SARNIA CITY COUNCIL

November 19, 2012 4:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL SARNIA, ONTARIO

AGENDA Page

Closed Meeting - 3:15 p.m. Under Section 239 (2) of the Municipal Act (c) a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality with respect to the Vendome Parking Lot

SPECIAL MEETING - 3:30 p.m.

"O CANADA"

OPENING PRAYER

Father Mukucha, St. Thomas D’Aquin

REPORT OF THE CLOSED MEETING

Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest (Direct or Indirect) and the General Nature Thereof

RESOLUTIONS:

Moved by Councillor Boushy, seconded by Councillor MacDougall

CORRESPONDENCE

7-10 1. City Engineer, dated November 9, 2012, regarding RFP 12­120 – SCADA PLC Upgrade ­ WPCC

That Sarnia City Council award the supply, installation

Page 1 of 238 Page

CORRESPONDENCE

and commissioning of SCADA PLC Upgrade, and other works as outlined in RFP 12­120, to Summa Engineering Limited at the price of $330,470.00 (excluding HST). 11-12 2. City Engineer, dated November 6, 2012, regarding Speed Limit Reduction on Blackwell Side Road (see by­law #2)

That City Council approves the reduction of speed limit from 80 kilometers per hour to 50 kilometers per hour on Blackwell Side Road, from Churchill Line to south limit of the City. 13-15 3. City Engineer, dated November 9, 2012, regarding Award of Tender #12­08 Alarm Monitoring Services

That the tender for security alarm monitoring services be awarded to Ultraguard Security Systems for a total cost of $124,854.50 including HST. 17-20 4. City Engineer, dated November 9, 2012, regarding Lakeshore Road ­ No Parking Restrictions ­ Public Feedback (see by­law #4)

That City Council allows staff to install “No Parking” signs on the south side of Lakeshore Road (County Road 7) between Mater Drive and Modeland Road (County Road 27); and

That the recommendation be referred to County of Lambton for approval of necessary by­law amendments to reflect the existing “No Parking” zone on the south side of Lakeshore Road between Murphy Road and Mater Drive and the proposed “No Parking” zone on the south side of Lakeshore Road between Mater Drive and Modeland Road (County Road 27). 21-24 5. Director of Planning & Building, dated November 15, 2012, regarding Part Lot Control Exemption By­law for Paolo Street Exmouth Investments Canada Limited (see by­law #8)

That Sarnia City Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign a By­law exempting Lots 15 to 29, inclusive, Plan 25M­38 from the Part Lot Control provisions of the Planning Act, so the lots can be

Page 2 of 238 Page

CORRESPONDENCE

reduced in size to increase the number of lots from 15 to 20; and

That Sarnia City Council authorizes the Mayor and Clerk to sign an amending Subdivision Agreement for the subject lands. 25-30 6. Director of Planning and Building, dated November 14, 2012, regarding A Rail Crossing Construction and Maintenance Agreement with the Vidal Street Industrial Park (VIP) and an Overhead Pipe Crossing Agreement with Lanxess Inc. (see by­laws #6 & #7)

That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign a Rail Crossing Construction and Maintenance Agreement with the Vidal Street Industrial Park Inc. on behalf of the City of Sarnia;

That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign an Overhead Pipe Crossing Agreement with Lanxess Inc. on behalf of the City of Sarnia. 31-85 7. City Solicitor/Clerk, dated November 15, 2012, regarding County Smoke­Free Outdoor Spaces By­Law

For Council's Decision

NOTICE OF MOTION

87 1. Councillor McEachran ­ Internal Efficiencies Analysis

That City staff commence a complete internal analysis searching for efficiencies within the Corporation of Sarnia.

MINUTES

89-98 Minutes of October 29, 2012 ­ Regular Meeting 99-101 Minutes of November 25, 2012 ­ Corporate Priorities/Strategic Planning Meeting

INQUIRIES, INFORMATION AND URGENT MATTERS

Page 3 of 238 Page

ROUTINE APPROVALS, ACTION AND INFORMATION

103-105 A. Director of Parks and Recreation, dated October 23, 2012, regarding Sarnia Rugby Club – Bell Building Norm Perry Memorial Park (see by­law #3)

That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign the lease for use of the Bell Building at Norm Perry Memorial Park by the Sarnia Saints Union Football Club Inc. for a one year term beginning on January 1, 2013. 107-110 B. City Solicitor/Clerk, dated November 14, 2012, regarding Complaint About Closed Meetings of the Centennial Celebration Committee – Report From Ombudsman of Ontario

For Information 111-126 C. City Solicitor/Clerk, dated November 14, 2012, regarding First Hussars Proposal for London Line

For Information 127 D. City Solicitor/Clerk, dated November 13, 2012, regarding Update on Miniature Pigs

For Information 129-130 E. City Engineer, dated November 5, 2012, regarding Oil Recovery System at Lake Chipican

For Information 131-132 F. Director of Planning and Building, dated November 12, 2012, regarding Discharge of Sarnia Downtown Building and Façade Improvement Loan No. 062/07 136 ­ 140 Christina Street North, Sarnia (see by­law #5)

That staff is hereby authorized by Council to register a Discharge of Mortgage for the Sarnia Downtown Building and Façade Improvement Loan Program for property located at 136 – 140 Christina Street North, Sarnia; and

That the Mayor and Clerk are authorized to sign any necessary documents relating thereto.

Page 4 of 238 Page

ROUTINE APPROVALS, ACTION AND INFORMATION

133-135 G. Director of Finance, dated November 9, 2012, regarding Use of Enbridge Discharge Revenue in 2013 Draft Sewer Budget

For Information 137-138 H. City Solicitor/Clerk, dated November 2, 2012, regarding Humane Society Agreement – Pound Services

That Sarnia City Council approve a 2 year extension to an agreement with the Sarnia and District Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for pound services and that the City Solicitor/Clerk be authorized to execute the extension agreement. 139-140 I. City Engineer, dated November 9, 2012, regarding Municipal Tools to Encourage Rental of Vacant Units in the City of Sarnia

For Information 141-182 J. Ombudsman Ontario, dated November 14, 2012, regarding Annual Report on Investigations of Closed Municipal Meetings

For Information 183-185 K. City Solicitor/Clerk, dated November 14, 2012, regarding Sarnia Animal Control Dog Census Report for 2012

For Information

CIVIC REPORTS

187 1. Raffle Report ­ October 2012 189-191 2. Building Report ­ October 2012

BY-LAWS

193-195 1. For 1st, 2nd and 3rd A By­Law to Confirm the Proceedings of Readings: Council at its meeting held on November 19, 2012. 197-199 2. For 1st, 2nd and 3rd A By­Law to Amend By­Law Number 100 of Readings: 1996 Re: Schedule 19 ­ Speed Limits (see

Page 5 of 238 Page

BY-LAWS

Correspondence #2) 201-207 3. For 1st, 2nd and 3rd A By­Law to Authorize an Agreement with Readings: Sarnia Saints Union Football Club Inc. Re: 2013 Use of Bell Building (see Agenda Info Item A) 209-210 4. For 1st, 2nd and 3rd A By­Law to Amend By­Law Number 100 of Readings: 1996 Re: Schedule 3.1 ­ No Parking Anytime (see Correspondence #4) 211-214 5. For 1st, 2nd and 3rd A By­Law to Authorize the Execution of a Readings: Discharge of Mortgage Re: 136­140 N. Christina Street (see Agenda Info Item F) 215-226 6. For 1st, 2nd and 3rd A By­law to Authorize the Mayor and Clerk Readings: to Sign a Rail Crossing Construction and Maintenance Agreement Re: 300 Kenny Street – Vidal Street Industrial Park (see Correspondence #6) 227-236 7. For 1st, 2nd and 3rd A By­law to Authorize the Mayor and Clerk Readings: to Sign an Overhead Pipe Crossing Agreement Reference: Lanxess Inc., 1265 Vidal St. South (see Correspondence #6) 237-238 8. For 1st, 2nd and 3rd A By­Law to Remove Certain Lands from Readings: Part Lot Control (see Correpondence #5)

ADJOURNMENT

BUDGET INPUT/GRANTS MEETING - 4:45 p.m.

Page 6 of 238 Correspondence #1 ­ November 19, 2012

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA People Serving People

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

OPEN SESSION REPORT

TO: Mayor Bradley and Members of Sarnia City Council

FROM: J.P. André Morin, P.Eng., City Engineer

DATE: November 9, 2012

SUBJECT: RFP 12-120 – SCADA PLC Upgrade - WPCC

Recommendation: It is recommended:

1. That Sarnia City Council award the supply, installation and commissioning of SCADA PLC Upgrade, and other works as outlined in RFP 12-120, to Summa Engineering Limited at the price of $330,470.00 (excluding HST).

Background: In accordance with City procedures, seven proposals for the aforementioned RFP were received in the Purchasing Department by 3:00 pm on Wednesday, November 7, 2012. The proposals were opened promptly thereafter and forwarded to Public Works for review and reporting to City Council. The quoted costs submitted as part of the RFP are summarized below:

Contractor Price* ASI Group Ltd. $310,447.00 Procon Niagara $321,000.00 Summa Engineering Ltd. $330,470.00 GENIVAR $375,000.00 Hollen Controls Ltd. $392,300.00 Selectra Inc. $418,455.51 Paton Controls Ltd. $728,439.89 * Excludes HST

The RFP’s scoring system consisted of five categories: qualifications, expertise and performance on similar projects (15%); proposed project

Page 7 of 238 Correspondence #1 ­ November 19, 2012

manager and team (20%); completeness and creativity of proposal (15%), knowledge of City infrastructure (10%), and financial merits (40%). The following tables summarizes the results of the scoring:

Contractor Score (1000) Summa Engineering Ltd. 921 ASI Group Ltd. 870 Hollen Controls Ltd. 877 Procon Niagara 860 Selectra Inc. 797 GENIVAR 718 Paton Controls Ltd. 490

Comments: The SCADA system consists of the computerized controls responsible for the controlling of all the equipment in wastewater treatment processes at the Water Pollution Control Centre. The SCADA system consists of programmable logic controllers (PLCs) throughout the plant that communicate back to the operator’s station in the control room. The existing SCADA system and PLCs were installed in 2000 and are no longer supported by the equipment supplier. If a component of the SCADA system hardware were to fail, we could not purchase replacement parts. This could lead to process upsets in the WPCC treatment system and/or non- compliance issues with the Ministry of Environment certificate of approval.

The RFP outlined key tasks to be completed including an assessment of the existing communication cabling, the changeout of the three main PLCs and six smaller units as well as the replacement of the Operator`s workstation and data storage hardware. The contractor`s methodology to changing out the PLCs is considered a critical component to the success of the project as the flow of wastewater cannot be interrupted while the contractor carries out the project. Co-ordination with WPCC staff is essential and equipment downtime must be minimized.

The proposals submitted by the ASI Group and Procon Niagara were the lowest prices, however; their proposals lacked detail on their proposed methodology and scheduling for the changeout. The proposal submitted by Summa Engineering outlined the infrastructure assessment in detail and provided a step-by-step sequence of events for the PLC changeout. Although Summa’s price is approximately 6.5% higher than the lowest bid, their proposal provided much more detail and their time of completion was earliest of all contractors.

Page 8 of 238 Correspondence #1 ­ November 19, 2012

Consultation: The Information Technology team was consulted during the RFP process to address the requirements for the Operator`s workstation and the data storage hardware. The WPCC Superintendent, WPCC Mechanic and Operations Manager scored the proposals.

The Purchasing Agent and WPCC Superintendent were consulted in the preparation of this report.

Financial Implications: The project will be funded by the WPCC`s 2012 Capital Improvement account which has a balance of approximately $995,000.

Reviewed by: Approved by:

J.P. André Morin, P.Eng. Lloyd Fennell City Engineer City Manager

This report was prepared by Bryan Prouse, P.Eng., Operations Manager.

Attachment(s): Purchasing Agent’s report dated November 8, 2012

Page 9 of 238 Correspondence #1 ­ November 19, 2012 D E P A R T M E N T C O R R E S P O N D E N C E People Serving People

DATE: November 8, 2012

TO: Bryan Prouse

FROM: Shawn Unsworth Purchasing Agent

RE: RFP 12-120 Scada PLC Upgrade – Water Pollution Control Centre

At your request a Request for Proposal was issued for Financial Audit Services for the City of Sarnia Finance Department.

The Request for Proposal was posted on the City of Sarnia website, and sent to all bidders on the bidders list.. Proposals were received until 3:00 pm November 7, 2012 and opened according to policy.

Received Submissions are listed as follows:  ASI Group  Genviar Inc.  Hollen Controls  Paton Controls  Procon Niagara  Selectra Inc.  Summa Engineering

The proposals are available at the Purchasing Office. Could you please review the proposals regarding compliance to technical specifications and submit a recommendation for Sarnia City Council’s consideration to accept the lowest compliant bid.

/SU

C Brian Knott Brian McKay Proposal File

Page 10 of 238 Correspondence #2 ­ November 19, 2012

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA People Serving People

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

OPEN SESSION REPORT

TO: Mayor Bradley and Members of Sarnia City Council

FROM: J.P. André Morin, P.Eng. City Engineer

DATE: November 6, 2012

SUBJECT: Speed Limit Reduction on Blackwell Side Road

Recommendations: It is recommended:

1. That City Council approves the reduction of speed limit from 80 kilometers per hour to 50 kilometers per hour on Blackwell Side Road, from Churchill Line to south limit of the City.

Background: Current road surface conditions on Blackwell Side Road, from Churchill Line to south limit of the City are very poor. Staff is concerned about the safety of motorists travelling on this section of the roadway. This section of road currently has a posted speed limit of 80 kilometers per hour.

Staff is requesting that the speed limit on Blackwell Side Road, from Churchill Line to south limits of the City, be temporarily lowered to 50 kilometers per hour until the road is repaired in the latter part of 2013. The recommended 50 kilometers per hour speed limit will provide greater public safety.

Consultation: This report has been prepared in consultation with Sarnia Police and Public Works staff.

Financial Implications: There will be a minimal cost associated with posting new speed limits. This work can be accommodated in the current operations budget.

Page 11 of 238 Correspondence #2 ­ November 19, 2012

Reviewed by: Approved by:

J.P. André Morin, P.Eng. Lloyd Fennell City Engineer City Manager

This report was prepared by Muhammad Ali Khan, M.A.Sc., P.Eng., Transportation Engineer.

Attachment(s): None

Page 12 of 238 Correspondence #3 ­ November 19, 2012

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA People Serving People

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

OPEN SESSION REPORT

TO: Mayor Bradley and Members of Sarnia City Council

FROM: J.P. André Morin, P.Eng. City Engineer

DATE: November 9, 2012

SUBJECT: Award of Tender #12-08 Alarm Monitoring Services

Recommendations: It is recommended:

1. That the tender for security alarm monitoring services be awarded to Ultraguard Security Systems for a total cost of $124,854.50 including HST.

Background: The tender was issued for the provision of security alarm monitoring systems to the sixty-five City buildings, including forty-eight sewage pump stations and four facilities under the jurisdiction of the City Engineer as well as thirteen other facilities operated by Community Services, Property Department and Sarnia Transit. The tender called for a 5 year term from January 2013 to December 2017.

As of December 2017, all pumping stations will no longer be monitored by Ultraguard as “Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition” systems; SCADA is planned to be in place at all pumping stations.

Tenders were received until 3:00 p.m. October 17, 2012 and opened according to policy.

The following bids were received: 1. Ultraguard $124,854.50 2. Damar Security $271,204.18

Page 13 of 238 Correspondence #3 ­ November 19, 2012

Comments: This contract has gone through the competitive bid process prescribed in the Procurement By-Law and the low bidder meets City requirements.

Currently, there is ongoing litigation from the 2006 rain storm event involving the City, Ultraguard and other parties. Notwithstanding, Ultraguard has continued to provide alarm services and staff does not believe there is any impact on their ability to continue to provide alarm services.

Consultation: All registered bidders were sent bid packages; two companies submitted bids.

Financial Implications: Funds for this service have been budgeted in the 2013 budget.

Prepared by: Approved by:

J.P. André Morin, P.Eng. Lloyd Fennell City Engineer City Manager

Attachment(s): Copy of memo from Purchasing Agent

Page 14 of 238 Correspondence #3 ­ November 19, 2012

DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENCE People Serving People

Date: October 17, 2012 TO: Andre Morin

FROM: Shawn Unsworth Purchasing Agent

RE: Tender 12-08 Alarm Monitoring Services

At your request a Tender was issued September 27, 2012 for the provision of Alarm Monitoring Services for the City of Sarnia properties.

The Tender was posted on the Internet and advertised in the Sarnia Observer. Bid packages were also sent to all registered bidders on the bid list.

Tenders were received until3:00 pm October 17, 2012 and opened according to policy. Results of Bids including HST are as follows: • Ultraguard $124,854.50 • Damar Security $271,204.18

The Tenders are available at the Purchasing Office. Could you please review the tenders regarding compliance to technical specifications and submit a recommendation for Sarnia City Council's consideration to accept the lowest compliant bid.

/SU

C Brian Knott Brian McKay Tender File

Page 15 of 238 Page 16 of 238 Correspondence #4 ­ November 19, 2012

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA People Serving People

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

OPEN SESSION REPORT

TO: Mayor Bradley and Members of Sarnia City Council

FROM: J.P. André Morin, P.Eng. City Engineer

DATE: November 9, 2012

SUBJECT: Lakeshore Road - No Parking Restrictions - Public Feedback

Recommendations: It is recommended:

1. That City Council allows staff to install “No Parking” signs on the south side of Lakeshore Road (County Road 7) between Mater Drive and Modeland Road (County Road 27) and,

2. That the recommendation be referred to County of Lambton for approval of necessary by-law amendments to reflect the existing “No Parking” zone on the south side of Lakeshore Road between Murphy Road and Mater Drive and the proposed “No Parking” zone on the south side of Lakeshore Road between Mater Drive and Modeland Road (County Road 27).

Background: At the October 1, 2012 Council meeting, City Council members asked Engineering Staff to send out notice to residents seeking their feedback on the possibility of prohibiting on-street parking on the south side of Lakeshore Road between Mater Drive and Modeland Road.

Comments: On October 23, 2012 City staff sent letters to residents living on Lakeshore Road between Mater Drive and Modeland Road (County Road 27) requesting them to send their comments or concerns, if any, before November 6, in regards to the proposed parking change. This notice was expanded to include the residences on the north side of Lakeshore Road in the affected area. Staff urged all residents to provide their input. Furthermore, in this letter it was stated that if no comments were received, it will be assumed

Page 17 of 238 Correspondence #4 ­ November 19, 2012

that the resident is in support of the proposed restriction of “No Parking Anytime”. A copy of the letter is attached with this report.

Concerns were raised by a few residents living on the north side of Lakeshore Road, regarding the possibility of sight visibility issues for vehicles backing out of driveways due to vehicles parking on the north side of Lakeshore Road. Subject to Council approval, after the installation of “No Parking” signs on the South side of Lakeshore Road, staff will review the parking/traffic situation on this street and, if required, will contact the residents and make necessary adjustments to parking restrictions on the north side of Lakeshore Road.

Consultation: Engineering staff have polled sixty four (64) residents living on the north/south side of Lakeshore Road between Mater Drive and Modeland Road regarding the proposed parking changes. Eleven respondents (9-south side/2-north side) are against the proposed parking restrictions. Forty five (45) homeowners who did not send comments and eight respondents (4- south side/4-north side) are in favor of proposed restrictions. In the letter sent out to residents, it was stated that if no comments were received, it will be assumed that the resident is in support of the proposed restriction of “No Parking Anytime”.

This report has been discussed with the County of Lambton staff, Bluewater Trail Committee and Sarnia Police staff; they are in agreement with this report.

Financial Implications: Installation of signs will be done by City crew. The cost associated with installation of signs is minimal. The department's current budget should be sufficient to finance necessary expenditures involved with posting the “No Parking” signs.

Reviewed by: Approved by:

J.P. André Morin, P.Eng. Lloyd Fennell City Engineer City Manager

This report was prepared by Muhammad Ali Khan, M.A.Sc, P.Eng., Transportation Engineer.

Attachment(s): Copy of letter sent to residents

Page 18 of 238 Correspondence #4 ­ November 19, 2012

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA Engineering Department 255 Christina Street North Sarnia ON Canada N7T 7N2 519 332-0330 519 332-0776 (fax) 519 332-2664 (TTY) www.sarnia.ca [email protected]

June 7, 2012

NOTICE

Attention: OWNER AND/OR OCCUPANT

The City of Sarnia and County of Lambton are considering implementing no parking regulations on the south side of Lakeshore Road between Mater Drive and Modeland Road.

EXISTING RESTRICTIONS

"NONE"

PROPOSED RESTRICTIONS

"NO PARKING ANYTIME"

The purpose of the new parking regulations is to prohibit on-street parking on the south side of Lakeshore Road between Mater Drive and Modeland Road. The feedback collected from property owners will then be included in a report to Council for the July 16, 2012 Council meeting.

If there are any comments or concerns, please send them to the undersigned before June 29, 2012 at [email protected] or 519-332-0330 ext. 272.

Sincerely,

Muhammad Ali Khan, MASc, P Eng. Transportation Engineer

Page 19 of 238 Correspondence #4 ­ November 19, 2012

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA Engineering Department 255 Christina Street North Sarnia ON Canada N7T 7N2 519 332-0330 519 332-0776 (fax) 519 332-2664 (TTY) www.sarnia.ca [email protected]

October 23, 2012

ATTENTION: Owner and/or Occupant

NOTICE

At the October 1, 2012 Council meeting, Sarnia City Council members asked Engineering Staff to send out notice to residents seeking their feedback on the possibility of prohibiting on-street parking on the south side of Lakeshore Road between Mater Drive and Modeland Road.

The feedback collected from property owners will then be included in a report to Council for the November 19, 2012 Council meeting.

Attached is a copy of the original notice circulated to the residences on the south side of Lakeshore Road for comments. This notice has been expanded to include the residences on the north side of Lakeshore Road in the affected area. Staff is urging all residents to provide their input; if no comments are received, it will be assumed you support the proposed restriction of ‘No Parking Anytime’. Comments/concerns can be sent directly to the City of Sarnia Engineering Department by November 6, 2012 by email to [email protected]; or by mail to:

The Corporation of the City of Sarnia Engineering Department 255 Christina Street North Sarnia ON N7T 7N2

Regards,

Muhammad Ali Khan, M.A.Sc, P.Eng. Transportation Engineer

Page 20 of 238 Correspondence #5 ­ November 19, 2012

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA People Serving People

PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

OPEN SESSION REPORT

TO: Mayor Bradley and Members of Sarnia City Council

FROM: Kim Bresee, Director of Planning and Building

DATE: November 15, 2012

SUBJECT: Part Lot Control Exemption By-law for Paolo Street Exmouth Investments Canada Limited

Recommendation: It is recommended:

1. That Sarnia City Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign a By- law exempting Lots 15 to 29, inclusive, Plan 25M-38 from the Part Lot Control provisions of the Planning Act, so the lots can be reduced in size to increase the number of lots from 15 to 20;

And that Sarnia City Council authorizes the Mayor and Clerk to sign an amending Subdivision Agreement for the subject lands.

Background: The subject lands form part of the larger subdivision consisting of Lizuchia Drive and Paolo Street which are located east of the Rapids Parkway and south of Berger Road on the Rapids Parkway lands. The applicants, Exmouth Investments Canada Limited, have purchased a portion of the subdivision on Paolo Street from the Silvestri Group and now wish to construct 2-unit and 3-unit dwellings on the lands instead of single detached dwellings. These types of dwellings can be built on narrower lots and a reconfiguration of the lot lines is, therefore, necessary. The number of lots will increase from 15 to 20.

Comments: When a Plan of Subdivision has been approved under the Planning Act and registered, a landowner may sell any complete lot or Block on that registered plan.

Page 21 of 238 Correspondence #5 ­ November 19, 2012

However, a landowner may not sell a part of or a piece of a Lot or Block on a registered plan without further approval (consent to sever or subdivision) under the Planning Act. This is referred to as Part Lot Control and has the effect of preventing any division of land in a registered plan, other than that allowed for in the approved plan of subdivision, without further approvals.

Section 50(7) of the Planning Act, enables the municipality to pass a by-law to remove Part Lot Control from part of the registered plan of subdivision (Plan 25M-38) so that the lands could be split into the desired 20 lots for the 2 unit and 3 unit dwellings. The by-law will have the effect of allowing the further subdivision of the land into lots on a Reference Plan, without requiring the approval of the Committee of Adjustment or Council. In other words, by lifting Part Lot Control, certain desirable transactions or changes to a plan of subdivision can be allowed to occur expeditiously.

The Applicant is seeking City Council’s approval to authorize the execution of a By-law to exempt Lots 15 to 29, inclusive, shown on Plan of Subdivision 25M-38 from the Part Lot Control provisions of the Planning Act. Staff supports the requested exemption which will allow for the creation of 20 residential lots (as shown on the attached map) on the existing Paolo Street.

The proposed lot areas, lot frontages and dwelling types satisfy the zoning by-law requirements. When plans for the buildings are submitted for building permits they will be reviewed to ensure conformity with all zoning regulations.

Approval of this exemption should be subject to the amendment of the Subdivision Agreement to facilitate the creation of the additional lots under new ownership.

The implementing By-law is found in the By-law section of this Council agenda package.

Consultation: Staff has consulted with staff of the City’s Legal Services and Engineering Departments in preparation of this report.

Page 22 of 238 Correspondence #5 ­ November 19, 2012

Financial Implications: The creation of the lots will increase the residential assessment to the City.

Prepared by: Approved by:

Kim Bresee Lloyd Fennell Director of Planning and Building City Manager

Attachment(s): Plan of the Existing and Proposed Lot Layouts

Page 23 of 238 Correspondence #5 ­ November 19, 2012

Page 24 of 238 Correspondence #6 ­ November 19, 2012

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA People Serving People

PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

OPEN SESSION REPORT

TO: Mayor Bradley and Members of Sarnia City Council

FROM: Kim Bresee, Director of Planning and Building

DATE: November 7, 2012

SUBJECT: A Rail Crossing Construction and Maintenance Agreement with the Vidal Street Industrial Park (VIP) and an Overhead Pipe Crossing Agreement with Lanxess Inc.

Recommendation: It is recommended:

1. That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign a Rail Crossing Construction and Maintenance Agreement with the Vidal Street Industrial Park Inc. on behalf of the City of Sarnia;

And that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign an Overhead Pipe Crossing Agreement with Lanxess Inc. on behalf of the City of Sarnia.

Background: In 1976 the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) revealed its plan to close off Scott Road for the purpose of constructing a Highway 40 (Churchill Road) overpass over the CN tracks at that location.

As a result of Scott Road potentially losing access to Highway 40, the neighbouring companies negotiated with the MTO and the City to plan an alternate service road between Vidal Street and Scott Road. The resulting road layout ran through existing industrial properties and in 1982 an agreement in principle for that layout was reached among the affected parties.

The City was to assemble the properties for this new road layout and in 1994 the first segment of land was acquired by the City through a land exchange.

Page 25 of 238 Correspondence #6 ­ November 19, 2012

Since that time, no other properties have been acquired nor has the MTO moved forward on its plan to cut Scott Road off from Highway 40. The MTO indicated, during a recent call to their office, that the original 1976 plan has never been modified and they still considered it to be in effect.

The Vidal Street Industrial Park (VIP) operates a train marshaling yard on its property at 300 Kenny Street and now has a need to expand the yard to the east to accommodate additional tracks. They are purchasing additional lands from Lanxess but the City’s land blocks their access to it. In order to undertake their expansion they have submitted a request to the City to allow them construct a single rail line and service road across the parcel of land the City had obtained for a future road. Once across the City’s property the track network will expand into many lines which the VIP will use as an additional marshaling yard.

Lanxess Inc. has also requested permission to cross this parcel of City property with an overhead pipe crossing. They wish to have this crossing in place in order to accommodate the needs of future industrial uses which may occupy the abutting lands.

Both proposed crossings would be side-by-side as shown on the attached plan.

Comments: The City’s permission is required to allow both the VIP and Lanxess to cross the parcel of land which is owned by the City.

The VIP proposes to cross it with a single track and service road. A rail crossing agreement has been prepared and attached to this report which ensures that the crossing will be built and maintained to the satisfaction of the City whether or not a road is ever built on these lands. Initially the VIP will be allowed to build a single rail line and service road over the lands but if the City’s road is developed, the owner of the rail line will be required to construct a crossing at its expense to a standard that is acceptable to the City.

Lanxess proposes to construct an overhead pipe crossing over the City’s land. Similar pipe crossings exist elsewhere in Sarnia’s industrial area.

Staff has no concerns with granting these crossing permissions subject to the terms of the Rail Crossing Construction and Maintenance Agreement and the Overhead Pipe Crossing Agreement. Authorizing By-laws for each Agreement have been included on Council’s agenda for consideration.

Page 26 of 238 Correspondence #6 ­ November 19, 2012

Consultation: Discussions occurred among Mr. Ross McEachran, President of the VIP, Brian Rea of Lanxess, staff of the Ministry of Transportation and staff of the Planning, Engineering and Legal Departments of the City.

Financial Implications: A fee for the registration of the Agreement plus an annual fee will be received by the City. There should be no expense to the City.

Prepared by: Approved by:

Kim Bresee Lloyd Fennell Director of Planning and Building City Manager

Attachments: Attachment 1 – Area Map Attachment 2 - Request by the VIP for the rail crossing Attachment 3 - Request by Lanxess for the pipe crossing

Page 27 of 238 Correspondence #6 ­ November 19, 2012

Attachment 1

Page 28 of 238 Correspondence #6 ­ November 19, 2012

Attachment 2 – Request by the VIP for the Rail Crossing Permission

From: Ross McEachran [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: September-21-12 8:42 AM To: Kim Bresee Cc: [email protected] Subject: VIP / Lanxess Easements

Kim, Vidal Street Industrial Park Inc. requests an easement over the City of Sarnia property that is within the Lanxess property East of the VIP site. The need for this easement is for one single rail track and a service road beside it to provide access to the Lanxess property to the East side of the city property, which lands VIP is in the process of purchasing from Lanxess. This land has been surveyed in the last couple of weeks by Monteith and Sutherland and we should have a reference plan next week of which I will forward a copy to you as soon as I receive it. Thank you for your work on this project. Sincerely, Ross

Ross McEachran, MBA President

Vidal Street Industrial Park Inc. PO Box 411, 300 Kenny Street Sarnia, Ontario, N7T 7J2 P 519-383-7200 F 519-383-7800

Page 29 of 238 Correspondence #6 ­ November 19, 2012

Attachment 3 – Request by Lanxess Inc. for a Pipe Crossing

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: August-29-12 12:50 PM To: Kim Bresee Cc: [email protected] Subject: Crossing City property east of Kenny Street

Kim,

I understand that Vidal Industrial Park representative, Ross McEachran, has approached you in confidence to discuss planning processes and permissions for the potential development of a rail yard east of Kenny Street. In this area there is a parcel of land owned by the City which is reserved for a potential future road allowance. As part of the real estate arrangements necessary to the proposed rail yard development, VIP and LANXESS will be seeking easement permission from the City to install facilities crossing that City owned parcel. VIP would require an easement to install a rail crossing as part of the immediate development, and LANXESS would require a right for a future piperack crossing to support future industrial development on adjacent and near-by lands.

Confirming the City's willingness to grant these crossing rights over this City property is critical to confirm the feasibility of this development proposal. We appreciate your support and guidance on this matter.

Best regards, BRIAN.

J. Brian Rea - Site Development LANXESS Inc. P.O. Box 3001 1265 Vidal Street South Sarnia, Ontario, CANADA N7T 7M2 Tel: 519-337-8251 ext. 5217 Fax: 519-339-7785 [email protected] http://www.lanxess.com Bio-industrial Park Sarnia. --- (http://www.bioindustrialparksarnia.com/) Business is good in Sarnia-Lambton. Find out why. --- (http://www.sarnialambton.on.ca/main/lang/EN/ns/22/doc/59)

Page 30 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA People Serving People

CITY SOLICITOR/CLERK’S DEPARTMENT

OPEN SESSION REPORT

TO: Mayor Bradley and Members of Sarnia City Council

FROM: Brian W. Knott, City Solicitor/Clerk

DATE: November 15, 2012

SUBJECT: County Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces By-Law

Recommendation: For Council’s Decision

Background: As Council is aware, the County of Lambton approved, in principle, a proposed County Smoke-Free Open Spaces By-law. The by-law now needs to be considered by all Lambton County municipalities as part of the “triple majority” requirement. This by-law would apply to all municipally-owned or operated, Outdoor Recreational Areas, Playgrounds and Play Equipment, and Playing Fields.

Information on the proposed by-law has once again been attached for Council’s information at this time:

 Note from County of Lambton setting out the resolution of County Council  Report to County Council together with Draft By-law  Technical report dated October 19, 2011  Public Consultation Report dated February 15, 2012  Key Messages on Why Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces  Frequently Asked Questions

Comments: One of the concerns raised at the public meeting related to enforcement of the by-law. It has been indicated that Tobacco Enforcement Officers from the Community Health Services Department would be involved in this as part of an education campaign as well as in actual enforcement duties.

Page 31 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

One of the other issues which has arisen with similar types of potentially province-wide initiatives (i.e. smoking the workplace and pesticide use) involves the variances which might arise from municipality to municipality. While the same rules for this by-law would apply within the County of Lambton, different rules may be in effect once one leaves our borders and enters other jurisdictions.

Consultation: A public input meeting was held on November 14, 2012 to solicit comments/questions from Sarnia residents. Representatives from the office of the Medical Officer of Health and the Public Health Services Division from the County were in attendance to make a brief presentation and respond to any questions which were raised. The Director of Parks and Recreation also attended this meeting, and was consulted on this report.

Notice of this meeting had been placed in the Civic Corner, the City’s website, and the notice board at City Hall. As well, articles in the Observer and Sarnia This Week made reference to the meeting. The issue of the smoking by-law was also the topic of a radio call-in show and significant airplay on the radio made reference to the meeting. Ten people were in attendance at the meeting and four spoke. A majority of those who spoke were in favour of the by-law. A copy of the presentation material from the Canadian Cancer Society has been attached for Council’s information.

Financial Implications: The report from the County of Lambton indicates that all costs associated with tobacco control are 100% funded through the Province through the Smoke Free Ontario Strategy, or cost-shared at 75% provincial share though program based grants. Staff estimate that the total cost of implementation would be approximately $20,000. Most costs will be related to public education and signage.

Prepared by: Approved by:

Brian W. Knott Lloyd Fennell City Solicitor/Clerk City Manager

Attachment(s):  Note from County of Lambton setting out the resolution of County Council  Report to County Council together with Draft By-law

Page 32 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

 Technical report dated October 19, 2011  Public Consultation Report dated February 15, 2012  Key Messages on Why Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces  Frequently Asked Questions  Canadian Cancer Society Letter

Page 33 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

CORPORATE SERVICES DIVISION

789 Broadway Street, Box 3000 Wyoming, Ontario NON 1TO Telephone: 519 845-0801 Toll-free: 1-866-324-6912 Fax: 519 845-0818 www.lambtononline.ca

MEMO

DATE: September 24, 2012

TO: Municipal Clerks, Lambton County

FROM: David Cribbs, County Clerk & County Solicitor General Manager, Corporate Services Division

CC: Andrew Taylor, General Manager, Public Health Services Division Dr. Sudit Ranade, Medical Officer of Health

RE: Proposed County Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces By-Law

On September 5, 2012, Lambton County Council passed the following motion: a) That County Council approve the proposed By-Law, in principle, for form and content. b) That Council instruct staff to forward the By-Law to all Lambton County constituent municipalities for their consideration and approval. c) That the By-Law be brought back to County Council for final consideration should the votes of the lower tier municipalities satisfy the "triple majority" requirement. d) That local municipalities be required to report back regarding their position on this By-Law no later than December 31, 2012.

We hope the enclosed information will assist your Council in understanding the range of issues relating to the proposed By-Law, as well as information received directly from the public, including:

• September 5, 2012 Report to County Council - includes draft By-Law; • Smoke-Free Public Outdoor Spaces - Technical Report;

CaringGrowingInnovative Page 34 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

Page 2 Proposed County Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces By-Law

• Smoke-Free Public Outdoor Spaces - Public Consultation Report; • Key Messages - Why Smoke-Free Public Outdoor Spaces? • Frequently Asked Questions.

Community Health Services Department staff are available for a presentation or to attend a meeting in order to answer any questions Councilors may have regarding the proposed Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces By-Law.

If you would like to request a presentation, please contact Kevin Churchill, Manager, Health Promotion and Program Support by email [email protected]; or by calling 1-800-667-1839 ext. 3505 or 519-383-8331.

Please communicate the decision of your Council regarding the By-Law to David Cribbs, County Clerk, no later than December 31, 2012.

CaringGrowingInnovative Page 35 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION

REPORT TO: WARDEN AND LAMBTON COUNTY COUNCIL DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES Kevin Churchill, Manager, Health Promotion & Program Support PREPARED BY: Donna Schmidtmeyer, Supervisor, Ontario Tobacco Strategy Andrew Taylor, General Manager REVIEWED BY: Ronald G. Van Horne, Chief Administrative Officer MEETING DATE: September 5, 2012 SUBJECT: Smoke Free Outdoor Spaces - Draft By-Law

BACKGROUND

The Community Health Services Department has been gathering information on Smoke- Free Outdoor Spaces since 2008. A detailed technical report that included rationale, history, data discussing public support, and policy options to address the issue was presented to Committee A.M. on October 19, 2011.

At Lambton County Council's meeting of November 2, 2011 a motion was passed asking staff to engage in a public consultation process to educate the public, gather information, and measure public support. A report was submitted to Committee A.M. on February 15, 2012 which identified significant public support for such a By-Law.

Lambton County Council at their regular meeting of May 2, 2012, passed Motion #11 as follows:

#11: Boushy/Gillis: a) That County Council support the protection of outdoor spaces used by children and direct staff to develop a By-Law to regulate smoking at municipally owned or operated playgrounds and active playing fields b) That the appropriate By-Law be brought back to County Council for its consideration. Carried.

The following report describes the draft By-Law which is attached for County Council's consideration.

Page 36 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012 Smoke Free Outdoor Spaces - Draft By-Law (page 2) September 5, 2012

DISCUSSION

Following Council's direction, staff have drafted a proposed By-Law that would prohibit smoking within 9 metres of the following areas:

• “Outdoor Recreational Area” includes but is not limited to playgrounds, wading or swimming pools, splash pads, sports fields, sports and recreation playing fields, outdoor areas used for public enjoyment and recreation areas for children such as petting zoos (excluding beaches, trails and golf courses).

• "Playground or Playground Equipment" means any recreational outdoor space featuring any kind of structure or apparatus which is customarily found in a park-like setting and upon or around which a person may engage in play.

• "Playing Field" means field(s) and or land(s), of natural or man-made composition that are actively used to conduct organized or unorganized physical activity and includes, but is not limited to a baseball diamond/field, soccer pitch, football field, outdoor ice pad, rink, basketball court, skateboard park, tennis court, and includes their related spectating and players areas and structures.

The proposed By-Law will not apply to beaches, trails, or golf courses.

Process Under the Municipal Act, 2001 in order for lower tier municipalities to assign responsibility to an upper tier municipality for a By-Law, the By-Law is subject to a "triple majority" test - in which all of the following three conditions must be met. 1. The By-Law must be passed by the upper tier, then sent to the lower tier municipalities for their consideration. 2. The By-Law must be passed by a majority of the municipalities (6). 3. The municipalities in favour must collectively represent more than one half of the total population of the upper tier municipalities.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

All costs associated with tobacco control are 100% funded through the Province through the Smoke-Free Ontario Strategy, or cost-shared at 75% provincial share through program-based grants.

Staff estimate that total cost of implementation would be approximately $20,000. Most costs will be related to public education and signage.

Page 37 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012 Smoke Free Outdoor Spaces - Draft By-Law (page 3) September 5, 2012

CONSULTATIONS

Extensive public consultations were held in the fall of 2011. Dr. Chris Greensmith, (A) Medical Officer of Health, and David Cribbs, County Solicitor were also consulted.

STRATEGIC PLAN

This initiative is consistent with the mission, principles and values stated in the areas of effort, as identified in the strategic plan, including: • to enhance the quality of life and to build a healthy community. • champions initiatives on behalf of the community and accountable to its stakeholders. • takes reasonable risk for the betterment of the whole community.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommend the following action items:

a) That County Council approve the proposed By-Law in principle for form and content.

b) That Council instruct staff to forward the By-Law to all Lambton County constituent municipalities for their consideration and approval.

c) That the By-Law be brought back to County Council for final consideration should the votes of the lower tier municipalities satisfy the "triple majority" requirement.

Page 38 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012 Smoke Free Outdoor Spaces - Draft By-Law (page 4) September 5, 2012

THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF LAMBTON

BY-LAW [ENTER NUMBER]

A BY-LAW TO PROHIBIT SMOKING AT OR NEAR MUNICIPALLY OWNED OR OPERATED OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL SPACES

WHEREAS section 11 of the Municipal Act, 2001 S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended specifically authorizes County Council to pass By-Laws necessary or desirable for municipal purposes and in particular for the protection of the health, safety and well-being of persons and the economic, social and environmental well-being of the municipality;

AND WHEREAS section 115 of the Municipal Act, 2001 authorizes County Council to pass By-Laws regulating the smoking of tobacco in public places within the municipality and designating public places as places in which smoking tobacco or holding lit tobacco is prohibited;

AND WHEREAS By-Law No. 10 of 2004 of The Corporation of the County of Lambton prohibits smoking in workplaces and certain public places in Lambton County;

AND WHEREAS County Council desires to buttress By-Law No. 10 of 2004 by prohibiting smoking in certain outdoor public spaces;

AND WHEREAS second-hand smoke is a known health hazard to people and, particularly, children;

AND WHEREAS Council deems it desirable for the health, safety and well-being of the public to regulate the smoking of tobacco in public places;

NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the County of Lambton enacts as follows:

SHORT TITLE

1. This By-Law may be cited as the “Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces By-Law.”

Page 39 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012 Smoke Free Outdoor Spaces - Draft By-Law (page 5) September 5, 2012

DEFINITIONS

2. In this By-Law:

2.1. “Lambton County” means the geographic jurisdiction of The Corporation of the County of Lambton.

2.2. “Outdoor Recreational Area” includes but is not limited to playgrounds, wading or swimming pools, splash pads, sports fields, sports and recreation playing fields, outdoor areas used for public enjoyment and recreation areas for children such as petting zoos (excluding beaches, trails and golf courses).

2.2.1. "Playground or Playground Equipment" means any recreational outdoor space featuring any kind of structure or apparatus which is customarily found in a park-like setting and upon or around which a person may engage in play.

2.2.2. "Playing Field" means field(s) and or land(s), of natural or man-made composition that are actively used to conduct organized or unorganized physical activity and includes, but is not limited to a baseball diamond/field, soccer pitch, football field, outdoor ice pad, rink, basketball court, skateboard park, tennis court, and includes their related spectating and players areas and structures.

2.3. "Prohibited Area" means:

2.3.1. A 9-metre radius, measured in any direction, from the edge of an actively used Outdoor Recreational Area;

2.3.2. A 9-metre radius, measured in any direction, surrounding the edge of any Playground Safety Surface, or any Playground Equipment;

2.3.3. A 9-metre radius, measured in any direction, from the edge of an actively used Playing Field.

2.4. "Smoke" or “smoking” means to smoke or hold a Lighted Tobacco Product.

2.5. "Lighted Tobacco Product" means a product that contains or is made from tobacco and/or extracts of tobacco. Tobacco Product includes, but is not limited to, cigarettes, cigars, cigarillos, pipe tobacco, water-pipe tobacco, loose-leaf tobacco, bidis, or other tobacco smoking equipment.

Page 40 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012 Smoke Free Outdoor Spaces - Draft By-Law (page 6) September 5, 2012

2.6. "Valid Identification" means a document issued by an order of government, and includes, but is not limited to photographic health cards, driver's licenses, passports, military identification cards, citizenship cards and Indian Status cards.

2.7. “Tobacco Enforcement Officer” applies to an employee of the County of Lambton responsible to enforce this By-Law.

APPLICATION

3. This By-Law shall apply to all municipally-owned or operated, Outdoor Recreational Areas, Playgrounds and Playground Equipment, and Playing Fields.

PROHIBITIONS

4. No person shall Smoke or otherwise use Lighted Tobacco Products within the Restricted Area of an Outdoor Recreational Area, Playground and Playground Equipment, or a Playing Field.

5. The prohibitions in Section 4 apply whether or not a "No Smoking" sign of any format or content is posted.

EXEMPTIONS

6. Nothing in this By-Law prohibits any person from Smoking or otherwise using a Tobacco Product as part of, and in connection with, traditional Aboriginal cultural or spiritual purposes.

ENFORCEMENT

7. A police officer, provincial offences officer, municipal law enforcement officer or such other person designated by By-Law from time to time may enforce all provisions of this By-Law.

8. During the course of an enforcement action, every person, upon demand, shall provide proof of their identification to a Tobacco Enforcement Officer. In the event that a person does not have any Valid Identification upon their person at the time of the demand, they shall furnish their correct contact particulars, including current address, date of birth and correct spelling of their name. Failure to accurately identify oneself to an enforcement officer in the conduct of duties constitutes an offence.

Page 41 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012 Smoke Free Outdoor Spaces - Draft By-Law (page 7) September 5, 2012

OFFENCES AND PENALTIES

9. Any person who contravenes any provision of this By-Law is guilty of an offence and upon conviction is liable to a fine of not more than Five Thousand Dollars ($5000) and such other penalty as provided for in the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33 as amended.

PRECEDENCE AND SEVERABILITY

10. The court in which a conviction has been entered, and any court of competent jurisdiction thereafter, may make an order prohibiting the continuation or repetition of the offence by the person convicted, and such an order shall be in addition to any other remedy and to any penalty imposed on the person convicted.

11. Pursuant to section 441.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, any unpaid outstanding fine may be added to the tax roll for property in Lambton County for which all of the owners are responsible for paying the fine and the unpaid part of the fine shall be collected in the same manner as municipal taxes.

12. Where this By-Law conflicts with any other By-Law of The Corporation of the County of Lambton this By-Law shall take precedence to the extent of the conflict.

13. Should any section, paragraph or provision of this By-Law including any part of any schedule hereof be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be ultra vires, invalid or illegal for any reason, the same shall not affect the validity of the By-Law as a whole. It is the intention of Council that the remainder of this By-Law survive and be applied and enforced in accordance with its terms to the extent possible under the law.

ENACTMENT

14. This By-Law comes into force and effect upon passing hereof.

FINALLY passed this _____ day of ______, 2012.

______Warden

______Clerk

Page 42 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

Smoke-Free Public Outdoor Spaces Technical Report - October 19, 2011

Protecting Children - Creating a Healthy Environment

Page 43 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

Introduction Across Ontario, a growing number of municipalities are beginning to investigate and adopt By-Laws regulating smoking in public outdoor settings including parks, playgrounds, beaches and entranceways.

Lambton County Council at their regular meeting July 6, 2011 passed the June 15, 2011 Committee AM Minutes, that included Motion #8, as follows:

a) That staff be directed to review current policy options and best practices for Smoke-Free Public Outdoor Spaces; and b) Report back to County Council including a range of options, proposed public consultation process, and address issues such as enforcement.

The following report has been written in response to Motion #8.

Background: In 2004, County Council recognized the importance of creating smoke-free public places and workplaces with the adoption of By-Law #10 of 2004. The By-Law was a demonstration of the commitment of Council to the values of a healthy community and the significant health care burden caused by exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS), commonly known as second-hand smoke. In 2006, the Smoke-Free Ontario Act was implemented by the Province and there have been amendments to the Act designed to further reduce the exposure of children to ETS by placing restrictions on smoking where children are passengers of vehicles. In the seven years since passing the Lambton By-Law, public support and public interest for broadening tobacco control efforts at the local level continues to grow. The majority of local residents agree that current measures to protect adults and children from exposure to ETS do not go far enough.

Strong Public Support for Smoke-Free Public Outdoor Spaces Figure 2, which shows the results for the combined 2010 & 2011Rapid Risk Factor Surveillance System (RRFSS) data collection periods, is based on a total sample of 817 Lambton residents. Support for smoke-free bylaws ranged from about 68% - 89% for the following public spaces: Doorways to public places: 89.1% ( 2.1) Doorways to workplaces: 87.8% ( 2.2) Public playgrounds: 79.1% ( 2.8) Public sport fields/spectator areas: 76.1% ( 2.9) Outdoor public patios: 69.8% ( 3.1) Public beaches: 68.4% ( 3.2) All public outdoor areas: 57.6% ( 3.4)

Page 44 of 238 2 Smoke-Free Public Outdoor Spaces Technical Report- October 19, 2011

Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

Figure 2 - Support for Smoke-free Public Places in Lambton County Proportion Who Strongly or Somewhat Agree that Public Places Should be Smoke Free 2010 & 2011 Combined, n=817

All Areas 57.6

Outdoor Public Patios 69.8

Doorways to Public Places 89.1

Doorways to Workplaces 87.8

Public Sports Fields 76.1

Public Beaches 68.4

Public Playgrounds 79.1

0 20 40 60 80 100 %

Source: Rapid Risk Factor Surveillance System (RRFSS), County of Lambton Community Health Services Department and Institute for Social Research, York University. " No smoking in parks Relationship to Public Health Mandate and public spaces The mandate of the County of Lambton Community Health Services Department, as defined by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Ontario Public Health would be a great idea. I Standards (2008) is: am asthmatic, and have am asthmatic, and have "To promote and protect the health of Lambton residents by understanding the needs, to go out of my way to identifying minimum standards and delivering a local solution." avoid smokers The reduction or elimination of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), commonly known as second-hand smoke has enormous benefits in terms of reducing outdoors. Even a small the burden of chronic diseases including lung disease and cancer, heart disease and asthma. amount of tobacco

Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) a Health Concern smoke will trigger an Whether you are indoors or outdoors, the science is conclusive that there is no safe attack. It is hard for level of exposure to ETS. It irritates the eyes, throat, nose and respiratory system and causes headaches, asthma, nausea and dizziness. ETS is more than irritating, it is people like me to dangerous. It contains more than 4,000 chemicals; at least 69 are known to cause cancer. The use of tobacco products cost Ontario: navigate a park when $1.6 billion in direct health care costs smokers sit there, $4.4 billion in lost productivity 1 At least 500,000 hospital days puffing away." Exposure to ETS is a health concern for people of all ages, affecting adults, children, and pregnancies. ETS causes numerous health problems in infants and children. Lambton County Resident

Page 45 of 238 3 Smoke-Free Public Outdoor Spaces Technical Report- October 19, 2011

Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

Young children are especially vulnerable to ETS 2 because: They breathe more air relative to body weight (and for the same level of exposure absorb more tobacco smoke toxins). They are less able to complain (either too young, or because complaints are ignored). Their immune system is less protective. They are less able to remove themselves from exposure. The study 'Health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke: Final Report' found children are particularly susceptible to environmental tobacco smoke... "Infants and children are also generally unable to control their environment, and therefore cannot take steps to avoid exposure to second-hand smoke [environmental tobacco smoke]. As a result, children inhale a greater percentage of toxins than adults." In children, ETS can induce asthma attacks and worsen asthma and increase the risk of bronchitis, pneumonia, ear infections, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)3. Why Smoke-Free Public Outdoor Spaces? To reflect the will of the majority of Lambton residents who are in favour of smoke-free public outdoor spaces. To protect people, especially children, from environmental tobacco smoke. To promote positive role modelling for children and youth in public settings. To promote a healthier environment, improving air quality and reducing litter. To support the decision of those who wish to quit smoking, and to encourage people who smoke to quit or cut back. To reduce discarded cigarette butts which are toxic to children, pets and wildlife.

Relationship to Lambton's Strategic Plan The County of Lambton's vision, as defined in Area of Effort, and reiterated as a Principle and Value in the Strategic Plan, is to enhance the quality of life and to build a healthy community. "The County of Lambton Believes4...... in the value and importance of a healthy community which provides an array of cultural and healthy lifestyle services, understands and respects its environment. ...leadership and accountability by realistic and sound decisions...champions initiatives on behalf of the community and accountable to its stakeholders. ...takes reasonable risk for the betterment of the whole community."

Scan of Ontario Municipal Bylaws Almost 60 Ontario municipalities have enacted By-Laws regulating smoking in outdoor public spaces5. In addition, dozens of other municipalities including the City of London, Grey-Bruce County, Region of Waterloo and Windsor-Essex County are in the development/consultation phase of smoke-free public outdoor spaces bylaws.

Page 46 of 238 4 Smoke-Free Public Outdoor Spaces Technical Report- October 19, 2011

Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

The following chart provides an overview of outdoor smoking restrictions in public places. By-Laws are listed in chronological order, beginning with the most recent. Municipality Bylaw Date Inclusions City of Hamilton May 2011 Complete smoking ban on any city owned recreational (in effect May 2012) property (excludes golf courses) Town of Georgina July 1, 2011 Parks (10 m) (*precedent for Playgrounds, splash pads, skate parks(10 m) Canada... includes all Sport & recreation fields (10 m) tobacco products) Splash pads (10 m) Niagara Falls May 2010 Complete smoking ban on any city owned park (included (in effect May 2011) playgrounds, sport & recreation fields, skate parks, sport and recreation seating and community events) Huntsville May 2010 Parks (9 m) Playgrounds (9 m) Sport & recreation fields (9 m) Municipal buildings (9 m) Paths & trails (9 m) Sport seating (9 m) Welland February 2010 Parks (10m) Playgrounds, splash pads, skate parks (10 m) Sport & recreation fields (10 m) Community events (10 m) Timmins November 2009 Parks (10 m) Playgrounds (10 m) Beaches (designated areas) Sport & recreation Fields (10 m) Community events (10 m) South Bruce November 2009 Parks (15 m) Playgrounds (30 m) Sport & recreation fields (15 m) Community events (10 m) St. Thomas November 2009 Parks and playgrounds, includes splash pads, swimming pools, skate parks, players benches and tennis courts (30 m) Chatham-Kent November 2009 Playgrounds (9 m) Municipal buildings (9 m) Transit stops and shelters (4 m) Barrie July 2009 Complete smoking ban on municipally owned parks, playgrounds, beaches, sport & recreation fields and recreation building property. Toronto January 2009 Playgrounds, splash pads, wading pools, petting zoos & farms (9 m) Orillia June 2008 Parks (10 m) Playgrounds (10 m) Beaches (10 m) *precedent for Canada Sport & recreation fields (10 m) Municipal buildings (10 m) Wasaga Beach September 2008 Parks (9m) Playgrounds (9 m) Sport & playing fields (9 m) Municipal recreation buildings (9 m) Woodstock September 2008 Playgrounds (30 m) Sport & playing fields (15 m) Municipal buildings (9 m) Transit stops and shelters (4 m) Community events (can apply to be smoke-free) Downtown patios and municipal sidewalks (smoke-free)

Page 47 of 238 5 Smoke-Free Public Outdoor Spaces Technical Report- October 19, 2011

Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

City of December 2007 Parks (9 m) Peterborough (last revision May 2011) Playgrounds, skate parks, splash pads (9 m) Beaches (9 m) Sport & recreation playing fields includes seating (9 m) Municipal entrances (9 m) Sault Ste. Marie September 2007 Municipal parks (15 m) Playgrounds (15 m) Sport & recreation playing fields (15 m) Municipal entrances (4 m) Ottawa August 2004 Municipal parks (9 m) Playgrounds (9 m) Beaches (9 m) Sport & recreation playing fields (9 m) Municipal entrances (9 m) Collingwood November 2002 Public playgrounds (25 m), includes swimming pools, municipal entrances, sports and recreation playing fields (25 m)

Page 48 of 238 6 Smoke-Free Public Outdoor Spaces Technical Report- October 19, 2011

Policy Options Smoke-Free Public Outdoor Spaces Policy Options The list below reflects four available options presented in order from least restrictive to most restrictive of smoking in public outdoor spaces.

OPTION 1 COST IMPLICATIONS PROS CONS No smoking within nine (9) metres of: More signage Moves exposure to ETS out of Several public settings not

required at various danger zone for the listed included. Correspondence #7 a) All public playgrounds and arenas, locations on a settings. A defined distance (9 m) including but not limited to swimming property (e.g., Most people believe existing creates confusion with a pools, splash pads, sports and playgrounds) to law requires a buffer of 9 m setting since the property recreation playing fields, outdoor indicate the 9 m from all entrances. boundary may be unclear. areas used for public enjoyment and distance. Creates confusion re: "How far recreation areas for children such as 9 m signs required is 9 metres?" petting zoos, trails, and public for entrances. Places increased demands on gardens. Staffing (impacts enforcement staff. b) All public places and workplaces time required for Does not address role entrances/doorways (public places Enforcement Officer modelling or social norms ­ and workplaces, as defined in current to educate and concerns. Children still view November 19, 2012 Bylaw 10-2004). enforce) the smokers.

Not reflective of trends for outdoor bylaw development in other communities. Bad image for our communities. Safety concerns - adults attempting to smoke 9 m from child/setting can no longer

Page 49 of 238 actively supervise.

7 Smoke-Free Public Outdoor Spaces Technical Report - October 19, 2011

OPTION 2 COST IMPLICATIONS PROS CONS

A complete smoking ban in: General signage Increased protection from Does not include beaches, or required at outdoor ETS. golf courses.

a) All outdoor areas used for public areas to indicate no- Complete ban is easier to While exemptions may enjoyment and recreation areas for smoking zone. understand and obey; easier to increase perception of co- 9 m signs required enforce. operation with festival and children, including but not limited to for entrances. Festival option for designated event organizers, residents parks, playgrounds, playing fields, Staffing (impacts smoking area addresses and workers/volunteers would swimming pools, splash pads, petting time required for concerns of organizers of potentially be exposed to

zoos, trails, public gardens, festivals, Enforcement Officer events whose audience is environmental tobacco smoke. Correspondence #7 etc.) to educate and adult. Requires consultation Festival organizers required to enforce) with Enforcement Officers apply for a designated b) All municipally-owned and/or Added promotion, which provides an opportunity smoking area. operated recreational properties* processing and to explain the Smoke-Free enforcement of Ontario Act and ensure  No smoking within 9 m of all public Designated Smoking increased compliance. places and workplaces entrances/doorways Area applications. Less litter. (public places and workplaces, as defined Attempts to address role in current Bylaw 10-2004). modelling and social norms related to child focused  Application process required for ­ settings. November 19, 2012 Designated Smoking Areas at public Reflects recent trend for outdoor events and festivals used for public outdoor bylaw development. enjoyment and recreation where the audience is adult.

* Exemptions for long-term care homes, marinas, campgrounds, beaches, and golf courses - current legislation to apply.

Page 50 of 238

8 Smoke-Free Public Outdoor Spaces Technical Report - October 19, 2011

OPTION 3 COST IMPLICATIONS PROS CONS A complete smoking ban in: General signage As above and: Does not fully respond to

required at outdoor Enforcement simplified. social norms and role a. All outdoor areas used for public areas to indicate no- Protects staff and patrons who modelling issues. enjoyment and children recreation smoking zone. work/dine outdoors on patios areas (including parks, playgrounds, 9 m signs required equally with those who playing fields, swimming pools, splash for entrances. work/dine indoors. pads, petting zoos, trails, public Staffing (impacts Protects children who frequent gardens, festivals and public time required for outdoor patios.

beaches) Enforcement Officer Simplifies compliance Correspondence #7

b. Municipally-owned and/or operated to educate and requirements for restaurant recreational properties* enforce) and bar proprietors. Equitable Added promotion, for all restaurants and bar c. All outdoor seating areas - bar and processing and operators. restaurant patios enforcement of Includes beaches. Designated Smoking  No smoking within 9 m of all public Area applications. places and workplaces entrances/doorways (public places and workplaces, as defined in current Bylaw 10-2004). ­

November 19, 2012  Application process required for Designated Smoking Areas at public outdoor events and festivals used for public enjoyment and recreation where the audience is adult.

* Exemptions for long-term care homes, marinas, campgrounds, and golf courses - current legislation to apply.

Page 51 of 238

9 Smoke-Free Public Outdoor Spaces Technical Report - October 19, 2011

OPTIONS COST IMPLICATIONS PROS CONS

4) A complete smoking ban in all outdoor General signage As in Option 2 and 3 and: Imposes on private living areas including: required at outdoor Best for the health of Lambton; spaces at marinas and areas to indicate no- protecting everyone from ETS. campgrounds. a. Areas used for public enjoyment and smoking zone. Fully addresses role modelling recreation (including parks, and social norms issues. playgrounds, playing fields, swimming Staffing (minimal impact on time Includes full property of all golf pools, splash pads, petting zoos, courses, marina trails, beaches, public gardens, required for Enforcement Officer Potential for an increase in

marinas, etc.). Correspondence #7 to educate and attendance and visitor b. Outdoor venues satisfaction at festivals similar enforce) c. Outdoor seating areas - restaurant Less expense to to the experience of and bar patios develop educational restaurants and bars.

d. Outdoor workplaces and support materials. e. Outdoor public events

f. Areas considered miscellaneous (see definition)

Definitions: ­ Outdoor areas Outdoor workplaces November 19, 2012 Includes but not limited to - parks, playgrounds, wading or Includes but not limited to - restaurant/bar patios, open air markets, swimming pools, splash pads, sports fields, (e.g. but not limited to, sidewalk sales, ferries, tour boats, double‐decker buses, soccer fields, football fields, baseball/softball diamonds, basketball construction sites, cemeteries, outdoor public spaces that house courts, skateboard parks, tennis courts, lawn bowling greens, golf animals, such as zoos, farms, humane societies, veterinarians’ courses, horseshoe pits, ice surfaces, toboggan hills). offices, etc.).

Outdoor venues: Outdoor public events Includes but not limited to - stadiums, grandstands, watercraft, Includes but not limited to - festivals, fairs and spectator events – including tents that may be erected on the grounds – such as Page 52 of 238 public areas adjacent to water, beaches, docks, marinas, seawalls, piers, boardwalks, horticultural display areas or ornamental concerts, sporting events and parades.

gardens, walking/hiking trails, campgrounds, bike paths. Specific streets, e.g., in a main shopping area or within a school zone, including the sidewalk, street, lane, thoroughfare, curb, Outdoor seating areas: retaining wall, boulevard, etc. Includes but not limited to - restaurant and bar patios (regulations in Miscellaneous place, but doesn’t protect bar servers), buffer zone of a specific Includes but not limited to - movie and bank machine lineups, number of metres around the perimeter of the patio, entranceways parking lots, transit shelters and transit stops, including taxi stands. and air intakes; buffer zone makes patios truly smoke‐free.

10 Smoke-Free Public Outdoor Spaces Technical Report - October 19, 2011

Preferred Option

Option 3 Why this option? A complete smoking ban in: Demonstrated strong public support (RRFSS) for smoke-

free playgrounds, doorways and entrances, playgrounds a) All outdoor areas used for public enjoyment and children and patios.

recreation areas (including parks, playgrounds, playing fields, Achieves goal to protect children from exposure to ETS, Correspondence #7 swimming pools, splash pads, petting zoos, trails, public enhances role modelling of tobacco-free choices, and gardens, festivals and public beaches) addresses social acceptance of the choice to smoke. Increased compliance with the bylaw. Number of complaints b) Municipally-owned and/or operated recreational properties* and inquiries reduced.

c) All outdoor seating areas - bar and restaurant patios Enforcement less complex with complete ban. Reflects current bylaws in development or recently enacted  No smoking within 9 m of all public places and workplaces (Hamilton, Niagara). entrances/doorways (public places and workplaces, as defined in current Bylaw 10-2004).

­

 Application process required for Designated Smoking Areas at November 19, 2012 public outdoor events and festivals used for public enjoyment and recreation where the audience is adult.

* Exemptions for long-term care homes, marinas, campgrounds, and golf courses - current legislation to apply.

Page 53 of 238

11 Smoke-Free Public Outdoor Spaces Technical Report - October 19, 2011

Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

Proposed Public Consultation Process

Public Awareness Ads will be placed in all local media advertising date, location and times of public meetings. Letters to stakeholders should be mailed explaining the impending process and encouraging stakeholders to make presentations. On-Line Survey An on-line survey will be posted to allow residents to submit their feedback regarding the proposed restrictions. Telephone Survey The telephone survey, currently undertaken through the Rapid Risk Factor Surveillance System, will reflect the most recent data. Public A series of seven public consultations in Lambton County up to two hours in length Consultation will be held Sarnia (2), Petrolia, St. Clair Township, Lambton Shores (2) and Process Warwick Township to educate the public, gather information, and measure public support for smoke-free outdoor spaces and report findings to County Council with a draft bylaw for consideration. Invitations extended to neighboring municipalities and an opportunity for anyone to attend any of the public sessions. Panel (internal) chair all meetings receive and answer questions co-ordinate speakers tape all meetings to ensure accuracy and completeness Objectives gather input on the content and implementation of the proposed bylaw submit a report to Lambton County council with recommendations Process Public/participants will be asked to:

Register at meetings to comment on the proposed bylaw In five minutes or less, state their name and indicate: o proposed bylaw support or opposition o restrictions they support or oppose o bylaw amendments o bylaw implementation o timing of bylaw enactment (month, year) Written Submissions - The public and stakeholders will be invited to submit a written presentation to the panel without having to attend a meeting.

Enforcement Many jurisdictions throughout Canada, around the world, and notably in Ontario, have successfully regulated outdoor smoking. Studies of some existing bylaws demonstrate that enforcement has not been difficult and compliance is not a significant issue6, 7, 8. Bylaws have been in place for two or more years throughout Ontario including Orillia, Belleville, Collingwood, Woodstock, and Peterborough. Municipalities reported either no increase in complaints, or minimal complaints/inquiries that required a response. Municipalities also reported no impact on the use of city recreational facilities9. Lambton’s Tobacco Enforcement team anticipates a similar situation for our community. With a strong public education component, past experience suggests there will be a positive public response such as when Lambton’s non-smoking By-Law was introduced in 2004 (Smoking in Public Places and Workplaces By-Law No. 10-2004) and again with the implementation of the Smoke-Free Ontario Act in 2006. Lambton currently employs three 0.5 FTE Enforcement Officers (EOs) who are trained, experienced and are responsible for enforcement of Lambton’s 2004 non-smoking bylaw and the 2006 Smoke-Free Ontario Act, as well as other County By-Laws. No additional funding is required for enforcement; EOs are 100% funded through Smoke-Free Ontario. The Enforcement team would be responsible to assist with the smooth introduction and implementation of the proposed By-Law.

12 Smoke-Free Public Outdoor Spaces Technical Report Page 54 of 238

Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

Successful implementation of the new By-Law requires a comprehensive enforcement strategy involving three components; education, signage and appropriate enforcement. Its success will be measured by documenting a high compliance rate which relies on a foundation of strong public support. All are necessary to successfully implement the Smoke-Free Public Outdoor Spaces bylaw. 1. Education – A well-planned multi-strategic communication strategy will inform everyone about the bylaw and how to comply with it. This would include advertising, a series of media releases and media interviews, presentations, attendance at a number of community events, details reported on the websites of the Community Health Services Department and the County of Lambton, and availability of printed resources. To achieve compliance the public must know about and understand the bylaw. The Enforcement Officers (EOs) will have a significant role promoting the bylaw as part of their enforcement duties.

2. Signage – Visible (strategically placed) and attractive signage is important for successful smoke-free policy. Signage would help maximize education and compliance and therefore assist residents to self-enforce the outdoor smoke-free bylaw.

3. Enforcement –The first enforcement priority will focus on responding to complaints which may initially be high and decrease over time. Warnings will then be given as part of our education plan and when needed, charges will be issued. It is expected the number of charges will be low because there is a high rate of support for this bylaw. A By-Law is only effective if it has a high compliance rate and is enforceable. Therefore, complexity of the Smoke-free Public Outdoor Spaces Bylaw will have an impact. The public wants to comply with the law and to do so the bylaw must be easily understood by everyone; the public and the Enforcement Officers. A complex bylaw will result in a number of complaints, additional time dedicated to explaining the bylaw, a number of charges issued, and a lower compliance rate.

Conclusion The County of Lambton, as part of its 'duty to protect', has made tremendous strides to safeguard people of all ages from involuntary exposure to indoor ETS. Research suggests further steps are needed to further improve the quality of life by creating outdoor smoke-free zones in public spaces. Smoke-free outdoor policies are a relevant, and an emerging area in tobacco control efforts consistent with County of Lambton Community Health Service Department's program goals to eliminate non-smokers’ exposure to second-hand smoke. Implementing restrictions on smoking in specific municipal outdoor spaces would contribute to the improved health and well-being of residents, and thereby the wider community. Improved health supports prosperity in the County of Lambton, and reduces the economic burden of smoking in our community.

Recommendation a) It is recommended that Community Health Services Department staff organize and hold a series of public consultations in Lambton County to educate the public, gather information, and measure public support for smoke-free outdoor spaces and report findings to County Council with a draft bylaw for consideration by early 2012.

b) That council support Policy Option 3 as a basis for public consultations.

13 Smoke-Free Public Outdoor Spaces Technical Report Page 55 of 238

Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

References

1 Building On Our Gains, Taking Action Now: Ontario’s Tobacco Control Strategy for 2011 - 2016; Report from the Tobacco Strategy Advisory Group to the Minister of Health Promotion and Sport. October 18, 2010; http://www.mhp.gov.on.ca/en/smoke-free/TSAG%20Report.pdf 2 Forsythe J. Smoke‐Free Outdoor Public Spaces: A Community Advocacy Toolkit. Physicians for a Smoke‐Free Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. September 2010 3 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006 [accessed 2011 August 19]. 4 F.J. Galloway Associates Inc., Strategic Plan, County of Lambton, February 2003. 5 Lynch, Megan, McDonald, Kevin. Smoking and Second-hand Smoke in Outdoor Municipal Recreational Areas in Hamilton. Submitted by Elizabeth Richardson, MD, MHSc, FRCPC, Medical Officer of Health, Public Health Services Department. City of Hamilton, Public Health Services Division, February 28, 2011 6 Klein, Elizabeth G, Jean L. Forster, Brittany McFadden and Corliss W. Outley. “Minnesota tobacco‐free park policies: Attitudes of the general public and park officials”. Nicotine and Tobacco Research. January 2007; 1 (S1):S53 7 Kennedy, R.D., Fong, G.T., Thompson, M.E., Kaufman, P.K., Ferrence, R., Schwartz, R., “Evaluation of a Comprehensive Outdoor Smoking Bylaw - A Longitudinal Study of Smokers and Non-Smokers in the Canadian City of Woodstock”, poster presentation 6th National Conference on Tobacco or Health, November 2009. 8 Thinkwell Research. (2010) “Smoke free Nova Scotia Bridgewater smoke free spaces survey”. Accessed at www.smokefreens.ca/current-initiatives/outdoor-spaces-resources 9Smoking and Second-hand Smoke in Outdoor Municipal Recreational Areas in Hamilton. Submitted by Elizabeth Richardson, MD, MHSc, FRCPC, Medical Officer of Health, Public Health Services Department. City of Hamilton, Public Health Services Division, February 28, 2011

14 Smoke-Free Public Outdoor Spaces Technical Report Page 56 of 238

Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

Smoke-Free Public Outdoor Spaces Public Consultation Report February 15, 2012

Page 57 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... 3

I - Why Smoke-Free Public Outdoor Spaces? ...... 5

II - Public Consultation Process ...... 8

III - Findings ...... 9

IV - Proposed Scope for Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces By-law ...... 18

V - Implementation ...... 20

Report prepared by members of the Health Promotion and Program Support team:

Jordan Banninga, Health Promoter Jennifer Beaubien, Health Promoter Kevin Churchill, Manager Crystal Palleschi, Epidemiologist Donna Schmidtmeyer, Supervisor, Ontario Tobacco Strategy

County of Lambton Community Health Services Department, 2012

Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces Public Consultation Report 2 Page 58 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

Executive Summary

The County of Lambton has identified in its strategic goals the vision of a healthy community, and as such has made tremendous strides to safeguard people of all ages from involuntary exposure to indoor second-hand smoke. As public support for limiting exposure to second hand smoke continues to grow to include outdoor areas, further action is needed to further improve the quality of life through the creation of outdoor smoke-free spaces.

Smoke-free outdoor policies are an effective means of reducing exposure to both the physical dangers of tobacco smoke, as well as the image of smoking - which can be equally harmful to children. Smoke-free outdoor spaces are an emerging area in tobacco control consistent with County of Lambton Community Health Service Department’s program goals to eliminate exposure to second-hand smoke.

Implementing restrictions on smoking in specific municipal outdoor spaces would contribute to the improved health and well-being of all. Improved health supports prosperity in the County of Lambton, and reduces the economic burden of smoking in our community. Tobacco use remains the number one preventable cause of death and disability among adults in Lambton County.

Summary of Public Consultation Process While meeting attendance was low, when factored in with other opportunities for input, a total of 306 responses were received through the public input phase. Some of these individuals may have commented through more than one means, and this is difficult to measure. When considered collectively, the responses indicate that:

A strong majority of respondents (70%) are in favour of restricting smoking around entrances to municipal buildings. A clear majority of respondents (65%) are in favour of restricting smoking around arenas. A clear majority of respondents (67%) are in favour of restricting smoking in parks - (42% support completely smoke free parks, and 25% support restrictions of 9 metres from playground equipment). A clear majority (64%) of respondents are in favour of restricting smoking around sports fields (such as baseball diamonds, soccer fields, football fields, etc.). A clear majority (65%) are in favour of no changes to current restrictions on municipal golf courses. A majority of respondents (55%) are in favour of regulations restricting smoking in municipally operated campgrounds or marinas. A slim majority of respondents (53%) are in favour of no changes to current restrictions at municipal beaches.

Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces Public Consultation Report 3 Page 59 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

Based on these responses, the greatest public consensus is for regulation that encompasses the following:

No smoking within 9 metres of entrances to all Municipal Buildings including office buildings, arenas, community centres, libraries, clubhouses, garages/sheds, etc. (excluding public housing residences, and bus shelters).

No smoking within 9 metres of all municipally owned or operated public Playgrounds. This includes swimming pools, splash pads, outdoor areas used for public enjoyment and recreation areas for children such as petting zoos (excluding beaches).

No smoking within 9 metres of active municipally owned or operated Playing Fields (a field which is clearly marked for sports or recreation and where sports are being played). This includes baseball diamonds, soccer fields, football fields, etc.

A provision that would allow non-municipal property owners including public sector and private businesses to opt-in to the by-law to designate a smoke free area within 9 metres from entrances of their buildings.

Such a policy will achieve the following goals:

Moves exposure to second-hand smoke out of danger zone. Addresses role modelling and social norms for children and youth. Most people believe existing laws prohibit smoking within 9 metres of all public entrances. Allows businesses to opt-in to the by-law to include 9 metres from entrances of their buildings and have it enforced by the Tobacco Enforcement Officers. Prohibiting smoking in these spaces will decrease the presence of litter.

While this Executive Summary serves as a high-level overview, readers are encouraged to peruse the full Smoke Free Outdoor Spaces Public Consultation Report in the pages that follow. In addition to this report, County Councillors will be provided with an Appendix document which contain all public input received in detail.

Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces Public Consultation Report 4 Page 60 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

I - Why Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces?

One of our goals as a public health department is to reduce the use of tobacco products in Lambton County and work towards a Smoke-Free Ontario in order to reduce preventable chronic disease illness in our community. This is done by: Preventing tobacco use, especially among youth. Protecting non-smokers from second-hand smoke. Providing cessation support for those smokers who want to quit.

In order to accomplish these goals, the Community Health Services Department (CHSD) provides education, cessation, youth engagement and enforcement programs that fall under the mandate of the Ontario Public Health Standards. Smoke-free outdoor spaces have been identified as an emerging issue in tobacco control and have already been implemented in over 60 municipalities across the province of Ontario. A smoking ban in outdoor public spaces has public health relevance as it can protect people from second-hand smoke; promote positive role modelling for children and youth in public settings; support those who wish to quit smoking and who are trying to cut back; promote a healthier environment and reduce discarded cigarettes which are toxic to children and pets; and reflect the opinion of the majority of Lambton residents.

Tobacco Use in Lambton County Lambton has an overall smoking rate of 22.8% which is higher than the provincial average of 18.9% (Canadian Community Health Survey, 2009/2010). Our community also has a higher incidence of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, arrhythmia, and ischemic heart disease. Of the 22.8% of people who smoke in Lambton, 63.7% want to quit smoking (RRFSS 2009). Most smokers take up the habit as a youth. 17.4% of youth aged 12 to 19 are estimated to be current smokers in Lambton (Canadian Community Health Survey 2007/2008).

Rapid Risk Factor Surveillance System The Rapid Risk Factor Surveillance System (RRFSS) is a series of ongoing monthly telephone surveys designed to monitor community trends in risk factors within the service area of participating health units. The sample is randomly selected from the adult population 18 years and over, who speak either English or French and who reside in private households in Lambton County. Note that occupied households without telephones are not included in the sample population, but according to Statistics Canada, these households represent only 3% of all Ontario households. This survey collects data that is statistically valid, representative of the community within a small margin of error, and provides valuable data for public health program planning.

Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces Public Consultation Report 5 Page 61 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

The RRFSS data collected between 2008 and 2011 found that there is significant support for policy addressing smoking in Lambton’s outdoor spaces (Graph 1) and that this support had increased during this period.

Lambton Tobacco Network The Lambton Tobacco Network (LTN) formed in 2006 and is a community partnership, made up of 25 agencies representing various community sectors, whose goal is to foster communication, collaboration, and continuing education related to smoking cessation and other tobacco-related issues that are deemed timely and appropriate. Membership is open to individuals and organizations that have an interest in tobacco use prevention, protection, and cessation.

This organization strongly believes there is a need to create outdoor smoke-free spaces in Lambton County stating:

“Creating smoke-free spaces will further protect the health of our community by increasing protection against second-hand smoke, encouraging smokers to quit or cut back and decrease negative role modelling for children… The need for increased tobacco control is still great and the Lambton Tobacco Network endorses the implementation of the recommended outdoor smoke-free spaces by-law."

Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces Public Consultation Report 6 Page 62 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

Healthy Sarnia-Lambton Community Picture

In 2011, the Healthy Communities Fund-Partnership Stream initiative focused on six priority areas identified by the Ministry of Health Promotion and Sport. Tobacco use/exposure was one of these priorities. The report summarized data, discussed trends and emerging issues, and presented suggested actions which were developed from current data, key informant surveys, a community online survey, and stakeholder consultations.

The recommendations developed through this process which relate to Tobacco Use Exposure are included here:

Recommended Actions 1. Address high youth smoking rates through education as well as the provision of smoking cessation programs. 2. Create smoke-free public places and outdoor areas including parks, sports fields and beaches, in addition to expanding smoke-free areas around entrance ways. Policy Direction Amend the Lambton County tobacco by-law to include outdoor areas.

Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces Public Consultation Report 7 Page 63 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

II - Public Consultation Process

Council Mandate November 2, 20122

1. Educate the Public 2. Gather Information 3. Report Findings

Radio Public Meetings Submission of report

Print/Media Online Survey

Website Tobacco Hotline

Email Email Responses

Public StepMeetings One Step Two Step Three

On November 2, 2011 County Council approved a motion which gave the Community Health Services Department (CHSD) a mandate to: 1. Educate the public 2. Gather information 3. Report findings to County Council

The purpose of public consultation process is to present information on the issue at hand and to receive public input to guide the County’s future actions. Public meetings have the potential to improve public understanding about a project and correct misinformation, particularly for a complex project, and to explore opinions in greater depth. The very title consultation means that we consult with the public in a democratic fashion before pushing forward any legislative goals.

The above flow chart is a visual representation of how the public consultation process was conducted. The following information gives a detailed breakdown of each of the components of the council mandate:

1. Educating the Public:

A variety of methods were used to provide current information on the issue of tobacco control and the ongoing trend for pursuing an outdoor spaces by-law. Once the mandate was approved, CHSD began to run radio ads informing the public about upcoming consultation meetings and smoke-free outdoor spaces. Print media ads were also run in all local newspapers for the public consultation

Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces Public Consultation Report 8 Page 64 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

meetings and further information on the website. An email was also distributed to all the businesses in the Sarnia-Lambton Economic Partnership. The information provided on the CHSD website included the Technical Report of October, 2011 and ways to share input and comments. A presentation was also given at each public meeting which highlighted health data and the goals to be achieved through regulation of smoke-free outdoor public spaces.

2. Gathering Information:

In order to fulfill the mandate from County Council to gather information a variety of methods were employed. By providing several different ways for the public to contribute their opinions it was hoped more members of the public would engage in the process. Methods of information collection included collection of public comments at the consultation meetings, a survey (hosted online, conducted at public meetings, and available by hardcopy), email submissions, and by telephone through the tobacco hotline.

3. Report Findings:

Data collected through the above means is reported in this document to help county council fully consider the viewpoint of all stakeholders in considering the breadth and scope of a municipal smoke-free outdoor spaces by-law.

III - Findings

1) Public Consultation Meetings

Seven public meetings were held in the following communities between November 15 and November 24, 2011 (Petrolia, Watford, Forest, Mooretown, Sarnia (two meetings) and Grand Bend) in order to provide an opportunity for those who wished to learn more about the proposal and to voice their opinion.

Each consultation meeting consisted of the same format. Attendance at the meetings was: Petrolia (11), Watford (3), Mooretown (8), Forest (7), Sarnia afternoon (9), Sarnia evening (23) and Grand Bend (4). Local media were present at some of the meetings which facilitated dissemination of information to the public, and members of County Council were present at several meetings.

Complete meeting summaries and full statements from the consultations will be provided to councillors. The following comments are condensed from the participant’s statements and from the question and answer period, but only represent the opinions of those who participated. They are grouped: those supporting, those opposing and those with no position or other concerns.

Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces Public Consultation Report 9 Page 65 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

 Comments supporting an outdoor smoking by-law: Comment Discussion Aids in cessation Participants felt that providing smoke-free outdoor municipally owned or operated public spaces would help those who are trying to quit. Already in place in other Lambton County is not the first to consider a by-law municipalities that restricts smoking in outdoor public spaces. Protecting people, including Commented on the negative health effects of children from the health effects smoking and second-hand smoke. No evidence enforcement will be Other municipalities have not found enforcement to an issue be an issue. Providing positive role modelling Participants felt that we need to set good examples for children for children and not smoke. Smokers have the right to choose Participants made the point that smoking in public to smoke not the right to smoke spaces in not a “right”, especially when it can affect anywhere they want the health of others. Smoking in public is a nuisance The smell of smoke is unpleasant and people should not have to walk through clouds of smoke when entering buildings. Smoking is associated with There were issues raised that smokers cost the increase health care costs health care system money and we should actively try to reduce these costs. Would reduce litter Participants commented on the fact that cigarette butts are the most common form of litter. 9 meter rule would keep people Several participants supported a 9 meter buffer happy zone.

 Comments opposing an outdoor smoking by-law: Comment Discussion More concerned with other Participants voiced concern that second-hand environmental hazards smoke is less of a hazard than industrial pollution. Infringement on freedom of Participants felt smokers have the right to smoke in choice public spaces and that government should not make this choice for them. Government over-regulation Participants felt government is over-regulating daily activity and wondered where it would end. Potential issues with special Festivals and events that draw people into the events community and support the economy could be hurt by such a ban. Participants asked if exemptions would be made. Second-hand smoke does not kill The validity of the scientific data and negative health effects of tobacco were questioned. Waste of tax dollars Participants felt that there could be a better use of tax dollars than by-law implementation.

Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces Public Consultation Report 10 Page 66 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

 No position/other concerns

Comment Discussion Enforcement concerns Issues of enforcement regarding variance, cost, difficulty and procedure were raised for clarification. Costs associated with Inquiries from the public in regard to the implementation implementation cost were raised and who would provide funding.

2) Surveys - Online and Interactive Clicker

An online survey provided an opportunity for those to participate that would not be able to attend meetings or who are generally less vocal. This method has the potential to capture a greater cross-section of the community and to collect the public’s concerns and preferences. Generally, participation rates are higher than other forms of public consultation.

Limitations: While participation was good, it must be noted that self-initiated surveys suffer from "selection bias". Only those who have a strong opinion, one way or another are likely to be motivated enough to participate. At best, they present themselves as a rough gauge of public sentiment and a means of generating qualitative data. It must be noted that while useful as one means of collecting public input, the results must be interpreted with a degree of caution.

The online survey was posted from November 13 to November 30, 2011. It was promoted through media releases, public meetings, the CHSD website, an email distribution to community partners, and emails to workplaces. In total, 244 responses were started with 221 surveys being completed.

Overall, the results of the online survey indicate a majority of respondents support a change in current smoking regulation. The level of support varies for the degree of regulation and depended on the outdoor space in question as reported.

The online survey asked the level of support for regulation addressing eight specific outdoor spaces. There was also an opportunity to give additional comments. The results are described in the following section.

Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces Public Consultation Report 11 Page 67 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

Outdoor Spaces Surrounding Arenas: Total of 223 responses with 65% in favour of regulation (39% for 100% smoke-free grounds, 26% for 9 metres from entrances).

There were a total of 50 comments submitted addressing this question.

Those in favour of the regulation of tobacco use outside arenas were concerned about the cloud of smoke they had to walk through in order to get into an arena and noted health concerns and the need to hold their breath as the factors making them want regulation.

Those opposed to smoke-free outdoor spaces raised enforcement as another concern, wondering who would do the enforcing and how a 9 metre rule could be enforced.

Parks: Total of 222 responses with 67% in favour of regulation (42% for 100% smoke-free grounds, 25% for 9 metres from playground equipment).

There were a total of 45 comments addressing this question.

Those in favour of regulation agreed that there is a need to be protecting children and the minimum of what is needed is a nine metre rule around a playground. Health effects of the smoke as well as the poor role modelling of smoking were the main concerns. Those people who were concerned about the role modelling wanted to reduce the risk of the youth starting to smoke.

Those not in favour of the regulation were mostly concerned about an individual's right to choose to smoke. Other comments were concerned with other sources

Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces Public Consultation Report 12 Page 68 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

of air pollution including vehicle exhaust, and barbeque smoke, suggesting the need to address these issues. Enforcement was also a concern in this area, mentioning that large signage would be needed.

Designated smoking areas were brought up, mentioning that it would be a nice idea to designate an area like they do "in Disneyworld". A concern over how this would impact concerts and festivals was also raised with the suggestion that these events could be exempt from the by-law.

Sports Fields: Total of 221 responses with 64% in favour of regulation (43% for 100% smoke-free grounds and 21% for 9 metres from sports field).

There were a total of 38 comments submitted on this topic.

Tobacco and sports do not mix was the major theme of those in favour of tobacco regulation at sports fields. Protecting our children from harmful effects of smoke and good role modelling were the major reasons respondents felt tobacco should be regulated at sports fields.

Concern for an individual's right to choose to smoke was most commonly noted as a reason to not implement a by-law.

Municipally Owned Buildings: Total of 222 responses with 69% in favour of regulation.

There were a total of 41 comments on this theme.

Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces Public Consultation Report 13 Page 69 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

Those in favour of regulation were very concerned about the cloud of smoke that they had to walk through in order to get into municipal buildings; especially for those with asthma and allergies to smoke. It was indicated that the area where people are allowed to smoke needs to be where people do not walk through to get to the building and it was further suggested it actually be a greater distance than 9 metres.

Confusion about current regulation was identified as many thought current rules already included nine metres from all buildings.

Municipally Owned and Operated Beaches:

Total of 222 responses with 47% in favour of regulation.

There were a total of 40 comments addressing this area.

Cigarette butt litter and the concerns related to the effects they could have on children and wildlife if ingested were identified as the main reasons for needed smoke-free regulation on beaches. Respondents were very concerned about the impact of this litter and the effect on the water.

Designated smoking areas were suggested as a potential idea for beaches which would allow both smokers and non-smokers to enjoy the beach.

Municipally Owned/ Operated Campgrounds or Marinas:

Total of 221 responses with 55% in favour of regulation (24% for 100% smoke-free grounds, 31% for public areas only to be smoke-free with smoking permitted on campsites/ boat slips).

There were a total of 23 comments in regard to this area.

Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces Public Consultation Report 14 Page 70 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

The majority of comments in this area were concerned that campsites/boat slips are personal space and users of the space should be able to choose to smoke or not. Concerns about loss of patrons and therefore revenue to these areas were also cited.

Municipally Owned or Operated Golf Courses:

Total of 219 responses with 35% in favour of regulation.

There were a total of 24 comments on this area.

Those in favour of regulation were mostly concerned with the litter problem from cigarette butts on the golf course. Enforcement was identified as the biggest challenge in this area, with people stating concerns of how it could be accomplished.

Municipally Owned or Operated Long-Term Care Homes:

Total of 218 responses with 35% in favour of regulation.

There were a total of 35 comments submitted.

Respondents commented that current regulation was sufficient for Long Term Care Homes stating it would be unkind and unsafe to make residents quit or walk off of the property. Respondents also thought staff should be provided with a designated smoking area away from the public.

Summary - Online Survey Generally, those in favour of smoke-free outdoor spaces regulation were concerned with protecting the health of non-smokers by not subjecting them to second-hand smoke. They felt they should not have to walk through a cloud of smoke to get into a building or be subjected to smoke while watching or

Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces Public Consultation Report 15 Page 71 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

participating in a sporting event. Concerns were expressed about their children's health and the negative role modelling of having smoking around children. They are looking for a safer (less toxic exposure) and cleaner community with cleaner air and less tobacco litter.

Designated smoking areas were suggested as a potential solution for certain areas making it possible for smokers to enjoy these outdoor spaces while protecting non-smokers. Also, it was suggested to allow special events to have an exemption from the by-law or to create a designated smoking area.

Vehicle exhaust and harmful chemicals were raised as major air pollutants that should also be addressed.

Overall, those not wanting smoke-free outdoor spaces regulation were mostly concerned with the rights of smokers.

Clicker Survey - Public Meetings An Interactive Clicker Survey was conducted at each of the public consultation meetings. Again, it provided a forum for the public to voice their concerns if they did not wish to make a statement or respond during the question and answer period. Like the online survey, there are severe limitations to the usefulness of the interactive clicker survey data. The small sample size and lack of randomization does not depict an accurate representation of the full cross- section of Lambton. However, it did give the participants the opportunity to feel involved in the decision making process and the opportunity to ask further questions and was seen as a useful addition to the meetings by participants.

Overall, the results of the interactive survey indicate the majority of the 50 total respondents support a change in the current smoking regulation. The results are represented in the following graph:

Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces Public Consultation Report 16 Page 72 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

3) Email Responses and Telephone Messages

Lambton residents were also given a chance to respond through email to [email protected] or by calling the tobacco hotline at 519-383-3810. In total, 18 emails and 2 phone calls were received.

 Comments supporting an outdoor smoking by-law:

Comment Discussion Protecting people, including Commented on the negative health effects of children from the health effects smoking and second-hand smoke. Providing positive role modelling Participants felt that we need to set good examples for children for children and not smoke. Smokers have the right to choose Participants made the point that smoking in public to smoke not the right to smoke spaces in not a “right”, especially when it can affect anywhere they want the health of others. Smoking in public is a nuisance The smell of smoke is unpleasant and people should not have to walk through clouds of smoke when entering buildings. Smoking in Marinas Respondents felt the need for a ban at marinas but felt that this situation should be dealt with similar to hotel rooms, where there are designated rooms or boat slips to smoke. 9 meter rule would keep people Concerns were raised about making spaces happy completely smoke-free. Respondents felt that a 9m buffer would be sufficient.

 Comments against an outdoor smoking by-law

Comment Discussion More concerned with other Respondents voiced concern that second-hand environmental hazards smoke is less of a hazard than industrial pollution. Infringement on freedom of Respondents felt smokers have the right to smoke choice in public spaces and that government should not make this choice for them. Government over-regulation Respondents felt government is over-regulating daily activity and wondered where it would end. Potential issues with special Festivals and events that draw people into the events community and support the economy could be hurt by such a ban. Participants asked if exemptions would be made. Waste of tax dollars Respondents felt that there could be a better use of tax dollars than by-law implementation.

Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces Public Consultation Report 17 Page 73 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

IV – Proposed Scope for Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces By-law

No smoking within 9 metres of entrances to all Municipal Buildings including office buildings, arenas, community centres, libraries, clubhouses, garages/sheds, etc. (excluding public housing residences, and bus shelters).

No smoking within 9 metres of all municipally owned or operated public Playgrounds. This includes swimming pools, splash pads, outdoor areas used for public enjoyment and recreation areas for children such as petting zoos (excluding beaches).

No smoking within 9 metres of active municipally owned or operated Playing Fields (a field which is clearly marked for sports or recreation and where sports are being played). This includes baseball diamonds, soccer fields, football fields, etc.

A provision that would allow non-municipal property owners including public sector and private businesses to opt-in to the by-law to designate a smoke free area within 9 metres from entrances of their buildings.

RATIONALE:

1. No smoking within 9 metres of entrances to all Municipal Buildings.

Data collected through phone surveys conducted in 2010 and 2011 indicates 89.1% (RRFSS) of Lambton County residents, and 69% of participants in the online survey conducted in November, 2011 support smoke-free zones as they enter public buildings. The use of visible, clear signage will indicate that smoking is not permitted within 9 metres of the building.

2. Prohibit Smoking within 9 metres of Playgrounds and Playing Fields.

RRFSS data determined 79.1% and 76.1% of Lambton County residents support smoke-free outdoor spaces in playgrounds and sports fields respectively and the online survey found 67% and 64% of participants shared this opinion. Making these spaces smoke-free achieves the goals to role model smoke-free behaviour to children, and to reduce exposure to second-hand smoke. As well, such a policy encourages people who want to quit smoking to achieve their own goals.

Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces Public Consultation Report 18 Page 74 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

Signage will be placed prominently with a clear message so the public will be able to easily comply with the new by-law. When we look to the experience from other communities we learn that such signage assists in the by-law being self-compliant.

3. Exclude beaches

While responses to the phone survey indicate the community supports smoke-free beaches (68.4%), participants in the online survey indicated only 47% were in favour of this step. With consideration for consistent enforcement and the possibility of less than majority support, beaches are not recommended to be included in a smoke-free outdoor spaces by-law.

Since 2010 there are designated smoke-free beaches in Lambton, such as at Canatara Park, and it is recommended municipalities continue to employ this policy approach to create smoke-free beach areas in response to the growing public demand.

4. Exclude golf courses

The online survey reports only 35% of participants being in favour of smoke-free golf courses (this question was not specifically included in the phone survey). With consideration of such a low response it is recommended that there be a 9 metre smoke-free zone around buildings to be consistent with other municipal buildings; yet making smoking permitted on the fairways. This will also enable the current municipally owned and operated golf course to remain competitive with similar businesses.

Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces Public Consultation Report 19 Page 75 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

V – Implementation Process

Successful implementation of any new by-law requires a comprehensive implementation plan involving three components; education, signage and appropriate enforcement. Its success will be measured by documenting a high compliance rate which relies on a foundation of strong public support.

a) Education

The most integral factor of implementation is education. Information sharing with the public is crucial to the acceptance and eventual self-enforcement of the by-law. This dialogue helps to clarify the impacts of the by-law; gives the public further emphasis on the dangers of smoking and second-hand smoke; supports those stakeholder groups who may unduly be affected; and provides an opportunity to build relationships. Therefore a comprehensive, multi- faceted communications strategy will be implemented:

In order to indicate the main elements of the by-law, when it will take effect, and where to get more information, media releases will be distributed to radio stations, newspapers, and television stations. As well, earned media will be employed through participation with radio call-in programs, news coverage, and arranging interview opportunities. Additionally, print and radio advertisements will be purchased.

The internet offers a key opportunity to provide information to the public. The by-law, and fact sheets will be available to the community through CHSD’s website and social media (both paid advertisements and using Facebook) will be useful.

Conducting an email distribution to community partners will ensure key stakeholders are aware of the new by-law.

Presentations will be offered to any community group interested in having a representative from the Tobacco Team explain the goals the by-law is designed to achieve and its various components.

b) Signage

Clear and visible signage will need to be placed in each outdoor space affected by the new by-law. The signs will need to be well designed to easily communicate where smoking is prohibited in order to ensure cooperative compliance by the public.

Two types of signage need to be made; to indicate smoking is prohibited within 9 metres from buildings and to indicate smoking is prohibited in selected outdoor spaces as defined by the by-law. There are 222 municipally

Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces Public Consultation Report 20 Page 76 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

owned or operated parks and playgrounds, 4 recreational spaces within municipal campgrounds and marinas, and 204 municipally owned or operated buildings.

c) Enforcement

Enforcement Officers will have an integral role in promoting the new by-law with the public. Prior to the by-law taking effect, they will visit the various sites to talk with people there about the coming by-law. This would begin a minimum of two months prior to the by-law taking effect.

Progressive enforcement will be employed after the by-law is implemented. This will begin with the Enforcement Officers continuing to visit these sites and providing information to the public to heighten their understanding of the by-law. Warnings will be provided during the first 6 months after the by-law takes effect. At that time, Enforcement Officers will follow-up on complaints as a priority and may continue to issue warnings depending on the circumstances with tickets being issued when warranted. It is expected that the need for enforcement will diminish over time. In order to assist the public with compliance issues, they will be encouraged to report problem locations through the tobacco hotline.

Based on the experience during the implementation of Lambton’s Smoke-free Workplaces and Public Places by-law and again with the introduction of the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, it is expected that the public will comply with the law. It is expected that a by-law will be self-enforcing with adequate education and signage.

Enforcement activities will be reported to County Council on a quarterly basis.

d) Cost of Implementation

In order to implement a smoke-free outdoor spaces by-law successfully, funds will be needed to conduct a public education campaign and to purchase signage. Anticipated costs include:

Item Estimated Cost Public Education Campaign (paid advertisements, $11,000. print educational materials) Signage $18,000. Hot-button design $ 1,000. Total $30,000.

Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces Public Consultation Report 21 Page 77 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

Key Messages: Why Smoke‐free Outdoor Spaces? (Adapted from the Physicians for a Smoke-free Canada, Smoke-free Public Spaces Community Advocacy Toolkit)

There are many benefits of a municipal bylaw that regulates smoking in outdoor public spaces.

A. Protects people from secondhand smoke Second‐hand smoke is extremely toxic. It contains over 4000 chemicals including at least 69 known substances that cause cancer.7 In an outdoor setting, SHS can be a hazard, though this can be affected by circumstances such as wind speed and direction, number of people smoking, proximity of smokers, etc. According to researcher Niel Klepeis from Stanford University,

“…when measured close to a person who is actively smoking, air pollution can reach very high levels that are similar to levels observed for indoor smoking. However, the difference for outdoor air is that pollution levels disappear rapidly when a smoker stops smoking, whereas indoors they can persist for several hours.”8

B. Increases the motivation for smokers to quit or cut back Smoke‐free public spaces provide a supportive environment for people who wish to stop smoking. Research has demonstrated that when smoking bans have been implemented in workplaces and communities many smokers have chosen to cut back or quit smoking entirely.9

C. Decreases negative role modeling for children Smoking restrictions, both indoors and outdoors, help decrease the social acceptability of smoking and challenge the perception among youth that “everybody smokes.” If children and youth are not exposed to smoking behaviour, they may be less likely to think of it as normal and be able to resist peer pressure and other incentives to start smoking.10 11 Since most smokers start before the age of 18, this is important for current and future public health.

7 National Cancer Institute. (2001) Monograph 13, Risks Associated with Smoking Cigarettes with Low‐Machine Measured Yields of Tar and Nicotine. U.S. Department of Health Human Services. October 2001: pages 160‐165. Accessed July 27, 2010 at http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/13/m13_complete.pdf. 8 Klepeis NE. (2007) Outdoor Tobacco Smoke Study. In TobaccoSmoke.Org, based on the findings of Klepeis NE, Ott WR, Switzer P. Real‐time measurement of outdoor tobacco smoke particles. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2007 May;57(5):522‐34. Accessed August 1, 2010 at http://www.tobaccosmoke.org/outdoor‐tobacco‐smoke. 9 Statistics Canada (2007) Smoking Bans: Influence on Prevalence. Shields M in Health Reports, vol 18 no 3, Aug 22, 2007. Accessed August 2, 2010 at http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82‐003‐x/2006008/article/10306‐eng.htm. Smoke‐Free Outdoor Spaces: A Community Advocacy Toolkit 14 10 Song AV, Glantz SA. Pushing secondhand smoke and the tobacco industry outside the social norm to reduce adolescent smoking. J Adolesc Health. 2008 Oct;43(4):315‐7. Accessed August 1, 2010 at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2566746/pdf/nihms‐71308.pdf. 11 Bernat DH, Erickson DJ, Widome R, Perry CL, Forster JL. Adolescent smoking trajectories: results from a population‐based cohort study. J Adolesc Health. 2008 Oct;43(4):334‐40. Accessed August 1, 2010 at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2743902/pdf/nihms‐86919.pdf.

Page 78 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Health Promotion & Program Support 150 N. Christina Street Sarnia, ON N7T 8H3 Telephone: 519 344-2057 Toll Free: 1-800-387-2882 Fax: 519 344-2025 www.lambtonhealth.on.ca

Frequently Asked Questions September 2012 For Internal Use

Q. Why implement a Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces Bylaw?

 Protects people, especially children from second-hand smoke.  Promotes positive role modeling for children and youth.  Encourages current smokers to quit or cut back.

Q. Are Lambton residents in favour of a Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces Bylaw?

A. Yes, data from telephone surveys in 2010 and 2011 reported that support for smoke-free spaces ranged from 68%-89%. Refer to the RRFSS data (pages 2 and 3 of Smoke-Free Public Outdoor Spaces Technical Report) for a detailed breakdown.

Council also mandated Community Health Services to gather more information through online surveys, public meetings and email and telephone submissions. The public input indicated strongest support for smoke free entrances, playgrounds and playing fields. Refer to Public Consultation Report for a detailed breakdown of the findings.

Q. What is the current percentage of people who smoke in Lambton County?

A. 22.8% of Lambton residents, aged 12 years and older, reported being current daily or occasional smokers compared to the provincial rate of 18.9% (Canadian Community Health Survey, 2009/10).

Q. How would this bylaw fit with other smoke-free regulations currently in place?

A. At the moment, the Smoke-Free Ontario Act protects the health of Ontarians by prohibiting smoking in all enclosed workplaces and enclosed public spaces. It also prohibits smoking in vehicles when children under 16 are present. There is no protection in outdoor spaces. The benefit of keeping Bylaw 10-2004 active is

CaringGrowingInnovative Page 79 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012

that it could give us the flexibility to respond to indoor smoking issues that arise. Even with an outdoor bylaw in place, having our indoor bylaw remain on the books would make it easier to respond to emerging issues such as hookah, multi-unit dwellings, etc.

Q. How will people know where they are not allowed to smoke?

A. Awareness will be achieved through the use of an education campaign and signage. The education campaign will also include a period of time where enforcement officers will warn and educate, rather than ticket offenders.

Q. How will the bylaw be enforced?

A. Many jurisdictions in Ontario have successfully implemented a smoke-free outdoor spaces bylaw. Studies have shown that compliance and enforcement has been straightforward and that they tend to be self-enforcing and not requiring significant resources from Tobacco Enforcement Officers following implementation.

Q. What have other municipalities done?

A. A variety of smoke-free outdoor spaces bylaws have been passed by over 88 municipalities throughout the province. They range from smoking bans on all municipally owned property, to variances around municipal buildings, parks, playgrounds and sports fields.

Q. How successful has enforcement of these bylaws been?

A. Anecdotal evidence tells us that outdoor smoking bylaws are self-enforcing and few resources are needed to ensure compliance once an education campaign has been conducted.

Q. Will there be exemptions for festivals that are held in parks or on sports fields?

A. There will be no need for exemptions when festivals are held on sports fields. The bylaw states that there is no smoking within 9m of sports fields that are in active use. During festivals the sports fields will not be in use for sporting and recreational activity. The 9m variance around playgrounds will still be enforced at all times.

Q. Is there any evidence to suggest that people would not go to the parks because of this bylaw?

A. A comprehensive evaluation of the Woodstock bylaw found that there was no negative impact on the usage of park space.

CaringGrowingInnovative Page 80 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012 City of Sarnia Town Council

Deputation Presentation to: City of Sarnia Deputation Presentation date: November 2012 Deputation Presentation by: Helen Cole

My name is Helen Cole and I am the Manager of the Canadian Cancer Society in Lambton County. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about why the Canadian Cancer Society fully supports the creation of outdoor smoke-free spaces for Sarnia's municipal building entranceways, playgrounds, sports fields and more.

Canadian Cancer Society volunteers and staff are proud to be leading the charge in the fight against cancer. Our fight is a big one. Cancer is a powerful enemy. In fact, every 3 minutes, another Canadian is faced with fighting cancer.

Cancer takes the lives of more people in Canada than heart disease, strokes, respiratory diseases, pneumonia, diabetes, liver disease and HIV/AIDS combined. According to the 2012 Canadian Cancer Statistics, it is estimated that in 2012, 27,900 Ontarians will die from cancer, and another 72,300 Ontarians will be diagnosed with the disease. 1

In the last 30 years the rates of new cancer diagnosis have more than doubled. Within the next decade, Ontario will see an unprecedented rise 40 per cent in the number of people living with cancer. To put the increase into perspective, in 172 people were diagnosed with cancer each day. Today, in 201 that number has risen to 198 people per day. By that number is expected to to 228 per day (83,220 per year), unless there are significant changes made related to cancer prevention. 2 it is important that all levels of government a role in creating healthy public

I am to creation spaces our

Page 81 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012 City of Sarnia Town Council

community by increasing protection against second hand smoke, encouraging smokers to quit or cut back and decreasing negative role modeling for children.

Tobacco use is directly responsible for 30 per cent of all cancer deaths and 85 per cent of lung cancer deaths. The need for increased tobacco control is still great. Today over two million Ontarians smoke, thousands start every day, and every year approximately 13,000 Ontarians will die from tobacco use.

In Sarnia the issue of tobacco control is of particular concern. Smoking rates in 3 4 Sarnia are 22.8% , well above the provincial average of 16% •

Second hand smoke is toxic, and there is no safe level of exposure. It contains over 4,000 chemicals including at least 50 known cancer-causing substances. Each year, more than 1,000 non-smoking Canadians die from second hand smoke.

Even outdoors second hand smoke is dangerous. Studies conducted at Stanford University concluded that smoke levels within half a meter of a single cigarette, depending on air conditions, are comparable to indoor smoke levels measured in 5 previous studies of smoky bars •

These findings are particularly important when we consider recreation spaces at on infants toddlers, are not able to choose to relocate themselves when faced with smoking. Even if they are able to move, it is unfair to expect children to choose between physical activity on the playground and a smoke-free space.

Smoking bans have positive effects on smokers. Research has shown that smoking restrictions increase the motivation of smokers to quit or cut back. in restrictions at work or at were

Page 82 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012 City of Sarnia Town Council

6 more likely to cut back or consider quitting • Based on this study, it is possible that smokers experiencing a ban on smoking in outdoor areas, may also cut back or quit.

Outdoor smoking restrictions also decrease negative role modeling for children. If children and youth are not exposed to adult smoking behaviour, they may be less iikeiy to think of it as normaL Since most smokers start before the age of 18, this is important for public health and cancer prevention.

Public support for the creation of outdoor smoke-free is strong across Ontario. The City of Woodstock has had one of the most comprehensive outdoor smoke-free bylaws in Ontario since 2009, they have reported no negative impact on the use of facilities, and 84 per cent of smokers in Woodstock stated that the by-law was good for their children's health. In Ottawa Ipsos Reid surveys conducted prior to their bylaw showed 77 per cent support for smoking bans in parks and on playgrounds 7 and a high of 84 per cent for bans by building entranceways •

Public support for outdoor smoke-free spaces is strong in Sarnia. Seventy per cent of respondents to the Community Health Services Department's public consultations supported restrictions on smoking near entranceways of municipal buildings and a strong majority of 67 per cent supported restrictions for playgrounds and sports 8 fields •

The question of enforcement is one that many municipalities struggle with when considering an outdoor smoke-free bylaw. Opponents of smoking restrictions have always warned that they will be unenforceable and they have always been wrong. They were wrong about the province-wide smoking bans in workplaces, public indoor spaces and bars and restaurants. There is no evidence to suggest outdoor smoke­ free bylaws will pose enforcement problems.

Page 83 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012 City of Sarnia Town Council

Research has shown that concerns about enforcement are higher in municipalities without outdoor smoke-free bylaws. A 2006 study in Minnesota found that 91 per cent of parks and recreation directors in municipalities without smoke-free recreation policies expressed a high level of concern over enforcement issues, but only 26 per cent of their counterparts in municipalities with smoke-free recreation policies 9 reported any enforcement probiems •

Experience from other jurisdictions in Ontario that have implemented outdoor smoke-free bylaws has shown that these bylaws are predominantly self-enforcing. In advance of this presentation the Canadian Cancer Society contacted the Tobacco Control Area Network for Toronto to inquire if they had received any reported concerns following the implementation of their smoke-free playgrounds bylaw on May 31, 2010. The enforcement for the Toronto bylaw is included as part of the municipal licensing and standards bylaw enforcement officers' work. To date there have been no reports indicating that the bylaw has placed any additional budgetary demands.

By passing an outdoor smoke-free bylaw Sarnia will join the nearly seventy municipalities across Ontario who have already passed bylaws governing smoking in outdoor areas. This list includes Woodstock, Ottawa, Chatham-Kent, St. Thomas, Hamilton, Collingwood, Niagara Falls, Barrie, Belleville, Cornwall, Orillia, Ste. Marie to name only a few on a list that continues to grow.

In conclusion the Canadian Cancer Society would like to express our support for the creation of outdoor smoke-free spaces. This bylaw will further protect the health of our community by increasing protection against second hand smoke, encouraging smokers to quit or cut back decreasing negative role modeling children.

Page 84 of 238 Correspondence #7 ­ November 19, 2012 City of Sarnia Town Council

I would like to thank you for your time and consideration to this important issue. Together we can continue to make progress towards a smoke-free Ontario and fight back against the leading preventable cause of death and disease in Ontario.

Thank you!

Page 85 of 238 Page 86 of 238 Notice of Motion #1 ­ November 19, 2012

From: Jon McEachran [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: November-14-12 11:25 AM To: Brian Knott Subject: Motion

Brian,

Please add the following motion to Monday's agenda:

In light of the continued hardship throughout Ontario and the City of Sarnia and whereas each municipality is continually placed under a greater burden with increased regulation from the province and whereas our municipality is placed under even greater burden with the loss of the slots revenue and whereas upper tier funding has dried up leaving municipalities to pay for own infrastructure improvement and whereas our citizens are suffering and lack the ability to pay more in taxes and in recognition that all all organizations in excess of 400 employees need to make changes in order to remain competitive;

I move that city staff commence a complete internal analysis searching for efficiencies within the corporation of Sarnia.

Jon McEachran Sarnia City Council (519) 383-7200

Page 87 of 238 Page 88 of 238 Minutes of October 29, 2012 October 29, 2012

4:00 p.m. – MONDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2012 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, SARNIA

Council met, in regular session, for the transaction of general business. Mayor Bradley took the Chair and the following Members of Council were present: Councillors D. Boushy, A. Bruziewicz, T. Burrell, J. Foubister, A.M. Gillis, B. MacDougall, and J. McEachran

Absent: Councillor M. Kelch

THERE WAS NO CLOSED MEETING

"O CANADA" In accordance with City Council’s policy, the National Anthem was played.

Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest (Direct or Indirect) and the General Nature Thereof There were no disclosures of pecuniary interest.

PRESENTATION 1. Communities In Bloom 2012 Award Presentation

Councillor Gillis gave an overview of the 2012 judges tour and thanked the Chamber of Commerce, Tourism Sarnia-Lambton, and all of the sponsors for their support of Communities in Bloom.

Councillor Gillis presented the Award of 5 Blooms to Mayor Bradley and members of the Communities in Bloom Committee.

CORRESPONDENCE

1. Director of Finance, dated October 19, 2012, regarding RFP #12-119 Proposal to Provide Financial Audit Services - Appointment of City Auditors

Moved by Councillor Foubister, seconded by Councillor MacDougall, and carried:

That Sarnia City Council appoints the firm of BDO Canada LLP as the City’s auditors for a period of five years including the fiscal year ends 2012 to 2016

Councillor Burrell suggested that the Audit Committee be involved in the auditor selection process in the future.

1

Page 89 of 238 Minutes of October 29, 2012 October 29, 2012

2. City Solicitor/Clerk, dated October 18, 2012, regarding Tender 12-10 Roof Replacement – Sarnia Public Library

Moved by Councillor Bruziewicz, seconded by Councillor Burrell, and carried:

That the low tender received by Bullock & Sons Roofing, A Division of 469135 Ont. Ltd. in the amount of $137,408.00 be accepted and that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign the necessary agreements.

In response to a question from Councillor MacDougall regarding whether the Library Roof would be able to support solar panels, the City Solicitor/Clerk advised that staff would look into this. She also requested information from staff on the structural requirements of a roof to hold solar panels.

In response to a question from Councillor Gillis regarding a warranty on the roof, the City Solicitor/Clerk advised that this would be incorporated into the agreement.

3. City Engineer, dated October 1, 2012, regarding City of Sarnia and County of Lambton Road Maintenance Agreement (see By-Law #8)

Moved by Councillor Gillis, seconded by Councillor McEachran, and carried:

That City Council pass a By-Law authorizing the Mayor and Clerk to execute an amendment to the agreement with the County of Lambton for the maintenance of some County roads within the City limits.

4. Director of Parks & Recreation, dated October 23, 2012, regarding Beverage (Soft Drinks) Contract – Arenas

Moved by Councillor Foubister, seconded by Councillor McEachran, and carried:

That Council accept the Proposal for Beverages (soft drinks) – Arenas from PepsiCo Beverages Canada for an eight year period with payments as noted in the contract subject to achieving sales projections;

That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign the contract with PepsiCo Beverages Canada.

2

Page 90 of 238 Minutes of October 29, 2012 October 29, 2012

5. Accessibility Coordinator, dated October 18, 2012, regarding City of Sarnia Integrated Accessibility Standards

Moved by Councillor Burrell, seconded by Councillor Boushy, and carried:

That Council accept the Integrated Standard Accessibility policy, including purchasing policy amendments.

That Council accept the multiyear Municipal Accessibility Plan.

6. Centennial Celebration Chair, dated October 23, 2012, regarding Centennial Celebration Logo

Moved by Councillor MacDougall, seconded by Councillor Bruziewicz, and carried:

That Sarnia City Council direct the Centennial Celebration Committee to forgo the trademarking process for the logo.

Moved by Councillor Boushy, seconded by Councillor Foubister, and carried:

That Sarnia City Council approve the logo for the Centennial Celebration.

NOTICE OF MOTION 1. Councillor Foubister Toboggan Hill at Woodstone Park

Moved by Councillor Foubister, seconded by Councillor McEachran and carried:

That staff be directed to report back on the feasibility and estimated costs for the creation of a Toboggan Hill at Woodstone Park.

MINUTES

Moved by Councillor Burrell, seconded by Councillor Boushy, and carried:

That the Minutes of September 24, 2012 (Corporate Priorities/Strategic Planning Meeting) and October 1, 2012

3

Page 91 of 238 Minutes of October 29, 2012 October 29, 2012

(Regular Meeting), as printed, be adopted.

Councillor Gillis inquired about the postponement of closure work at the Inter-Recycling System Landfill Site. The City Engineer advised that the Ministry of the Environment is currently proceeding with capping and other site closure work, and that offsite work has been postponed.

Councillor MacDougall advised that the Minutes of October 1, 2012 incorrectly noted the name of the individual who accepted the Accessibility Award on behalf of New Beginnings.

INQUIRIES, INFORMATION AND URGENT MATTERS

1. Steel vs. Shingle Roofs Councillor Boushy requested that staff look into steel roofing options for future roof replacement projects as some companies offer a lifetime guarantee.

2. Tree Planting Near Sidewalks

Moved by Councillor Bruziewicz, seconded by Councillor MacDougall, and carried:

That staff be directed to prepare a report dealing with tree planting near sidewalks which offers information on how to mitigate root damage to the sidewalks.

3. Job Fair for Call Centre Mayor Bradley advised that a job fair was being held this week at the Lambton Inn for a potential new call centre in Sarnia and that Sarnia Transit is offering free pass vouchers for those who use public transit to attend the job fair.

4. Leaf/Brush Pick-Up Concerns Councillor Gillis advised that there appears to be issues with Emterra not picking up compostable materials and brush on the scheduled pick-up days. The City Engineer advised that this was due to the volume of compostable material placed out for collection and that the contractor worked through the weekend to ensure that the bags were picked up.

5. Ash Tree Removal Councillor MacDougall encouraged homeowners to remove dead ash trees from their property so they don’t cause property damage during high winds.

4

Page 92 of 238 Minutes of October 29, 2012 October 29, 2012

ROUTINE APPROVALS, ACTION AND INFORMATION

Moved by Councillor Burrell, seconded by Councillor Boushy, and carried:

That Items A to S, under Routine Approvals, Action and Information be introduced.

A. Director of Finance, dated October 18, 2012, regarding 2013 Budget – Interest on Bluewater Power Promissory Note

For Information

B. City Solicitor/Clerk, dated October 23, 2012, regarding Boards and Committees of Council

For Information

C. Director of Finance, dated October 18, 2012, regarding 469 Confederation Street – Municipal Tax Sale Extension Agreement (see By-Law #2)

That Sarnia City Council authorize an Extension Agreement between The Corporation of the City of Sarnia and Darlene Michelle Whetham with respect to the property at 469 Confederation Street, Sarnia; and

That Sarnia City Council authorize the Mayor and City Solicitor/Clerk to execute such Agreement.

D. City Solicitor/Clerk, dated October 12, 2012, regarding Façade Loan Postponement 132-136 Front Street North and 138-140 Cromwell Street (see By-Laws #3 & #4)

That Sarnia City Council ratify and confirm the execution of a postponement of interest in relation to the Façade Loans for 132-136 Front Street North and 138-140 Cromwell Street, Sarnia in favour of CIBC Mortgages Inc.

E. City Engineer, dated October 22, 2012, regarding IRS Landfill – MOE Site Closure Offsite works Update

For Information

5

Page 93 of 238 Minutes of October 29, 2012 October 29, 2012

F. City Solicitor/Clerk, dated September 26, 2012, regarding Dedicating Land as part of London Road and as part of East Street (see By-Law #5)

That Sarnia City Council dedicate Part 1 on Reference Plan 25R9913 as public highway.

G. City Solicitor/Clerk, dated October 22, 2012, regarding Strangway Centre Bequest – Mary Jane Boyes

For Information

H. City Solicitor/Clerk, dated October 23, 2012, regarding Sharing of Services

For Information

I. Director of Economic Development and Corporate Planning, dated October 22, 2012, regarding Sarnia 402 Business Park & Easement to Cogeco Cable Canada GP Inc. (see By-Law #6)

That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute an Easement Agreement Between the Corporation of the City of Sarnia and Cogeco Cable Canada GP Inc.

J. Director of Finance, dated October 19, 2012, regarding Funding of Amortization and Other Estimated Expenses for 2013

That Council, receive and file the 2013 budget reconciliation with respect to the impact of amortization, postemployment benefits expense and solid waste landfill closure and post closure expenses.

K. City Engineer, dated October 29, 2012, regarding WPCC – Purchase of Spare Equipment for the UV Disinfection System

For Information

L. City Solicitor/Clerk, dated October 18, 2012, regarding 356/357/358 Tax Appeal Court

That Sarnia City Council adopt the recommendations of the Tax Appeal Committee for the October 18, 2012 Tax Appeal Court.

6

Page 94 of 238 Minutes of October 29, 2012 October 29, 2012

M. City Solicitor/Clerk, dated October 22, 2012, regarding County Smoke Free Open Spaces By-Law

For Information

N. City Solicitor/Clerk, dated October 23, 2012, regarding Kathleen Avenue Partial Lane Closure and Sale to Adjacent Owner (see By-Law #7)

That Sarnia City Council authorize the stopping up and closing of a portion of a laneway on Plan 71 at the rear of 177 Kathleen Avenue, Sarnia.

That Sarnia City Council declare that portion of the laneway at the rear of 177 Kathleen Avenue as surplus.

That Sarnia City Council authorize the sale of that portion of the laneway at the rear of 177 Kathleen Avenue to the owners of 177 Kathleen Avenue for $1.00.

O. City Solicitor/Clerk, dated October 22, 2012, regarding Parking Restrictions on Lakeshore Road

For Information

P. Director of Parks & Recreation, dated October 17, 2012, regarding Sarnia Bay Marina Fish Cleaning Station

For Information

Q. Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, dated October 3, 2012, regarding Home First Programme

For Information

R. Director of Transit, dated October 23, 2012, regarding Transit Ridership: Overcapacity on Bus Routes

For Information

S. Robyn Hamlyn, dated October 25, 2012, regarding Blue Communities Resolutions

7

Page 95 of 238 Minutes of October 29, 2012 October 29, 2012

Moved by Councillor Gillis, seconded by Councillor Bruziewicz, and carried:

That Sarnia City Council support the resolution dealing with Recognizing Water as a Human Right as indicated in the Blue Communities Project Guide.

Moved by Councillor Gillis, seconded by Councillor Bruziewicz, and carried:

That Sarnia City Council support the resolution dealing with promoting publicly financed, owned and operated water and wastewater services as indicated in the Blue Communities Project Guide.

Moved by Councillor Burrell, seconded by Councillor Boushy, and carried:

That Items A to S, under Routine Approvals, Action and Information, as recommended or approved by this Council, be adopted and appended to the Minutes.

CIVIC REPORTS

Moved by Councillor Burrell, seconded by Councillor Boushy, and carried:

That the Civic Reports be received and filed.

1. Raffle Report - September 2012 2. Plumbing Report - September 2012 3. Building Report - September 2012

BY-LAWS

Moved by Councillor Burrell, seconded by Councillor Boushy, and carried:

That By-Laws No. 1-8, as printed, be introduced for the first and second reading thereof, and be taken as read for the first and second time.

1. For 1st, 2nd and 3rd Readings: A By-Law to Confirm the Proceedings of Council at its meeting held on October 29, 2012 (By-Law #75 of 2012)

8

Page 96 of 238 Minutes of October 29, 2012 October 29, 2012

2. For 1st, 2nd and 3rd Readings: A By-Law to Authorize an Agreement with Darlene Michelle Whetham (Re: 469 Confederation Street – Extension Agreement) (see Agenda Info Item C) (By-Law #76 of 2012)

3. For 1st, 2nd and 3rd Readings: A By-Law to Ratify and Confirm an Agreement with CIBC Mortgages Inc. Re: 132136 Front Street North – Postponement (see Agenda Info Item D) (By-Law #77 of 2012)

4. For 1st, 2nd and 3rd Readings: A By-Law to Ratify and Confirm an Agreement with CIBC Mortgages Inc. Re: 138140 Cromwell Street – Postponement (see Agenda Info Item D) (By-Law #78 of 2012)

5. For 1st, 2nd and 3rd Readings: A By-Law to Dedicate Land as part of London Road and as part of East Street in the City of Sarnia Re: Part 1 on Reference Plan 25R9913 (see Agenda Info Item F) (By-Law #79 of 2012)

6. For 1st, 2nd and 3rd Readings: A By-Law to Authorize an Agreement with Cogeco Cable Canada GP Inc. (Re: Sarnia 402 Business Park) (see Agenda Info Item J) (By-Law #80 of 2012)

7. For 1st, 2nd and 3rd Readings: A By-Law to Stop Up, Close and Sell part of a Lane at the rear of 177 Kathleen Avenue in the City of Sarnia Re: 177 Kathleen Avenue, Sarnia (see Agenda Info Item N) (By-Law #81 of 2012)

8. For 1st, 2nd and 3rd Readings: A By-Law to Authorize an Agreement with The Corporation of the County of Lambton Re: Amendments to the Road Maintenance Agreement (see Correspondence#3) (By-Law #82 of 2012)

Moved by Councillor Burrell, seconded by Councillor Boushy, and carried:

That By-Laws No. 1-8, as printed, be taken as read the third time and finally passed.

ADJOURNMENT

Moved by Councillor Burrell, seconded by Councillor Boushy, and carried:

That Sarnia City Council adjourn to its next regular meeting to be held on Monday, November 19, 2012, and the next Corporate Priorities/Strategic Planning Meeting to be held on November 5, 2012.

9

Page 97 of 238 Minutes of October 29, 2012 October 29, 2012

The meeting adjourned at 5:00pm.

______Mayor

______City Solicitor/Clerk

10

Page 98 of 238 Minutes of November 5, 2012

MINUTES OF THE CORPORATE PRIORITIES/STRATEGIC PLANNING MEETING OF SARNIA CITY COUNCIL

10:00 a.m. – MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2012 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, SARNIA

A Special Meeting was held. Mayor Bradley took the Chair and the following Members of Council were present: Councillors D. Boushy, A. Bruziewicz, T. Burrell, A.M. Gillis, M. Kelch, and B. MacDougall

Absent: Councillors J. Foubister and J. McEachran

PRESENTATIONS 1. 2013 Budget Overview

Mayor Bradley opened the meeting by discussing the challenges and successes of the current and past budgets.

The Director of Finance gave a PowerPoint Presentation regarding the 2013 Budget Overview and responded to questions from Council.

In response to a question from Councillor Bruziewicz regarding the asset mix for OMERS, the Director of Finance advised that this information is available on their website, and that this would be provided to Council.

Councillor Bruziewicz inquired about the number of watermain breaks annually, and the City Engineer advised that he would provide those statistics to Council.

In response to a question from Councillor Burrell regarding sewer overflow occurrences and quantities, the City Engineer indicated that he would provide this information.

A series of questions were raised by Council with respect to budget related matters, and the following motions were introduced:

Moved by Councillor Gillis, seconded by Councillor Bruziewicz, and carried:

That Staff be directed to explore the usage of variable speed drives at the pumping stations and the ability to maximize time of use hydro billing.

Page 99 of 238 Minutes of November 5, 2012

Councillor Burrell advised that LAWSS has recently hired an Energy Manager who may be able to assist with this.

Councillor Bruziewicz requested a summary of water and sewer rates in other municipalities. The Director of Finance advised that he would provide the data which was included in the last few BMA reports.

Moved by Councillor Gillis, seconded by Councillor Burrell, and carried:

That staff be directed to estimate the amount of revenue to be received from the Enbridge Discharge Agreement, and report back to Council at the November 19th meeting on the impact of applying those funds to the Sanitary/Storm Sewer Budget.

Councillor Burrell questioned the movement of the sewer user fees, and in particular slide #21 information, and the Director of Finance advised that he would review this.

Moved by Councillor Boushy, seconded by Councillor Kelch, and carried:

That staff be directed to prepare a report which provides options to get to a 2% budget increase.

Moved by Councillor Gillis, seconded by Councillor MacDougall, and carried:

That staff be directed to provide a breakdown of Fire Department overtime incurred inside and outside the City.

INFORMATION ITEM 1. City Manager, dated November 1, 2012, regarding Attrition Program Update

For Information

Councillor Boushy left the meeting.

Moved by Councillor Kelch, seconded by Councillor MacDougall, and carried:

Page 100 of 238 Minutes of November 5, 2012

That staff be directed to prepare a report in early 2013 detailing the current attrition program statistics and projected targets over the next 5 and 10 years and suggest that the County do the same.

Councillor Bruziewicz inquired about the City’s ability to opt out of OMERS. It was indicated that staff would look into this.

The meeting adjourned at 12:00pm.

______Mayor

______City Solicitor/Clerk

Page 101 of 238 Page 102 of 238 Agenda Info Item A ­ November 19, 2012

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA People Serving People

PARKS and RECREATION DEPARTMENT

OPEN SESSION REPORT

TO: Mayor Bradley and Members of Sarnia City Council

FROM: Ian Smith, Director of Parks and Recreation

DATE: October 23, 2012

SUBJECT: Sarnia Rugby Club – Bell Building Norm Perry Memorial Park

Recommendation: It is recommended:

1. That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign the lease for use of the Bell Building at Norm Perry Memorial Park by the Sarnia Saints Union Football Club Inc. for a one year term beginning on January 1, 2013.

Background: For the past fifteen years, the Sarnia Saints Union Football Club Inc. have been using the Bell Building at the Norm Perry Memorial Park for club activities and social events. The Club has taken responsibility for all activities and operates under a permit from the LCBO.

Comments: The City of Sarnia works to further the activities of a number of clubs and associations promoting recreational activities in the City. In this case, the City supports the Sarnia Saints Union Football Club Inc. in the development of Rugby in the City. This is a successful program and numerous residents participate in this sport.

The use of the Bell Building will not be impacted by the changes being undertaken at Norm Perry Memorial Park. The Sarnia Saints will continue to use the Park for practices and games while using the Bell Building for other team activities.

Page 103 of 238 Agenda Info Item A ­ November 19, 2012

It is recommended that the lease be for a one year term. Then, as per the City’s procurement policy, a RFP will be advertised to request proposals from interested parties for this facility. A report will be presented to Council with a recommendation for this facility for a five year term.

Consultation: Consultation was with the City Manager, City Solicitor/ Clerk, Parks and Recreation staff as well representatives of the Sarnia Saints Union Football Club Inc.

Financial Implications: The Sarnia Saints Union Football Club Inc. will pay an annual rent of $1,146 in 2013 for use of the Bell Building. These funds are noted in the Parks and Recreation Operating Budget.

Prepared by: Approved by:

Ian Smith Lloyd Fennell Director of Parks and Recreation City Manager

Attachment(s): Norm Perry Memorial Park Picture – showing Bell Building

Page 104 of 238 Agenda Info Item A ­ November 19, 2012

Picture of Norm Perry Memorial Park (defined in black) – bottom right of the Park is the Bell Building.

Page 105 of 238 Page 106 of 238 Agenda Info Item B ­ November 19, 2012

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA People Serving People

CITY SOLICITOR/CLERK’S DEPARTMENT

OPEN SESSION REPORT

TO: Mayor Bradley and Members of Sarnia City Council

FROM: Brian W. Knott, City Solicitor/Clerk

DATE: November 14, 2012

SUBJECT: Complaint About Closed Meetings of the Centennial Celebration Committee – Report From Ombudsman of Ontario

Recommendation: For Council’s Information

Background: On October 9, 2012 the City was advised by the Ombudsman of Ontario’s Office that a complaint had been received that the Sarnia Centennial Celebration Committee held improper Closed Meetings between June and September of 2012. The Ombudsman’s Office requested and received information on the background of the Committee as well as details of any meetings which would have taken place.

Comments: The Ombudsman’s Office has now completed its review of the complaint, and the letter from their office, dated November 8, 2012 has been attached for Council’s information. As a result of the review, no formal investigation of the complaint was undertaken.

The Ombudsman’s Office requested that the attached letter be shared with Council at the next public meeting, and that a copy be made available to the public on our website. This has now been completed.

Consultation: There were ongoing discussions with members of the Ombudsman’s Office on this issue. As well, there was consultation with Mayor Bradley, Chair of the Centennial Celebration Committee, Liz Kenny, and City Manager, Lloyd Fennell with respect to background information required for submission to the Ombudsman’s Office.

Page 107 of 238 Agenda Info Item B ­ November 19, 2012

Financial Implications: There are no financial consequences arising from this report.

Prepared by: Approved by:

Brian W. Knott Lloyd Fennell City Solicitor/Clerk City Manager

Attachment(s): Letter from Ombudsman’s Office

Page 108 of 238 Agenda Info Item B a­ November 19, 2012 Ombudsman ONTARIO

ONTARIO'S WATCHDOG CHIEN DE GARDE DE L'0NTARIO

November 8, 2012 NOV 1 4 2012- Mr. Brian Knott (Clerk/City Solicitor) ------City of Sarnia 255 Christina Street North P.O. Box 3018 Sarnia, ON N7T 7N2

Dear Mr. Knott,

Re: Complaint about Closed Meetings of the Centennial Celebration Committee

I am writing further to our conversation on November 6, 2012 regarding the results of our review of a complaint that Sarnia's Centennial Celebration Committee held improper closed meetings between june and September 2012.

As you know, the Municipal Act, 2001 (the Act) requires that all meetings of Council, Local Boards, and their Committees are open to the public, with limited exceptions, as defined under s. 239 (2) of the Act.

The Ombudsman is the open meeting investigator for the City of Sarnia. In considering this complaint we spoke with you and reviewed the documentation pertaining to the establishment of this Committee and the relevant sections of the Act and the Procedure By-Law.

For the purposes of the open meeting requirements, a "committee" is defined as "any advisory or other committee, sub-committee or similar entity of which at least 50% of the members are also members of one or more councils or local boards."

According to the information obtained, on April18, 2011 Sarnia Council passed a motion to set up a staff group to hire a Citizen Chair or Co-Chairs for the Centennial Celebration Committee (the Committee). The advertisement for the volunteer position stated that responsibilities included developing a theme for the celebration, preparing fundraising and marketing plans, and establishing a volunteer organization to support the celebration.

On September 9, 2011, the City issued a media release announcing the appointed Citizen Chair would assume her duties effective january 1, 2012.

Bell Trinity Square 483 Bay Street, 1Oth Floor, South Tower, Toronto, ON M5G 2C9 483, rue Boy, 1 oe etage, Tour sud, Toronto (Ontario) M5G 2C9 Tei./T el. . 416-586-3300 facsimile/Telecopieur :416-586-3485 TIY/ATS: 1-866-411-4211

www.ombudsman.on.ca Facebook: focebook.com/OntarioOmbudsmon Twitter: twitter.com/Ont_Ombudsman You Tube: youtube.com/OntarioOmbudsmanPage 109 of 238 Agenda Info Item B ­ November 19, 2012 G_:, Ombudsman ONTARIO

The proposed structure of the committee, as presented to Council on February 6, 2012, shows that the Mayor and City Manager are members of the Committee, along with the Citizen Chair and seven volunteer "Leaders", who are responsible for leading various components (ie. finance, fundraising, etc.) of the Celebration plans. The leaders can also recruit volunteers or sub-committees.

Based on the fact that the Centennial Celebration Committee is comprised of no less than seven citizens, one staff member, and one member of Council, this committee does not meet the definition of a "committee" for the purpose of the open meeting requirements.

The complaint to our Office alleged that, prior to the appointment of the Celebration "Leaders", the Mayor and the Citizen Chair may have held improper closed meetings to discuss the potential candidates for leadership roles. The information provided by the City is that the Mayor, City Manager, and the Citizen Chair held four brief update meetings between December 2011 and june 7, 2012 to discuss the Citizen Chair's progress in terms of establishing the Committee. This group also does not meet the Municipal Act's definition of a Committee for the purpose of the open meeting requirements, as only one of the three "Committee" members is a member of Council.

During our discussion on November 6, 2012 we asked that you share this letter with Council at the next public meeting and that a copy be made available to the public on your website. You said that the letter would be on the agenda for either the November 19 or December 10, 2012 public Council meeting.

We would like to thank you for your cooperation during our review.

Sin~cerel~ ~

Yv Heggie Ea esolution0 Officer Open Meeting Law Enforcement Team

Page 110 of 238 Agenda Info Item C ­ November 19, 2012

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA People Serving People

CITY SOLICITOR/CLERK’S DEPARTMENT

OPEN SESSION REPORT

TO: Mayor Bradley and Members of Sarnia City Council

FROM: Brian W. Knott, City Solicitor/Clerk

DATE: November 14, 2012

SUBJECT: First Hussars Proposal for London Line

Recommendation: For Council’s Information

Background: The First Hussars Association has submitted a request that part of Highway #22 also be known as the “The First Hussars Commemorative Highway” and that appropriate signage be placed on the highway. Information on the request provided by the First Hussars, as set forth below, has been attached for Council’s Information:

 Request Letter dated October 23, 2012  Map of Highway 22  Regimental Guidon and Battle Honours  Short History of the First Hussars  Short History of the Lambton Regiment  Copies of Letters of Support

Comments: The request from the First Hussars has been reviewed by our Engineering Department Staff who have advised that the targeted section of road in question is actually a County Road. It is understood that the County Engineering Staff are reviewing the request for the designation, and it is likely that the request will be addressed at County Committee in January. City of Sarnia Engineering staff have indicated that, based on the current information available, the department would be supportive of such a designation and that further discussions will be held with County Staff on this matter.

Page 111 of 238 Agenda Info Item C ­ November 19, 2012

Consultation: The Engineering Department has been consulted on the request for the designation.

Financial Implications: There are no financial consequences arising from this report.

Prepared by: Approved by:

Brian W. Knott Lloyd Fennell City Solicitor/Clerk City Manager

Attachment(s):  Request Letter Dated October 23, 2012  Map of Highway 22  Regimental Guidon and Battle Honours  Short History of the First Hussars  Short History of the Lambton Regiment (St. Clair Borders)  Copies of Letters of Support

Page 112 of 238 Agenda Info Item C ­ November 19, 2012

131 Hussars Association Wolseley Barracks 701 Oxford St. East London, On. N5Y 4T7

October 23rd , 2012

Mayor Mike Bradley and City Councillors CITY of SARNIA City Hall 255 North Christina St. SARNIA, ON. N7T 7N2

Dear 1.1ayor Bradley and Members of City Council~

PROPOSED DESIGNATION FOR HIGHWAY #22

As members of the ls.t Hussars Association, one of our important mandates is to remember those who have gone before in our RegimenJ and to perpetuate their memory by continualiy promoting the 1st Hussars within our communities. With our glorious history as a precedent, we feel our R-egiment is worthy of} and able- to maintain an honour the A.ssociation is asking our communities to bestow upon it.

Our military Regiment, the pt Hussars, has proudly served Canada and southwestern Ontario for more than 1:56 years, based out of London, On. and, since 1964 (48. years) with a. detached squadron in Santia~ On. These arc the two remaining components of a Cavalry unit and an Infantry unit that fonned in the mid 1800•s with men and women from Lambton and Middlesex counti~s, changing through various combat roles until the 1st Hussars emerge today as an armoured regiment. with a reconnaisance squadron.

The Association is contacting.the two muniqjpaHties (Cities of London and Sarnia) and two county govemment.s (Middlesex and Lambton) regarding a proposal to have those p:i..'"ts of Cmmty Roaa:# 22 (London Line) and County Highway #22 (Egrement Road) within their appropri~te _boundaries to also be known as: TI1e l sc Hussars CommemorAtive Highway The 1st Hussars Association respectfully request that the City of Sarnia council pass a motion to allow that part of County Road# 22 (London Line) under their jurisdiction to be recognized as a CQmmemorative highway for the P1 Hussars; and to allQw appropriate sign age indicating this. Specifically, it would be that part of London Line starting in the '.vest at Highway #40 (Modeland Road) and. termi11ating in the eas.t at the City boundary (County Road #26 - !\4andauman Road). -such signs will be fmanced by the 1 ~ 1 Hussars Association and will be maintained at no expense t.o the public or the community, ..12

Page 113 of 238 Agenda Info Item C ­ November 19, 2012

-2-

Members of the l$1 Hussars Association are willing to come before your council to submit tbjs proposal in person shoul.d this be necessary.

This is not a proposal requiling the app:roval of the Federal or Provincia] governments. We are pleased, however, to have received the support ofour Federal.l\tl.P. 's and Provincial ~1.P.P.'s in the Association's campaign to have this recognition bestowed upon our Regiment. Their letters are enclosed.

A map of the appropriate sections of County Road/Highway# 22 we are request;ng to be so designated is attached. A rnore detailed reasoning f0r this proposal and some clarification points are also attached.

Should you require further information or have any questions, please feel free to contact mySelf or Ken Johnson. Our contact information is shown on the attached page. We will be pleased to speak with you or your staff on this proposal, or meet with you and council should this be desired ornecessary.

Thank you for considering the Association's proposal to have County Road/Highway #22 be designated as the P1 Hussars Commemorative Highway. We look forward to your favoraple support iu making this possible.

Yours truly, vr-fi})~., I I P ter Wood, CD RSivi (ret' d) Vice President, 1st Hussars Association attach: 1 enclosures: 9

Page 114 of 238 Agenda Info Item C ­ November 19, 2012

1st Hussars Conunemorative Highway Proposal

Contact Information:

Peter Wood. CD Ken Johnson. CD

Home Phone: 519-337-8612 5 J9.,542-9634 Bus. Phone: n/a 519-337-8185 e-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

Supportive Reasoning & Clarification§

~ At least two other counties and municipalities within Ontario have given similar recognition to their local military units. Both Lambton and Middlesex county department staff responsible for roads have advised that County Roa~./HigJ!way #22 ha~ not been given any such G.esignation or name for any"other group) industry or tourism purpose.

• We are not asking for County Road/Highway #22 to be 'renamed'. Existing road names and highway numbers and addresses wiH not be changed. The prpposal we are submitting is to have tl1e road also known as the 1st Hussars Commemorative-Highway,

• County Road/Highway #22 connects London and Samia, both cities housing elements of the 1st Hussars. It is a regional highway only within the two counties; and as such is deemed more fitting to be recognized for those many citizens ofL_ambton and Middlesex counties who served as soldiers in the 1sc Hussars.

• The year 2014 will be the 5oth armiversary of a squadron of the 1"' Huss_ars being based in Sarnia, On.

• This is another way to publically acknowledge those who served our country by volunteering for military duty, whether it be during war or peacetime.

• Why a commemorative highway and not a memorial highway? A~memorial' is more speci'fic to a person or event and is usually a landmark object (statue) fpuntain, park). Gravestones are the most common memorial. Commemorative relates to 'commemoration', which is more of an act.ofren1embrance applying to a group ofpc.ople .or" ev•ents.

• Why are the 1s c Hussars, (the serving soldiers or the Regiment 1tse1f) not applying-for this recognition? The Canadien military is a department of the Federal government, and as such! canies out the policies and decisions of the ele.cted members. Serving_ soldiers in t11e military cannot influence government or petition the elected members of any level of government for a prefercntiai decision on any military matter. The pt Hussars Association is comprised mostly of retired membe(S of the Regiment) and therefore as civilians: are not boimd by the same constraints as a serving soldier.

Page 115 of 238 Agenda Info Item C ­ November 19, 2012

1 . Color Map of County Highway 22

2. Regimental Guidon & Battle Honours

3. A Short History of the 1st Hussars

4. A Short History of the Lambton Regiment (St. Ctair Borderers)

5. Letter of Support, Pat Davidson, M.P. for Sarnia- Lambton

6. Letter of Support, Bev Shipley, M.P. for La-mbton- Kent­ Middlesex

7. Letter of Support, Bob Bailey, M.P.P for Sarnia- Lambton

8. Letter of Support, Monte McNaughton, M.P.P. for Lambton­ Kent - Midd le-s~x

9. Regimental Notepad

Page 116 of 238 •.<. - uuug.t~ 1V.Liip:S ru~;;uwuy .<..<.- uuug.t~ lvwp:s nup:iimaps .. googte.ca~maps i msne=r

. ...l.,o ~~ :t-"'

® liD r:eJ Vullartor•

Dssi'I'NCOd fxelef Motn~~" Avon bank Kirklon South HurQO ® · 'Gr a r d Bena · WOO Spnr.gvale ·r"earcrd 0 Devize~ .Syt•tan Ailsa Cra•g Glft!l'llo\! ~ K1nna1rd Jerumo ·ei!acn DMf1f!ld Carlisle Bryans ton Birr -i · g l11~'\ N11-1rn ; TMrna.ale ··~ ll;1 Bom•sh Forest Sable Arkona hderton Ballymote ' . •:¥,-( E . ' , Birmlln Ka)I'Ser Spnngbank \ ­ Aber•rdoer AlVa "'f~: Telf¥ November 19, 2012 Mffi1e~y ,'{~ Camlachte ~ Etlr&ck ··f'71 ACt~· ~· t:::\ '-V ~. Plyn 1 pton·W~n~~g '(J.... Po&o: ; . Edwa'ia ydW&rk · • london , N•!es1c\ Port Huron' - f ort H1Jron TCYii'IB1'11p Sln;.throy tIII.Ie Mt Brydges Delf!llovare Sharon .IS) Sy~%ton

Page 117 of 238 Petrolia Walnut Welt · · sootts.'lille Bel Nap1er

RoKeby MO<>re LittiBWOOd Payne Cemre LOI'IgYIOOd ill ~

SICI!• ,,..... 'OOd Alv1nston Munce)' Knn!)all Bngaen 0 11 City Glen Ret Me!Dourne ralbotville •• Cc~rr&'igl'\t SouthWCid App•n Royal .... LadysrMh \oVaul:)uoo Kilmartin 011 Spnn91 Grays ill Saint r;'1 M•ddlem,ss Thomas~ BICkford Frome Aberfel

Battle Honours of the 1st Hussars "SOUTH AFRICA 1900" "SOMME, 1916" "Scarpe, 1918" "Flers-Courcelette" ''Drocourt-Queant" "Ancre Heights" "HINDENBERG LINE" "ARRAS. 1917, 1918" "Canal du Nord" "Vimy, 1917" "CAMBRAL 1918" "AMIENS" "PURSUIT TO MONS" "FRANCE AND FLANDERS 1915-1918" "NORMANDY LANDING'' "Falaise Road" "Putot-en Bessin" "Quesnay Wood" "Le Mesnil-Patry" "The Laison" "CAEN" "Chambois" 'The Orne" "Calais, 1944" "BOURGUEBUS RIDGE" "The Lower Maas, ,Faubourg de Vaucelles" 'THE RHINELAND" "Verrieres Ridge- "The Hochwald" Tilly-la-Campagne" "Apeldoorn" "FALAISE" "Bad Zwischenahn, "North West Europe, 1944-1945"

Distinguished by underlining are the seventeen Battle Honours selected to be emblazoned on the Guidon.

Page 118 of 238 Agenda Info Item C ­ November 19, 2012

A SHORT HISTORY OF THE FIRST HUSSARS

In 1835 some of the settlers in the London, On. area started to train in cavalry skills, and when the British garrison left in 1856, they formed the First London Voluntary Troop of Cavalry. By 1866, there were four independent troops: London, St. Thomas, Courtright (later moved to Mooretown), and Kingsville, On . In May of 1872, these were consolidated into one unit with it's headquarters in London, On. In 1892 this First Regiment of Cavalry was renamed the First Hussars.

During the Boer War the First Hussars sent a contingent of officers and men to South Africa where they earned the Regiment's first Battle Honour.

Following the outbreak of World War I, the rth Canadian Mounted Rifles, consisting mostly of personnel from the First Hussars went overseas in June 1915. The unit fought with distinction and were awarded thirteen Battle Honours for outstanding performance in major battles.

Between the wars, the Regiment continued mounted horse training and in 1937 won all but one of the trophies open to competition by all Canadian cavalry units. In 1929 the Regiment became affiliated with the British 11th Hussars, nicknamed the "Cherrypickers", who are famed for the Charge of the Light Brigade in the Crimean War. Through British unit amalgamations, this affiliation continues today with their successor unit, the Kings Own Hussars.

The first Non-Permanent Militia unit to be mobilized at the outbreak of World War II, the Regiment moved overseas as part of the 5th Canadian Armoured Division in 1941 . They constantly trained in armoured vehicles until D-Day, where they landed on Juno Beach in their duplex drive Sherman tanks. The Normandy Landing consisted of many bitter battles for the beachhead; inland they took part in the closing of the Falaise Gap and the clearing of the Channel guns at Calais. The First Hussars fought with distinction through Belgium and Holland, ending the war on German soil. During this period, members of the First Hussars won 72 Decorations, Certificates and Mentioned in Dispatches, more than any other unit in the 1st Canadian Army. The Regiment was awarded 20 additional Battle Honours for outstanding bravery.

Page 119 of 238 Agenda Info Item C ­ November 19, 2012

Returning to the Dundas Street Armouries in London, On., the Regiment resumed its Militia role undergoing numerous organizational and tasking changes (mainly armoured reconnaissance). In 1965 during the substantial military reorganization by Paul Hellyer, a detached Squadron was formed in Sarnia, On. from the local Artillery Battery and Engineer Squadron that were being eliminated. In 1967 and again in 1991 , the First Hussars won the Worthington Trophy as the best Canadian Militia Armoured Regiment.

On July 5th I 1967 as part of Canada's Centennial Celebration, the First Hussars received their first Regimental Guidon from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II at a ceremony held on Parliament Hill in Ottawa.

In 1977 the Regiment moved it's London, On. members into Wolseley Barracks (the founding location of the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps) and in 1983 'C' Squadron was given an armoury in Sarnia.

Today the First Hussars continue their armoured training using the G-wagon at local armouries, and the LAV Ill (Light Armoured Vehicle) when on exercise at military camps. A number of unit members have served in Peacekeeping roles throughout the world with the Canadian Forces, and currently have members serving in Afghanistan. The Regiment consists of 121 personnel, with 55 of those located in Sarnia.

Notable members:

Capt. 'Billy' Bishop, VC,MC, DSO (Royal Flying Corps WW1 Ace}

Maj. George Stirrett, MC, DCM (Sarnia Armoury is named for him)

HLCol J. Gordon Thompson, CD ( Supertest Gasoline}

LCol. Brandy Conran, DSO,CD (Author & UWO Board of Governor's Chair)

Page 120 of 238 Agenda Info Item C ­ November 19, 2012

A SHORT HISTORY OF THE LAMBTON REGIMENT

In September of 1866, as a result of the threat of Fenian raids along the St. Clair river, a militia infantry unit was organized with the designation as the 2ih Lambton Battalion of Infantry. The addition of "St. Clair Borderers" was added to the unit title in March of 1872. In 1900 it was given Regimental status and now had as it's motto "Paratus et fide/is" (Latin: "Ready and faithful").

During World War I, the StClair Borderers formed a part of the 149th Battalion, Canadian Expeditionary Force. From it's headquarters in Watford, On., this unit began recruiting for infantrymen in late 1915 throughout Lambton county. After sailing to England in March of 1917, the Battalion did not go to the Belgium front as a unit. Instead they were absorbed into the 4th & 25th Reserve Battalions in that country.

Returning its remaining members to Lambton County after the War, the unit was reorganized as the Lambton Regiment in October 1920. At the end of 1936, the Regiment was disbanded, only to reform the very next day in Sarnia as an artillery unit called the 26th (Lambton) Field Battery.

Page 121 of 238 Agenda Info Item C ­ November 19, 2012

In September 1939, the 26th Lambton Field Battery was mobilized in Sarnia, On. and trained initially in Guelph, On. until moving to Camp Petawawa in May 1940. As part of the 4th Field Regiment, the 'Lambtons' embarked for England in August 1940. Two years later, thirteen members from Sarnia took part in the ill fated Raid on Dieppe in August 1942.

Converting to an anti aircraft role in May 1943, the 'Lambton's" then became part of the divisional artillery for the 2nd Canadian Infantry Division. The now 26th (Reserve) Anti Aircraft battery landed in Normandy early July 1944, and immediately saw action 5 days later at Carpiquet. It subsequently took part in the drive to close the Falaise Gap and the clearing of the Scheidt Estuary in northern Belgium and southern Holland. It participated in the Battle of the Rhineland in northwest Germany up to the end of the War. The 4th Field Regiment was disbanded in September 1945, and the 26th "Lambtons" returned home.

In April 1946, the unit returned to the status of a field battery and simply designated as the 26th Field Battery, Royal Canadian Artillery headquartered in Sarnia.

Post war there were many additions and changes to the militia of Lambton County, most notable the establishment of an Engineer Squadron in Sarnia. In 1964 as a recommendation from the Suttie Commission, Paul Hellyer disbanded both the artillery battery and the en~ineer squadron, forming a new unit called C Squadron, a detached unit of the 1s Hussars, an armoured regiment based in London, On.

Notable Members:

Major Alexander MacKenzie (1866- 1874) Second Prime Minister of Canada

Maj. George Stirrett, MC, DCM (Sarnia Armoury is named for him)

Drum Sgt. Johnny Bond: Regimental Bandmaster (1950's)

Cpl. James Doohan ("Scottie" of Star Trek fame)

Page 122 of 238 Agenda Info Item C ­ November 19, 2012

!Jlo.we 4 &mnum., ftm6tibwu:lj l91Jice Room 600, Justice Building 1000 Finch Drive, Unit 2 Ottawa, ON KIA OA6 ~" Sarnia ON N7S 6G5 Tel: ·(613) 957-2649 Phone: (519) 383-6600 Fax: (613) 957-2655 Fax: (519) 383-0609 E-mail: [email protected] • E-mail: DavidPI @parl.gc.ca flat 9>cwid.6on Member of Parliament for Sarnia - Lambton

March 25, zou

1•t Hussars Association R.SM (Retired) Peter Wood CD 481-<)85 Maxwell St., Sarnia ON N7S 4GZ

Greetings,

I am pleased and proud to support the campaign to renam e Highway #zz from Sarnia to London, uThe Fi.1rst Hussars Commemorative Highway". The Hussars have a long and storied history in my riding of Sarnia-Lambton.

From the Boer War though both World Wars, in Peacekeeping Missions, and the Qperati.on in Afghanistan, the Hussars and its pu·edecessor 1U11o.its have striven within our Armed Forces to protect and serve Canada, and Hberate people

Iii oppressed by tyranny.

I think that honouri.!.lg the Hussars fallen, its veterans and serving memben with such a local visible reminder of thdu· sacrifices· would be a fitting tribute.

Sincerely, /lt \ Pat Davidson M.P. Sarnia "7 Lambton

1+1· Page 123 of 238 Agenda Info Item C ­ November 19, 2012 Constituency PO Box 141, 380 Albert St Strathroy, Ontario N7G 3Jl Tel: (519) 245-6561 Fax: (519) 245-6736 Toll Free: (800) 586-4614

HOUSE OF COMMONS Constituency Ottawa 5-21 Arnold St Room 611, Justice Building Bev Shipley, M.P. Wallaceburg, Ontario N8A 3P3 Ottawa, Ontario KIA OA6 Lambton - Kent - Middlesex Tel: (519) 627-4899 Tel: (613) 947-4581 Fax: ~5~9) 627-4635 Fax: (613) 947-4584 Toll Free: (800) 585-2640 e-mail: [email protected] www.bevshipley.ca

Mr. Peter Wood, CO 985 Maxwell St., #402 Sarnla ON, N7S 4G2

Dear Mr. Wood,

I have had the opportunity to review your information package·regarding an additional designation for Highway #22 and to be referenced .as "1st Hussars; Commemorative Highway."

. Aft~r giving this matter my consideration, I would like to off~r you t~is :letter as my support in your efforts.

tHelieve·this to be a worthy h~nour in consideration of the long and di$tinguished service rendered to Canada by the First Hussars. · ~

Should you have any further questions or require addl~i

. . . . ' . .

' •, I ~·~ _'." :

:· 1. '

BevShlp . ' ...: ·. :_ Lambton-Kent-Middlesex . , ..: · . •. , - .. ·. I ,.r: ·:-·._.

. . . ,· ;, ·_· .. ·. . . ·' ; ...:j -·· .. ~ -· ·. .·•. ·_ . ._ ,. .- :- ~- _: :, _ • ' : .. - ·~~ : ..-. ,·· ;.,', :··. . -· .":...

' :; .: ... :~ .: . ; . '

-~..

Page 124 of 238 Agenda Info Item C ­ November 19, 2012

Ontario LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

BOB BAILEY, M.P.P. 0 Queen's Park Office: 0 Constituency Office: Sarnia·lambton Rm 203, N.W. 836 Upper canada Drive, Legislative Building Samia, Ontario Queen's Park N7W 1A4 Toronto ON M7A l AS Tel: 519·33HXl51 Tel: 416·325·171 5 Fax: 51 9·337·3246 Fax: 416·325·1852 March 28, 20 11 www.bobbaileympp.com

Mr. Peter Wood, CD RSM (retired) Vice President, First Hussars Association 985 Maxwell St. Apt. 482 Sarnia, ON N7S 4G2

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to express'my strong support to the military Regiment, The First Hussars, in their important mandate to perpetuate the memory of those who have gone before if! their Regiment by renaming the parts of County Road #22 (London Line) and County Highway #22 to "The First Hussars Commemorative Highway".

The First Hussars proudly served Canada and southwestern Ontario for more 1han 155 years, based out of London, Ontario, and since i 964 with a detached squadron in Sarnia, Ontario. I feel with their glorious history as a preced~nt, the renaming of the Highway is worthy of continually promoting the First Hussars

Any support you could provide The First Hussars Association with their request would be greatly appreciated.

Bob Bailey, M.P.P. Sarnia Lambton

BB/ja

Page 125 of 238 Agenda Info Item C ­ November 19, 2012

Ontario LEGISLATIVE ------ASSEMBLY ------Monte McNaughton, MPP Constituency Offices: Queen's Pai'K Office: Lambtoo-Kent-Middlesex 0 81 Front Street West CJ 360 James Street 0 Rm. 202 NW. Legislative Bldg. Strathroy, ON N7G 1X6 Wallaceburg, ON NBA 2N5 Toronto, ON M7A 1AB Tel. (519) 245-8696 Tel. (519) 627 -1 015 Tel. (416) 325-3362 Fax (519) 245-8697 Fax (519) 627-7174 Fax (41 6) 325-3275

October 18, 2012

Mr. Peter Wood, CD Vice President, First Hussars Association 985 Maxwell Street, Suite 402 Sarnia, ON N7S 402

Dear Mr. Wood.

Thank you for contacting my office regarding your proposal to honour The First Hussars by renaming the parts of County Road #22 (london Line) and County Highway #22 to 'The First Hussars Commemorative Highway'.

As you know, The Hussars have both a long and storied history in my riding of Lambton-Kent­ Middlesex and indeed throughout Canada. From the Boer War through both World Wars, in Peacekeeping Missions, and the recent operations in Afghanistan, the Hussars and associated . units have striven to protect and serve Canada. Accordingly, I am pleased to support this proposal.

I encourage the municipalities and counties along County Road #22, from London to Sarnia, to endorse your proposal to recognize this stretch of highway as, 'The First Hussars Commemorative Highway'. I believe this to be a worthy honour in consideration of the long and distinguished service rendered to Canada.

I wish you much success and I thank the members of The First Hussars Association for their distinguished ar.d dedicated military and commur.:ty service.

Yo~urs sincer~ely , /!),----)/}/ /? ~ ' / ./ .(/ ,_ ./ .: 1/ / . I ·~,;; Monte McNaughton, MPP · Lam bton-Kent -Middlesex

Page 126 of 238 Agenda Info Item D ­ November 19, 2012

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA People Serving People

CITY SOLICITOR/CLERK’S DEPARTMENT

OPEN SESSION REPORT

TO: Mayor Bradley and Members of Sarnia City Council

FROM: Brian Knott, City Solicitor/ Clerk

DATE: November 13, 2012

SUBJECT: Update on Miniature Pigs

Recommendations: For Council’s Information.

Background & Comments: At a previous meeting of Council, a request was received from a breeder of rare miniature pets to allow miniature pet pigs as household pets within the City of Sarnia. This request was referred to staff for a report back to Council.

Upon review, the keeping of such pet pigs would not presently be allowed under the City’s Zoning bylaw. When the comprehensive Zoning Bylaw is being updated, this could be reviewed in conjunction with the general Animal Control Bylaw provisions.

Consultation: The Planning and Building Department and Animal Control staff were consulted in preparation of this report.

Financial Implications: There are no financial costs arising from this report.

Reviewed by: Approved by:

Brian W. Knott Lloyd Fennell City Solicitor/Clerk City Manager

This report was prepared by R. Brad Loosley, Deputy City Clerk.

Attachment(s): None

Page 127 of 238 Page 128 of 238 Agenda Info Item E ­ November 19, 2012

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA People Serving People

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

OPEN SESSION REPORT

TO: Mayor Bradley and Members of Sarnia City Council

FROM: J.P. André Morin, P.Eng., City Engineer

DATE: November 5, 2012

SUBJECT: Oil Recovery System at Lake Chipican

Recommendation: This report is for Council’s information only.

Background: On October 11, 2012, oil was discovered in a monitoring well in Canatara Park that was previously oil-free. The monitoring well is adjacent to the channel of water connecting Lake Chipican to the duck pond in the Animal Farm.

The Ministry of the Environment was immediately notified in accordance with the Remedial Action Plan and Golder Associates, the City’s consultant for the monitoring of the Michigan Avenue Landfill, prepared a work plan to prevent further migration of the oil product. The work plan involves the installation of 2 extraction wells to remove the oil product, and 3 monitoring wells to monitor migration, and 250 feet of steel sheet piling installed in a southwest direction from Lake Chipican to the Animal Farm parking lot. The action plan was subsequently accepted by the Ministry.

Comments: Golder Associates’ attributes the migrating oil with the low water levels in Lake Chipican. As the water level in the channel interconnecting Lake Chipican to the duck pond dropped over the summer months, the oil gradually migrated closer to the monitoring well.

City Staff worked with Golder Associates to procure contractors for well drilling and driving of the sheet piling in a timely manner. The 5 wells were installed on November 2nd at a total cost of $4283.00 plus HST. Three contractors were invited to bid on the sheet piling but only 2 bids were

Page 129 of 238 Agenda Info Item E ­ November 19, 2012

received. The lowest price, as submitted by Gordon’s Marine, is $72,000.00 plus HST.

This work was authorized under an emergency purchase order.

Consultation: The Operations Manager and Purchasing Agent were consulted in the preparation of this report.

Financial Implications: Funding for this project, in the amount of $76,283.00 plus HST, will come from the Capital Reserve Fund. This fund has a current balance of $1,152,000.

Reviewed by: Approved by:

J.P. André Morin, P.Eng. Lloyd Fennell City Engineer City Manager

This report was prepared by Bryan Prouse, P.Eng., Operations Manager

Attachment(s): None

Page 130 of 238 Agenda Info Item F ­ November 19, 2012

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA People Serving People

PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

OPEN SESSION REPORT

TO: Mayor Bradley and Members of Sarnia City Council

FROM: Kim Bresee, Director of Planning and Building

DATE: November 12th, 2012

SUBJECT: Discharge of Sarnia Downtown Building and Façade Improvement Loan No. 062/07 136 - 140 Christina Street North, Sarnia ______

Recommendation: It is recommended:

1. THAT staff is hereby authorized by Council to register a Discharge of Mortgage for the Sarnia Downtown Building and Façade Improvement Loan Program for property located at 136 – 140 Christina Street North, Sarnia;

AND THAT that the Mayor and Clerk are authorized to sign any necessary documents relating thereto.

Background & Comments: An application submitted by 687935 Ontario Ltd. & Poore Investments Inc. owner of 136 - 140 Christina Street North was approved in 2007 for funding of $60,000 under the Sarnia Downtown Building and Façade Improvement Loan Program for the City of Sarnia. The property has been sold and the City received a cheque on Friday November 9th, 2012, for the full payment of the balance of the mortgage and a request that the mortgage be discharged. The City can now discharge the mortgage against the property.

Consultation: The matter was discussed with the owner and the City’s legal staff.

Page 131 of 238 Agenda Info Item F ­ November 19, 2012

Financial Implications: The owner has provided monies for registration of the Discharge of Mortgage and the legal administration fee. There will be no cost to the City.

Prepared by: Approved by:

Kim Bresee Lloyd Fennell Director of Planning and Building City Manager

Attachment(s): None

Page 132 of 238 Agenda Info Item G ­ November 19, 2012

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA People Serving People

FINANCE DEPARTMENT

OPEN SESSION REPORT

TO: Mayor Bradley and Members of Sarnia City Council

FROM: Brian McKay, CA Director of Finance

DATE: November 9, 2012

SUBJECT: Use of Enbridge Discharge Revenue in 2013 Draft Sewer Budget

Recommendation: For Council information only.

Background: Council, during the 2013 Draft Budget presentation, asked for information on the Enbridge discharge revenue being received by the City in 2012. Specifically, Council has asked for a report outlining the impacts of applying this revenue to the 2013 Draft Budget in order to mitigate a potential sewer charge increase of 7.84%. Council asked for the financial implications of applying 100% of the Enbridge revenue to the budget in 2013. Council also asked for the financial implications of applying 50% of the Enbridge revenue in 2013. This report provides information on the overall percentage impacts with using the Enbridge revenue in the 2013 Sewer Budget. This report also outlines concerns that staff would have on using one-time revenues in order to balance or lower on-going budget impacts.

Comments: As of November 9th, 2012 the City had billed Enbridge $916,726 for its discharge water. The draft combined Sewer Budget which includes the sanitary sewer and the storm sewer requires user charges of $15,456,315 in order to balance the expenditure needs in 2013. The Enbridge revenue would be used to offset the overall sewer charge revenue needed. Currently an increase in sewer revenue of 7.84% is necessary to balance the overall sewer needs in 2013. This increase is a result of removing the storm sewer from the Operating Budget and Operating Levy and combining it with the sanitary sewer. A future report will be provided to Council on the overall storm and sanitary sewer issue.

Page 133 of 238 Agenda Info Item G ­ November 19, 2012

If Council were to apply the $916,726 of Enbridge revenue to the 2013 Draft Sewer Budget it would lower the overall sewer charge revenue requirements to $14,539,589 which would then be an increase of 1.45% over the 2012 sewer revenue.

If half of the Enbridge money was used in the 2013 Sewer Budget it would lower the overall revenue needs by $458,363. Once applied this would translate into an increase in sewer revenue of 4.65% in 2013.

The application of this revenue in whole or part for 2013 into the sewer budget would be a one-time revenue inflow. This amount could not be repeated for the 2014 and future budgets. This impact would cause a one year deferral of any sewer charge changes. Staff over the past couple of years has moved away from one-time revenue items to balance the Operating, Water, and Sewer budgets and this practice has been adopted by Council during annual budget deliberations. It does not represent good financial policy to balance on-going annual expenditures with a one-time revenue item.

Staff was going to recommend to Council that this funding be committed for sewer work, specifically the Bright’s Grove sewage lagoons and the reconstruction of the Bedford Pumping Station. These projects represent multi-million dollar capital needs that the City is currently researching and will be included in the capital budget in the next several years. These two projects will form a substantial amount of the City’s Capital Budgets in 2014, 2015 and 2016. The Enbridge revenue was to be used as the initial financing or revenue source for these projects. In lieu of senior level government grant programs the City needs to be very diligent in applying one-time revenue streams, such as being received during the Enbridge discharge contract, for large scale projects whether they occur in the Water, Sewer, or Operating budgets.

It is staff’s strong recommendation that revenue earned from the Enbridge project be committed to capital, specifically for the Bright’s Grove sewage lagoon and the Bedford Pumping Station in the upcoming City’s Capital Budgets.

Consultation: No consultation was required in the preparation of this report.

Page 134 of 238 Agenda Info Item G ­ November 19, 2012

Financial Implications: The financial implications of applying the Enbridge discharge revenue to the 2013 Draft Sewer Budget are listed in the report above. The amount of money received from Enbridge as at November 9th, 2012 is $916,726. It is anticipated that this amount will continue to grow through the life of the contract with Enbridge and should exceed $1,000,000 by the end of the process. This one-time revenue source is critical to the initial funding of the Bright’s Grove sewage lagoon and the Bedford Pump Station projects.

Prepared by: Approved by:

Brian McKay, CA Lloyd Fennell Director of Finance City Manager

Attachment(s): None

Page 135 of 238 Page 136 of 238 Agenda Info Item H ­ November 19, 2012

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA People Serving People

CITY SOLICITOR/CLERK’S OFFICE

OPEN SESSION REPORT

TO: Mayor Bradley and Members of Sarnia City Council

FROM: Brian W. Knott City Solicitor/Clerk

DATE: November 2, 2012

SUBJECT: Humane Society Agreement – Pound Services

Recommendation: It is recommended:

1. That Sarnia City Council approve a 2 year extension to an agreement with the Sarnia and District Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for pound services and that the City Solicitor/Clerk be authorized to execute the extension agreement.

Background & Comments: The City of Sarnia has had an agreement with Sarnia and District Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for a number of years with the most recent agreement ending on ending December 31st, 2012. The working relationship between the City and the Humane Society has been a positive one, and there have been no issues with respect to the services being provided. It is recommended therefor that the contract be extended for a further two years.

Consultation: A meeting was held with City Staff and Mr. Dylan Powell, Executive Director of SPCA, and it was agreed, subject to Council approval, to extend the current agreement for an additional 2 years.

Financial Implications: The 2013 budgeted costs for pound services is $102,300.00, which is the same as 2012. The rate for 2014 will be $102,300.00 plus the Consumer Price Index on general goods and services as estimated by Statistics Canada in 2013.

Page 137 of 238 Agenda Info Item H ­ November 19, 2012

Reviewed by: Approved by:

Brian W. Knott Lloyd Fennell City Solicitor/Clerk City Manager

This report was prepared by R. Brad Loosley, Acting Deputy City Clerk.

Attachment(s): None

Page 138 of 238 Agenda Info Item I ­ November 19, 2012

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA People Serving People

FINANCE DEPARTMENT

OPEN SESSION REPORT

TO: Mayor Bradley and Members of Sarnia City Council

FROM: Brian McKay, CA Director of Finance

DATE: November 9, 2012

SUBJECT: Municipal Tools to Encourage Rental of Vacant Units in the City of Sarnia

Recommendation: For Council information only.

Background: The Finance department researched alternatives to assist property owners with vacant commercial real estate space in filling this space with tenants. The number of tax dollars being used annually to fund the vacancy tax rebate program within the City of Sarnia is increasing. Finance staff has looked into the possibility of municipal programs that could provide incentive to assist landlords with finding tenants for vacant commercial space. The City of Sarnia Finance department researched what other municipalities across Ontario do when dealing with vacant real estate space. A survey on Survey Monkey was undertaken by City of Sarnia staff to gather this information.

Comments: A survey from City of Sarnia Finance staff asked various municipalities across Ontario if they have incentive programs that try to assist landlords with finding tenants. This survey related directly to the increasing use of the vacancy rebate tax program within the City of Sarnia and focused on vacant commercial real estate space. In total 13 municipalities responded to the survey. None of the 13 responding municipalities had any incentive programs that tried to assist landlords with finding tenants.

The survey also asked if any municipalities have disincentive programs when buildings are vacant for an extended period of time. One municipality does

Page 139 of 238 Agenda Info Item I ­ November 19, 2012

use a disincentive program to try and encourage landlords of vacant commercial space to have these buildings filled. The one municipality that did use the disincentive program made use of their overall development charges by-law. In their case, if a building is vacant for over 5 years and a building permit is required then the owner must pay development charges. The development charges on the property reset after a period of 5 years in this municipality. The City of Sarnia does use a similar development charge process for its industrial properties.

As a result of this survey City staff will research this development charge policy for commercial buildings when the next development charge by-law is completed. City staff will begin working on the next development charge by- law during 2013 for a 2014 approval by Council.

Consultation: Finance staff consulted various municipalities across the Province of Ontario on the incentive and disincentive programs for attempting to fill vacant commercial space in the City of Sarnia. The survey looked at various programs that other municipalities may be running to assist in this area.

Financial Implications: There were no financial implications for carrying out this study. Staff will look at the possibility of including some policy or procedure in the next development charges by-law to be approved by Council in 2014 that may allow Council and City staff to address this vacancy issue.

Prepared by: Approved by:

Brian McKay, CA Lloyd Fennell Director of Finance City Manager

Attachment(s): None

Page 140 of 238 Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012 0 Ombudsman

();.;·J,\J\Io--, W/,.,rul!HJC. ~lECf!:~VIED (:JilL'- Ill C:\JU)J- 1)1 L'(J>.:JAI

Re: Annual Report on Investigations of Closed Municipal Meetings ------

To the Clerk and Council,

I am enclosing a copy of my first Annual Report on my Office's investigations of closed municipal meetings for the period from April!, 2011 to August 31,2012. As you are aware, in accordance with the Municipal Act, 2001 and the Ombudsman Act, the Ontario Ombudsman investigates these complaints in all municipalities except those that have appointed another investigator.

Since 2008, my Open Meeting Law Enforcement Team (OMLET) has acted as a dedicated resource for reviewing and investigating closed meeting complaints, as well as educating the public and municipalities about open meeting requirements. In the period covered by this report, OMLET handled 128 cases in the 191 municipalities where we are the investigator.

We are providing our report to all municipal councils across Ontario in the interest of raising awareness of the open meeting requirements and best practices. We have also enclosed pocket­ sized cards for council members that include "tips for closing meetings" and can be used during meetings as a quick reference guide to the requirements.

The report and other information about municipal meeting investigations can be found on our website- www.ombudsman.on.ca. Our staff can also provide general information on the open meeting requirements and complaint process -we can be reached at 1-800-263-1830 or via email at [email protected].

If you would like additional copies of this report or the cards, please contact our Director of Communications, Linda Williamson, at lwilliamson(alombudsman.on.ca, or 416-586-3426.

Yours truly,

Andre Marin Ombudsman

Encl.

Page 141 of 238 Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

Open Meeting Law Enforcement Team ANNUAL REPORT

Page 142 of 238 Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

Under the Sunshine Law – tips for closing meetings

R During any informal gathering of members of council, committees or local boards: • Take care not to enter into discussions that will further decision-making or lay the groundwork for decisions.

R Before proceeding into a closed session, consider: • Was notice of the meeting – and of the closed session – provided to the public in advance? • Has a resolution been passed in open session, stating that a closed session will be held, along with reference to the subject to be discussed and the applicable exception under the Municipal Act, 2001? • For “education or training” sessions, is the subject matter to be discussed appropriate for this exception and does the resolution specifically cite section 239(3.1) of the Municipal Act? • Do all the issues to be considered in camera fall within one or more of the exceptions outlined in s. 239? While in closed session, consider: • Are detailed records – or ideally audio or R video recordings – being kept? • Are all the matters being discussed authorized in the resolution to proceed in camera? • Are any votes taken only for the purpose of procedural matters or for giving directions or instructions to officers, employees or agents, as authorized by s. 239(6)?

R When reconvening in open session, consider: • Has as much information as possible been reported to the public about what occurred during the closed session (without undermining the reason for going in camera)?

When in doubt, open the meeting.

If you have a concern about a closed meeting, contact OMLET at 1-800-263-1830 or [email protected]. We can provide general information on the open meeting requirements. To make a complaint, complete a complaint form at www.ombudsman.on.ca or call 1-800-263-1830. Copies of this card, or the Sunshine Law Handbook, can be obtained by phone or email as above, or at the Office of the Ontario Ombudsman, 483 Bay Street, 10th Floor, South Tower, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2C9

Open Meeting Law Enforcement Team

Page 143 of 238 Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

October 30, 2012

The Honourable Dave Levac Speaker Legislative Assembly Province of Ontario Queen’s Park

Dear Mr. Speaker,

I am pleased to submit my Annual Report on the work of my Open Meeting Law Enforcement Team (OMLET) for the period of April 1, 2011 to August 31, 2012, pursuant to section 11 of the Ombudsman Act, so that you may table it before the Legislative Assembly.

Yours truly,

André Marin Ombudsman

Bell Trinity Square 483 Bay Street, 10th Floor, South Tower Toronto, Ontario M5G 2C9

Telephone: 416-586-3300 Complaints Line: 1-800-263-1830 Fax: 416-586-3485 TTY: 1-866-411-4211

Website: www.ombudsman.on.ca Facebook: Ontario Ombudsman Twitter: @Ont_Ombudsman

1 Page 144 of 238 Office of the Ombudsman Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

2 Page 145 of 238 2011-2012 OMLET Annual Report Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

Table of Contents

Ombudsman’s Message...... 5 Holding the Doors Open...... 5 Truth and Consequences...... 8 How We Work...... 9 Free and Confidential...... 10 Fast, Fast Relief...... 11 When We Investigate...... 11 Lawyering Up...... 12 A Chance to Comment...... 13 Getting the Word Out...... 14 For the Record...... 16 Watchdogs Have Teeth...... 17

Year in Review: Themes Emerging from Investigations – April 1, 2011 to August 31, 2012...... 18 Out to Lunch or Against the Law?...... 19 Blinded to the Light...... 20 Whose Meeting Is It?...... 20 This Means You, Too...... 20 Exceptional Circumstances...... 21 Security of property...... 21 Personal matters about an identifiable individual...... 22 Education or training...... 22 Litigation or potential litigation...... 22 A matter under another Act ...... 23 Voting in the Dark...... 23 Keeping the Record Straight...... 23 Communications and Outreach...... 24 Case Summaries...... 26 Township of Adelaide-Metcalfe...... 26 Town of Amherstburg...... 26 City of Clarence-Rockland...... 27 Municipality of Grey Highlands...... 27 City of Hamilton...... 28 United Townships of Head, Clara and Maria...... 28 Municipality of Lambton Shores...... 29 Township of Larder Lake...... 29 City of London...... 30 Town of Midland...... 30 City of Greater Sudbury...... 31

Your Feedback...... 32 Appendix...... 35 Complaints Received and Violations of the Sunshine Law found, by Municipality...... 35 Municipalities Where the Ombudsman is the Investigator for Closed Meeting Complaints...... 36 Most Commonly Used Reasons For Closing Meetings...... 38

3 Page 146 of 238 Office of the Ombudsman Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

4 Page 147 of 238 2011-2012 OMLET ANNUAL REPORT Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

Ombudsman’s Message

I am pleased to issue this first Annual Report on my Office’s work in enforcing Ontario’s open meeting law, a responsibility we took on as of January 1, 2008.

Why a separate report? Because our experience, in our fifth year of enforcing the “Sunshine Law,” has shown that it clearly deserves its own spotlight.

Across the province, we have seen how passionate Ontarians are about transparency in their local governments. Yet we have seen a marked disparity between municipalities in how they interpret the rules. Some are strictly accountable to their citizens and embrace openness in their operations. Some are shockingly secretive, suspicious and resentful of the very idea they can be investigated. And many are well- intentioned but baffled by the complexities of the law. P hoto by B ria n W iller It is time to shine a strong light on the process itself, to answer persistent questions from the public and elected representatives – all in the spirit of the law. This report provides an opportunity to review the state of the “Sunshine Law” in Ontario, to focus on the best and worst practices we have observed in municipalities, and to clarify the open meeting rules and our Office’s investigative procedures.

Holding the Doors Open

Ontario’s “Sunshine Law” evolved slowly.

It has always been the law in Ontario – since before Confederation, in fact – for municipalities to hold regular council meetings that are open to the public. This requirement was eventually expanded to include local boards, as well as special and committee meetings.

But until 2008, the only recourse for enforcement of the open meeting law was through the courts. This was not a realistic option for most citizens, meaning municipal officials were rarely held to account if they closed meetings to the public illegally.

As of January 1, 2008, Ontarians were finally given the right to request investigation of meetings they believed violated the open meeting requirements or municipal procedure by-laws as laid out in the Municipal Act, 2001.*

he fact that we are even setting up the notion Tthat the Ombudsman can look at municipal issues is a bright step forward.

– John Gerretsen, then Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, “ speaking about changing the Municipal Act ”to allow public complaints ‘‘ (quoted in the Hamilton Spectator, June 26, 2006)

* The City of Toronto has the same open meeting obligations under the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

5 Page 148 of 238 Office of the Ombudsman Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

Under the Act, all municipalities must have an investigator for complaints about closed meetings – by default, it is the Ombudsman’s Office, but they can also appoint an investigator of their choice. In addition to investigating complaints about Ontario’s 500-plus provincial governmental organizations, my Office is the investigator for some 191 of Ontario’s 444 municipalities.

Using our existing resources, my Office took on this additional responsibility by establishing a team of investigators, early resolution officers and legal counsel that we call the Open Meeting Law Enforcement Team – or OMLET. The name was intended to be memorable, given that a large part of the team’s work, aside from investigations, involves reaching out to municipal councillors and the public and raising awareness about the Sunshine Law.

We have received more than 500 complaints about municipal meetings since the start of 2008. Of those, 313 were about municipalities where we are the investigator; the rest were from municipalities that had appointed someone else, and were referred accordingly.

The good news is that most of these complaints could be resolved quickly, without need for a full investigation. And where investigations were warranted, in most cases we found municipalities were correctly following the Sunshine Law. When they closed meetings to the public, they did so only in the narrow circumstances allowed under Section 239 of the Act.*

he new law is doing what it was supposed to. TThere’s more general awareness that politicians have do to their business in public, councillors are getting called on it when they don’t, and promises “ are being made to do better in the future.” ‘‘ – Editorial, Niagara Falls Review, June 7, 2008

This report covers our busiest period yet – from April 1, 2011 to August 31, 2012. In that time, we received 128 complaints and found 45 violations of the Sunshine Law – including meetings that should not have been closed to the public and numerous violations of the Municipal Act, procedural contraventions and poor meeting practices. These ranged from cases where councils illegally voted behind closed doors (in one case, to raise their own salaries), or where they kept almost no record of what took place in secret.

In several other cases, I found municipal officials strayed too close to the edge of the law, violating the spirit of it, if not the letter. In cases like these – such as when councillors held suspicious but not illegal gatherings over lunch or breakfast – I offered constructive warnings about avoiding such optics in future. In 34 cases, I suggested the municipality make improvements by adopting best practices.

* Statistics and summaries relating to our municipal investigations from January 1, 2008 to March 31, 2011 can be found in the corresponding Annual Reports on our website at: http://www.ombudsman.on.ca/Resources/Annual-Reports.aspx Reports on individual municipal investigations are on our website under Municipal Investigations: http://www.ombudsman.on.ca/Investigations/Municipal-Meetings/Cases.aspx

6 Page 149 of 238 2011-2012 OMLET Annual Report Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

The issues in these cases and individual summaries are discussed in the Themes and Case Summaries sections of this report.

In all of these cases, whether the law has been breached outright or the municipality’s practices are simply not up to par, I make recommendations and require the municipality to make them public. The focus is not on laying blame but on improving local government transparency by ensuring the law is being upheld and recommending best practices.

My overall impression, midway through our fifth year of doing this work, is frankly mixed.

I believe the Sunshine Law was a significant step toward enhancing the credibility of and public confidence in municipal governments. Blatant violations of the law are relatively rare. But municipal responses to complaints and investigations vary from city to city and town to town. Confusion among councillors about the definition of a “meeting” is still widespread.

There is still a great deal of work and education to be done, and I hope this report helps meet that need.

7 Page 150 of 238 Office of the Ombudsman Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

Truth and Consequences

One of the most misunderstood aspects of our Sunshine Law is the consequence of breaking it – or lack thereof. In this respect, Ontario lags behind jurisdictions in the U.S., whose Sunshine Laws are long established, and much tougher.

As former United States Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once observed, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” In some states, the courts can levy substantial penalties when meetings are closed illegally. In Arizona and Iowa, violations of open meeting laws may result in fines against the responsible officials, as well as removal from office. In Illinois, violation of open meeting requirements is a criminal misdemeanor, carrying a maximum 30 days imprisonment and/or a fine of $1,500.

Ontario has no such penalty. As a closed meeting investigator, I am restricted to reporting the results of my investigations to the municipality, local board or committee at issue, and making recommendations to redress concerns I identify. (The same is true for other investigators that municipalities might appoint in lieu of my Office.)

Municipal officials are free to accept or reject my recommendations. My only power remains the power of moral suasion. Municipalities are required to make my reports available to the public, and elected officials must ultimately answer to voters for their conduct.

wish the legislation had gone a little further and Iput in some penalties [for politicians who break the law].

– Caroline Di Cocco, then MPP for Sarnia-Lambton (L), who proposed “ the private ”member’s bill on open meetings that was partly adopted into the Municipal Act complaints system, quoted in London Free Press, ‘‘ January 8, 2007

The effectiveness of my recommendations rests largely in the willingness of municipal officials to embrace the principles of openness, transparency and accountability reflected in the Sunshine Law.

Some have fully co-operated with our closed meeting investigations, used them as learning opportunities, and improved their practices. The Town of Amherstburg is a good example. After I issued my report Behind Closed Doors in December 2011 – in which I concluded Amherstburg council had repeatedly contravened the law – the town incorporated my recommendations into a new policy for closed meetings.

t was always our intention to comply with the IAct. Transparency and compliance is something we try to do. We’ll attempt to do a better job.

– Mayor Wayne Hurst, Town of Amherstburg, quoted in Windsor Star, ‘‘“ January 11, 2012 ”

8 Page 151 of 238 2011-2012 OMLET Annual Report Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

Such change doesn’t happen overnight. That report marked my second review of closed meetings in Amherstburg – and we reported a third time in July on additional complaints. But in the third case, we found no violations. In fact, I commended town council on its co-operation and improved processes. Amherstburg is a clear illustration of how familiarity with the law and the investigative process leads to better practices and more open government.

Other municipalities have not been so co-operative. Council members and solicitors for the City of Hamilton and the City of London, Ont. have at times been publicly critical of aspects of our investigative process. And the City of Greater Sudbury council proved the least co-operative to date, when 10 of its 13 members refused to be interviewed in our June 2012 investigation.

How We Work

Most of the municipalities we have dealt with since 2008 have appreciated that our Office has straightforward, credible procedures that come with 37 years of experience in overseeing the vast provincial government. Several of those that originally opted out of using our Office as their investigator actually reversed that choice, recognizing that our services are free, fast and effective.

For those who may be unfamiliar with how we work, a brief review is in order.

As an Officer of the Ontario Legislature, I am independent of government. My powers are set out in the Ombudsman Act. We follow basic principles of accessibility, confidentiality, impartiality and investigation that are adhered to by ombudsmen around the world. The services we provide are free of charge to all complainants and municipalities.

ndré Marin’s office has proven extremely Aeffective at investigating issues of maladministration in government, agencies, boards and commissions… Best of all, the “ Ombudsman does not charge an annual retainer, or a daily fee, or expenses. ‘‘ – Editorial, Sault Star, November 28, 2007”

Throughout my time as Ombudsman (I was appointed in 2005 and reappointed in 2010 for a second five-year term), the provincial government has overwhelmingly adopted and implemented my recommendations and we have received excellent co- operation from the myriad Ontario agencies we have investigated.

The same has been true of most municipalities. However, in some cases, OMLET staff and I have run into resistance from municipal councillors, mayors, clerks and solicitors who have questioned our longtime practices, and we have faced protracted legal posturing and wrangling in what should be straightforward investigations.

By clarifying publicly how we do things, I hope this report can help streamline the process for all concerned.

9 Page 152 of 238 Office of the Ombudsman Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

Free and Confidential

Anyone can complain to the Ombudsman about a provincial service or a closed municipal meeting. There is no charge to complain, because there should be no barrier to discourage complainants. Our services are free to all complainants and to all municipalities.

In this, we stand in contrast to the investigators hired by some municipalities, who charge a retainer and hourly fee for investigations (upwards of $160 per hour).

he Ombudsman doesn’t cost any money. T[Local Authority Services] will cost $1,250 per day… This is like hiring a consultant when you “ don’t need a consultant. – Gunter Neumann, then councillor for the Town of Meaford, quoted in ‘‘ Meaford Express, November 29, 2007”

Some municipalities also charge a fee to anyone who complains about a closed meeting; in some cases it is refunded if the complaint proves to be warranted. Refund or not, this goes strictly against the principles of ombudsmanry and, in my view, the spirit of the Sunshine Law. There should be no financial barrier to making complaints.

All complaints to my Office are strictly confidential. This is a hallmark of ombudsman practice across Canada and throughout the world, and is enshrined in the Ombudsman Act. Everyone must feel free to complain without fear of reprisal. Their identities are protected and the investigation is conducted in private.

Anyone can complain about a closed municipal meeting; the complainant does not necessarily have to be a resident of the municipality. Complainants since 2008 have included private citizens, members of interest groups, journalists and even municipal staff and councillors themselves. But no matter who it is, the complainant’s identity is not germane to the single issue at stake: Was there a closed meeting and was it within the Sunshine Law rules or not? Our findings are wholly based on the facts of the case, not the identity of the complainant.

Confidentiality not only protects complainants from attack and reprisal, it ensures the process is apolitical and allows my Office, as an independent and objective investigator, to determine the merit of the complaint without the case being influenced by the personalities involved.

Despite this reality, some municipal officials have publicly decried this practice. In March 2012, some councillors for the City of London, Ont. were upset that they could not be told who complained about them gathering for lunch prior to an important council budget meeting. They insisted they had a “right to face our accuser” and disparaged us for investigating “anonymous” complaints. They suggested that the complaints might be politically motivated on the part of “sore losers” on council over some past grievance.

Similar inflammatory and intemperate remarks have been made by other councillors since 2008. Clearly, this behaviour flies in the face of the principles of accountability and transparency embodied in the Sunshine Law.

10 Page 153 of 238 2011-2012 OMLET Annual Report Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

Indeed, these councillors’ disparaging remarks only serve to reinforce the need for protecting complainants’ identities, so no one is deterred from coming forward and their motives are not publicly maligned.

Fast, Fast Relief

Whenever possible – whether it’s a complaint about a provincial agency or a closed municipal meeting – we try to resolve matters through preliminary fact-gathering and communication with the people involved, without resorting to a formal investigation and the full range of our powers.

OMLET is no exception – the team resolved 50% of all complaints within two months in municipalities where the Ombudsman is the investigator.

Quick resolution of a complaint benefits everyone. It is part of how all ombudsmen operate, and is overwhelmingly welcomed by the provincial organizations and municipalities we oversee.

was quite amazed how quickly [the Ombudsman’s] Istaff could grasp the complexity of the subject. – Mayor Ray Millar, Tiny Township, quote in Midland Free Press, “ December 29, 2011 ”

‘‘It was therefore quite baffling when, in January 2012, the City of Hamilton opposed this approach after we resolved two cases through informal contact with city officials. The city’s then solicitor criticized this practice in a published report, despite its demonstrated efficiency. I remain hopeful that cities will appreciate in future that, where warranted, early case resolution can be an expeditious, non-adversarial and cost-effective process.

When We Investigate

If my Office launches a formal investigation of a closed meeting complaint, it is because we have reviewed the issue and available facts, and determined that a full inquiry is necessary to ensure that the municipality has complied with the law. The complainants are not “anonymous” – their identities are known to our office but protected.

Not all complaints result in a full investigation; in fact, few do. We have discretion not to investigate when we consider it unnecessary or improper, including if we determine that a complaint is frivolous or vexatious.

When we do investigate, it is after a thorough review to determine that the issue is serious. And although many OMLET investigations ultimately do not find any violation of the Sunshine Law, that does not mean the complaints lacked merit or that the investigations were not justified. In fact, many such investigations have proven to be very constructive, uncovering less-than-best practices that municipalities willingly improved.

11 Page 154 of 238 Office of the Ombudsman Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

t shows that someone is watching. The ‘same Iold’ no longer applies. Individuals will be keeping politicians honest.

– Paul Tetley, residents’ association president, quoted in ‘‘“ Hamilton Community News, February 23,” 2012 Our investigations are evidence-based. We review any record, notice or documentation relating to the closed meeting in question, along with the municipality’s procedure by-law. We interview those who were present to determine exactly what was said behind closed doors and whether or not the meeting fell within the exemptions outlined in the Municipal Act. Our investigators are experienced and professional, and my findings are based purely on the facts that are gathered in this process.

Lawyering Up

Despite the lack of penalties or legal consequences for violating the Sunshine Law, some municipal officials have seemed determined to view our OMLET investigations as adversarial in nature. In several cases, councillors reflexively insisted that they would not be interviewed for our investigations without their own lawyer present. They – and in some cases, municipal lawyers – adopted an antagonistic stance, threw up all sorts of technical roadblocks, and slowed investigations to a glacial pace.

In April 2012, City of London, Ont. council went so far as to approve reimbursement of any legal fees paid by councillors who sought legal representation during our interviews about their lunch meeting – although in the end, none took up this offer. One, however, publicly likened the investigation experience to being in a “police state.”

My investigations are not adversarial or prosecutorial. They are simply fact-finding exercises. It is completely unnecessary for witnesses to be represented by lawyers during Ombudsman investigations. We do hundreds of interviews in provincial investigations each year with no lawyers present. There is no right to a lawyer in such circumstances, as the witness is never detained or facing arrest. There is no individual interest at stake that would warrant legal representation.

Then there is the question of the municipality’s own lawyer. In our investigation of several closed meetings by council for the City of Greater Sudbury in late 2011, all council members initially asked that the city solicitor be present in their interviews to represent them. We did not allow this – for good reason.

Under the Ombudsman Act, my investigations must be carried out in private. Consistent with our Act, and in order to protect the integrity of our process, we do not permit municipal representatives, including legal counsel acting on behalf of a municipality, to be present during our witness interviews.

12 Page 155 of 238 2011-2012 OMLET Annual Report Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

Our interview practice encourages witnesses, including those wishing to “blow the whistle” on questionable closed meetings, to be candid and open with our investigators, and also minimizes the potential for outside influence on testimony, whether consciously or unconsciously. A city solicitor present at such an interview would be conflicted – unable to represent both the individual’s interests and the city’s interests.

In the Sudbury case, despite being repeatedly advised about this practice, only three of the 13 council members and the city clerk agreed to be interviewed; the rest refused to proceed without the city’s solicitor. It was the worst failure to co-operate I have seen.

t’s ridiculous to bring lawyers to an IOmbudsman’s investigation, as Marin observed. His office does not arrest or charge people, nor does it prosecute anyone. In such a case, Marin “ simply concludes whether a meeting should have been held in public. Why would the city need to ‘‘ tie up its lawyers for such a simple procedure? – Brian MacLeod, Sudbury Star, September 1, 2012 ”

Fortunately, most municipalities have co-operated fully with us since 2008. Some have even shared material with us that was subject to solicitor-client privilege – even though they are entitled not to – because they realized it was in the public interest, and there was no risk of improper disclosure. My staff and I are bound by the Ombudsman Act to keep such information confidential. We are literally sworn to secrecy. If we review a closed meeting where legal advice was rendered, the privileged information itself will not be released. We simply report that we reviewed the information and concluded that the closed meeting was – or was not – properly held.

A Chance to Comment

Consistent with the Ombudsman Act, when I issue a report on an investigation, my Office gives relevant officials an opportunity to review and comment on my preliminary findings, conclusions and recommendations before the report is finalized and made public. This goes for OMLET investigations as well.

Prior to receiving a copy of a preliminary report, officials must sign a pledge to ensure the confidentiality and integrity of our investigative process is preserved. They must keep the report confidential and it may only be viewed and discussed amongst others who have signed the undertaking. The preliminary report remains the property of my Office, cannot be copied and must be returned by a set date.

13 Page 156 of 238 Office of the Ombudsman Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

This process ensures the confidentiality provisions of the Ombudsman Act are respected, while at the same time allowing the organization that has been investigated an opportunity to comment on the preliminary draft before a final report is released.

Although hundreds of provincial organizations and most municipalities have had no issue with this process, some municipal officials have declined to accept my preliminary reports on closed meetings because of technical procedural concerns. A few have resisted based on their (or their lawyers’) interpretation of access-to- information requirements. My position on these matters was set out in my April 2009 report Pirating Our Property, which resulted from a closed meeting investigation in the City of Oshawa. In short, my view, and that of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, is that absolutely nothing in the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act prevents municipalities from complying with our preliminary report process, and we expect them to do so. If municipal officials decline, I issue my final report without their input.

he stand the ombudsman has taken is very Timportant. He acts as a safeguard of the public’s right to be informed about the workings of government. He could have chosen to ignore the “ City’s antics rather than expose them to the light of public scrutiny, but in doing so he would have ‘‘ abandoned his responsibility to the citizens of Ontario and acquiesced to political bullying. – Joanne Burghardt, Oshawa This Week, April 29, 2009 ”

Getting the Word Out

When I issue a final report containing my analysis of the facts, my findings and recommendations, I send it to the municipality to be made public. In the interest of transparency and efficiency, I ask municipalities to make my reports public as soon as possible, and no later than at their next council meeting. OMLET staff follow up with municipalities to make sure this is done.

Once the municipality has publicized my report – usually by placing it on its website – my Office also publicizes it by posting it online at www.ombudsman.on.ca. As with all of our reports and public activities, we use various means of communications to make sure the news is disseminated to as many Ontarians as possible.

Today, this means using social media. In addition to putting out news releases as warranted, speaking to journalists and posting reports on our website, my Office uses Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other types of social media to engage with the public. We have done this for several years to keep stakeholders abreast of our work, keeping people informed of the status of our investigations. OMLET cases are no exception.

14 Page 157 of 238 2011-2012 OMLET Annual Report Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

e is probably Tweeting about this right now,’ ‘Hsaid [Councillor Brad] Clark of the social media-savvy ombudsman. “ – Hamilton Spectator, February 4, 2012”

‘‘Ombudsman reports are meant to be read. Since my only power is moral suasion, it is crucial that I inform the public about my investigations and recommendations. Municipalities always have the option to disagree with me, but a public report puts the onus on them to explain why. In most cases – provincial and municipal – my recommendations have been accepted.

Communicating what we can about the process – while respecting confidentiality – adds to the credibility and transparency of our work. We have found social media to be ideal for this.

Since 2009, I have personally operated my Office’s Twitter account (it states: “André Marin tweets personally unless otherwise noted”). I find it an invaluable tool for informing and engaging the public on all sorts of issues. Municipal cases in particular generate a lot of discussion on Twitter, where many Ontario communities have active users who follow local government closely.

I let people know via Twitter about developments that wouldn’t warrant a traditional press release – for example, that we have sent investigators to a particular municipality, or that we have completed a preliminary report. The response to this has been very positive – except for a few councillors like those for the City of Greater Sudbury, who were outraged when I tweeted about our investigation there in June 2012. One councillor even cited my tweets as a reason for refusing to be interviewed.

Those familiar with Twitter know that tweets are typically brief, informal and direct. It is a highly efficient way of communicating, accepted by hundreds of millions, and I encourage municipal officials to embrace it as part of the modern media landscape. Social media are here to stay until even more innovative methods of communication take their place, and I remain committed to using them.

15 Page 158 of 238 Office of the Ombudsman Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

For the Record

Municipalities could also embrace technology to streamline the entire closed meeting investigative process – by simply making audio or video recordings of closed meetings.

The Municipal Act states that councils, committees and local boards “shall record” the proceedings. Traditionally, this has been done through written minutes. Over the past four years, I have found municipal record-keeping to be one of the biggest impediments to quick and thorough investigations. There is no consistency in record- keeping practices across the province – it varies from good to bad to non-existent, depending on the city, town or village.

Some Ontario municipalities do audio or video record their open meetings, and/or have them broadcast publicly. This approach helps to ensure that there is a clear, comprehensive and accessible meeting record. However, when meetings are closed, all too often we have only scant and cryptic minutes to work with. In many municipalities, the clerk is left scribbling random notes. In some, no official closed meeting minutes are even retained.

This means OMLET investigators are regularly forced to subject councillors to extensive interviews, and then to piece together their often conflicting, incomplete and uncertain recollections of what went on behind closed doors. It is time-consuming, and often needlessly so.

Audio or video recording of council meetings should be routine – not just the open sessions, but the closed ones too. This would assist immeasurably in ensuring officials do not stray from the legal requirements once they retreat behind closed doors, and would provide a clear, accessible record for investigators to review. Many investigations would take no longer than the time needed to review the recording – and a great deal fewer interviews would be required.

f we have an audio recording, it provides a Itranscript that can remain on file and simply be handed to the Ombudsman if there is an investigation. I think this provides for incredible transparency. “ – Louise Parkes, then councillor for the City of Oshawa, quoted in ‘‘ Oshawa This Week, March 11, 2012 ” Ithink it’s a brilliant idea. – City of Hamilton Councillor Sam Merulla, quoted in “ Hamilton Spectator, February 24, 2012” This is far from a novel idea. Several U.S. municipalities require audio or video recording of closed meetings, and other jurisdictions have chosen to do it to enhance ‘‘the accountability and transparency of their proceedings. For example, in Illinois, all public bodies must make recordings of all meetings; in Iowa, closed sessions must be audio-recorded; and in Nevada, public bodies must record audio of open and closed meetings or use a court stenographer to transcribe the proceedings.

16 Page 159 of 238 2011-2012 OMLET Annual Report Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

Such a practice is in the interest of all of Ontario’s municipalities. It would demonstrate they are confident they are following the rules, and would inspire community trust in the transparency and accountability of local government. It would also save time and resources for all of us.

I encourage all municipalities to begin audio or video recording closed meetings. I will continue to monitor municipal record-keeping practices closely, and if they do not improve, I will consider recommending that the Ontario government make legislative changes to require it.

Watchdogs Have Teeth

Whether my investigation is provincial or municipal, the last word always remains with the body under investigation. I cannot enforce the implementation of my recommendations. In municipal cases, councils reign supreme.

Not only can they choose not to implement my recommendations, they (unlike provincial bodies) can even choose not to have me as their watchdog.

However, they cannot opt out of the Sunshine Law. The public has the right to complain about closed meetings, and municipalities must ensure those complaints are investigated. They cannot opt out of accountability.

What’s more, if they choose to have the Ombudsman’s Office as their investigator, benefiting from our proven record as free, fast and credible, they cannot opt out of our process. Like the thousands of provincial officials we oversee, they must co-operate with my investigations, as required by the Ombudsman Act. They cannot opt out of co-operating.

And while the Municipal Act carries no penalty, the Ombudsman Act does. Failure to comply with my lawful requirements is a provincial offence, punishable by a fine of up to $500 and/or imprisonment for up to three months. In 37 years, there has never been a prosecution under this provision. I have never exercised my authority to lay charges in response to lack of co-operation, and I would prefer not to do so. But I am prepared to use all available means to ensure co-operation with my investigative process in future, to preserve its integrity and uphold the law.

As Ombudsman, my interest is the public interest – ensuring that municipalities respect the law. Municipal officials must understand that the investigation of public complaints about their meetings is part of the responsibility that comes with their positions in local government.

Ontarians expect all members of local councils, boards and committees, as well as municipal staff and solicitors, to make the Sunshine Law provisions of the Municipal Act work. This can only happen through consistent, rigorous adherence to the principles of openness, transparency and accountability.

ndré Marin has deliberately and methodically Ainterpreted the Act in a manner where we’re going to be open and transparent.

– Councillor Brad Clark, City of Hamilton, quoted in Hamilton Spectator, ‘‘“ January 13, 2012 ” 17 Page 160 of 238 Office of the Ombudsman Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012 Year in Review Themes Emerging from Investigations – April 1, 2011 to August 31, 2012

As of August 31, 2012, the Ombudsman is the closed meeting investigator for 191 of Ontario’s 444 municipalities.

In the time period covered by this report, our Office received 172 closed meeting complaints. Of those, 128 were about municipalities where the Ombudsman is the investigator (the rest were referred accordingly).

The Ombudsman designates the Open Meeting Law Enforcement Team (OMLET) to review and investigate closed meeting complaints. OMLET members also engage in educating the public and municipalities about open meeting requirements.

In investigating so many complaints, we find that common themes emerge, often indicating wider problems with councils flouting or merely misinterpreting the law. Here are the main themes of our investigations in 2011-2012. Individual cases are discussed in the Case Summaries section of this report.

18 Page 161 of 238 2011-2012 OMLET Annual Report Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

Out to Lunch or Against the Law?

During the time period covered by this report, we received complaints about lunch meetings in the Municipality of Grey Highlands and City of London, and a breakfast in the City of Hamilton. The question is, when councillors break bread together, is that a “meeting”?

The Ombudsman has determined, based on study of the Municipal Act and relevant case law, that if members of a body come together for the purpose of exercising the power or authority of the body, or for the purpose of doing the groundwork necessary to exercise that power or authority, then the gathering should be considered a “meeting” – and therefore subject to the Sunshine Law rules.

This distinction is not always clear. But what is clear is that when members of councils, local boards and committees go to restaurants together, they attract public attention and speculation. People become even more suspicious if the gatherings are in close proximity to formal meetings where controversial decisions are made.

We have had several complaints of this nature over the past four years. Typically, we must ask, was the gathering purely social in nature, or was it an illegal closed meeting where municipal business was advanced away from public view?

To date, the Ombudsman has found that none of these mealtime confabs violated the open meeting rules. But, as he has repeatedly warned, they serve as cautionary tales for municipal officials, who should always be attuned to how such behaviour might appear to the public.

et’s be clear: This was never about who was Lhaving ‘din-din’ with whom. This was about the conduct of public officials who have taken a vow to uphold rules that pertain to their position. “ And one of them, very clearly, relates to when and how elected officials are to meet and to conduct ‘‘ themselves when they do. – Phil McLeod, London Community News”, August 9, 2012

It is generally healthy for municipal officials to socialize together, get to know one another and engage in informal discussions about what they do. There is nothing to prevent them meeting for social purposes. But if enough of them come together to make “quorum,” with the legal authority to conduct municipal business, they must ensure that their informal exchanges are restricted to social topics. This is a fine line to walk, and the temptation to discuss municipal issues may prove overwhelming.

They must tread carefully. If they exercise their power or authority – or lay the groundwork to do so – whether it is at a restaurant or even through informal “serial” discussions, they will find themselves in violation of the Municipal Act.

19 Page 162 of 238 Office of the Ombudsman Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

Blinded to the Light

Sometimes officials simply don’t realize that the Sunshine Law applies to them and their meetings – and they have violated it. This appeared to be the case with two municipalities this year.

A quorum of the council for the Township of Howick met to discuss a contract with a third party, and the entire personnel committee for the Town of Kearney interviewed a prospective employee – both without realizing they were required to observe closed meeting procedures under the Municipal Act.

Whose Meeting Is It?

A variation on this theme involves council members attending meetings arranged by other bodies. If a third party invites council, local board or committee members to attend a private meeting, the municipal officials may still be required to comply with the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman concluded that the council for the Town of Fort Erie engaged in improper closed meetings when it met with the Fort Erie Economic Development and Tourism Corporation, discussed its strategic plan and priorities, and proceeded to lay the groundwork for future council decision-making. Similarly, council for the Township of Georgian Bay broke the rules when it participated in a meeting arranged by a local cottagers’ association and solicited suggestions on various municipal initiatives.

The Ombudsman also found that Council for the City of Elliot Lake violated the Municipal Act when a quorum of council attended a meeting of the Elliot Lake Residential Development Commission, and a meeting of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, both in April 2012. Neither meeting was open to the public. At both meetings, although they were hosted by third parties, council clearly came together to lay the groundwork for future decision-making. As such, they did not comply with the Sunshine Law, and the Ombudsman urged that such meetings in future follow the open meeting rules.

This Means You, Too

Occasionally, we run across local boards or committees that do not realize that they – like councils – are subject to the Sunshine Law.

If 50% or more of the members of a municipally-created entity are also members of councils or local boards, the body is typically considered a “committee” subject to the open meeting rules.

For example, we reviewed the City of Clarence-Rockland’s Procedure of Council Review Committee, which was assigned to circulate and obtain comments on a new procedure by-law. The committee was composed of four members of council and two municipal staff. The Ombudsman found it should have followed the Sunshine Law and held its meetings in public.

We also found that the Township of Russell’s Minor Variance Committee was actually a local board subject to the open meeting rules. We recommended that in future, the township’s council should implement a procedure by-law providing for public notice of committee meetings.

20 Page 163 of 238 2011-2012 OMLET Annual Report Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

Exceptional Circumstances

There are nine exceptions to the rule that municipal meetings must be conducted in public. They are listed in section 239 of the Municipal Act. They are:

Municipal officials may consider the following subjects behind closed doors:

1. The security of the property of the municipality or local board; 2. Personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees; 3. A proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board; 4. Labour relations or employee negotiations; 5. Litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board; 6. Advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; 7. A matter in respect of which a council, board, committee or other body may hold a closed meeting under another Act; and 8. Education and training of the members of the council, local board or committee and no member discusses or otherwise deals with any matter in a way that materially advances the business or decision-making. And they must consider the following topic in a closed meeting: 9. A request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

As the Ombudsman has often pointed out, the law clearly states that closed meetings are not mandatory in the first eight circumstances. The exceptions should be interpreted narrowly.

Nevertheless, we frequently see cases were municipalities have stretched or misapplied these exceptions to justify closed discussions. A few examples follow.

Security of property

The “security of property” exception is normally intended to cover items relating to protection of municipal property from physical loss or damage and protection of public safety in connection with municipal property. We occasionally receive complaints about meetings closed under an overly broad interpretation of this exception. For instance, in November 2011, council for the Municipality of Morris-Turnberry used it to support closing a meeting where firefighting options were generally discussed, but there were no specific concerns relating to security of municipal property.

21 Page 164 of 238 Office of the Ombudsman Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

Personal matters about an identifiable individual

We have had many complaints about meetings that were closed under this exception, even though specific individuals or personal issues were not addressed.

One striking example was in February 2012, when the council for the Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands wrongly attempted to shield discussion of a 60% pay hike for themselves under this exception. The meeting clearly involved council members in their professional capacity, not “personal matters.”

The City of Hamilton council improperly used the exception in June 2011 to justify consideration of issues relating to the dissolution of the Hamilton Entertainment Convention Facilities Inc. No board members or employees were identified or discussed and nothing of a personal nature appeared to be involved. The City Solicitor later indicated that council had considered advice “subject to solicitor-client privilege.” Still, this was not the reason council cited for closing the meeting.

The Town of Midland council held closed budget meetings in December 2011 that potentially affected readily identifiable individuals and thus came within this exception. But council went on to discuss other things at the closed meeting, which was improper.

Council for the Township of The North Shore also misused this “personal matters” exception in January 2012 to close a meeting to discuss publicly accessible information about the number of water valves on various properties.

Education or training

This exception is often misunderstood or too broadly applied – multiple times, in the case of council for the Town of Amherstburg. In his December 2011 report, the Ombudsman found the town used “education or training” to justify closing meetings to discuss such items as strategic planning, the official plan and zoning by-law, and backflow prevention, even though the discussion went beyond the intent of the exception and included consideration of specific business.

In January 2012, council for the Town of Midland used this exception to close a meeting where numerous items of council business were discussed – in fact, the Ombudsman found nothing discussed could be appropriately described as “education or training.”

Litigation or potential litigation

This exception allows for private discussion when municipalities are seriously contemplating commencing court or tribunal proceedings, responding to the real threat of having to defend against litigation, or already engaged in litigation. But we have found this exception tends to be overzealously applied – often in circumstances where litigation is actually nowhere on the horizon.

Council for the United Townships of Head, Clara and Maria used it to close a meeting in October 2011 where there was only speculation about the prospect of litigation involving a code of conduct complaint against a councillor. However, the same meeting included another item that did fit the exception, and we received conflicting information about details of the meeting.

22 Page 165 of 238 2011-2012 OMLET Annual Report Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

The council for the Municipality of Lambton Shores closed a meeting in November 2011, where litigation was discussed as a possible consequence of a breach of an agreement – but there were no actual legal proceedings, either ongoing or imminent. OMLET staff suggested that the exception relating to advice “subject to solicitor- client privilege” would have been more appropriate.

A matter under another Act

Municipal bodies rarely use this exception, but it was improperly used by council for the Town of Amherstburg to support closing two of the meetings the Ombudsman reported on in December 2011.

At one meeting, council dealt with appointments to the Library and Police Services Boards, and at another, it considered appointing a member to the Police Services Board and two councillors to a municipal committee. There was no “other Act” providing council with the authority to close these meetings.

Voting in the Dark

The Municipal Act is quite clear in its admonition against voting in closed meetings – unless the vote is for procedural matters or for giving directions, e.g., to staff. Nonetheless, municipalities often engage in improper voting during closed meetings.

In three of four Town of Amherstburg meetings we reviewed in 2011, council voted behind closed doors, sometimes through an informal “show of hands” – contravening both the Municipal Act and the town’s own procedure by-law.

Our investigation in the Town of Midland also revealed that councillors voted informally and illegally in several closed meetings in late 2011 and early 2012 – including to address their own salaries and benefits.

Keeping the Record Straight

Municipalities, local boards and their committees are required to record “without note or comment” all resolutions, decisions and other proceedings at meetings – whether the meetings are open or closed. But we have found records for open meetings tend to be far more detailed and informative than for closed ones. In fact, some municipalities barely keep records of closed meetings at all.

Our Town of Midland investigation found council’s closed meeting minutes did not accurately record what had occurred and lacked any information about directions given to staff during these sessions.

The Ombudsman recommends that municipalities keep a comprehensive written record of closed meetings – and better yet, that they be digitally recorded (audio or video).

23 Page 166 of 238 Office of the Ombudsman Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

Communications and Outreach

The Ombudsman feels strongly that awareness and education – of the public and municipal officials alike – are key to improving transparency of local governments across Ontario and ensuring the Sunshine Law is properly and consistently implemented across the province.

To that end, since 2008, our Office has created special communications products to help everyone in Ontario understand the rules under the Municipal Act, the complaints process and the Ombudsman’s procedures. The Ombudsman and OMLET staff have also visited municipalities across the province and made numerous other public appearances to answer questions about the open meeting requirements and our investigations.

Our pocket-sized Sunshine Law Handbook provides an at-a-glance view of the exceptions allowed under the Municipal Act section 239, frequently asked questions about the law and the Ombudsman’s process, as well as tips for municipal officials and members of the public who wish to

tHe complain. The handbook has so far had two editions and Sunshine Law copies have been distributed to every municipal councillor HANDBOOK and clerk in Ontario – first in 2008, and again after the 2010 2nd edition municipal elections – some 10,000 copies to date. It is also available to the public and on our website. (The front cover of this report also includes a card that councillors and the public can use as a portable guide to the rules. Open Municipal Meetings in Ontario Additional cards can be obtained through our office.)

August 27, 2012: Ombudsman André Marin addresses members of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for the City of London, Ont.

24 Page 167 of 238 2011-2012 OMLET Annual Report Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

Open meetings issues and OMLET investigations have also attracted a considerable amount of media interest in recent years – with 2011-2012 being the highest yet. Traffic on the Ombudsman’s website and social media sites (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube) also demonstrates strong public interest in these investigations.

Our website, redesigned in mid-2012, has a special section for Municipal Investigations where all the Ombudsman’s reports can be found, as well as a database – “Find Your Municipality” – where users can search to find out who the closed meeting investigator is in every municipality in the province.

Ever since late 2007, when municipalities first started appointing investigators and asking questions about how the complaints regime would work, the Ombudsman and staff have visited and addressed councils upon request. The first was the Town of Fort Erie, where the Ombudsman appeared before council in December 2007. OMLET staff made similar appearances in those early days before the councils for the Town of Halton Hills and the Regional Municipality of Niagara. In the intervening years, they have also made numerous public speeches on the Sunshine Law, including at conferences of municipal officials.

This past year has been particularly active and productive, as OMLET staff made presentations to the councils for the Town of Amherstburg and the Town of South Bruce Peninsula, as well as to the clerks for the municipalities of Essex County. The Ombudsman addressed council for the City of London in August 2012 – video of his presentation and question-and-answer session with councillors was webcast live from our website. More than 200 people watched the webcast live and many more have viewed it since on our website.* The Ombudsman is also slated to address council for the City of Greater Sudbury in December 2012.

* The video can be viewed at: http://www.ombudsman.on.ca/Resources/Reports/City-of-London-(2).aspx

25 Page 168 of 238 Office of the Ombudsman Case SummariesAgenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

Township of Adelaide-Metcalfe

In response to a complaint about a closed meeting in March 2012, OMLET found council was entitled to discuss legal and personnel issues in closed session. However, some of the issues considered were added to the agenda at the last minute. While there was some evidence that the matters were urgent, we advised the council that, as a general rule, it should provide advance public notice of all items to be considered in a closed meeting. We also emphasized that resolutions authorizing closed sessions must state the general nature of the matter to be considered, and, as a best practice, should also refer to the specific Municipal Act exception used to justify closing the meeting.

A private meeting in March 2012 that was hosted by a wind turbine development company and attended by two of five council members also prompted complaints. In this case, OMLET determined that the company had invited landowners to discuss the merits of wind turbines and no township business was discussed or furthered. For this reason, it did not constitute a “meeting” of council.

Town of Amherstburg

In December 2011, the Ombudsman issued his report Behind Closed Doors, in which he concluded that Amherstburg council had repeatedly contravened the Municipal Act and its own procedure by-law.

Council improperly discussed many issues in closed session, misusing the law’s “education or training” and “a matter under another Act” exceptions – and routinely engaged in improper voting behind closed doors, the Ombudsman found.

The investigation identified other problematic practices, including incomplete and inaccurate meeting agendas, failure to report back publicly in an informed way about closed meetings, and adding meeting items without prior notice. The Ombudsman made seven recommendations to encourage council’s compliance with the Act and greater transparency in its closed meeting practices.

But when Amherstburg council received the report, it considered it in two closed meetings. This prompted another investigation, but this time council was not found to have violated the Act, because the meetings were closed in order to consider matters subject to solicitor-client privilege (legal advice from the town’s solicitor), and the correct procedures were followed.

In February 2012, our OMLET team provided training to Amherstburg council on the open meeting requirements. The council has since embraced the Ombudsman’s recommendations for more open practices and implemented a new policy for closed meetings.

26 Page 169 of 238 2011-2012 OMLET Annual Report Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

City of Clarence-Rockland

A series of informal meetings involving four of nine council members in December 2010 attracted a lot of public speculation. OMLET’s review of complaints about the meetings found that these members were seeking information that would undoubtedly influence future decision making, and violated the spirit of the open meeting provisions. We warned council members to be extremely careful not to allow conversation at such gatherings to stray into laying the groundwork for council business.

In addition, OMLET found that a general discussion of “poor quality client services” that took place at a meeting in May 2011 didn’t come within the permissible exceptions to the open meeting requirements.

We also reviewed a closed session in June 2011 where a number of items were added at the last minute to the meeting agenda. OMLET advised council that matters should not be discussed in these circumstances unless they are urgent, and called on council to amend its procedure by-law to require a formal resolution before a new item is added to a meeting agenda.

Municipality of Grey Highlands

Wind turbines have been a controversial subject in municipalities throughout Ontario in recent years. It was no surprise, then, that a lunch meeting between three members of Grey Highlands council, the Chief Administrative Officer, and a developer of commercial wind turbines attracted public complaint. It was suggested that the lunch was an improper closed meeting that influenced a council vote to award a wind turbine contract later that same day.

During OMLET’s review, we were told that wind turbine company representatives had simply arrived at the same restaurant where municipal officials were meeting for lunch, and asked to join the group. We were advised that there was no discussion about the items on the afternoon meeting agenda.

Shortly after the lunch, council met in open session and considered staff advice that there was no legal reason not to approve agreements with the wind turbine company, except for an issue relating to one location. After receiving legal advice in closed session, council voted in public to approve building permits for wind turbines that were provided for in an earlier agreement.

While our review did not find the lunch meeting violated the Municipal Act, OMLET staff advised council that such gatherings in close proximity to official council meetings naturally attract suspicion. Council members must be vigilant in these cases to ensure that casual social conversation does not drift into improper areas.

27 Page 170 of 238 Office of the Ombudsman Case SummariesAgenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

City of Hamilton

OMLET investigated a complaint that three councillors from the city’s NHL Proposal Sub-Committee, along with another councillor, violated the open meeting rules when they met for breakfast in January 2011 with the coach/general manager of a local hockey team and the president of the Edmonton Oilers.

We found that sub-committee business was not discussed in any material way during the breakfast, nor were any decisions made or groundwork set for future decisions. The Ombudsman concluded the breakfast was an informal get-together and not a meeting subject to the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act. However, he warned councillors that they should be cautious about such gatherings, because they naturally attract suspicion and conjecture, and it can be difficult to convince the public that no improper discussions took place.

United Townships of Head, Clara and Maria

Our investigation of two closed meetings in the fall of 2011 confirmed that discussions relating to harassment complaints and a code of conduct complaint fit within the “personal matters about an identifiable individual” exception. However, the Ombudsman concluded that the “litigation or potential litigation” exception was improperly applied to one of the topics discussed.

The Ombudsman also recommended that council pass resolutions for future closed meetings, clearly itemizing which exception applies to which agenda item. He also cautioned council not to add matters to the agenda at the last minute unless they are urgent or there are compelling reasons to suspend the normal public notice procedures. As well, he encouraged council to report publicly on what was discussed in closed session – at least in a general way.

28 Page 171 of 238 2011-2012 OMLET Annual Report Case Summaries Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

Municipality of Lambton Shores

A local controversy about sewage management resulted in a number of complaints about this council, including that three members of council had met informally – and illegally – with municipal staff, some community members and representatives from a consulting firm to discuss management of wastewater.

We learned that municipal staff had arranged the meeting to allow community members an opportunity to discuss concerns about a sewage expansion project with the consulting firm leading the project. We determined the meeting was not subject to the open meeting rules, as it did not involve the exercise of council’s authority or laying the groundwork for future council decision-making, but advised the municipality that this type of closed-door gathering naturally raises public concerns about a lack of transparency.

Township of Larder Lake

We reviewed an “emergency” special meeting held in September 2011 to discuss preventing impending action on the part of a resident in breach of an agreement with the township as well as local zoning.

Although this item was appropriate for discussion in closed session, our review found that notice was not provided to the public of the emergency meeting, and council failed to pass a proper resolution authorizing the closed session. We noted that, even in cases of urgency, basic procedural requirements must be observed. We also advised the township to amend its procedure bylaw to provide for public notice of emergency meetings.

29 Page 172 of 238 Office of the Ombudsman Case SummariesAgenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

City of London

London, Ont. was the first Canadian jurisdiction to evict the “Occupy” movement protesters in late 2011. We received five complaints about the closed meeting on November 7, 2011, when council considered legal advice and potential litigation relating to the occupation of a downtown park. Our investigation determined the closed meeting was permitted under the Act.

In February 2012, six council members met for lunch shortly before three committee meetings and a council meeting where they voted on the final budget. We received three complaints and there was considerable public speculation as to whether the lunch was an illegally closed strategy meeting.

Our investigation confirmed that the lunch attendees constituted a “quorum” with the legal authority to transact business on behalf of a number of committees, including two of those meeting that day. However, we found that no committee business was actually discussed during the lunch.

The Ombudsman concluded that the luncheon did not violate the Sunshine Law, but he warned councillors that meeting in a local restaurant just before a critical and controversial vote on the budget was ill-conceived and made them a natural target for public suspicion.

Town of Midland

We investigated three complaints about multiple closed meetings in Midland between December 2011 and March 2012 and found council had improperly used the “education or training” and “personal matters about an identifiable individual” exceptions to discuss items that should have been considered in public. We also found that the council routinely voted illegally behind closed doors.

Our investigation also revealed the town was following several problematic practices, including giving insufficient notice of closed sessions, not keeping adequate records of closed meetings, and failing to report back publicly about closed meetings. The Ombudsman issued eight recommendations to help the town improve its practices, including that it should make audio or video recordings of closed meetings.

30 Page 173 of 238 2011-2012 OMLET Annual Report Case Summaries Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

City of Greater Sudbury

We investigated a series of closed meetings held by council to discuss ordering an audit and peer review of its Auditor General’s office. These meetings were closed under the “personal matters about an identifiable individual” exception. It was alleged that the meetings should have been open, since the discussions did not involve “personal matters” about the Auditor General himself, but were about his office.

The Ombudsman found that the discussions at these meetings did fit within the cited exception. However, he spoke out strongly about the lack of co-operation our Office received during the investigation. Every member of council asked to have a lawyer from the city with them during our interviews. When they were advised that our process did not allow this, 10 refused to be interviewed – only the Mayor, two councillors and the Clerk participated. The Ombudsman advised council that if faced with refusal to co-operate in future, he would consider using his Office’s powers under the Ombudsman Act to require witnesses to participate, or face penalties including fines or potential imprisonment.

31 Page 174 of 238 Office of the Ombudsman Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012 Your Feedback

Bravo to the Ombudsman for engaging citizens“ directly via social media instead of relying on the filter and bias of traditional media and other intermediaries. It’s refreshing and welcome and I wish more of our leaders would do so. ”

Comment by user “monkian” on thespec.com, January 12, 2012

@Ont_Ombudsman Would like“ to see private closed meeting investigators abolished, in favour of your office being sole investigator. One can only hope local ” #HamOnt“ councillors are listening to Marin, great discussion. @Ont_Ombudsman @justplaincarrie via Twitter, ” January 12, 2012

@markalanwhittle via Twitter, February 22, 2012 @Ont_Ombudsman The cut and thrust“ of today provided real insight into #OpenMtgs. ”

@DL_Silva via Twitter, August 27, 2012 (after London, Ont. council appearance)

Thank you for your recent investigation of Sudbury“ City Council. It is very comforting to know our politicians are being held to the moral standard that us citizens of Sudbury aspire to. ”

Spencer Chaput, Sudbury

32 Page 175 of 238 2011-2012 OMLET Annual Report Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

In the media

Obviously, the Ombudsman’s office takes a serious view of openness“ and transparency. But it’s too bad it can only shame city councils for bending and breaking rules. It has no power to either penalize or force them to be more vigilant about honouring the public’s right to know… Openness and scrutiny are not a privilege; they’re a public right. Anytime the mayor, councillors, or senior staff forget that, someone needs to remind them. Today, it’s the Ombudsman; tomorrow, hopefully, it will be the people elected to serve us. ”

Andrew Dreschel, Hamilton Spectator, January 11, 2012

It is nice to hear from the Ombudsman of Ontario’s“ office this week in regard to Kearney council and its meeting practices... Transparency I’ve heard people wonder why in governance is something near and dear to the Ontario“ Ombudsman Andre Marin objectives of this or any other news organization has the power to investigate city of substance and it is good to see that there is a council — and lament that his probe body out there paying attention to the nuances will be a pricey process for city hall. of what needs to be in the open. Well, he can. And it won’t cost the ” city a cent. ” Editorial, Cottage Country Now, August 18, 2011

Patrick Maloney, London Free Press blog, [The Ombudsman] and his office are November 30, 2011 strong“ allies for those of us who believe greater transparency is an urgent democratic priority in our city, province and country. ”

Editorial, Hamilton Spectator, February 25, 2012

The Ontario Ombudsman has issued his report on closed meetings“ held by Amherstburg town council and, for the second time, the municipality has had its knuckles rapped for the way the meetings were handled... One has to hope, at the very least, that the municipality has learned its lessons and is constantly finding ways to improve communications and relations with the public. ”

Editorial, Amherstburg Echo, January 11, 2012

33 Your Feedback Page 176 of 238 Office of the Ombudsman Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

34 Page 177 of 238 2011-2012 OMLET Annual Report Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

Appendix Complaint Statistics

Complaints Received and Violations of the Sunshine Law found, by Municipality – April 1, 2011 to August 31, 2012

Complaints Violations Best practices MUNICIPALITY received found suggested Township of Adelaide-Metcalfe 6 0 6 Town of Amherstburg 12 2 4 Municipality of Bluewater 1 0 0 Municipality of Brockton 1 0 0 Municipality of Central Huron 1 0 0 City of Clarence-Rockland 5 1 1 Township of Edwardsburgh/Cardinal 1 0 0 City of Elliot Lake 6 2 0 Town of Fort Erie 15 2 0 Township of Georgian Bay 3 4 1 Grand Bend Area Sewage Treatment Board 1 0 1 Town of Gravenhurst 1 0 0 City of Greater Sudbury 3 0 0 Municipality of Grey Highlands 1 0 0 City of Hamilton 4 1 0 United Townships of Head, Clara and Maria 1 0 3 Township of Howick 2 1 0 Municipality of Huron East 1 2 2 County of Huron 1 0 0 Town of Kearney 3 2 1 Town of Lakeshore 1 0 0 Municipality of Lambton Shores 5 2 2 Township of Larder Lake 1 2 0 Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands 3 2 1 City of London 10 0 0 Municipality of Magnetawan 3 0 0 Town of Mattawa 1 0 0 Town of Midland 2 7 2 Township of Morley 2 0 3 Municipality of Morris-Turnberry 1 2 0 District Municipality of Muskoka 1 0 3 Township of Nairn and Hyman 1 2 1 City of Niagara Falls 3 2 1 Regional Municipality of Niagara 5 0 2 City of Oshawa 4 0 0 Town of Penetanguishene 2 0 0 Municipality of Powassan 2 0 0 United Counties of Prescott and Russell 1 0 0 Township of Russell 2 2 0 Township of Seguin 1 0 0 Town of South Bruce Peninsula 3 6 0 Municipality of South Huron 1 0 0 Municipality of St. Charles 1 0 0 Township of The North Shore 2 1 0 Municipality of Whitestone 1 0 0 TOTAL 128 45 34

NOTE: In some cases, we received multiple complaints about the same meeting, and/or found multiple violations relating to the same meeting or complaint. 35 Page 178 of 238 Office of the Ombudsman Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

Appendix Complaint Statistics

Municipalities Where the Ombudsman is the Investigator for Closed Meeting Complaints (April 1, 2011 to August 31, 2012)

1. Adelaide-Metcalfe, Township of 49. Elliot Lake, City of 2. Ajax, Town of 50. Englehart, Town of 3. Alberton, Township of 51. Enniskillen, Township of 4. Alfred and Plantagenet, Township of 52. Essex, Town of 5. Amherstburg, Town of 53. Evanturel, Township of 6. Armour, Township of 54. Fauquier-Strickland, Township of 7. Armstrong, Township of 55. Fort Erie, Town of 8. Arnprior, Town of 56. Front of Yonge, Township of 9. Arran-Elderslie, Municipality of 57. Gananoque, Town of 10. Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh, Township of 58. Gauthier, Township of 11. Assiginack, Township of 59. Georgian Bay, Township of 12. Augusta, Township of 60. Gillies, Township of 13. Baldwin, Township of 61. Gordon/Barrie Island, Municipality 14. Billings, Township of 62. Gore Bay, Town of 15. Black River-Matheson, Township of 63. Gravenhurst, Town of 16. Blind River, Town of 64. Greater Sudbury, City of 17. Bluewater, Municipality of 65. Grey Highlands, Municipality of 18. Bonfield, Township of 66. Grimsby, Town of 19. Bracebridge, Town of 67. Halton Hills, Town of 20. Brethour, Township of 68. Hamilton, City of 21. Brockton, Municipality of 69. Harley, Township of 22. Bruce Mines, Town of 70. Harris, Township of 23. Brudenell, Lyndoch & Raglan (Township of) 71. Hawkesbury, Town of 24. Burk's Falls, Village of 72. Head, Clara and Maria, Township of 25. Burpee and Mills, Township of 73. Hearst, Town of 26. Calvin, Township of 74. Hilliard, Township of 27. Casey, Township of 75. Hilton Beach, Village of 28. Casselman, Village of 76. Hilton, Township of 29. Central Huron, Municipality of 77. Hornepayne, Township of 30. Central Manitoulin, Township of 78. Howick, Township of 31. Chamberlain, Township of 79. Hudson, Township of 32. Champlain, Township of 80. Huntsville, Town of 33. Chapple, Township of 81. Huron East, Municipality of 34. Charlton and Dack, Municipality of 82. Huron, County of 35. Chisholm, Township of 83. James, Township of 36. Clarence-Rockland, City of 84. Jocelyn, Township of 37. Cobalt, Town of 85. Johnson, Township of 38. Cochrane, Town of 86. Joly, Township of 39. Cockburn Island, Township of 87. Kawartha Lakes, City of 40. Coleman, Township of 88. Kerns, Township of 41. Dawn-Euphemia, Township of 89. Killarney, Municipality of 42. Dawson, Township of 90. Kitchener, City of 43. Dorion, Township of 91. La Vallee, Township of 44. Dubreuilville, Township of 92. Laird, Township of 45. Dufferin, County of 93. Lake of Bays, Township of Dysart, Dudley, Harcourt, Guilford, 94. Lake of the Woods, Township of 46. Harburn, Bruton, Havelock, Eyre and 95. Lakeshore, Town of Clyde, United Townships of 96. Lambton Shores, Municipality of 47. East Hawkesbury, Township of 97. Lambton, County of 48. Edwardsburgh/Cardinal, Township of 98. Larder Lake, Township of

36 Page 179 of 238 2011-2012 OMLET Annual Report Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

Appendix Complaint Statistics

Municipalities Where the Ombudsman is the Investigator for Closed Meeting Complaints (April 1, 2011 to August 31, 2012)

99. LaSalle, Town of 145. Pickering, City of 100. Latchford, Town of 146. Plummer Additional, Township of 101. Laurentian Hills, Town of 147. Plympton-Wyoming, Town of 102. Leamington, Municipality of 148. Port Colborne, City of Leeds and the Thousand Islands, 149. Powassan, Municipality of 103. Township of 150. Prescott and Russell, United Counties of 104. London, City of 151. Prescott, Town of Macdonald, Meredith and Aberdeen 105. 152. Prince, Township of Additional, Township of 153. Rainy River, Town of 106. Machar, Township of 154. Russell, Township of 107. Magnetawan, Municipality of 155. Ryerson, Township of 108. Marathon, Town of 156. Sables-Spanish Rivers, Township of 109. Markstay-Warren, Municipality of 157. Sarnia, City of 110. Matachewan, Township of 158. Sault Ste. Marie, City of 111. Mattawa, Town of 159. Seguin, Township of 112. Mattawan, Township of 160. Shuniah, Municipality of 113. Mattice-Val Côté, Township of 161. Sioux Narrows-Nestor Falls, Township of 114. McDougall, Township of 162. Smooth Rock Falls, Town of 115. McGarry, Township of 163. South Algonquin, Township of 116. McKellar, Township of 164. South Bruce Peninsula, Town of 117. McMurrich/Monteith, Township of 165. South Huron, Municipality of 118. Midland, Town of 166. South River, Village of 119. Minden Hills, Township of 167. Spanish, Town of 120. Montague, Township of 168. St. Catharines, City of 121. Moonbeam, Township of 169. St. Charles, Municipality of 122. Moosonee, Town of 170. St. Joseph, Township of 123. Morley, Township of Tarbutt and Tarbutt Additional, 171. 124. Morris-Turnberry, Municipality of Township of 125. Muskoka, District Municipality of 172. Tehkummah, Township of 126. Nairn and Hyman, Township of 173. Temagami, Municipality of 127. Neebing 174. Temiskaming Shores, City of 128. Newbury, Village of 175. The Nation, Municipality of 129. Niagara Falls, City of 176. The North Shore, Township of 130. Niagara, Regional Municipality of 177. Thessalon, Town of 131. Nipigon, Township of 178. Thornloe, Village of 132. Nipissing, Township of 179. Thorold, City of 133. North Dumfries, Township of 180. Timmins, City of Northeastern Manitoulin and The Islands, 134. 181. Tiny, Township of Town of 182. Val Rita-Harty, Township of 135. Oil Springs, Village of 183. Welland, City of 136. Opasatika, Township of 137. Orangeville, Town of 184. Wellington, County of 138. Oshawa, City of 185. West Lincoln, Township of 139. Papineau-Cameron, Township of 186. West Nipissing, Municipality of 140. Pelham, Town of 187. Westport, Village of 141. Pembroke, City of 188. White River, Township of 142. Penetanguishene, Town of 189. Whitestone, Municipality of 143. Perry, Township of 190. Whitewater Region, Township of 144. Petrolia, Town of 191. Woolwich, Township of

37 Page 180 of 238 Office of the Ombudsman Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

Appendix Complaint Statistics

MOST COMMONLY USED REASONS FOR CLOSING MEETINGS – April 1, 2011 to August 31, 2012 (exceptions cited under the Municipal Act, 2001, section 239)

1 Personal matters about an identifiable individual

2 Solicitor-client privilege

3 Litigation or potential litigation

38 Page 181 of 238 2011-2012 OMLET Annual Report Agenda Info Item J ­ November 19, 2012

2011-2012 OMLET ANNUAL REPORT

www.ombudsman.on.ca

Facebook: Ontario Ombudsman | Twitter: Ont_Ombudsman | YouTube: youtube.com/OntarioOmbudsman Page 182 of 238 Agenda Info Item K ­ November 19, 2012

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA People Serving People

CITY SOLICITOR/CLERK’S DEPARTMENT

OPEN SESSION REPORT

TO: Mayor Bradley and Members of Sarnia City Council

FROM: Brian W. Knott, City Solicitor/Clerk

DATE: November 14, 2012

SUBJECT: Sarnia Animal Control Dog Census Report for 2012

Recommendation: For Council’s Information

Background & Comments: The Sarnia Animal Control Dog Census Report for 2012 has been attached.

As Council is aware, the summer dog census has been undertaken by a student since 2006. This has been a successful program and has proved to be an effective method of ensuring information on dogs are available and that dogs are licenced. It has also served as an educational tool for the public on the benefits of licencing. Since its inception, the number of tags sold has grown significantly to over 4900 tags being sold in 2012. It is also important to note that the summer student has generated sufficient licencing revenue to more than offset any expenses associated with the position.

In light of the current budget constraints, and in keeping with the attrition goals of Council, we have reviewed the continuation of the program and made a decision not include this summer position in our Departmental budget for 2013.

Consultation: Animal Control has been consulted on this report.

Financial Implications: There are no financial implications resulting from this report.

Page 183 of 238 Agenda Info Item K ­ November 19, 2012

Prepared by: Approved by:

Brian W. Knott Lloyd Fennell City Solicitor/Clerk City Manager

Attachment(s): Sarnia Animal Control Dog Census for 2012

Page 184 of 238 Agenda Info Item K ­ November 19, 2012

. 31/08/2012

Samia Animal Control Dog Census 2012: Final Report June 6'h -August 31st

Number of Homes Surveyed during the 2012 Census 2,728

Dog Licences sold to all customers during the 2012 Census 325-Total

Dog Licences sold to notified customers during the 2012 Census** 95

Dog Licences sold to surveyed customers in the field during the 2012 Census 31

Income from Licences sold to notified customers** $6,460.00

Income from Dog Licences sold to customers in the field $1,680.00

Total Income from all Licences sold to customers during the 2012 Census $16,352.00

Overview

A total of 2,728 homes were visited during the 2012 Sarnia Dog Census. The goal of the census was to record the existence of dogs on each premise and see that dog licences had been issued/purchased for each dog. Licences were sold to owners if it was proven thatthey did not have their dog( s) registered/renewed with the City of Sarnia. Fines were the extent of which the by-law was enforced if the owner(s) did not licence their dog( s) after a period of approximately two weeks. In addition, the goal of the census is to further educate the general public to remind them of the importance of having their dog(s) licenced and to renew their tags annually. Areas surveyed included: Rapids Parkway area, Blackwell Glen area, Heritage Park area, a section of central Sarnia, sections of Bright's Grove, and Vye Park area. The Sarnia Dog Census will continue to move within different areas of the City of Sarnia.

In addition, l was appointed by council of the Corporation of the City ofSarnia, on june 11th, 2012 as a Municipal By-law Enforcement Officer. Furthermore, the Clerks Department has met its goals and budget for 2012.

All statistics shown in this report have been compiled from the census period of june S

**Owners who had not renewed their Dog Licence from the previous year of 2011 received a notice either at the door or by a census information pamphlet with request within one week to purchase the necessary Municipal Dog Licence.

Frank Cervi Census Operator

Page 185 of 238 Page 186 of 238 Civic Report #1 ­ November 19, 2012

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA People Serving People

SOLICITOR/CLERKS DEPARTMENT

OPEN SESSION REPORT

TO: Mayor Bradley and Members of Sarnia City Council

FROM: Brian W. Knott, City Solicitor/Clerk

DATE: November 1, 2012

SUBJECT: Monthly Raffle Report – October 2012

Organization Licence Fee Prize Saint Joseph’s Hospice $57.00 $1,900.00 Lambton County Minor Sports $486.00 $16,200.00 Optimist of Brights Grove $100.00 $3,300.00 Sarnia Sting Minor Peewee $48.00 $1,600.00 United Way of Sarnia Lambton $25.00 $600.00 Pathways Health Centre for Children $180.00 $6,000.00 Optimist of Point Edward $113.40 $3,780.00 Navy League/Sea Cadets $117.00 $3,900.00 Bluewater Tae Kwon Do $30.00 $1,000.00 Saint Clair Child and Youth $75.00 $2,500.00 Pathways Health Centre for Children $180.00 $6,000.00 Celebration of Lights $54.00 $1,800.00 44 Sarnia Imperial Squadron Air Cadets $60.00 $2,000.00 Friends of Sarnia Minor Sports $300.00 $2,904.00 Friends of Sarnia Minor Sports $90.00 $3,000.00 Friends of Sarnia Minor Sports $990.00 $33,000.00 Big Sister Association $48.00 $1,600.00 Kidney Foundation $150.00 $5,000.00 Totals $3,061.40 $94,684.00

Brian W. Knott – City Solicitor/Clerk

This report was prepared by Carol Barr – Licensing Clerk

Page 187 of 238 Page 188 of 238 Civic Report #2 ­ November 19, 2012 C I T Y O F S A R N I A MAJOR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION STATUS OCTOBER 2012

(1) BP CANADA Office Renovations and Addition Location: 513 Gladwish Drive Value: $ 3,000,000 Note: Building Permit Issued on February 13, 2012 Permit has not been picked up yet.

(2) BIO AMBER SARNIA INC. New Warehouse for Product Storage & Main Process Building for Equipment (Conditional Permit for Foundation) Location: 1201 Vidal Street S. Value: 10,000,000 (Foundation Only) Note: Approvals under review.

(3) CINEPLEX ENTERTAINMENT New Two Storey – 8 Cinema Theatre Location: 1380 London Road Value: $ 5,129,000 Note: Building Permit Issued October 3, 2012.

ID. STATUSBP OCT2012.DOC

Page 189 of 238 CITY OF SARNIA BUILDING PERMIT STATISTICS OCTOBER 2012 NUMBER OF PERMITS

# BUILDING #SIGN 2011 #BUILDING #SIGN 2012 MONTH PERMITS 2011 PERMITS 2011 CUMULATIVE PERMITS 2012 PERMITS 2012 CUMULATIVE TOTAL TOTAL JANUARY 13 10 23 16 0 16 FEBRUARY 9 36 68 19 42 77 MARCH 29 41 138 31 12 120 APRIL 51 17 206 48 52 220 Civic Report #2 MAY 50 8 264 46 22 288 JUNE 52 15 331 48 3 339 JULY 39 3 373 46 9 394 AUGUST 59 4 436 54 4 452 SEPTEMBER 50 81 567 38 5 495 OCTOBER 38 18 623 54 69 618 NOVEMBER 18 2 643 DECEMBER 16 11 670

TOTALS: 424 246 670 ­ November 19, 2012

CONSTRUCTION VALUES

CONSTRUCTION VALUES 2011 2011 CUMULATIVE CONSTRUCTION VALUES 2012 2012 CUMULATIVE TOTAL TOTAL JANUARY 2,683,438 2,683,438 9,256,500 9,256,500 FEBRUARY 1,213,820 3,897,258 1,557,500 10,814,000 MARCH 5,523,296 9,420,554 3,261,500 14,075,500 APRIL 6,515,039 15,935,593 4,379,300 18,454,800 Page 190of238 MAY 12,019,550 27,955,143 4,203,100 22,657,900 JUNE 4,853,200 32,808,343 6,868,700 29,526,600 JULY 5,508,000 38,316,343 5,041,187 34,567,787 AUGUST 14,480,820 52,797,163 6,381,000 40,948,787 SEPTEMBER 7,902,850 60,700,013 4,407,300 45,356,087 OCTOBER 3,157,500 63,857,513 9,957,940 55,314,027 NOVEMBER 2,266,500 66,124,013 DECEMBER 2,696,000 68,820,013 TOTALS: 68,820,013

CITY OF SARNIA - BUILDING PERMIT STATISTICS - PAGE TWO

NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS

# SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS 2011 # SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS 2012 2011 CUMULATIVE 2012 CUMULATIVE TOTAL TOTAL JANUARY 3 3 3 3 FEBRUARY 1 4 1 4 MARCH 10 14 5 9 APRIL 22 36 12 21 MAY 6 42 11 32

JUNE 14 56 9 41 Civic Report #2 JULY 7 63 12 53 AUGUST 9 72 7 60 SEPTEMBER 12 84 5 65 OCTOBER 8 92 12 77 NOVEMBER 5 97 DECEMBER 2 99 TOTALS: 99

­ November 19, 2012

NUMBER OF MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS

# OF MULTIPLE DWELLINGS 2011 CUMULATIVE # OF MULTIPLE DWELLINGS 2012 CUMULATIVE 2011 TOTAL 2012 TOTAL JANUARY 0 0 0 0 FEBRUARY 0 0 4 4 MARCH 0 0 0 4 APRIL 2 (SEMI) 2 0 4 MAY 0 2 0 4 Page 191of238

JUNE 0 2 0 4 JULY 0 2 0 4 AUGUST 12 (ROW) 14 0 4 SEPTEMBER 2 (SEMI) 16 0 4 OCTOBER 0 16 0 4 NOVEMBER 0 16 DECEMBER 0 16 TOTALS: 16

ID STATS 2012.DOC Page 192 of 238 By­Law #1 ­ November 19, 2012

BY-LAW NUMBER OF 2012 OF THE CITY OF SARNIA

A By-law to Confirm the Proceedings of Council at its Meeting held on The 19th Day of November , 2012

WHEREAS Section 5 (1) of The Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that the powers of a municipality shall be exercised by its Council;

AND WHEREAS Section 5 (3) of The Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that municipal powers shall be exercised by by-law;

NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. All actions of the Council of the Corporation of the City of Sarnia at its meeting held on November 19, 2012 in respect to every report, resolution or other action passed and taken by the Council, including the exercise of natural person powers, are hereby adopted, ratified and confirmed by by-law as if each report, resolution or other action was adopted, ratified and confirmed by its separate by-law.

2. The Mayor and the proper officers of the Corporation of the City of Sarnia are hereby authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the said actions of the Council of the Corporation of the City of Sarnia referred to in section 1.

3. This By-law comes into force and effect upon finally being passed.

Page 193 of 238 By­Law #1 ­ November 19, 2012

FINALLY PASSED this 19th day of November, 2012.

______Mayor

______City Solicitor/Clerk

Page 194 of 238 BY-LAW NUMBER ______OF 2012 OF THE CITY OF SARNIA

A By-law to Confirm the Proceedings of Council at its meeting held on November 19th, 2012 ______By ­ Law #1 R E A D I N G S:

FIRST: November 19, 2012 ­

November 19, 2012

SECOND: November 19, 2012

THIRD: November 19, 2012

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA

Page 195 of 238 CITY CLERKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL SARNIA, ONTARIO N7T 7N2 Page 196 of 238 By­Law #2 ­ November 19, 2012

BY-LAW NUMBER OF 2012 OF THE CITY OF SARNIA

“A BY-LAW TO AMEND BY-LAW NUMBER 100 OF 1996” (RE: SCHEDULE 19 – SPEED LIMITS)

WHEREAS the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the City of Sarnia deems it advisable to amend By-Law Number 100 of 1996 of the City of Sarnia, being “A By-Law to revise and consolidate By-Laws regulating traffic and the parking of motor vehicles within the limits of the City of Sarnia on municipal highways, municipal parking lots and private properties.” NOW THEREFORE the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the City of Sarnia enacts as follows:

1. Schedule 19 (Speed Limits) is amended by the Addition of: Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Highway From To Speed Limit Blackwell 1300m Churchill Line 80km/hr Sideroad South of London Line

2. Schedule 19 (Speed Limits) is amended by the Deletion of: Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Highway From To Speed Limit Blackwell County Road 780 South of 50km/hr Sideroad 7 County Road (B/L 62/12) 7 Blackwell 1100m South South Limit 80km/hr Sideroad of London of City of (B/L 5/07) Line Sarnia Confed King’s East Side of 50km/hr eration Line Highway #40 Ronald Bloor (B/L 62/12) Drive

FINALLY PASSED this 19th day of November, 2012.

Page 197 of 238 By­Law #2 ­ November 19, 2012

______Mayor

______City Solicitor/Clerk

Page 198 of 238 BY-LAW NUMBER OF 2012 OF THE CITY OF SARNIA

"A By-Law to Amend By-Law Number 100 of 1996" READINGS: By ­

FIRST: November 19, 2012 Law #2

SECOND: November 19, 2012 ­

November 19, 2012

THIRD: November 19, 2012

THE CITY OF SARNIA Engineering Department City Hall

Sarnia, ON N7T 7N2 Page 199 of 238 Page 200 of 238 By­Law #3 ­ November 19, 2012

BY-LAW NUMBER ______OF 2012 OF THE CITY OF SARNIA

“A By-Law to Authorize an Agreement with Sarnia Saints Union Football Club Inc.” (Re: 2013 Use of Bell Building”)

WHEREAS it is deemed expedient that The Corporation of the City of Sarnia enter into an Agreement with the Sarnia Saints Union Football Club Inc.

NOW THEREFORE the Municipal Council of The Corporation of the City of Sarnia enacts as follows:

1. The Corporation of the City of Sarnia is authorized to enter into an Agreement with the Sarnia Saints Union Football Club Inc. , in the general form of the Agreement a copy of which is annexed to this By-Law.

2. The Mayor and City Solicitor/Clerk are authorized to execute such Agreement and to affix to it the Corporate Seal of The Corporation of the City of Sarnia.

3. This By-Law comes into force and effect upon finally being passed.

FINALLY PASSED this 19th day of November, 2012.

______Mayor

______City Solicitor/Clerk

Page 201 of 238 By­Law #3 ­ November 19, 2012

LICENCE AGREEMENT B E T W E E N: THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA (“City") - and -

SARNIA SAINTS RUGBY UNION FOOTBALL CLUB INC. (“Club")

WHEREAS The City is the owner and operator of Norm Perry Memorial Park (“Park”) in the City of Sarnia;

AND WHEREAS the Club wishes to have non-exclusive use of the fields as well as exclusive use of a portion of the Bell Building located in the Park.

NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH THAT the parties hereto in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions herein, have agreed as follows:

1. For the privilege of exclusive use of the club room, and for storage only, the former shower area within the Bell Building (“Club Room”) from the 15th day of April to the 15th day of November, the Club shall pay to the City during the first year of this Licence the sum of ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY SIX DOLLARS ($1,146.00) on or before October 15, 2013. Thereafter, the annual rent may increase by the rise in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or 2% whichever is greater for the preceding calendar year. This Licence shall extend from 2013 to 2017 inclusive, unless terminated prior thereto by either party upon 90 days notice.

2. The Club shall have the right to the shared use of the fields at the Park as established year to year based on all users’ schedules. The Club shall have shared access, along with other members of the general public using the Park facilities and other Park user groups, to the change rooms and public washrooms.

Page 202 of 238 By­Law #3 ­ November 19, 2012

3. The Club shall schedule and pay for their use of the fields through established booking procedures maintained by the City by its Parks and Recreation Department. Any unauthorized use of the playing field(s) may result in the termination of this Licence.

4. The Club shall have the exclusive right to the use and enjoyment of the Club Room in the Bell Building on a seasonal basis only. Subject to the weather conditions the Club will have access to Club room no later than April 15th of each year and will be allowed to use the room until the 15th of November each year, subject to the Club’s playoff schedule.

5. Unless specifically authorized by City Council, use of the Club Room shall not extend beyond the hours of 11:30 p.m. from Sunday through to Thursday, and beyond the hours of 1:30 a.m. on Friday and Saturday evenings.

6. Any and all alterations, additions, renovations, or change of use of the Club Room shall be approved by the Director of Parks and Recreation in writing prior to the commencement of such work.

7. The cost of any and all such alterations, additions, renovations, or upgrading to the Club Room shall be borne in their entirety by the Club.

8. Any and all such alterations, additions, renovations, or upgrading to date and in the future are the property of the City, without compensation to the Club.

9. The routine cleaning and minor maintenance of the Club Room shall be the sole responsibility of the Club. Any and all costs incurred in such cleaning and maintenance shall similarly be borne solely by the Club. All other rooms in the Bell Building, which are opened to and used by the public shall be cleaned and maintained by the City.

10. The Club shall not discriminate in the selection of its members as per the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Page 203 of 238 By­Law #3 ­ November 19, 2012

11. The Club shall carry on a program of such a nature to stimulate interest in rugby and to encourage new membership within the Club.

12. The Club shall provide, at its own expense, any and all such furniture, tools, utensils, or appliances as may be required for use in the Club Room, subject to the approval of the Director of Parks and Recreation.

13. Club members shall be allowed to consume alcohol within the Club Room only upon the following conditions: (a) a Special Occasion Permit is obtained (b) all requirements of the Liquor Licence Act are complied with (c) alcohol shall be consumed only inside the Club Room. (d) Special Occasion Permits for the Club Room shall only be obtained in conjunction with a scheduled field use and further, only if the Club can obtain exclusive use of the Park for the duration of the Special Occasion Permit.

Any breach of these requirements may result in immediate termination of this Licence.

14. Through the established booking procedures referred in paragraph three of this Licence, the Club may make use of the facilities, including the Bell Building, for tournaments, invitation matches, and other competitions that will stimulate interest in rugby, and it may charge and collect sufficient fees from the participants to cover the expenses of the same.

15. The safeguarding and security of the Club Room and any furnishings therein shall be the sole responsibility of the Club.

16. The Club shall indemnify and save harmless the City and its employees and agents, from all actions, suits, claims, executions, and demands, which may be made as a direct or indirect result of the use of the Park and related facilities, including the Bell Building.

Page 204 of 238 By­Law #3 ­ November 19, 2012

Notwithstanding paragraph 2 of Schedule "B" annexed hereto, the Club shall maintain tenant insurance and general liability insurance in the amount of $5,000,000 per incident and the City shall be a named insured. The Club shall provide the City with a certificate of insurance by April 1 of each year satisfactory to the City Solicitor.

17. City employees may enter the Club Room at any time. Locks shall be keyed to City specifications which allow City staff immediate access to the facilities.

18. The Club shall not assign this Licence without the consent, in writing, of the City.

19. There shall be no storage of hazardous goods on the premises by the Club, including propane tanks, and the Club shall conform to all fire inspector orders and fire regulations.

20. The Club shall adhere to the City's "Terms and Conditions of Sports Field Use" as amended each year. Violation of these terms and conditions may result in termination of this Licence and/or invoicing of repairs as the result of playing in violation of the "Terms and Conditions" directly to the Club. Non payment of said charges will result in termination or non-renewal of this Licence.

21. The Club shall rectify any breach of this Licence forthwith upon being notified by the City of such breach, failing which this Licence may be terminated.

WITNESS the execution of these presents by the parties hereto by the hands and seals of their proper officers effective the 19th day of November 2012.

Page 205 of 238 By­Law #3 ­ November 19, 2012

THE CITY OF THE CITY OF SARNIA

______Mayor

______Clerk

SARNIA SAINTS RUGBY UNION FOOTBALL CLUB INC.

Per:______

Print Name: Ryan Mortensen

Title: President

Per:______

Print Name: Brian McAuley

Title: Secretary

We have the authority to bind the Corporation

Page 206 of 238 BY-LAW NUMBER OF 2012 OF THE CITY OF SARNIA

“A By-Law to Authorize an Agreement with the Sarnia Saints Union Football Club Inc.” By ­ Law #3 READINGS:

FIRST: November 19th, 2012 ­ November 19, 2012 SECOND: November 19th, 2012

THIRD: November 19th, 2012

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA

Page 207 of 238 OFFICE OF THE CITY SOLICITOR/CLERK (SRM/ad) City Hall Sarnia, Ontario N7T 7N2 Page 208 of 238 By­Law #4 ­ November 19, 2012

BY-LAW NUMBER OF 2012 OF THE CITY OF SARNIA

“A BY-LAW TO AMEND BY-LAW NUMBER 100 OF 1996” (RE: SCHEDULE 3.1 – NO PARKING ANYTIME)

WHEREAS the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the City of Sarnia deems it advisable to amend By-Law Number 100 of 1996 of the City of Sarnia, being “A By-Law to revise and consolidate By-Laws regulating traffic and the parking of motor vehicles within the limits of the City of Sarnia on municipal highways, municipal parking lots and private properties.” NOW THEREFORE the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the City of Sarnia enacts as follows:

1. Schedule 3.1 (No Parking Anytime) is amended by the Addition of: Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Highway Side From To Lakeshore South Paved Murphy Modeland Road Shoulder Road Road Lakeshore North Paved Mater Drive Modeland Road Shoulder Road

2. Schedule 3.1 (No Parking Anytime) is amended by the Deletion of: Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Highway Side From To Lakeshore South Paved Murphy 100m East of Road Shoulder Road Mater Drive (B/L 136/97)

FINALLY PASSED this 19th day of November, 2012.

______Mayor ______City Solicitor/Clerk

Page 209 of 238 BY-LAW NUMBER OF 2012 OF THE CITY OF SARNIA

"A By-Law to Amend By-Law Number 100 of 1996" By ­ Law #4 READINGS:

FIRST: November 19, 2012

­ November 19, 2012 SECOND: November 19, 2012

THIRD: November 19, 2012

THE CITY OF SARNIA Engineering Department

City Hall Page 210 of 238 Sarnia, ON N7T 7N2 By­Law #5 ­ November 19, 2012

BY-LAW NUMBER OF 2012 OF THE CITY OF SARNIA

“A By-Law to Authorize the Execution of a Discharge of Mortgage” (Re: 136-140 N. Christina Street)

WHEREAS it is deemed expedient that The Corporation of the City of Sarnia execute a Discharge of Mortgage;

NOW THEREFORE the Municipal Council of The Corporation of the City of Sarnia enacts as follows:

1. The Corporation of the City of Sarnia is authorized to execute a Discharge of Mortgage, in the general form of the Discharge of Mortgage, a copy of which is annexed to this By- Law.

2. The Mayor and Clerk are authorized to execute such Discharge of Mortgage and to affix to it the Corporation Seal of the Corporation of the City of Sarnia.

3. This By-Law comes into force and effect upon being finally passed.

FINALLY PASSED this 19th day of November, 2012.

______Mayor

______City Solicitor/Clerk

Page 211 of 238 By­Law #5 ­ November 19, 2012

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND DIRECTION

TO: Scott Ross McEachran, Assistant Solicitor (Insert lawyer's name)

AND TO: THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA (Insert firm name)

RE: _1_36_-_1_40_N_. _C_h_ris_t_in_a_s... t_;re_e_t _-_D_is_ch_a_r"-ge_;_;o_f F_a_c_a_d_e_L_oa_n_;_;Nc_o_.0:..6_2_10_7 ____ ('the transaction") (Insert brief description of transaction)

This will confirm that:

e lfWe have reviewed the information set out this Acknowledgement and Direction and in the documents described below (the "Documents"), and that this information is accurate; e You, your agent or employee are authorized and directed to sign, deliver, and/or register electronically, on my/our behalf the Documents ln the form attached.

e You are hereby authorized and directed to enter into an escrow closing arrangement substantially in the form attached hereto being a copy of the version of the Document Registration Agreement, which appears on the website of the Law Society of Upper Canada as of the date of the Agreement of Purchase and sale herein. I!We hereby acknowledge the said Agreement has been reviewed by mefus and that INVe shall be bound by its terms; e The effect of the Documents has been fully explained to mefus, and !/we understand that I!we are parties to and bound by the terms and provisions of the Documents to the same extent as if ltwe had signed them; and

e ltwe are in fact the parties named in the Documents and flwe have not misrepresented our identities to you . •

DESCRIPTION OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS

The Document(s) described in the Acknowledgement and Direction are the document(s) selected below which are attached hereto as "Document in Preparation" and are:

0 A Transfer of the land described above.

0 A Charge of the land described above.

~ Other documents set out in Schedule ~s~ attached hereto.

Dated at ______day of 20 J;).

WITNESS

(As to all signatures, if required)

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARN!A

Gna~ w. ;c..,oH, Ci+y Soli<, -hv/CfP"k

• We have auJI,or,'+j foh-,.,_dj!,e 1 COrf'

Page 212 of 238 By­Law #5 ­ November 19, 2012

LRO # 25 Discharge Of Charge In preparation on 2012 1113 at 16:09

This document has not been submitted and may be incomplete. yyyy mm dd Page 1 of 1

IProperties

PIN 43268 * 0061 LT Description LT 23 PL 664; SARNIA Address 140 CHRISTINA ST N SARNIA

IDocument to be Discharged

Registration No. Date Type of Instrument

LA15270 2007 07 27 Charge/Mortgage

IDischarging Party(s) This discharge complies with the Planning Act. This discharge discharges the charge.

Name THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARN!A Acting as a company Address for Service 255 North Christina Street P.O. Box 3018 Samia, ON N7T 7N2

This document is not authorized under Power of Attorney by this party.

The party giving this discharge is the original chargee and is the party entitled to give an effective discharge

This document is being authorized by a municipal corporation Mike Bradley, Mayor and Brian W. Knott, City SolicitorfCierk.

Page 213 of 238 BY-LAW NUMBER OF 2012 OF THE CITY OF SARNIA

“A By-Law to Authorize the Execution of a Discharge of Mortgage” By ­ Law #5 READINGS:

FIRST: November 19th, 2012 ­

November 19, 2012 SECOND: November 19th, 2012

THIRD: November 19th, 2012

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA Page 214 of 238 OFFICE OF THE CITY SOLICITOR/CLERK (BWK/ad) City Hall Sarnia, Ontario N7T 7N2 By­Law #6 ­ November 19, 2012

BY-LAW NO. ______OF 2012 OF THE CITY OF SARNIA

“A By-law to Authorize the Mayor and Clerk to Sign a Rail Crossing Construction and Maintenance Agreement” (Reference: 300 Kenny Street – Vidal Street Industrial Park)

WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the City of Sarnia deems it appropriate to enter into a Rail Crossing Construction and Maintenance Agreement with the Vidal Street Industrial Park.

NOW THEREFORE WITNESSETH the Council of The Corporation of the City of Sarnia, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 8, 9 and 11 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, hereby enacts as follows:

1. That the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to sign a Rail Crossing Construction and Maintenance Agreement with the Vidal Street Industrial Park Inc. (VIP) to allow the VIP to cross City owned land as described in the said Agreement.

2. The Rail Crossing Construction and Maintenance Agreement shall be substantially as shown in the attached Schedule “A”.

3. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passing hereof.

READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED

This 19th day of November, 2012.

______MAYOR

______CLERK

Page 215 of 238 By­Law #6 ­ November 19, 2012 2

SCHEDULE “A”

RAIL CROSSING CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT

Between:

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA (Hereinafter called the “City”) OF THE FIRST PART

-and-

VIDAL STREET INDUSTRIAL PARK (VIP) INC. (Hereinafter called the “Company”) OF THE SECOND PART

WHEREAS the Company has requested permission to construct, use and maintain a single track rail crossing in an area over City property described as Part 22 on Plan 25R- ______;

AND WHEREAS the City agrees to grant permission upon the terms herein;

AND WHEREAS it is the intention of the parties that an initial timber crossing shall be constructed at the Crossing Point (the “Initial Crossing”) and, if required in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein, the Initial Crossing shall be replaced by a premium crossing consisting of asphalt and rubber seal interface or similar product utilized by the rail industry and acceptable to the City (the “Premium Crossing”);

AND WHEREAS both the Initial and Premium Crossings are to service the requirements of those lands now owned or hereafter acquired by the Owner and any other easement, right-of-way and/or license over other lands benefiting the lands owned by the Owner;

Page 216 of 238 By­Law #6 ­ November 19, 2012 3

NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration of the authority hereby granted to the Company to construct, use and maintain a single track rail crossing, the Company agrees with the City as follows:

1. Interpretation The term “Initial Crossing” means a rail crossing across City land that is unimproved with a highway.

The term “Premium Crossing” means a rail crossing across City land that is improved with a highway.

Unless otherwise expressly provided herein, or unless the context otherwise requires, any reference to “the Crossing” herein shall be deemed to include both the Initial Crossing and the Premium Crossing.

The term “Company” as used herein shall refer to Vidal Street Industrial Park Inc. or to such other corporation, firm or entity as the Company might select, and as may be approved by the City acting reasonably, as its contractor for the purposes of operating the crossing on its behalf pursuant to the terms and conditions of a this Agreement.

2. Grant of Easement The City consents to the installation and use of the Crossing by the Company, in accordance with and subject to the terms of this Agreement, such Crossing to be located on land described as Part 21 on Plan 25R - ______. The use of the Crossing is granted herein by way of a grant of easement which shall run with the land to the benefit of any of the Company’s transferees, successors, or assigns.

3. Operation of Crossing

3.1 The Company shall operate and use the crossing in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

3.2 The Owner shall operate the Crossing in compliance with the standards of Transport Canada and all statutes, regulations, guidelines and requirements of governmental authorities having jurisdiction including, without limitation, any applicable environmental laws, and the standards of the City in effect from time to time (the “Standards”).

Page 217 of 238 By­Law #6 ­ November 19, 2012 4

3.3 The Company shall also provide that traffic interruptions due to stationary rail cars on the “Premium Crossing” shall not exceed 5 minutes and the Company, along with their respective contractors, agents, employees, successors and assigns shall use their reasonable efforts to minimize traffic interruptions and the duration thereof.

3.4 The parties acknowledge and agree that the Company shall be responsible for and indemnify against any damages, claims or expenses suffered by the City or its residents as a results of a breach of this Agreement by the Company that causes any damage, claims or expenses to the City or its residents which shall constitute a default by the Company under this Agreement.

4. Obligations of the Company

4.1 The Company shall carry out all work that it is obliged to perform under the provisions of this Agreement in accordance with the Standards.

4.2 The Company shall construct and maintain the Crossing at its sole expense according to Transport Canada standards.

4.3 The Initial Crossing shall be constructed of creosoted timber and filler blocks covered by a continuous geotextile fabric in accordance with the Plan. The Initial Crossing shall rest on 150 mm of Ballast and 300 mm of Sub Ballast lying on a bed of fill and contained on all sides by 10 mm and 300 mm of Granular A and Granular B respectively. In the event that the Highway is to be constructed, upgraded or improved by the City the Company shall, upon the receipt of notice from the City:

(a) remove the Initial Crossing at its sole expense;

(b) commence and complete construction of the Premium Crossing consisting of asphalt and rubber rail seal interface as specified by the City of Sarnia at the time of construction; and

(c) install and mark the Highway with automatic warning devices, pavement marking and road signage as required by Transport Canada at the time of construction.

Page 218 of 238 By­Law #6 ­ November 19, 2012 5

4.4 Construction of the Premium Crossing shall, where required by the City, be integrated with any road construction, widening or other expansion of the Highway undertaken by the City and shall be completed in a workmanlike manner with all reasonable dispatch, and in any event, within eight (8) month from the date that the City provides the notice referred to in paragraph 4.3 above.

4.5 The Company shall hold back from its payment to any persons who may supply services or materials in connection with the construction or maintenance of the Crossing, all amounts required by the Construction Lien Act, and shall indemnify the City against any claims, actions or demands in connection with such construction or maintenance and all costs reasonable incurred by the City as a results thereof. If any lien is claimed pursuant to the Construction Lien Act for the supply of services or material in connection with the construction or maintenance of the Crossing or in connection with any other work conducted on any lands owned by the City the Company shall be considered in default under this Agreement and shall continue to be in default until all such liens are discharged from title to any lands owned by the City, failing which, the City may, in its absolute discretion, use the security deposited by the Company in accordance with paragraph 7, to pay into court any amounts required to discharge all liens plus costs.

4.6 The Company shall be the sole owner of all track materials comprising the Crossing.

4.7 The parties agree that the Premium Crossing shall include a rail stop whereby trains shall be required to stop at the Crossing before proceeding over the Highway. This requirement shall not apply if the crossing has appropriate devices as determined by Transport Canada to stop the traffic on the highway when a train is approaching.

4.8 All initial and on-going sight line clearing for the Crossing is to be performed in accordance with the Transport Canada Railway Safety Directorate Guidelines G-4A and Transport Canada’s Crossing Regulations (RTD-10) (or any subsequent amendments thereof). Responsibility for the physical work and costs associated with the initial and on-going sight line clearing for the Crossing shall be borne solely by the Company.

Page 219 of 238 By­Law #6 ­ November 19, 2012 6

4.9 The Company shall receive permission from the City prior to commencing any work in the right of way.

4.10 The Company shall supply, erect and maintain all required signage and warning devices for the construction and operation of the Premium Crossing in accordance with the Standards including any additions or changes thereto resulting from increased road traffic, increased rail traffic, future road upgrades or changes to the Standards. The Company shall remove all construction related signage upon completion of construction of the Crossing and upon the City’s final approval of the physical work completed on the City’s property.

4.11 The Company shall reimburse the City for its reasonable costs incurred in notifying the public of the Company’s construction of the Crossing and all reasonable engineering and legal expenses incurred in the review and implementation of this Agreement.

4.12 The Company shall reimburse the City and/or Utility Company for its reasonable costs incurred for the installation of utilities that is extra in relation to an open cut installation.

4.13 The Company shall reimburse the City and/or Utility Company for its reasonable costs of extra material (ie. Casing) to protect the utility or to meet requirements of the Utility Company.

5. Insurance and Indemnity

5.1 The Company shall maintain liability insurance coverage in an amount of not less than $5 million dollars per incident and shall provide an insurance certificate annually to the City, showing the City as an additional insured. The Company acknowledges the City Solicitor, acting reasonably, may require additional coverage over time due to inflationary increases or changes to industry standards.

Page 220 of 238 By­Law #6 ­ November 19, 2012 7

5.2 The Company hereby agrees to indemnify and save harmless the City from all claims, demands, loss, costs, charges and expenses which the City may sustain, incur or be liable for in consequence of the authority granted to construct, use and maintain the crossing; provided that the Company shall not be liable for any such claims, demands, loss, costs, charges and expenses caused by the negligence of the City, its employees or agents. Without prejudice to the foregoing, to the extent that the power to grant permission to cross the City’s property may be vested or partly vested in parties other than the City, the Company hereby agrees to indemnify and save the City harmless from any claims or costs from such party with respect to the exercise of the Company’s right to cross the City property pursuant to the permission granted by the City.

6. Terms and Termination

6.1 In the event that the Company should abandon the crossing for a period of three years it shall apply for the proper work permit and remove its crossing. If the Company should leave its crossing in place the City, at any time after a lapse of one year from the date of abandonment, may remove and dispose of the crossing at the expense of the Company. Upon completion of the work, the Company shall forthwith pay to the City such sum as may be required to make up the total cost of the work. Failure to pay the amount within 30 days after the account has been submitted will result in the cost being added to the tax bill for the Lands and collected in like manner as municipal taxes.

6.2 Upon termination of this Agreement, unless terminated by a crossing relocation or reconstruction, the terms of which are to be set out in a subsequent agreement, the Company, as the initiator of this project, shall be responsible for all future costs associated with the existence of the Crossing, including the cost of maintaining or dismantling the Crossing, and restoring the City property to its original or mutually agreed upon condition. Termination of this Agreement shall not operate so as to release any party from any obligations accrued prior to the effective time of termination.

Page 221 of 238 By­Law #6 ­ November 19, 2012 8

7. Security

7.1 As security for the construction of the Crossing and other obligations contained herein, the Company shall provide the City with cash or, alternatively, an irrevocable and unconditional letter of credit in an amount equal to the value of the construction within the right of way prior to construction. The Letter of Credit shall be issued by a Canadian chartered bank or credit union, shall name the City as the beneficiary and shall be automatically renewable from year to year. The form of the Letter of Credit shall be subject to the approval of the City Treasurer acting reasonably. The Letter of Credit shall be drawn down upon the City Engineer presenting to the issuing financial institution a letter certifying that the City has made a demand for reimbursement or compliance to the Company with respect to the Company’s obligations contained in this Agreement, which has not been met within fifteen (15) business days after delivery of such demand. The value of the Letter of Credit shall be released to the Company on the date upon which the construction of the Initial Crossing is completed and the City has accepted such work in writing.

7.2 If the Company fails, at any time, to fulfill its obligations provided in this Agreement, the City may without further notice, take such action as it deems necessary to carry out such obligations and the Company shall be liable for all costs incurred by the City, which the Municipality may add to the tax roll of the Company’s lands and collect in like manner as municipal taxes in accordance with section 427 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, C. 25, as amended.

7.3 The Company shall provide the City with a certified cheque in the amount of $2,000.00 as a deposit to be drawn upon for the Engineering Department Inspection and Administration costs. Any unused portion of this deposit will be returned upon the completion of the project. In the event the deposit is not sufficient for all costs incurred the Company agrees to submit further deposits as necessary.

Page 222 of 238 By­Law #6 ­ November 19, 2012 9

8. Fees

8.1 The Company shall pay to the City a legal fee of $1,200.00 plus any disbursements and applicable taxes.

8.2 The Company shall pay to the City annually, in advance, the amount of $1,000.00 plus applicable taxes for the Crossing on the Municipal Right-of-way, and such amount shall be increased annually by the City’s Fees for Service Schedule but it shall not exceed the Consumer Price Index – all items – reported by Statistics Canada for the calendar year prior to the calendar year in which the increase is to take effect.

9. Registration on Title

Notice of this Agreement shall be registered on the title to the Company and all costs associated therewith shall be borne by the Company.

10. Assignment

This Agreement shall be binding upon and enure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. The Company shall not assign this Agreement unless the assignee assumes full responsibility and such assignment shall be effective only upon the delivery of a satisfactory Assumption Agreement to the City Solicitor.

11. Service of Notice

Any notice required or permitted to be given to any party under this Agreement and any amendment or revision hereto shall be in writing. If hand delivered or sent by e-mail, such notice shall be deemed to have been given upon the date of delivery or if sent by telecopier to the number specified below, shall be deemed to have been given on the next business day following transmission, or if sent by registered mail shall be deemed to have been given on the fourth business day following posting. The addresses for service for the respective parties are as set forth below. Any party may change its address for service by notice given to the other parties in the manner aforesaid.

Page 223 of 238 By­Law #6 ­ November 19, 2012 10

All notices to the City shall be sent to the City Solicitor/Clerk at: The Corporation of the City of Sarnia 255 North Christina Street Sarnia, ON N7T 5V4 Fax: 519-332-3995

All notices to the Company shall be sent to: Vidal Street Industrial Park Inc. PO Box 411, 300 Kenny Street Sarnia, Ontario, N7T 7J2 Attention: Ross McEachran Fax: 519-383-7800

The above addresses may be changed at any time by giving ten (10) days written notice.

WITNESS the Corporate Seals of the Parties hereto duly attested by their proper officers in their behalf, dated ______.

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA

______Mayor - Mike Bradley

______City Solicitor/Clerk – Brian Knott

VIDAL STREET INDUSTRIAL PARK INC.

______Ross McEachran, President I have authority to bind the Corporation.

Page 224 of 238 By­Law #6 ­ November 19, 2012 11

12. Governing Law

This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario, and all applicable federal laws and regulations.

Page 225 of 238 12

BY-LAW NUMBER ______OF 2012

OF THE CITY OF SARNIA

“A By-law to Authorize the Mayor and Clerk to Sign a Rail Crossing Construction and Maintenance Agreement” (Reference: 300 Kenny Street – Vidal Street Industrial Park) By ­ Law #6

READINGS: ­ November 19, 2012 FIRST: November 19th, 2012

SECOND: November 19th, 2012

THIRD: November 19th, 2012

Page 226 of 238 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA City Hall Sarnia, Ontario N7T 7N2

By­Law #7 ­ November 19, 2012

BY-LAW NO. ______OF 2012 OF THE CITY OF SARNIA

“A By-law to Authorize the Mayor and Clerk to Sign an Overhead Pipeline and Pipe Rack Crossing Agreement” (Reference: Lanxess Inc., 1265 Vidal St. South)

WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the City of Sarnia deems it appropriate to enter into an Overhead Pipeline and Pipe Rack Crossing Agreement with Lanxess Inc.

NOW THEREFORE WITNESSETH the Council of The Corporation of the City of Sarnia, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 8, 9 and 11 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, hereby enacts as follows:

1. That the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to sign an Overhead Pipeline and Pipe Rack Crossing Agreement with Lanxess Inc. to allow it to cross City owned land as described in the said Agreement.

2. The Overhead Pipeline and Pipe Rack Crossing Agreement shall be substantially as shown in the attached Schedule “A”.

3. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passing hereof.

READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED this 19th day of November, 2012.

______MAYOR

______CLERK

1

Page 227 of 238 By­Law #7 ­ November 19, 2012

SCHEDULE “A”

OVERHEAD PIPELINE AND PIPE - RACK CROSSING AGREEMENT

Between:

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA (Hereinafter called the "City")

OF THE FIRST PART - and -

LANXESS INC. (Hereinafter called the “Company")

OF THE SECOND PART

WHEREAS the Company has requested permission to construct, use and maintain overhead pipelines and pipe racks in an area over City property described as Part 22 on Plan 25R- ______.(hereinafter, such lands are referred to as the “City Property”);

AND WHEREAS the City agrees to grant the Company permission to construct, use and maintain such overhead pipelines and pipe racks upon the terms and conditions set out herein;

NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration of the authority hereby granted by the City to the Company to construct, use and maintain pipelines and pipe racks , the Company agrees with the City as follows:

1. This approval by the City is conditional upon the Company adhering to all federal, provincial, and municipal laws including, but not limited to, the Municipal Franchises Act if applicable, in relation to the construction, use and maintenance by the Company of the Company’s overhead pipelines and pipe racks crossing the City Property.

2

Page 228 of 238 By­Law #7 ­ November 19, 2012

2. The City consents to the construction, use and maintenance of the overhead pipelines and pipe racks by the Company, in accordance with and subject to the terms of this Agreement, such overhead pipelines and pipe racks to be located on land described as Part 22 on Plan 25R - ______. The use of the overhead pipelines and pipe racks is granted herein by way of a grant of easement which shall run with the land to the benefit of any of the Company’s transferees, successors, and assigns.

3. The Company hereby agrees to indemnify and save harmless the City from all claims, demands, loss, costs, charges and expenses which the City may sustain, incur or be liable for in consequence of the authority granted to the Company to construct, use and maintain the pipelines and pipe racks over the City Property; provided that the Company shall not be liable for any such claims, demands, loss, costs, charges and expenses caused by the negligence of the City, its employees or agents. Without prejudice to the foregoing, to the extent that the power to grant permission to cross the City Property may be vested or partly vested in parties other than the City, the Company hereby agrees to indemnify and save the City harmless from any claims or costs from such party with respect to the exercise of the Company’s right to cross the City Property pursuant to the permission granted by the City under this Agreement.

4. The Company shall maintain liability insurance coverage in an amount of not less than $5 million dollars per incident and shall provide an insurance certificate annually to the City, showing the City as an additional insured. It is understood and agreed that the Company may self-insure up to 20 million dollars for such liability insurance coverage. The Company acknowledges the City Solicitor, acting reasonably, may require additional coverage over time due to inflationary increases or changes to industry standards.

5. Where there is a conflict with the provision of services, including but not limited to utilities and highways, by the City and the Company’s pipelines and pipe racks, the City shall make reasonable effort to work around the Company’s pipelines and pipe racks and the Company shall compensate the City for any reasonable extra cost incurred, provided that written quotations for such anticipated reasonable costs were first provided to the Company and provided furthermore that the Company was provided the opportunity to comment on such anticipated costs and/or take such reasonable steps with respect to its pipelines and/or pipe racks, at its discretion, to reduce such anticipated costs. Where, in the opinion of the City, it is not feasible to work around the Company’s pipelines and pipe racks with respect to maintaining current services or the installation of future services, the Company shall 3

Page 229 of 238 By­Law #7 ­ November 19, 2012

relocate the pipelines and pipe racks at such other crossing over City property upon request from the City and without cost to the City. The City shall in such circumstances provide the Company an alternative crossing right, in the form of an easement, over such other City property reasonably required by the Company on the same terms and conditions set out in this Agreement, mutatis mutandis.

6. In the event that the Company should abandon the pipeline and/or pipe rack crossing for a period of three (3) consecutive years after Construction of the Works (as defined in section 16 below), it shall, at the written request of the City, apply for the proper work permit from the City required under provincial and/or municipal law and remove its pipelines and pipe racks crossing. If the Company should leave its pipelines and/or pipe racks crossing in place, the City, at any time after a lapse of one (1) year from the date of the City’s written request hereunder, may remove and dispose of the pipelines and/or pipe racks crossing at the expense of the Company. Upon completion of the work, the Company shall forthwith pay to the City such reasonable sum as may be required to make up the total cost of the removal and disposal work. Failure to pay the amount within thirty (30) days after the account has been submitted in writing to the Company will result in the cost being added to the tax bill for the Company’s lands and collected in like manner as municipal taxes.

7. Under no circumstances shall the City be liable for costs to the Company for any assistance provided by the Company. Such assistance may include, but not be limited to inspection, supervision, administration, or locating services.

8. The permission granted herein to construct, maintain and use the pipelines and pipe racks and related easement in favour of the Company over the City Property does not take the place of City permits and engineering approvals required for the construction and/or alteration of the pipelines and/or pipe racks. All such work is subject to the approval of the City Engineer required from time to time in accordance with all applicable provincial and municipal laws.

9. The easement rights granted to the Company hereunder over the City Property include, for greater certainty, a right of ingress to and egress to and from the City Property, provided that prior to carrying out any work on or over the City Property, the Company and/or its contractors and agents first obtain a written permit from the City authorizing such work at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to such work commencing on or over the City Property. Such permit shall not be unreasonably withheld.

4

Page 230 of 238 By­Law #7 ­ November 19, 2012

10. Before commencing any work on the City Property, including initial installation and subsequent maintenance, the Company shall deposit all plans and drawings showing the proposed work, as required by the City Engineer, acting reasonably, for review by the City Engineer.

11. Once the pipelines and/or pipe racks are installed the Company shall furnish to the City surveys, descriptions of lands affected and engineering drawings showing the design and location of the pipelines and pipes rack to the satisfaction of the City Engineer acting reasonably.

12. Prior to the commencement of construction of the Company’s pipelines and/or pipe racks, the Company shall provide the City with a certified cheque in the amount of $2,000.00 as a deposit to be drawn upon by the Engineering Department for inspection and administration costs based on the applicable City’s fees for services schedule at that time. Any unused portion of this deposit will be returned to the Company upon completion of the works. In the event the deposit is not sufficient to cover all reasonable costs incurred by the City Engineering Department for inspection and administration expenses, the Company agrees to submit further reasonable deposits as necessary to cover such inspection and administration expenses actually incurred.

13. Within thirty (30) days of the execution of this Agreement, the Company shall pay to the City the sum of $1,200.00 as its contribution towards the City’s legal expenses, plus any related disbursements and applicable taxes.

14. This Agreement shall extend in perpetuity until terminated by the Company on one (1) year’s notice to the City. The Company shall after Construction of the Works (as defined in section 16 below) pay to the City annually the amount of $1,000.00 plus applicable taxes for the pipelines and pipe racks crossing and such amount shall be increased annually by the City’s Fees for Service Schedule but it shall not exceed the Consumer Price Index – all items – reported by Statistics Canada for the calendar year prior to the calendar year in which the increase is to take effect.

15. The City hereby acknowledges and confirms its understanding that the Company does not intend to immediate construct its pipelines and/or pipe racks over the City Property but rather expects to do so at some time in the future. As such, the City and Company hereby agree that the provisions of sections 3, 4 and 13 herein shall only commence and take effect as of the date the Company begins to construct its pipelines and/or pipe racks across the City’s property (referred to in this Agreement as the “Construction of the Works”). 5

Page 231 of 238 By­Law #7 ­ November 19, 2012

16. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. The Company shall not assign this Agreement unless the assignee assumes full responsibility and such assignment shall be effective only upon the delivery of a satisfactory Assumption Agreement to the City Solicitor.

17. This Agreement may be registered on title to the City Property by the Company, at its costs, in the appropriate land registry office.

18. Pipelines and pipe racks system shall be posted with emergency contact and identification signs.

19. All notices to the City shall be in writing by fax, overnight courier or mail and shall be sent to the City Solicitor/Clerk at:

The Corporation of the City of Sarnia 255 North Christina Street Sarnia, ON N7T 5V4 Fax: 519-332-3995

All notices to the Company shall be in writing by fax, overnight courier or mail and shall be sent to the Site Development Department at:

Lanxess Inc., P.O. Box 3001 1265 Vidal Street South Sarnia, Ontario, CANADA N7T 7M2 Fax: 519-339-7785

The above addresses may be changed at any time by giving ten (10) days written notice. Any notice given by one party to the other in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed conclusively to have been received on the date delivered if the notice is served by fax; twenty four (24) hours from the time of courier pick up if the notice is served by overnight courier; or seventy two (72) hours after mailing if the notice is mailed.

6

Page 232 of 238 By­Law #7 ­ November 19, 2012

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement this

______day of ______, 2012.

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA

______Mayor - Mike Bradley

______City Solicitor/Clerk – Brian Knott

LANXESS INC.

______Name: Title:

______Name: Title:

I/We have authority to bind the Corporation.

7

Page 233 of 238

DATED:

BETWEEN:

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA By ­ Law #7 - and -

LANXESS INC. ­ November 19, 2012

------

A G R E E M E N T

------

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY Page 234 of 238 OF SARNIA Legal Services City Hall Sarnia, Ontario N7T 7N2

8

BY-LAW NUMBER ______OF 2012

OF THE CITY OF SARNIA

“A By-law to Authorize the Mayor and Clerk to Sign an

Overhead Pipe Line and Pipe Rack Crossing Agreement” By

(Reference: Lanxess Inc.,1265 Vidal St. South) ­ Law #7 ­ November 19, 2012 READINGS:

FIRST: November 19th, 2012

SECOND: November 19th, 2012

THIRD: November 19th, 2012

Page 235 of 238 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA City Hall Sarnia, Ontario N7T 7N2

9 By­Law #7 ­ November 19, 2012

Page 236 of 238 By­Law #8 ­ November 19, 2012

By-law ____ of 2012 Of the City of Sarnia

“A By-law to Remove Certain Lands from Part Lot Control”

Whereas Section 50, Sub-section (7) of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990 provides that the Council of the Municipality may by by-law provide that the part lot control provisions of Section 50 of the Planning Act do not apply to lands within a registered plan of subdivision or part as designated in the by-law;

And whereas it is deemed expedient that a by-law should be passed in accordance with the provision of Sub-section (7) of Section 50 of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990 with respect to the lands hereinafter described;

Now therefore the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the City of Sarnia enacts as follows:

1. That the lands affected by the by-law comprise Lots 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 according to Registered Plan 25M-38 in the City of Sarnia, County of Lambton.

2. That Sub-section (5) of Section 50 of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990 shall not apply to those lands within the City of Sarnia described in Section 1 of this by-law.

3. In accordance with Sub-section (7.2) of Section 50 of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, this by-law shall come into force and effect on the date finally passed by the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the City of Sarnia.

FINALLY PASSED THIS 19th DAY OF November, 2012.

______MAYOR

______CLERK

Page 237 of 238 BY-LAW NUMBER ____ OF 2012

OF THE CITY OF SARNIA

“A By-law to Remove Part Lot Control for Lands on Paolo Street” By ­ Law #8 ­ READINGS: November 19, 2012

FIRST: November 19, 2012

SECOND: November 19, 2012

THIRD: November 19, 2012

Page 238 of THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA City Hall Sarnia, Ontario N7T 7N2