vi. Reviewing and making recommendations to County Council with respect to written policies governing operations and defining programs. vii. Formulating and reviewing the Museum’s statement of purpose and present same to County Council for approval from time to time. viii. Working with Museum Manager to secure funding necessary to carry out the Museum’s programs.
ix. Recommending an annual Museum budget to County Council.
x. Appointing a resource development committee to assist in other projects or establishing a sub-committee from time to time.
xi. Shall at all times be a community “champion” and promote the purpose and benefits of the Museum.
Page 113 of 119 Delegated Authority The Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee is a valued committee of County Council and Council relies on the Committee to advise and make recommendations to County Council with respect to Lang Pioneer Village Museum:
i. The Committee is an advisory committee to Council and does not have any delegated authority.
ii. The Committee has no authority to direct staff or management and any recommendations requiring implementation, reports or staff actions must first be considered by County Council.
The Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee is comprised of a minimum of four to a maximum of six community appointees and one to three members of County Council (as approved by Council). The Warden shall act as an ex officio member and a second Council member may be appointed to represent the Warden.
In accordance with the County’s Procedural By-Law members shall be approved by County Council. Such approval shall be based on a recommendation of the Nominating Committee. All appointments shall be for a two year term with an option for the Committee member to have their appointment considered for renewal for a further two year term to coincide with Council’s four year term of office. Public notice shall be given soliciting applicants for the appointments.
At the Board’s first meeting each year, they shall elect a Chair and a Vice-Chair, these shall be for a one year term, with non-consecutive appointments to these positions.
The Committee shall meet monthly. If it is not necessary to meet this often, meetings shall be held at the call of the Chair. There shall be a minimum of six meetings per year.
If any member is absent for three consecutive meetings, without being granted a leave of absence by County Council, the Warden and CAO will meet with the member to determine their level of interest in continuing to serve on the Committee. The matter will then be referred to the Nominating Committee who will review the member’s status and make a formal recommendation to County Council.
Meetings shall follow a written agenda, and minutes shall be kept which accurately reflect the recommendations of the Advisory Committee. Minutes shall be presented to County Council for approval.
Original Terms of Reference approved by County Council: July 2, 2003 Amended and approved by Committee: November 25, 2008 Amended Terms of Reference approved by County Council: December 17, 2008 Amended Terms of Reference approved by County Council: November 17, 2010 Amended Terms of Reference approved by County Council: October 15, 2014 Amended Terms of Reference approved by Council Council: February 4, 2015 Amended Terms of Reference approved by County Council:
Page 114 of 119 County of Peterborough Warden’s Advisory Committee Minutes Boardroom, County Court House Wednesday, March 18, 2015
1. Call to Order and Attendance
Chair, Warden J. Murray Jones called the meeting to order at 2:20 p.m.
Present: Chair, Warden J. Murray Jones, Councillor Gerow, Councillor McFadden, Councillor Nelson, Councillor Smith and Councillor Taylor
Staff Chris Bradley, Director of Public Works, Gary King, CAO, Present: Peter Nielsen, Manager, Engineering & Design and Sally Saunders, Clerk.
2. Adoption of Agenda
1-2015 Moved by: Councillor McFadden Seconded by: Councillor Taylor
Be it resolved that the Warden’s Advisory Committee adopt the agenda as circulated. Carried
3. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest
There were no declarations of pecuniary interest made.
4. Adoption of Minutes
2-2015 Moved by: Councillor Nelson Seconded by: Councillor McFadden
Be it resolved that the Minutes of the Warden's Advisory Committee Meetings of January 7, 2015 and March 4, 2015 be adopted as circulated. Carried
Page 1
Page 115 of 119 Warden’s Advisory Committee Minutes Wednesday, March 18, 2015
5. Staff Reports for Information Only
Peter Nielsen, Manager, Engineering & Design Re: Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code Environmental Assessment Act Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Concern was expressed relating to load restrictions on structures as well as ownership of bridges in light of no long- term plan to deal with these issues based on current funding. The Committee discussed having a full discussion at County Council to ensure that only those bridges that meet the County ownership criteria remain with the County.
3-2015 Moved by: Councillor McFadden Seconded by: Councillor Nelson
Be it resolved that the Warden’s Advisory Committee receives the Manager of Engineering & Design’s report regarding The Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, Environmental Assessment Act, and Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for information. Carried
6. Closed Session
4-2015 Moved by: Councillor Smith Seconded by: Councillor McFadden
Be it resolved that, under the authority of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, s. 239(2), the Warden’s Advisory Committee move into closed session at 3:30 p.m. to discuss:
• the security of the property of the municipality or local board • personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees • labour relations or employee negotiations Carried
Page 2
Page 116 of 119 Warden’s Advisory Committee Minutes Wednesday, March 18, 2015
7. Rise from Closed Session With/Without a Report
5-2015 Moved by: Councillor Taylor Seconded by: Councillor McFadden
Be it resolved that the Warden’s Advisory Committee rise from closed session at 3:39 p.m. without a report. Carried
8. Adjournment
6-2015 Moved by: Councillor Gerow Seconded by: Councillor McFadden
Be it resolved that the Warden’s Advisory Committee adjourn at 3:40 p.m. Carried
______Warden J. Murray Jones - Chair
______Sally Saunders - Clerk
Page 3
Page 117 of 119 Page 118 of 119 Future Meeting Schedule Council Authorized Meetings
May . 6 9:30 a.m. County Council (County Council Chambers) . 11 2:00 p.m. Waste Management Committee (City Hall, Sutherland Room) . 20 9:30 a.m. County Council (County Council Chambers) . 22 10:00 a.m. Awards and Bursaries Committee (Buckhorn Community Centre) . 22 7:00 p.m. Awards and Bursaries Committee – Recognition Awards Ceremony (Buckhorn Community Centre – doors open at 6:00 p.m.) . 26 9:30 a.m. Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee (Court House Boardroom) 27 9:30 a.m. Special County Council Meeting (County Council Chambers) 28 3:00 p.m. Accessibility Advisory Committee (Court House Boardroom)
June . 3 9:30 a.m. County Council (County Council Chambers) . 3 Following County Awards and Bursaries Committee – 2015 Critique (Court House Council Meeting Boardroom) . 11 3:45 p.m. JSSC Meeting (City Hall, Council Chambers) 17 9:00 a.m. Special County Council Meeting – Road Tour (Douro Depot) . 22 2:00 p.m. Waste Management Committee (City Hall, Sutherland Room) . 23 9:30 a.m. Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee (Court House Boardroom) . 24 9:30 a.m. County Council (County Council Chambers) 25 3:00 p.m. Accessibility Advisory Committee (Township of Selwyn, Lower Boardroom) . 25 9:30 a.m. Land Division Committee (County Council Chambers) . 24 8:45 a.m. Awards and Bursaries Committee – Bursary Award Selection (Court House Boardroom) July . Lang Pioneer Village Museum Advisory Committee – Annual Field Trip – Date and Location TBD
August . 5 9:30 a.m. County Council (County Council Chambers) . 16-19 AMO Annual Conference – Niagara Falls, Ontario . 26 9:30 a.m. County Council (County Council Chambers)
Other Meetings/Events – For Your Information
Indicates a change to the date and/or time
Page 119 of 119